I think you’re right, Derek. The lack of young buyers is likely less the price of Tacoma condos, which are much cheaper than in other big Northwest cities, than the fact that Tacoma lacks young, educated single people and things for them to do. But ironically, I think empty nesters moving into downtown condos will make downtown just lively enough to make it more appealing to young hipsters (along with the growth of UW-T, the growing presence of good independent businesses, and Seattle’s prohibitively expensive real estate).

I think the majority of the visitors to Exit 133 are within the “young professionals” category and have been saying a lot of the things in the article for a long time. I think we are all in agreeance that more options for us younger folks are needed, but I’m happy the Tribune decided to cover this, because it brings the issue to a greater general consciousness and might just convince all those 25 year-olds living on the periphery of the city to demand living options that would enable them to pursue a downtown existence.

If we continue building downtown in this manner, we are going to get a aesthetically poor looking, sleepy and exclusive downtown.

Actually, our original historical buildings will continue to look good, a prime reason being is that they didn’t need to have a parking garage under each one of them or surface level parking lot next to them.

In the North Slope, there are two new condo conversions that will be priced in the $100’s. 1111 North K Street is just starting it’s conversion, and pricing is supposed to be from about $140k to $180k. This building is currently a 16 unit apartment building. I don’t know how many condo units they will have.

Across the street, 1120 North K Street (I think that’s the address) is undergoing a conversion, and while I’ve not heard what the pricing will be, I’d be shocked it it’s over $200k. This is currently an 8 unit building.

Tacoma isn’t there yet, but I would imagine that raising a family in urban Boston or Manhattan would be a good thing. I remember friends from college who took the New York subway system to school and I envied their lack of fear if you will and self confidence. Access to the arts, more healthy children (out walking more perhaps), and more socially adjusted perhaps too (playing in parks with other kids rather than backyards?) ... it seems like there are some definite upsides. Those are just off the top of my head and likely easily refuted but I wouldn’t mind an urban family. Tacoma may just not be ready for it, though.

“We also have to remember – this is the beginning.”

100% on target. Tacoma’s downtown renaissance has JUST started to enter the housing phase and it’s way too premature to draw any conclusions. But I do think we’re off to a good start. I still cant decide if I think Prium will make Jay Heights happen or not. This project definitely is a barometer of sorts for highrise condo projects in downtown.

I’m all for bringing the cost of construction down, but if you don’t require the developer to build parking, where are all the new, young, hip residents going to park their hybrid cars?

Are you going to put in the condo covenants that owners of units without parking spaces aren’t allowed to have cars? Will it be a lease condition for renters?

Until there’s reliable mass transit, or a flexcar system down here, the “oh, just don’t make them build parking” argument is a utopian pipe dream that has no basis in reality.

@ above poster KC:

i would be curious to know what your arguments against raising kids downtown are. kuow has been doing a series of stories on the condo boom in downtown seattle, and there are many advantages to bringing families into the downtown core. an increase in educational services and lower crime rates are two reasons for having a more diversified downtown.

A couple of weeks ago I saw the flexcar people at a trade show. They said that Tacoma was in their sights.

As to parking requirements, developers are not stupid. If parking is required to sell a unit, they will provide parking. They should be much more in touch with what the market demands than City Hall.

For what it’s worth, Snoopy, I agree with you – on both points. The parking requirement is an unnecessary burden on development downtown and increases the both price of building at desirable densities and the price of condo/apt units. On the other hand, knocking $20K off of today’s downtown condo prices won’t make those condos affordable, it will just make them less unaffordable.

Here’s an article from yesterday’s Everett Herald pimping new condo developments:

http://tinyurl.com/2ddsue

I haven’t a clue who’s going to pay a cool million for a condo in downtown Everett. Maybe Tacoma’s going to have some new competition for those pension dollars.

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15223784&postID=1282776961247759393

comments from a different blog…

Yeah lots of the usual uninformed, knee-jerk criticisms of Tacoma. I often read and occasionally post over they (howdy, Nitsuj) because it’s refreshing at times to discuss the RE market with people that don’t have stars in the their eyes (it’s so very tech bubble, folks) but many of the regulars can be a touch narrow minded when other, more subjective things are concerned.

If the average price of a downtown Tacoma condo now is $350K, well, that’s ridiculous and probably based heavily on speculation. That doesn’t mean that Tacoma’s not a fine place to live though. (As long as you’re not single.)

The more I hear people bash Tacoma the more I feel like moving back there.

I do not really have issues with raising kids “downtown,” but Tacoma’s downtown doesn’t strike me as kid-friendly. I see it less about it being a bad place to raise kids and more about being less conducive than the rest of the city. So what will it take to make it conducive, too?

(I, too, was wondering, KC, if you meant “why would they want to, or why WOULD they want to…) Downtown’s not conducive in that you can just let kids run around unattended, but you really can’t do that anywhere. I recently heard the discussion as it relates to Seattle, and it made some very general good points apply to Tacoma as well. The percentage of children is low, and it’s not for everybody. But for some it works well. I think that being a good parent is more important than whether or not you do it in the city. But yes, the city isn’t very kid-friendly, and I get concerned as it get’s less family-friendly. But it also depends on how you look at it. I would love there to be some playgrounds, but on the other hand we make do at parks and other public areas, and playgrounds are a short drive away. Like my friends who have brought up children in Seattle, I think it’s wonderful what one can expose the kids to in the city. So much within walking distance, trains and boats, lots of vibrancy, art, architecture, and excitement, and shop-owners who really appreciate and welcome you. And the ability to expose kids to a wide variety of people and experiences, all packed into a downtown. Museums, and other activities. Just waking around is a fun experience. As far as being in the city or not, I think it will always be living in one, then visiting the other when you want. Someone was telling me about the pendulum swinging in Seattle towards more family units being built, so perhaps that will happen in Tacoma someday, too. Living way out in the country would have its advantages, too, but I don’t think downtown has to be less conducive. But my jury’s still out, and I’m interested in others’ opinions if there are any out there. I think having a home in a neighborhood is great, but being downtown, even as it is, can be a good thing. But it could be even better.

Oops…I forgot to mention (though you all have surely noticed this) that parts of downtown Tacoma (maybe not the extreme southern end) are reasonably close to Wright Park, which is a much better place for (supervised) kids to play in than Denny Park.

What a joke…..Seattle…..it just continues my view that people in Seattle are narrow minded and only have 1 view…....and it’s theirs and nonone else is allowed to think differently or they HATE you…....and call you names….

Several folks have sent me this tremendously civil debate about Tacoma. I’m glad we play nice here…

I gave them a piece of my mind…..

Rich, Drizell:

You’re right, there are a lot of #$*&s over on that site (as well as some nice folks like Nitsuj and now Drizell). That thread made me angry. In general, however, I think that the views of Tim & the gang over there on the credit/housing bubble are dead on and a refreshing change from the usual real estate “reporting (i.e., paid adverstising from the Real Estate Industrial Complex). They’re worth listening to when they’re not just being mean about Tacoma/Bremerton/south Seattle for the sake of being mean. I take the good with the bad.

On a lighter note, Andrew said:

Am I the only person that has the guts to say one of the reasons I’m living downtown is BECAUSE of the lack of children?

Both times I lived in Tacoma I lived just to the north of downtown (in the St. Helens and Stadium neighborhoods) and, yes, it was because I was trying to avoid living in a “family environment”. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t want anything bad to happen to families in my neighborhood, but most neighborhoods in Tacoma already feel somewhat family-oriented. I was trying to find a place that was neither a college dorm district nor a family suburb. Downtown (or near to) seemed like the choice. The problem then was that it was still pretty empty. I guess I’d like to see downtown provide a (non-Seattle) option for folks in between college/high school and married-with-children, but it looks like it’s going to be post-children oriented. I’m still glad that someone’s moving in.

Finally (for my message) Erik said:
Here, the recommendation of the report for future housing for the Foss is way off:

Recommendations:Apartments;Town home condos

Perhaps high density apartments. However, town houses would completely waste the property. We have only a small amount of waterfront and it needs to be used well and with alot of people or its going to continue to be dead there.

I agree. The downtown core and the waterway are unique assets for the city. It would be a horrible shame to waste them on low-rise construction. And if there is an appropriate site for pricey condo towers in the city, the Thea Foss would be it. Just make them multi-use projects, please! Saltwater or not, nobody’s going to want to live across the tracks from downtown if there are even fewer amenities on the other side!

On the subject of children downtown, I think there are two main reasons why you don’t see too many.

1) Reasonably affordable housing in close by neighborhoods. Homes are still relatively affordable to buy on Hilltop, and to rent in the North End. These neighborhoods are extremely close to Tacoma’s relatively small downtown. I don’t know any families who consider a five minute bus ride to be too far from the city center.

2) While rush hour freeway traffic can be miserable, driving on the surface streets during the day is a breeze compared to more crowded cities where having a car is not worth the hastle and living close to downtown is necessary to access public transportation.

Having lived in a shoebox sized condo with two children, I would never knock the utility of a backyard and an additional bedroom.

There’s plenty of “there” here, but we don’t have to live right on top of it to see it.

I’ve been screaming for more class a high rise commerical and retail downtown since I moved here

We need more. However, we are going to get a bit of class A office space soon.

The first source will be in the old Tacoma Art Museum on Pacific with 18,000 sq. ft.

The second bit (67,000 sq ft) will be two stories above the South Parking Garage in addition to 36,000 in retail space.

Once we remove the off-street parking requirement which will hopefully happen this year, we may be able to build some substantial new buildings on the empty lots we have.

By the way, the above projects were able to avoid the onerous off-street parking requirement as they were existing buildings. In an interesting dynamic, the off-street parking requirement is drawing investors to fix up empty buildings, which is good. However, we are going to run out the decent ones soon.

I am still trying to figure out when they are going to something with the space under the parking garage on Pacific Ave next to Washington Mutual across from Starbucks. It has a Rushford construction sign in it with no activity for months.