A Right to A View? Foss Height Amendments (13. April 2007, 01:44 by Derek Young) ~ Excuse me... Excuse me... I can't see...
The public meetings and presentations regarding the proposed height amendments for development along the Thea Foss have begun and… will we ever reach a happy place? Peter Callaghan’s column argues that the changes are a bad choice for several reasons including:
Tacoma shouldn’t sell its birthright – views of the mountain and the water – to the highest bidder. These views won’t disappear following construction. They will only be transferred to those who can afford to live in taxpayer-subsidized condos that are well out of reach for the average resident.
Is there a right to a view? In my mind, unless you’re in a boat, you should never assume a water view. Of course, this doesn’t mean the change is lawful or acceptable to the city and its residents. It also doesn’t mean this is the right choice for the long term vision of the city. It may be to many of you, but it may not be. With the right voice, anything can happen.
Do you want to join the conversation?
Photo by Kevin Freitas.
The next Public Meeting is scheduled for April 18th.
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
I would tend to side with Peter’s perspective: downtown Tacoma should have views of the water and the mountain. I’m not talking about condos and such, but rather the more people can feel like they are a city on the water, the better, whether they are pedestrians, drivers, office workers, or residents. These can certainly be structures as “view cooridors” so that from particular parks and plazas views are protected, allowing other development. But in general I wouldn’t want to see anything on the Foss much higher than Thea’s Landing, and that might even be just one story too high.
It’s too bad the decision of the planning commision has already been made. In past meetings, many on the commision has liked the idea for different reasons. Soon, their will be a wall of condos that line the whole waterway. Is it good or bad? Take you pick. Bad and good for me. I am a Cliff Street Loft dude.
2 | Posted by tct2326 | Apr 13, 09:35 AM
Am I correct that regardless, public access to the actual waterfront will be maintained along the entire length of the waterway?
3 | Posted by jamie from thriceallamerican | Apr 13, 09:42 AM
The New Tacoma Neighborhood just heard a presentation on the latest proposal by the developer and supported the increased height request. The neighborhood group has heard at least two presentations on the matter.
The current height limitations of 100 – 125 feet would have resulted in an elimination of nearly all views of the water from Firemans Park as they could have put up a continuous wall of condos.
The proposal to increase the height will result in towers interspersed on the waterfront with view corridors opening up much more water views.
Callaghan’s article only presented one of the three views in the 3-D model. The most improved view is directly from the park out to the water.
I would encourage anyone interested in the issues to look at all of the material posted on the city’s web site on the Foss project. There are alot of comparisons between the two options.
The buildings will certainly block some views. However, compared side by side, the tall interspersed towers give a better result as they at least give some view corridoors.
Seeing as how many of these projects are subsidized by Tacoma residents; yuppies shouldnt be the only folks who get to experience the wonderful views we have in T-town.
7 | Posted by Tacoma (A)roma | Apr 13, 11:56 AM
Playing devil’s advocate: What if this project were slated for an area just a few blocks west in the downtown core where the height limit is 400 feet? Would we want that? What about when our view of Mt. Rainier is blocked by plumes of steam and smoke from the Simpson plant on the tide flats?
There are many instances of waterfronts, scenic views, and tall buildings peacefully co-existing:
Vancouver BC
Sydney
And that city to the North
Personally, I would rather see a project as substantial as the one proposed for the Thea Foss take place up near St. Joe’s hospital. It would make a dramatic improvement to the city’s skyline.
There may be more ways than the one presented to satisfy the goals of this project while adding value to the larger community. We should keep an open and creative mind.
8 | Posted by morgan | Apr 13, 12:11 PM
(Erik- Your “see the comparisions” link is outdated and includes a previous version of the proposal. For the updated proposal from earlier this year, take a look at Exhibit D, Attachment A or Attachment B. It can be difficult to keep up with the constant changes on this proposal since it has been going on for three years now.)
I think public places should be entitled to protect their views. The courts have previously found that this is a permissible protection when the views are from public space to public space. This has been enforced as part of discretionary land use permits. Private spaces have far fewer protections.
Of course this a bit beside the point if the question is “What is best for Tacoma?” If skinny towers are good, why not go taller and skinnier? The buildings from the viewshed analysis only reach 180 feet, but still obstruct a good portion of the view (see Attachment B above). If these went taller and skinnier, it would open up more views at the downtown street level. What makes 180ft the magic number? Not 207ft? Not 123ft?
Conversely, the idea that the current code allows for complete obstruction of all views is a bit perverse. What is being cited is the maximum possible building heights assuming all other conditions and environmental constraints are met. Some of the environmental conditions in Tacoma’s Shoreline Master Program relate to the protection of views. To think that views would not be considered ignores the other standards. (When was the last time someone built to the maximum 400ft tall building envelope allowed in the Downtown Commercial Core?)
To me it is important to maintain a street level connection from downtown Tacoma to the water and the mountain. The proposed towers allow this, but not to the extent they could.
Personally, I think they should get rid of the height limit, institute a FAR with a maximum envelope above about 90ft (the approximate street level of S. 11th Street) of somewhere around 20% of the parcel area – excluding pre-established view corridors.
9 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 13, 01:07 PM
(Note: 4/18 is a Public Hearing where people may testify. 4/11 was a Public Meeting for discussion and questions.)
Jamie-
The Shoreline Master Program and the Foss Waterway Plan have the esplanade as a key element. As development comes to the properties along the Foss, they will be required to build portions of this walkway. Some language from the plan:
The “esplanade” describes the waterfront area that includes public walkways and all landscaped or public activity areas, as well as overwater boardwalk and pier features on the waterward side of all development, and is dedicated for full time public use. The existing and planned parks provide larger public access areas. The design and development objective for the esplanade is to create a linear shoreline park along the length of the west side. This park would allow public access and circulation to and enjoyment of the water and development along the waterfront, and encourage active and passive public recreation, including festivals. The esplanade should establish a connected, linear design that unifies the Waterway and joins together larger park spaces, and also relates to the design and activity of upland development and in-water uses. The esplanade is intended to be an inviting, lively, safe public use area that is enjoyable year-round and in all kinds of weather.
10 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 13, 01:16 PM
Are they view corridors or are they view shafts, because it looks like someone is getting the shaft. I recall from the New Tacoma Neighborhood presentation that the building costs per square foot on the units will be close to $500 a square foot, translating to half a million for a 1000 square foot condo. Folks, this is insane. Maybe people want to pay that kind of money for a view of the tide flats, but when it involves depriving much of the city’s population a view of the beautiful tide flats I have to draw the line somewhere. Absurd building costs for an area that should not be built upon. What is worse is that the developers need to build as many units as possible in order to make a profit. This is not a good combination. I guess some people have more money than common sense. I think the site in question would make a lovely park for all to enjoy. Do we really need to create view property for the wealthy while in the process of depriving the rest of the population of the view? More to the point do we need to construct property this expensive for the sake of just having something this expensive and absurd.
11 | Posted by Crenshaw Sepulveda | Apr 13, 01:31 PM
Of course this a bit beside the point if the question is “What is best for Tacoma?
Yes. However, the developers already have a right to build up to 100 to 125 feet. The City of Tacoma decided many years ago that the Foss Waterway was going to be developed.
Having a completely open view over all of the Foss Waterway lots is not an option.
The only question before the planning commission and the city is which of the alternatives is preferable.
The only question before the planning commission and the city is which of the alternatives is preferable.
No, it’s not. This is not a question of yes or no. If it were, this project would not be three years in the process. If it were, the City would not have held a public meeting to gather informal feedback.
The original proposal has been altered significantly due to the work of the planning commission. It can continue to change to address the needs of Tacoma.
13 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 13, 02:32 PM
building costs per square foot on the units will be close to $500 a square foot
I think you may have mis-heard. This could be sales prices, but building costs of that magnitude are not consistent with other development on the Foss or in the Port.
I think the site in question would make a lovely park for all to enjoy.
Actually, the proposed project would include substantial park and open space along the actual waterfront. I’m looking forward to the increased park space along the waterfront – assuming the City doesn’t pay to high a price.
14 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 13, 02:41 PM
I really can’t believe anyone could seriously consider allowing such views to disappear; let alone believe that it could have any future benefit for the city!
To obscure, even the least bit, these classic views
of Tacoma would rob us of the ONLY overwhelming claim this fair city has against any other in western Washington. Heck, one of Tacoma’s first grand structures, the old Tacoma Hotel overlooked the very same views in question.
Right now is the first chance this city has had at a public use waterfront, at least since the first couple decades of existence. Especially considering the land in question didn’t exist before the railroad dredged and filled it in for warehouse space. I say, why not allow shorter, wider, buildings that might continuously connect along the waterfront; doesn’t seem to me like such a foreign concept.
I say, how about we shoot for a waterway like this; LOOK .
15 | Posted by TheGulag | Apr 13, 10:22 PM
Just one point, @ the info session the rep for the city said that the esplanade that would come along this project would just be over the water and sidewalks along the waterway. IT WILL NOT be like the condo @ the south end of the waterway. No grass or beach. Just saying…
16 | Posted by tct2326 | Apr 14, 07:39 AM
Just a reminder that if you are looking for something to do this evening, the public hearing is at 5pm.
Of course if you’d rather talk with your council members about transportation issues – local or regional – there will be a town hall at 6pm. (Previously mentioned here: http://www.exit133.com/1744/town-hall-meeting-in-proctor-on-april-18th )
17 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 18, 04:17 PM
If the new condos on the Foss are allowed to go taller, wouldn’t that help convince downtown developers to build their own buildings taller in an effort to retain the view?
18 | Posted by drizell | Apr 20, 09:10 AM
Potentially, but those private views most affected are the Russell & BOA building on the commercial side and the Perkins on the residential side. I’m not sure any of them are slated for redevelopment for another 20+ years. In order to impact development further up at the theater district I think the buildings would need to be closer to 300ft tall.
19 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 20, 12:35 PM
Another aspect we need to recognize about the potential destruction of these views just came to my conciousness; the Winter Solstice rising of the Sun directly behind Mt. Rainier, viewed perfectly from downtown Tacoma. This is an event recognized by the Puyallup (Salish) people for millenia as a sign from god, the gods, about the special nature of the area which is now downtown Tacoma. It was also widley celebrated by early Tacomans, especially the view from the old Tacoma Hotel who advertised the event to tourists, and since its demise in the ’30s is now widely forgotten.
The old hotel site at South 9’th/10’th and A st (still partially an open parking lot) is directly affected, view wise, by the projects in question.
Why obscure, even partially, this truly heaven sent gift of a view? Why rob the general downtown public of this gift, only to sell it to the highest bidder?
I carry the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy of nature; that singularly unique views and natural occurences, such as this, should be preserved for the general public to observe and experience for the simple reason that they exist. It’s why this country has such wonderful national parks as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Mt. Rainier; or Tacoma, Point Defiance!
Think of it this way: What if the city/community were to publicize the Solstice Event such as that of First Night, the Daffodil Parade, Tall Ships, or the Freedom Fair? Could it be a potential attention getter for the city; an event that showcases truly how special Tacoma is? Better yet, lets encourage a grass roots effort to invite the public to come and experience the view in December.
20 | Posted by TheGulag | Apr 22, 11:45 PM
As I look out my window I notice that my view of the Foss waterway is blocked by the Sheridan and the Wells Fargo building.
Should we tear those buildings down? Of course not! In fact those buildings add to the view in my opinion. Besides, I can see the water between those buildings. I much prefer the tall buildings with view corridors, than if they were shorter and wider and I had no view at all.
I also have a good view of Mount Rainier. If someone built in front of me and blocked my view, I’d be dissapointed for sure, but the only way I can really expect to not have my view blocked is to either be high enough or not have any buildable land in between me and my view.
In fact this is one reason why waterfront property is so expensive.
I think it’s silly to argue about losing your view when you should have known it could have been a possibility when you moved into your residence.
21 | Posted by Gorman | Apr 23, 11:49 AM
Top 10 reasons why the zoning changes are a bad idea:
1) The city did not take into account the tax credits when calculating the return on investment for the developer. In not doing so, they are deceiving the public into supporting the increased density projected by the developer to support his economic return.
2) No traffic study has been conducted by the city regarding this development. All public parking will be lost and replaced with “Pay for Park”. Ingress, egress for Dock Street is already rated a D or F and the road cannot be expanded to accommodate this dense of a development.
3) The “greater good” is not directed at the Tacoma community but, rather, the primary benefit will be to those lucky enough to afford to buy or sell million dollar condos. Development for the sake of development should not be supported, especially when it distorts the central aesthetic core of our city.
4) These towers will substantially impact the views from the Russell building. Why are we harming one of our primary downtown tenants? Why would Russell choose to stay in Tacoma when the city fathers replace their remarkable Commencement Bay and Rainier view with the backside of a building?
5) This is a “spot zoning” change for one developer. A more comprehensive look a the complete Thea zoning should be undertaken.
6) The city is converting public owned land to the exclusive use of private developers. The 20 foot public side walk, dwarfed by skyscrapers, is a poor trade-off for a long term lease of public lands.
7) This zoning change would set a precedent for zoning south of the 11th street bridge, putting all our common views at risk. The city should not push the interests of one developer over those of everyone else.
8) This development would remarkably diminish the esthetic value of Fireman’s Park, our only downtown open space. Limited, strategically placed view corridors from the park is poor public policy.
9) Forget events like the Tall Ships as this type of development would hamper large “public” gatherings.
10) This change is in direct conflict with the Shoreline Management Act. Get ready for a law suit if this passes.
22 | Posted by PJ | Apr 23, 07:57 PM
The Foss Waterway is pretty much a dead zone down there now. There is going to have to be alot of people living down there to have any life in the area.
Because increasing the allowable height for buildings on the Foss waterway is critical for the success of the waterfront in many aspects, I support increasing the height limit on the Foss Waterway from 100 feet to 180 feet.
Rezone benefits public
The proposed rezone with 180 foot towers with intermittant views of the water is better than a continuous 100 ft wall where nearly the entire view of the water would be blocked.
Current trend for Washington Cities
In April of 2006, the Seattle City Council lifted the 520 height limit which is now unlimited. Bellingham has no height limit downtown. Tacoma’s height limit for downtown is an antiquated and should be eliminated.
Increased Height Needed for Success of Foss Waterway
Because there are such limited number of space on the waterway, the developable areas must be utilized well.
Otherwise, the Foss Waterway will not have a sufficient population and activity to succeed.
Already numerous businesses on the waterfront have had to close because of lack of activity including the Blue Olive restaurant.
The Foss Waterway will never be able to support businesses for the residents who live there without a sufficient number of people there.
Having spent tens of millions of dollars on the Foss Waterway, Bridge of Glass and other amenities, the city has an obligation to permit and encourage as much residential development in the area to make it economically viable.
Safety
Without sufficient number of people on the waterfront, the area will not have enough residents to monitor the area through “eyes on the street” making it crime prone.
Views of Residential Units in Commercial Zone
The residents living downtown have no legitimate expectation of an unobstructed view of the water.
In cities such as Seattle, buildings of increasing heights have been built as the city has become more prosperous, each new one effecting the view of the tower.
No buildings of any consequence could have been built in Seattle if they were not allowed to block the view of the Smith Tower.
Compliance With Growth Management Act
The Foss Waterway is now part of the enlarged downtown which is designated to be infiled with additional residents along with 14 mixed use centers. The Foss waterway is adjacent to the downtown core, thus, it is entirely appropriate to place a high density of people there.
Because the area of the Tacoma waterfront is so limited, it is imparative that a high density of people are located there so that it will be sustainable and successful.
A few comments regarding the post from Erik:
[…. “rezone with 180 foot towers with intermittent views of the water is better than a continuous 100 ft wall where nearly the entire view of the water would be blocked” ] This is a straw dog argument. The existing 100-foot zoning is poorly conceived and presently not in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act.
[….” Seattle City Council lifted the 520 height limit which is now unlimited. Bellingham has no height limit downtown] …. yes, it is true that “downtown” Seattle has lifted height limits; however, this is not a downtown skyscraper. It is a building proposed on the shoreline on parcels that are partially publicly owned (municipal dock). Using this logic Seattle should be encouraged to replace the Alaskan way viaduct view obstructing condo high rises. Anyone care to support that development?
[ “Having spent tens of millions of dollars on the Foss Waterway, Bridge of Glass and other amenities, the city has an obligation to permit and encourage as much residential development in the area to make it economically viable.”] Humm… the existing Foss Waterway development plan calls for mixed use of residents, commercial and pubic spaces. The city has chosen a myopic plan of only residential development, Do we really want to wall in the Foss with high-rise condos in exchange for a 20 foot public sidewalk?
[“Without sufficient number of people on the waterfront, the area will not have enough residents to monitor the area through “eyes on the street” making it crime prone.” ] This is an interesting approach to crime prevention that deserves a snicker rather than a comment.[“The residents living downtown have no legitimate expectation of an unobstructed view of the water.”] …Again, the Shoreline Management Act prohibits issuance of a permit for construction over 35 feet where it would obstruct the views of a substantial number of residents. Other states and countries are not governed by this act…. move to Canada or change the law.
[“No buildings of any consequence could have been built in Seattle if they were not allowed to block the view of the Smith Tower.”] Another red herring… the location of the Smith Tower is beyond the purview of the SMA.
[ “The Foss waterway is adjacent to the downtown core, thus, it is entirely appropriate to place a high density of people there.” ] The proximity of the Foss to downtown does not give the waterfront property special disposition regarding waterfront zoning regulations.
Callaghan got it right’” Tacoma shouldn’t sell its birthright – views of the mountain and the water – to the highest bidder.”
24 | Posted by Stanford | Apr 24, 07:46 PM
For better or worse, that is the narrow question that is before the planning commission and will be before the council.
You keep implying that the only question is if buildings will be built to either 100ft or 180ft. It’s not that narrow. (Some parts of the issue include step downs, floor plate size, tower separation, etc.) While I support towers, I don’t think they’ve got it quite right. It does not help to make it “you’re either with me or against me” rather than looking to solve some concerns and minimize the impacts to views.
(As a side note, the 100ft zoning conflicts with the city’s own vision for the area. The reason it was at 100ft is because of sloppy measurements of the bluff height. During review of an actual project, this would likely be an issue to be addressed.)
26 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 25, 09:26 AM
Agree with you DavidS…. I would take “taller” if it entailed a smaller foot print, greater spacing between buildings, consideration for “all” views (residential and others), plenty of free parking (i.e. Ruston Way) and open space that encourages public gatherings. I fear that the approval will result in a privatization of this shoreline, obstruction of water and mountain views for all, expensive for-profit parking that prohibits reasonable access for most Tacoma folks. All of these issues have been brought to the attention of city staff early in the process and yet the planning department appears to have the developer as their primary client. Sure would be interesting to do a freedom of information request to see how much money has been spent on this one application….probably enough to build a nice wide sidewalk around the Thea.
27 | Posted by Stanford | Apr 25, 01:11 PM
Without reading all the previous comments, has anyone propossed, or is it even possible to have some zones short and maybe just one zone that is allowed to go to 200ft…...so there is a single tower and not a wall??
28 | Posted by rich | Apr 26, 07:23 AM
I guess, what I’m trying to ask, has there been any compromising going on here, or are both sides just being thickheaded and refusing to give an inch….??
29 | Posted by rich | Apr 26, 07:25 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
- Posted:13. April 2007, 01:44
- Author: Derek Young
- Category:The-Politics-of-Development
- Comment Status:Closed
