I wish 20+ story buildings would be banned. Well..at least the condos anyway. There is one that is slated to be built near my apt that looks to be at least 25 stories. Talk about blight…

If height limits were increased or even removed completely in residential neighborhoods, would the cityscape of Tacoma change drastically?

There are certainly areas that could benefit from being developed.

Yet, many areas be in worse shape unless the city changes its building code which basically requires new buildings to be a version of strip malls.

Neighborhood business districts like 6th Avenue, Proctor and Stadium have many building which occupy the entire lot and are built right up to the edge of the sidewalk with few driveways creating attactive “urban villiages” with continual retail frontage.

They were built at a time with no off-street parking requirements which are now required of new contruction.

The city does not require retail on the entire first floor of new construction. Nor does the city require that a storefront run on the entire lot as there is now in these areas.

Raising the height limit would likely cause some of the existing buildings to be ripped down and the new contruction would be forced to be built with surface level parking lots and the entrances and exits of parking garages under every building facing the pedestrians.

The new construction would likely look something like Westgate or 38th Avenue with boxes in the middle of cement parking lots at worst.

At best, the new buildings would something like the Raineer Pacific Building with blank walls, ground level parking lots and parking garages entrances and exits spilling over the curb under every building.

Until Tacoma adopts a modern urban building code for an attractive urban villiage (Like the Congress for New Urbanism has a template for) raising the height limit would cause many of the older business districts to have a much poorer design than they currently have causing them to be little more than car centric destinations.

We would also lose some historic buildings which are not protected. Of course, there is an issue of how high we want the buildings in the residential business districts to be.

Would neighborhoods have a higher quality of life because they were bustling with more people or would the density damage the quality of life?

Turning what few attractive business districts we have into a version of the strip malls on 38th Avenue would not enhance the quality of life in my opinion.

If we’re not willing to start annexing land around us, the only way we’re going to grow is by going up.

Erik B, I think that increasing the building heights would make neighborhoods look much less like strip malls and more like “bustling” centers of activity.

Why couldn’t the buildings around Proctor be another 40 feet tall with lofts and apartments above the Europa Bistro, etc? Ditto 6th, and Stadium. It will help businesses and makes neighborhoods more pedestrian and transit friendly—ie, not strip malls.

I agree that historic buildings need to be preserved much better than Tacoma’s record has been in recent years, but that can be worked with. Single family dwellings surrounding one or two story centers of commerce, however, is not going to help us become a better city. It’ll keep us as a bedroom community to our neighbor to the north rather than a hub of jobs, arts, living, and recreation in our own right.

That all said, I would oppose high density units in areas not designated for them and make sure they go up close to the business districts. And I would also greatly support intermingling low income housing with those luxury condos and apartments as we work on our infill, but those are topics for another thread.

Raising or removing the height restrictions for all homes across the board isn’t the way to meet the growing need for densification.

As it is, a 35’ tall home would loom above the rest of the neighborhood in most of Tacoma, unless it’s adjacent to taller structures. I don’t think a standard house needs to be any taller.

That being said, I am a big believer in adjusting the zoning and height restrictions around the neighborhood business districts, since they are already set up to support more growth.

The business districts could easily be set up as good transit hubs (extend the lightrail?) and could easily grow in height, with more living space and offices above the ground floor shops.

The blocks of residential homes directly surrounding business districts can and should support higher density. This could take the form of taller housing (presumably multi-family?) and accessory dwelling units (ADU’s).

It would be wonderful to have a bit more bustling in my neighborhood and to not always find a parking space right outside my front door (my house is 2-3 blocks away from businesses and only fills up when church is in session).

This post seems to be going in every direction.
So are we talking about increasing the heights in Single Family Residential neighborhoods? That won’t really create more density without rezoning the area to a multifamily zoning. In a R2 zone you can still only build 1 house on a lot no matter if the height limit is 35’ or 65’ or 100’.

Are we talking about increasing the heights in the mixed-use centers?

Or are we talking about expanding the mixed-use center areas?

I’d be happy to see the units in the building we have already built sold before I’d start thinking about building new and taller buildings. I am kind of intrigued by RR’s idea, though. Maybe if we build one really tall building, taller than any building ever built. And we can call it the Evergreen State Building and it could be green in color and green in environmental foot print. One mighty building that would make all the other buildings everywhere quake in their foundations. Men would cry, women would faint. Children, well, children will still be children.

increasing the 25 foot height limit in the VSD?never happen. if it did, city hall would be overthrown by the citizens.

You might be right.

The neighborhood groups and council are certainly moving toward protecting neighborhoods and placing growth in downtown and the mixed use centers where there is more transportation.

How about we build one tall building as see how it goes.

It would be nice to see some large buildings in downtown Tacoma. However, they would have to overcome the Andre Stone impediment.

I think higher density will become a necessity in the future as oil dependence becomes more expensive. I see the 13-foot high ranch-style houses in South Tacoma and feel like crying…it doesn’t feel like Tacoma. Of course, higher density means rezoning large swaths of land from R-1 and R-2 to higher intensity residential zoning. I think there is a stigma about the term “multi-family:” low-income housing with junk cars in the yard comes to many people’s minds. I think that if Tacomans come to understand that multi-family housing and density is a good thing, as Seattle has, then they would be more likely to embrace it.

I long for rows and rows of 4- and 5-story buildings someday. It could happen. As others have said, it would mean not only changes the height limits and zoning, but also parking, etc.

Im talking about the Jay Heights project. Im not sure whats going on with it, but here is the website:

http://www.priumcompanies.com/page.php?id=102

Maybe we could have just one really tall building, say 5000-6000 feet tall, that has all of Tacoma’s condos and businesses in it. We could then turn the rest of Tacoma into a park.

new residential development [in residential zones] may have to be permitted at higher densities (and therefore in higher buildings).

Taller buildings are only one way to acheive higher density. There are two ways to acheive higher density. Taller buildings are the side that deals with expanding the space available for activity units. (Puget Sound Regional Council: activity unit = 1 job OR dwelling)

Like raising height limits, other means of expanding the space available is to cover more of the land with uses. Yes, going horizontal. This can be done by going from 7,000sf lots to 5,000sf, 3,000sf or 1,200sf lots. It can be done by allowing for accessory dwelling units to be added to existing single-family residences.

The other way is to reduce the amount of space each activity unit consumes. While a recent article highlighted the growing size of detached homes, building smaller dwellings allows for more. The oft mentioned parking requirements are part of this as well.

Increasing height limits will not add much in the way of density in our residential neighborhoods if the other requirements don’t change and the individual still requires their own front door, garage and yard.

I say go up! Vancouver BC seems to do very well, thank you, and even without large freeways slicing it up.
Tacoma: Reaching New Heights!

The comments seem to have come back around to the height limits in our centers rather than residential neighborhoods. If we want to tinker with our residential neighborhoods, let’s focus on measures to encourage infill rather than tear downs. (There’s a footnote in an article today about small cottages being ‘gone before [they’re] finished.’)

On the centers front, concentrating density in defined pockets makes more sense than allowing an across the board increase. It allows for much more efficient provision of services as well as the protection of defined neighborhoods.

There was a concern mentioned about Proctor becoming Westgate due to the parking requirements if density were increased. While I’m not a fan of the parking requirements, this transition is pushing the comparison. Westgate is less dense than Proctor so increasing the density of commercial structures could have a positive effect on Westgate rather than a negative one on Proctor. (Note that Westgate has nothing over 1-story.) Parcel sizes in Westgate were/are larger allowing for the big boxes. There are only a few parcels, like Safeway, that are large enough to even consider the strip type of redevelopment. That said, these are very different areas serving different purposes that need to be treated differently. The form based codes mentioned above are one potential way to address this.

Parcel sizes in Westgate were/are larger allowing for the big boxes. There are only a few parcels, like Safeway, that are large enough to even consider the strip type of redevelopment.

Westgate is little more than a series of strip malls and stand alone boxes in a sea of blacktop. Hard to imagine a design more car centric and repellant to anyone wanting to walk in the area (and few do).

Most of the buildings are single story and when the stores shut down, the area is a dead zone.

It could be a good project for the city and developers to infill to into something more attractive and livable.

Here’s a good example of an mall infill project in Chattanooga, TN.

me:There are only a few parcels, like Safeway, that are large enough to even consider the strip type of redevelopment.

Erik B.:Westgate is little more than a series of strip malls and stand alone boxes in a sea of blacktop.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. (I forgot there was a Safeway in Westgate – shows how often I frequent it.) I was attempting to highlight the Proctor Safeway as one of the few locations in Proctor that would be large enough to handle a strip redevelopment. This is due to the large amount of land needed for this consumptive type of development.

I do not think a strip redevelopment is desirable in Proctor, nor do I think it is at all likely with or without increased density. Westgate is a whole other ball of wax.