We just don’t want you to move away, spark…though given the sparse furnishings, it looks like you may have already vacated.

Does Tacoma still have houses? The single-family homeowners may view the new apartment buildings with suspicion, but the fact is, 90% of the residential land in the city of Tacoma is currently occupied by single-family homes and is zoned for such low intensity uses. Such large tracts of single-family homes are the result of antiquated zoning regulations from the past several decades. Unfortunately, the scourge of single-family neighborhoods still prevent many places from becoming great cities. They necessitate ownership of cars to get places, their construction wastes resources, causes increased groundwater and air pollution, and makes our city’s denizens overweight. Owning a single-family home is sort of like owning a Hummer.

Fortunately, I believe, the single family house trend will go out of style someday. That is, unless Carolyn Swope and her cronies have a say in it.

Drizell.

up-zoning a neighborhood for the sake of density doesn’t always result in a desired outcome.

It is my opinion that portions of the North Slope Historic District that were originally zoned R-4 and R-4L back in 1953 resulted in the destruction of many grand historic houses that were replaced with aesthetically insulting bland apartments that only detract from the districts beauty. If the entire district maintained an R-2 zoning and allowed all uses prior to 1953 to remain legal nonconforming, many great structures would still be standing.

A recent example is the upzone from the R-2/R-3 mixture to the west of Tacoma Mall (43-48th, Lawrence, Warner, Junett, Pine) to RCX Residential Commercial Mixed Use in the late 1990’s. The area was originally a fairly bland single-family neighborhood. While it seemed in decline and lacked the character that many northend neighborhoods possess, the new development is far denser, but lacks quality design, amenities, and is just as auto oriented. While the zoning is mixed-use, the area is almost entirely comprised of multifamily units and townhomes. The only amenity available is the enormous mall to the east of the neighborhood. Obviously, the mall and businesses surrounding it are auto-oriented and pedestrian unfriendly.

The density argument can be a good one. However, the facts are Americans prefer single-family dwellings, many of Tacoma’s single-family dwellings were built during a period when one could consider Tacoma as being a “great city”(1890-1940), and if you are going to argue density, you should focus on delivering density with livability. As I recall, many urban projects created during the urban renewal era in the US were extremely dense. I doubt many would argue however that these dense housing units contributed to a cities greatness.

curses you are right. the RCX next to the Tmall was mostly comprised of R-3/R-4L prior to the RCX. I still feel the lack of design controls in the RCX zoning is creating poor quality development in that area of town. While that area was zoned for higher intensity uses, much of it contained single-family dwellings.

Drizell, while I’m sympathetic to exaggeration as a means to make a point, your argument doesn’t pass the “laugh test”. Suburbs and McMansions = bad. No one would argue against that here. But your claim that single family homes in cities are just as bad ignores a great swath of evidence to the contrary. Look at Southeast Portland, for example. Or North Seattle, to a large extent. Very walkable neighborhoods, filled almost exclusively with single family houses. Or look closer to home: I live just off 6th and Union (in a single family house) and can walk to three coffee shops, a drug store, a grocery, a couple bars, and more restaurants than I can count.

I’m not saying that there aren’t examples in your favor, I’m just saying that you’re throwing around insulting rhetoric that clearly isn’t supported very well.

I see Tacoma becoming a great city on the basis of great neighborhoods. Density may be a requirement for great cities of the past, but I think Tacoma can make a go of it with a good number of great neighborhoods surrounding interesting commercial areas of mixed use properties.

What I find amazing of Tacoma is that within a less than 5 minute drive one can find a number of neighborhoods that can be great neighborhoods, some already in the process. Has anyone noticed that in Tacoma’s heyday it had the Commerce/Pacific downtown, then it had the Tacoma Avenue commercial area and just up the hill a bit was the historic K Street commercial area. How amazing is that for a city. I can walk from 11th and MLK to my place on St. Helens in just a few minutes and yet pass through 3 commercial districts. The revitalization of Tacoma Avenue and MLK will be a great asset to the greatness of Tacoma.

Tacoma may not be Seattle, New York, San Francisco, or Boston, but she has her own charms and some very unique qualities. I think it is a big mistake to make Tacoma like any place else. Seattle has little to teach us, Portland has little to teach us. We can learn much from Tacoma’s own history and we can profit by correcting the mistakes that have taken us from what worked for Tacoma in the past.

Downtown’s biggest mistake was to think it could compete with the Mall by trying to emulate the mall. This bore the seeds of downtown’s distruction. Look at the busy part of 6th Avenue. No parking and yet they do a great business by being something other than the mall or shopping center. Sure the McDonalds and Starbucks will always do a good business but there ain’t nothing wrong with the Shakabrah, Primo Grill, or the Crown Bar. It was not that long ago that the only real action on 6th Ave. was the Engine House. Parking was non-existent then and it hasen’t gotten better, only the business and traffic has gotten better.

Please, no more Seattle consultants, no more trying to lure national chains. Tacoma deserves a better fate and can have that better fate.

Drizell,
I agree with a lot of your thoughts, and I’m a big advocate of density. I guess my issue is that I think density can be properly served by walkable single family home neighborhoods. Note that an important part of that is that they are walkable: this usually has more to do with business density and street layout than house layout. Endless subdivisions are bad because of this: there’s nothing but houses for miles. We need to make sure zoning laws of the future are set up to prevent malls from being built 5 miles out of town, and instead put business cores amongst residential centers.

Also, as you alluded to, a lot of these issues will start to solve themselves (be it too late at much higher than needed costs) as oil prices continue to rise and that “5 minute drive” starts to cost enough to make you think twice.