Councilmembers raised questions about the area’s connectivity to downtown.

Downtown Tacoma needs a large open staircase down to the Foss. Other than the Bridge fo Glass, the rest are dark, scary and unused.

Here was my letter to the Planning Commission:

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. It will be little more than a remote destination to be visited during the day.

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. Urban areas with little activity at night become “dead zones” and often have crime issues.

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.

While most of the attention is being directed to the top of the proposed buildings it may be that the bottoms are the most vulger and offensive. The high, high end condos make their price by offering parking in a continuous multistory structure that is the plinth for the towers. Then there is the private secured marina on the water side of the boardwalk for the high, high condo owners boats. The effect will be an esplanade enclosed on one side by building mass and the other by security fencing and gates down to the private floats. The only relief will be to gaze skyward…no that won’t work either.

I believe the Foss Harbor proposal (sites 10 and 11) has a mixed use component. Obviously, parking will be necessary for the occupiers of these residences, but the developers have mentioned that there likely will also be a retail element, including, possibly, a grocery store and/or office space. Also, the Thea Foss Esplanade is planned to extend all the way to Thea’s Park. I don’t think the City would spend millions building the esplanade if people using it had to look at security fences.

I think the City Council would be well advised to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Development such as this may spur other high-rise development in the area. The most recent project of this height was the Tacoma Financial Center, which was built in 1983. Since then, Tacoma has sat idly by as Seattle and Bellevue have exploded with high-rise buildings. It would be nice if Tacoma could follow this same trend.

I’d be in favor of more tall buildings, but I am more tired of empty lots and empty buildings than I am weary of midrise structures.

Whatever the Tacoma City Council decides, the question of allowing 180’ buildings at water’s edge is not a good precedent for the Puget Sound region. The Growth Management Board and Shoreline Management Review process at the State level are going to assure a bumpy ride for the selfish idea and that’s a good thing.

The regulatory adventures aside there is an important local urban design value at risk as well. In the Old City Hall Historic District immediately behind the proposed towers a polite standard of four or five stories is oberserved and thanks to our stepped topography every one enjoys a protected view to the bay and mountain. Letting waterfront developers climb 8-10 stories above the bluff will bring building mass up to the level of Old City Halls main roof and block views from the entire district. With no specifics on the design, do we really want to invite stacked, standard condo construction into our visual setting? And adding insult to injury, do we want to further facilitate it on waterfront land that should have a dedicated public benefit?

E B White jested in a poem about a similiar disagreement.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/int/i_paint_what_i_see.html

Isn’t the Historic City Hall District in the DCC zoning which allows 400’ structures? I do think so. My suggestion for the Old City Hall District: Build Taller.