Exit133 is about Tacoma. It's about Real Estate, Politics, the Arts, Urban Development, and the interests of our readers.
Find A Job
Emergency Food Network
is looking for a Fiscal / Operations Manager
General : The First of Many?
A New Warehouse Facility for South Tacoma
Do you remember that BNSF property in South Tacoma? So this little public notice came across our desk recently. What is requested are development permits for 16 acres parcels across the 158 acre site. The project is a 5 building warehouse distribution facility totaling approximately 1.9 million square feet. Trucks would access the site via a new road connecting to South 35th Street. Cars would access it from South 56th Street at Madison and Burlington Way.
For those that aren’t familiar with the location (and it’s a big one), here’s the description from the notice:
“The site is located north of South 56th Street and west of Madison Street at the southern end. Madison Street bisects the main parcels to the north. The site extends north to South 37th Street, west to Tyler Street and east to the Sound Transit Rail right-of-way.”
Written comments will be accepted until May 8, 2008.
Link to the Public Notice
Previously on Exit133
Thank you, Jake
Link | Posted on 14. April 2008, 12:17
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.
“The site extends […] east to the Sound Transit Rail right-of-way.”
So basically they want to build a ginormous distribution center right along side Sound Transit’s future Sounder route. I was all excited until I came to this realization, which seems to imply heavy use of the future Pacific Ave. crossing by BNSF when not used by Sound Transit.
I’m not 100% sure, but it sounds like this might be the motivation behind BNSF selecting this particular site.
1 | Posted by Nick | Apr 14, 12:45 PM
E133 typo… 16 acres of the 158 acres site
Actually, it looks like the total site is being used and extends across 16 parcels.
Note that the five buildings will total 1,900,000 square feet. If it’s warehousing, I can tell you it’s not going to be vertical. That means that the buildings alone will cover over 40 acres with an average size of about 400,000 sf – or about 9 acres each.
With the .89 acre wetland fill, it’s interesting that a JARPA permit is not mentioned – though this is likely covered in the wetland review.
Did you notice that even the warehousing parking requirement seems to cause heartburn? They want to cut the number of stalls from over 2,100 to less than half that. (Might part of this justification be the rail line nearby?)
2 | Posted by DavidS | Apr 14, 02:16 PM
E133 typo… 16 acres of the 158 acres site
Fixed.
3 | Posted by Derek | Apr 14, 03:15 PM
I’m glad to see it developed.
4 | Posted by altered chords | Apr 14, 03:54 PM
I’m glad to see it developed.
I am not sure the residents of South Tacoma will like it. They may want to add a semi-truck to their Fife.. I mean South Tacoma logo.
5 | Posted by Jake | Apr 14, 06:05 PM
Better in Tacoma than in Auburn, Sumner or South Thurston County.
6 | Posted by Highwater | Apr 14, 06:24 PM
True but the city really needs to make a “truck route” if there is going to be a ton more trucks in the area. I can just see the mess at 56th and STW.
7 | Posted by Jake | Apr 14, 06:36 PM
“True but the city really needs to make a “truck route” if there is going to be a ton more trucks in the area. I can just see the mess at 56th and STW.”
But why? It will help finish the demolition of STW into gravel. Then Tacoma will be able to brag about how we have “permeable” paving which is truly green, unlike all that un-green and reasonably pothole free asphalt and concrete those snobs to the north seem to crave.
Jake, your point is quite valid but I wouldn’t hope much if I were you. Tacoma seems to take an “act now, plan later” approach.
8 | Posted by Highwater | Apr 14, 09:08 PM
This idea has been in the idea\planning stage at least as long as I have lived here; that would be 1991. Considering the location, infrastructure, and South Tacoma’s traditional role in the rail industry, It seems an appropriate use of the former Northern Pacific Railroad’s west coast shop facility. The area has been vacant since 1973 or 1975, I believe; since Burlington Northern closed down and demolished the massive shop facility that extended from about So. 40’th to So. 56’th streets.
I’d much rather see this type of development here than in the Puyallup\White river valleys. And given that Tacoma Rail took over ownership and operations of the adjoining rail line from BNSF in 2004, I assume any future rail freight traffic on the Prairie Line will have minimal direct influence from BNSF. Not so keen on the truck traffic, however.
9 | Posted by The Gulag | Apr 14, 11:00 PM
Jake @ 5.
According to what is written in the opening of this topic: “Trucks would access the site via a new road connecting to South 35th Street”
Would you prefer empty fields or homes that no one will buy over this development.
Industry, trucks, wherehouses, are not undesireble endeavors simply because they are not “clean”. We can not rely solely on financial services, healthcare or software development for our economic development.
I’m certain that there are residents of that neighborhood that welcome the opportunity to work near their homes.
10 | Posted by altered chords | Apr 15, 08:27 AM
I like empty fields, it’s been an empty field forever!
Has anyone driven that I-5 exit at 56th to Tyler? It’s a stoplight nightmare! A light almost every block and the lights are programed to turn red just in time for the one before it to turn green. Sit at a red, turns green, accelerate to next light that has just turned red, wait, light turns green, accelerate to next light that just turned red…. Now add tractor trailers on that route. Geez!
11 | Posted by Christy | Apr 15, 08:51 AM
I just reread that. Adding semi trucks to 38th street, from I-5 all the way down to South Tacoma way. Passing the mall and all of the 38th street shopping mess. Yikes!
12 | Posted by Christy | Apr 15, 08:54 AM
Such a shame to turn this huge area into a massive storage unit. Especially considering revitalization efforts in South Tacoma Way. You would think after spending $$$ to clean up a Superfund site that they could put it to better use than an industry that will fill the city with diesel exhaust! Can’t Tacoma do better? Does it want to? Even an office park would be several times better than a massive warehouse.
13 | Posted by morgan | Apr 15, 09:47 AM
Would you prefer empty fields or homes that no one will buy over this development.
Something great could be planned there. A mixed-use village! It could have a little bit of everything, residential, commercial, industrial. It would be near the Sounder Train. I think there is something like that outside of Portland. And if any large housing development was planned it would probably take a few years to get everything rolling and I am sure the RE market will be back swinging by then.
14 | Posted by Jake | Apr 15, 12:21 PM
ProLogis is the applicant on the public notice, according to thier website they’re a distribution center real estate company, also specializing in mixed use distribution/retail centers. Given that they are requesting a parking variance to limit the number of required spaces, any hope for retail use is out.
Also, did anyone else notice the Mazama Pocket Gopher Report in the list of evaluation documents? According to the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, the Mazama pocket gophers are considered a threatened species. My guess is that thier report says something along the tune of…“impacts to this threatened species will be minimal because although yes, the gophers live on the site, thier population size is reletively low to be impacted by the proposed development….”
15 | Posted by broadweezy | Apr 15, 12:43 PM
Also the Business Examiner ran a blurb yesterday about the company and its plans for this site:
http://www.businessexaminer.com/blog/prologis-center-moves-forward/
16 | Posted by broadweezy | Apr 15, 12:47 PM
Jake @14:
The challenge with doing a mixed-use project or anything other than a massive warehouse is that BNSF doesn’t want to let go of the land. It’s my understanding that they are not interesting in selling it but would like to see it developed to compliment their rail service.
17 | Posted by morgan | Apr 15, 04:31 PM
Remember the former occupant; much more industrial than what is planned:
Photo Link
Photo Link
Remember the people that made South Tacoma
Photo link
I.E. The reason the South Tacoma neighborhood was developed.
Revitalization and industry are not mutually exclusive. Case in point… Georgetown in Seattle. Think of it as “mixed-use”.
18 | Posted by The Gulag | Apr 16, 12:36 AM
Cool pictures.
It used to be an airport for small planes.
Didn’t Bates want to build down there, but the toxic dumping from all of those warehouses had to be cleaned up first?
19 | Posted by Christy | Apr 16, 08:28 AM
I’ve lived in South Tacoma for 5 years and have been following the superfund site superficially. Thanks for the post to keep us in the loop.
It sounds like there are two sides on this development; bad idea vs. good idea (how’s that for simple?). Like most things, there are pros and cons to the project. I certainly can see both sides of it. Yet, this is what I wonder, does the community have any idea of what to expect? It seems we should be kept in the loop better. If I weren’t searching around for Tacoma stuff I never would have found this. I’d be willing to bet that less than 10% of folks in South Tacoma have any idea what the plan is.
So, I wonder if there a way to communicate to the community what the costs and benefits to the current plan would be? It may be too late to change course (if folks even wanted to), but at least we’d have better expectations.
Incidentally, just a few blocks south of this site, we do have great news developing as a new Gray Middle School is being built and a new Boys and Girls Clup and a new South Tacoma Community Center are entering their final planning stages. This is great news for a community that needs community.
20 | Posted by Ken | Apr 17, 12:06 AM
I can see the pros and cons, I even love the idea of wild open spaces in the middle of an urban environment.
I guess I have issues with things like: 1 mile down the road (opposite of the new Grey), developers are contemplating destroying Cheney, Heidelberg, and the brand new metro parks building in favor of an urban planned community (barf). Why not relocate to the old airport?
21 | Posted by Christy | Apr 17, 09:32 AM
Christy @ 21. I like wild spaces but prefer that they have trees on them unless they’re wetlands. It seems like too many trees have been knocked down and replaced w/ farms that are now becoming housing developments. In many parts of unincorporated Pierce county, the infrastructure for houses has been in place for as long as 2 years and no houses yet.
I far prefer housing developers leaving as many existing trees in place and building around them. More expensive true, but more appealing to buyers.
22 | Posted by altered chords | Apr 17, 04:38 PM
I see Ryan Petty will be doing an update on this at today’s Economic Development Committee meeting- 3pm
23 | Posted by morgan | Apr 22, 12:08 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.