Downtown Density and Historic Preservation (10. August 2006, 08:30 by Derek Young) ~ It's Hard to Imagine...
A story in this week’s Business Examiner looks at the density of current downtown construction and wonders what the Tacoma of our future looks like. Two primary questions are raised. First, is Tacoma set to repeat Vancouver’s dilemma – only without the density? Second, is historic preservation and density related?
Vancouver’s dilemma, a downtown consisting of high rise condos and virtually no commercial space, may not sound like the Tacoma of today. However, the ‘author’ asserts that Tacoma may be heading down a similar path.
Unlike in Vancouver, Tacoma’s developers aren’t building densely, they’re filling in empty spaces…
Tacoma’s would be condo glut won’t be one of too many units, but one where very little else beyond condos are built due to a lack of space.
This will only be made worse if the Medical Arts building we currently call City Hall and other commercial or mixed use spaces go condo.
The more interesting question, to me, is the linkage between density and historic preservation.
Building dense and tall now could preserve Tacoma’s architectural history for the future. Imagine a world where the empty lots are filled by new construction intermixed with our historic downtown warehouses, offices and apartments. This is easy to imagine, given the current rate of development. Part of what makes Tacoma interesting is the grit beneath its fingernails – the mix of old and new seemingly intermingled in peaceful co-existence.
Now imagine a world where the demand continues to increase. What then? Will newer construction make way for taller buildings or will older ‘character’ buildings be demolished to make way for the density? My fear is that the old buildings won’t stand a chance when compared to a relatively new building next door. The question the becomes, are historic preservation and building density more closely related than we had imagined? Can increasing density now safeguard our city’s character for the future?
How do we, as stewards of historic buildings, feel about density? What is a good mix of old a new, dense and not-so-dense? What is our city’s future? Where is our vision?
Also mentioned on the BIA Blog
Previously on Exit133
Link to the Business Examiner
The article is locked up, but can be read in print or for $1.00. Hey, BE, open it up so I can write, and ‘we’ can read, about it!
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.
BE?! What’s up with the locked articles?! That is so old school!
Nice article Derek, by the way…
1 | Posted by morgan | Aug 10, 10:48 AM
Look how humble our webmaster is: “a story in this week’s Business Examiner”...
:-)
3 | Posted by jamie from thriceallamerican | Aug 10, 12:38 PM
Density and historic preservation are absolutely compatible. The trend for cities like Tacoma in the past 50 years has been of suburbanization and deurbanization, promoted by expansion of roads and infrastructure, decline of mass transit, and the exodus of anchor commercial business to major complexes, like malls. Tacoma has a ton of historic suburbs, such as the North End (Proctor, UPS), South End (Lincoln, Fern Hill) etc that were built on tranportation lines (streetcars) centered on the urban core. Nowadays these links are broken, and business has moved to formerly rural areas where lots are big (i.e consolidated property divided on section lines, and road development is often a private enterprise between structures). Many historic buildings in downtowns like Tacoma are actually way underutilized (50% or less of the available space being occupied). This is due to a number of factors, including fire, building and seismic codes, and lack of incentive to upgrade. If the older buildings we have here were to be used as they were 50 years ago, there would be an amazing amount of urban activity. Any photograph of Broadway from the turn of the century until the 1950s or 1960s attests to this. This is why growth management and historic preservation can work in concert. So I guess my view is that when people refer to density, they need to consider that true urban density is as much an issue of reuse as it is of new construction. There are plenty of lots available (thank you, urban “renewal”) for new buildings, and plenty of space available in old buildings. Vancouver has a lot of new highrise construction, but it also has some very dense historic pockets (Gastown, Yaletown, etc).
4 | Posted by kanpai | Aug 11, 10:08 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
