More Change Coming to the Stadium District

More change is on the way for the Stadium District, and it comes with some tantalizing images of what could be.

The latest is the move of Premiere Collision out of the prominent space at the west end of the building housing Stadium Thriftway. According to The News Tribune, the owners of that auto business will be moving the office out of its first floor spot in the pointy end of that building, and relocating to the lot across the street, which they are in the process of purchasing.

The property they plan to purchase is currently owned by Irwin Investment Group, which is also the owner of the Stadium Thriftway property. Property lines are being redrawn, and the owners of Premiere Collission will purchase the middle section of the block across from the grocery store. They plan, according to the TNT, to add a 1,500 square foot addition to the existing building.

The rest of the parking lot will stay with the Irwin Group, which is working with San Diego-based Tourmaline Capital on development plans for the properties. Documents show the remaining parking lot on that block designated for future development as "new 1 story retail."

The parking lot across the street, also owned by the Irwin Group, is planned as a future mixed-use development - 20,000 square feet of retail, with 100 apartments above.

The most immediate part of the picture is enabled by the move of Premiere Collision out of its current space. With that space available, both floors are being advertised for lease. According to the TNT, Titus Will, which currently occupies the space upstairs, is prepared to consolidate its operations to its newer space on Broadway when the time comes.

Documents related to the lease offer show the prime corner unit as a restaurant with a patio for outdoor dining, with the rest of the space broken up into smaller commercial spaces. Phase I is the leasing of 22,450 square feet of retail space in the existing building, Phase II is construction of that mixed-use development across the street. The brochure also suggests plans for the addition of over 50 on-street parking spots.

What will the spaces be? Tacoma can always use more outdoor dining spaces... 

Download Now

Do you want to help the folks at Exit133 pay our bills and keep up with of all things Tacoma? Do you want to see even more coverage? Exit133 has always been free to read and comment, and it will stay that way. However, over the years, readers have contributed to the bank account to help us keep up our coverage of goings-on around town. Contribute and this message disappears!

Support Exit133

Comments

Chris

All of this is great except this bit:

“Documents show the remaining parking lot on that block designated for future development as “new 1 story retail.”

There is going to be a streetcar station right smack in the middle of this development.  Our mixed use centers are meant to build denser than that.  There’s the capacity on this site to build more than just a one-story building.  It would be really short-sighted to build such a small building that would become quickly outmoded by the amount of demand for space in the heart of the Stadium District.

August 15, 2014 at 3:48 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

6 | 0

Jesse

In theory, you’re right about the one level development needing to be bigger.  However, that space is 5000 square feet and boxed in by three streets and a parking lot that requires width to be usable.  Even if the parking lot were gone, you’re still looking at a lot too small to build anything with much height.  If the building were any taller than a few floors, it triggers stairs, sprinkler room, elevator room, etc.  That cuts at the 5000 square foot footprint and makes retail on street level not viable. 
Too bad they couldn’t also get their hands on the Columbia Bank lot and get a vacation for the alley there… then maybe they could get a taller building to pencil out.

August 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

James

Starbucks (and former Primo Grill) building at 6th and Pine. 2 stories. 10,000sf building. +/- 5,000sf footprint. Pedestrian oriented retail. This argument about only really big buildings being economically feasible, the same logic used for The Proctor’s alley air-rights vacation, is kind of absurd. Financing challenges, permitting/soft costs, and a shortage of local, small building tenants, all contribute to the drive towards bigger buildings. But the notion that you can’t build a multi-story building with a 5,000sf footprint due to stairs and elevators isn’t the real story.

The economics aren’t there, yet, in Tacoma. The developers taking the leap at urban development in Tacoma are minimizing risk by not developing small footprint retail/commercial. Building feasibility isn’t the issue.

An example…
http://www.millerhull.com/html/residential/1310.htm

August 18, 2014 at 1:19 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

James

Another example:
http://www.dunnandhobbes.com/prj_agnes_2.php

5000sf footprint for a 4-story mixed use building. Click on “view floor plans” at the bottom of the page to see how 2 stairs and an elevator still work in multi-story 5,000sf building.

August 18, 2014 at 1:33 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

JesseRegistered

660-990 square feet on 12th and Pike in downtown Seattle for $1800 to $2700 in rent.  How is this, in any way, comparable to the Tacoma market?  Of course that would work in Tacoma if they could get those rents for apartments with no views.  They can’t.  But guess what?  The building costs to build this building are identical besides the dirt.

August 18, 2014 at 4:56 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

James

Bottom line, 5000sf is a totally doable building footprint for wood-frame construction. Myth busted.

Local economics are different reason than 5000 sf is too small of building footprint for multistory.

August 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 1

JesseRegistered

Most moderate apartment buildings max out at five stories.  That is, a few stories of concrete construction topped with stick construction.  Above five stories, there is a whole different construction methodology that jacks up costs significantly and you then need a lot of height and therefore rents to make up for the costs to build.

What I am saying is that, basically, there’s an economic reason why the 5000 square food lot is slated to be only one floor.

August 18, 2014 at 5:02 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

0 | 0

Jake

Here is the comment I put on the TNT article:
This plan doesn’t sound that great when thinking of development potential for the Stadium District. Sell off a building and some land in a high density zone to let a low density business move in and build a 1 story building on the other half when it was enough land to build a larger building. “Remodel” the Thriftway building, still low-density. So we possibly get 1 mixed-use apartment building in phase 2 out of all of this. I would have liked to see them do the “phase 2” project first and move Thriftway there and then a new development where the current Thriftway building (along with the the buildings fronting Tacoma Ave.). I was really excited when these properties went up for sale. This plan seems to be a lackluster.

August 15, 2014 at 4:49 pm / Reply / Quote and reply

4 | 0

Jo

The Stadium District needs more parking in the area around 1st, Tacoma Avenue, 2nd, and G Streets.  Between local apartment-dwellers, small businesses, & Stadium High School kids during the school year, parking is maxed out during much of the business day, even into the evening.  Shake Shake Shake has been an awesome addition to the neighborhood, as has Art House Cafe—but the success of these and other businesses means that convenient, on-street parking is hard to come by many hours of the day.

August 17, 2014 at 8:19 am / Reply / Quote and reply

1 | 8

James

That’s not back-in angle parking on ‘G’ Street. Better fix that right away!

There’s worse evils than a one-story building… the one-story building in question is entered from the parking lot side rather than the street?! I think that they could forgo the seven-stalls of parking, build a bigger building. Sucks when parking design is the basis for urban design. There’s parking everywhere in this plan, I think they got it covered.

August 18, 2014 at 11:24 am / Reply / Quote and reply

3 | 0

Post A New Comment

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Potentially Related Articles