A Vision for the Wheeler-Osgood Waterway
On this beautiful, sunny, and hot afternoon we found ourselves in a special meeting of the Tacoma City Council and the Tacoma Port Commission. The topic of the day was the development of the eastern shore of the Foss Waterway. While most of us know about Urban Waters, the Murray Morgan Brige, the Waterway Park, and the latest developments of the Hylebos Bridge, it was a design concept that caught our attention.
The series of drawings revealed a development scenario for the Wheeler-Osgood Waterway that combines the City, Port, and state goals and reflects past user interest. It is also consistent with the waterway development vision, comprehensive plan and existing zoning. The design depicts a 6 story office, restaurants, and other retail venues near the water with industrial and marine commercial businesses a bit inland. From the powerpoint presentation:
The Wheeler-Osgood Development is envisioned as a multi-use campus set around the restored Wheeler-Osgood Waterway. The project is anchored by an iconic office building on the northwest corner with a waterfront plaza connecting to a new marina. This building would rise 6 to 7 stories and provide sweeping views back to the city of Tacoma. This side of the site has several additional buildings intended for marine related commercial, light industrial, and flex uses. The north side of the waterway connects to further development on the south side via a pedestrian bridge. The bridge, combined with pedestrian paths and outlooks, allows the public, as well as users to enjoy the restored wetlands. The project offers great opportunities to build on the restoration concept with possible sustainable strategies including the use of green roofs, natural ventilation, and rainwater harvesting, among others. The project is surface parked with easy vehicular and service access to all buildings.
Click to Enlarge
Of course, this is just a vision. While the Port owns most of the property, it would need a healthy real estate market, user demand, and cooperation from the City, Port, regulators, developers, and landowners to make it possible. It sparks the imagination. More importantly, it reveals a vision for what could be done within the goals of these disparate organizations. Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll see …
Filed under: waterfront, Developments
9 comments
T Thorax O'Tool July 22, 2009
So, I though the “line of Demarcation” was E 15th…
Not that I’m opposed to using our waterfront for maximum good, we need to remember to not be like Seattle and end up using half of our port’s land for condos and stadiums…
J Jesse July 22, 2009
Hmmm… I can see the value of the views from this area of DT Tacoma and such but… what about “creep”. Doesn’t this project creep into the industrial zone? Foss is a natural buffer. Where would the boundry be to stop the new commercial development over there? When you start building on the east side of the Foss, you are going to see these problems.
Also, opening up new land to build commercial properties on should not be the direction we go in. How about filling in and remodeling blocks of destitute DT Tacoma first??? Seems like an obvious priority to me.
M Morgan July 22, 2009
Great vision! Does this mean the Port will now actively pursue restoring and re-opening the Murray Morgan Bridge?
D drizell July 22, 2009
I’m mildly surprised that the Port is now trying to think long-term. After all, it was only a few years ago that the Port vigorously opposed a residential building on the Foss, citing “incompatibility with industrial uses.” Now with Urban Waters (an office use) coming to the waterway, it seems that Port suddenly supports non-industrial uses, perhaps believing they can make more money that way.
M Mark July 22, 2009
I say we focus in the downtown core before we try to spread development to the industrial zone. It would be more beneficial to the city
N Nick July 22, 2009
I agree with Jesse and Mark. Don’t get me wrong, this would be very cool. Shipping and industrial operations need administrative offices too – perhaps this could address that need. Also, I know there are some geological issues with building density on the hillside downtown, and perhaps going east seems cheaper and easier.
That being said, perhaps we should be building south into the dome district instead. Lots of flat land, square blocks, and relatively cheap to dig into…
S Squid July 22, 2009
I wouldn’t get too worked up about it. Chances of this happening in our lifetime? Um, approaching zero.
6 6ther July 22, 2009
Oh how we love our drawings don’t we?
C crenshaw sepulveda July 23, 2009
Yeah, the Esplanade was such a great success I’m surprised they haven’t thought of this earlier.