Callaghan and Mixed Use Centers
The TNT’s Peter Callaghan weighed in yesterday on the ongoing mixed use center discussion. (5 second refresher: Tacoma is trying to improve the mixed use center zones to better absorb growth as mandated by the Growth Management Act)
His column is interesting. Tacoma is the largest city in Pierce County and has a responsibility (and mandate) to plan for future growth in order to preserve open space and farmland. The goal of mixed use centers is to remove the growth/density pressures from our classic single family neighborhoods.
To sum it all up … Ack! Ch-ch-changes!
Link to Callaghan at the TNT
Filed under: Developments
7 comments
K kc July 28, 2008
I’d volunteer my neighborhood for a positive change. Buy my house, PLEASE. Beyond that, I echo Erik B’s comments. Reinventing the wheel when the first one wasn’t finished (to our satisfaction) is not the way to go. While I know much thought goes into planning, it still ends up sounding like random acts of mixed use because previous efforts seem to fall flat.
S snoopy July 28, 2008
Erik B. I am going to have to disagree with a little of what you mentioned. There are a few mixed-use centers in Tacoma which are seeing an un precedented amount of development. Specifically, the “RCX” District east of Pine Street between S 40th and S 48th Street has seen townhome developments that have increased the density 4 to 6 times greater than what was present. In addition, Tacoma has some of the most flexible development regulations in the entire county (many would argue the region) to foster economic development and infill housing. Tacoma is taking on the density it is required to. The real issue has to do with what the County is willing to approve / deny. If Tacoma makes it any easier to develop, the livability of the City will greatly decrease.
M Mofo from the Hood July 28, 2008
As someone who works in sales, I can confirm that walking from business to business, when possible, is very time consuming with regards to the current building patterns.
Even downtown is sketchy and it can cost a lot of time and money to serve.
The downtown area and up to the hilltop is the area that I would like to see first designed and constructed densely and with common sense efficiencies to benefit the community.
M morgan July 29, 2008
It’s interesting Callaghan brings up South Hill and Bonney Lake. The connection between sprawl in the county and a lack of development in Tacoma has not been stated strong enough.
The challenges of a secondary real estate market such as Tacoma are great. They must work harder and be more innovative than primary markets – Seattle-metro in our case. Tacoma is fortunate in having one of the best reputations around for developers. With a little political courage, there’s a lot we can do today. We don’t want to wait another 18 years for the next building boom – let’s do it now!
E Erik Hanberg July 29, 2008
I want to add a few thoughts.
First, one of the reasons the GMA hasn’t substantially curbed sprawl in our area is that so so many plats were pre-approved before it took affect, allowing for the sprawling ex-urbs. That trend is going away; there’s just not as much out there that can legally be built on anymore.
Second, I think we’re infilling pretty fast. Vacant land is going away pretty quickly (on the Tacoma-UP line there is a huge parcel that has been replaced by individual homes and a 4 story retirement community).
My neighborhood in St. Helens has boomed like crazy since I moved there in 2003 adding several hundred units, most of them filled, with more coming this year (Walker, Metropolitan Phase II, etc).
And finally, tightened gas prices and the aesthetic of the younger generation is pushing buyers inward. Callaghan suggests that Tacoma is not going to meet the huge goals we are supposed to be planning for … I think the substantial demographic / economic changes that are now just beginning will challenge that notion. I really do believe we are going to get dense quickly, and we need to be ready.
T Thorax O'Tool July 31, 2008
It seems city council is still just not pushing it hard enough.
But there are freaking 203,000 people in town and I promies that there are many, many NIMBYs (NIMBY=Not In My Back Yard) out there. So they can’t be no-devl nor can they be pro-devl with no regard. It’s a tough spot to be in.
Now, I’ve spent far too much of my free time studying and learning about housing, the current market woes, the anatomy of the largest real estate bubble in US history, commodities, etc.
What have I learned?
My research has led me to conclude that we’re facing the ultimate reversal of suburbanization. Erik knows what I’m getting at. High fuel costs, etc will drive people in town. We need to plan accordingly else we’ll see some other King County town steal that thunder. Does anyone really want to be annexed by Federal Way in 2035?
But if city council doesn’t get it, then maybe it’s time the People took the city back.
Join your local neighborhood council.
Run for City Council
Go grassroots and get initiatives on the ballot.
Point being, if you need to get something done, you got to do it yourself.
Y You're Welcome July 31, 2008
I like the idea of 56th and South Tacoma Way becoming a dense mixed use neighborhood. Save and restore some of the original buildings and add new structures while saving the “Old Route 99” charm.
It beats ripping up the few open spaces, like 19th and Tyler, to add boxy eye sore condos and crossing our fingers that retailers will want to join into a visually hidden valley that barely touches highway 16.