Callaghan on Preservation and the Mixed Use Centers
Peter Callaghan weighed in (again) on the mixed use center changes that are working their way through City Hall. The gist of the story is that while growth management law requires the City to accommodate 50,000+ new people by 2022, neighbors of the mixed use centers and Historic Tacoma fear the impact on certain small districts like South Tacoma, McKinley, and others.
Is there a right answer?
(Yes, this is the same mixed center issue that has been talked about for the past year. Someday … )
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133
Filed under: The-Politics-of-Development, General
4 comments
D drizell April 15, 2009
My thoughts on this issue are fairly well-known on Exit 133. My main issue is the anti-density letter that Historic Tacoma supposedly submitted. I discontinued my membership to Historic Tacoma earlier this year after it became apparent that the organization was headed in an increasingly radical direction.
In my conversations with Historic Tacoma leaders, including Caroline Swope and that guy from Artifacts Consulting, they implied that their dream world was one in which time was frozen completely. There was the insane historic register filing for the Union Club, which Historic Tacoma did without support from the building’s owner. Now Historic Tacoma apparently opposes the new Mixed Use Center ordinance.
I know there are many Exit 133 readers and staff who are involved with Historic Tacoma, and I implore you moderate members to try to rein in the more extremist elements of your organization.
M Mofo from the Hood April 15, 2009
Callaghan noted his disapproval of the redevelopment of the South 38th & G ST area. For reference, Lincoln High School is located a block away on South 37th.
Last night I rode my bicycle through that area, and admired the remodeled Lincoln High School, and rode southward to South 50th & Pacific, where Stewart Middle School is located.
The neighborhoods a block or two beyond the 38th ST commercial strip do have mostly single family homes. But when you look closer at the two block perimeter you will notice also a lot of apartment houses that are decades old.
In Callaghan’s news story about social engineering, he cites that the City of Tacoma is trying to accomplish the following goal:
Nourish small businesses and restaurants, preferrably with pedestrian traffic, and increase ridership on public transit. So, by increasing the number of housing units, specifically multi-family housing units, the thought is that adjacent businesses will directly prosper.
Given my brief description of what the 38th ST neighborhood has been, the new plan sounds like more of the same. But in reality, what has developed a few blocks away from South 38th & G St bears no resemblance to a traditional neighborhood.
Forty years ago the intersection of South 38th and Pacific Avenue wasn’t much more than an average small commercial district cross street–A gas station and some privately owned small businesses. In the past decade that cross street has been transformed into a standard commercial strip mall community. Most of the new small businesses that have located there are the standard type of entities found nationally–businesses of a corporate nature aka franchises: Albertson’s, Walgreens, Subway, etc..
These strip malls typically have rent rates that are far beyond what a private businessman would seek out, especially a start-up business. So the type of tenant falls within a predictable range. Private business and corporate business can often be distinguished by their access to capital and financing schemes.
Who are the strip malls for? Who are the multi-family housing units for?
This type of clarification of terms, and who benefits, is necessary for any kind of serious discussion and support for future redevelopment–assuming that the advice of the general public matters.
S Sharon April 16, 2009
Historic Tacoma understands well and supports the need to increase density: it fosters the characteristics of a lively urban streetscape and preserves open space in other parts of the city. We support many features of the City’s Mixed Use Center proposal and believe that the proposal makes great strides in improving the urban design and future growth of our city. As noted in our letter to the Planning Commission, our concerns are, quite simply, “to preserve historic structures located in proposed MUCs and to preserve the massing and scale of historic neighborhoods and business districts while encouraging pedestrian activity.”
Our dream and belief is that Tacoma will become an ever more vibrant city partly because we have a pretty amazing architectural stock to work with: solid, well-designed buildings which hold great potential for adaptive re-use to meet today’s needs. We believe those buildings and the neighborhoods within which they sit: McKinley Hill, 6th Avenue Business District, the Hilltop, and Proctor, work pretty darn well. We’re okay with more density but “the design of each MUC should be sensitive to neighborhood context.”
— from one of those radicals with Historic Tacoma
B BrettS April 16, 2009
I attended the Planning Commission meeting last night (4/15) to progress made on the Mixed-Use Center regulations and zoning amendments.
In addressing comments from the public hearings, the Planning Commission has made several improvements to the bonus height program. Highlights in the changes to the bonus features include revisions to height allowances, the Adjacent Historic Rehabilitation feature, and these additions:
“Add two Landmark Designation items, one for historic commercial, institutional, mixed-use and multi-family buildings (20-foot bonus), and one for historic single-, two-, and three-family residential structures (10-foot bonus)”
“Add a Historic Façade Retention bonus palette item (10-foot bonus)”
“In the Stadium and MLK Mixed-Use Centers, limit the bonus available through the standard bonus palette to the first 10 feet (from 65 to 75 feet) and limit the second 10 feet of bonus height (from 75 feet to 85 feet) to two specific palette items – the TDR item or a contribution to the City’s Open Space Fund of .5% of the building value.”
These are changes that balance preservation and development needs. My hope is that the MUC ammendments give us density and good outcomes.