Exit133

February 3, 2009 · Derek

Construction Stops at Midtown Lofts

Midtown Lofts, one of the condo projects in downtown Tacoma and a once-upon-a-time Exit133 sponsor, has halted construction with just 65% of the building complete. The TNT is reporting that the project’s financing has reached its limit. Frontier Bank may extend the construction loan, however, current estimates suggest it may take 4 years to sell all the units.

Whether you believe in the new condos or apartments in this city, a half built building isn’t good for anybody.

Link to The News Tribune

41 comments

  • crenshaw sepulveda February 3, 2009

    I’m willing to start up a collection for the developers if it will help any.

  • RR Anderson February 4, 2009

    Perhaps midtown lofts will be a giant performance art piece/sculpture tribute to the hubris of america’s “it’s the thought that counts” mentality.

  • Jim C February 4, 2009

    I think that would make an excellent site for a car museum.

  • crenshaw sepulveda February 4, 2009

    No doubt this half finished project will provide an annex for the homeless shelter right behind it and perhaps provide some impromptu housing for the overflow.

    You had to be one of the really smart guys to think you could make a fast buck selling higher end condos right behind a homeless shelter. These developers have no shame and thought the line of suckers would never end.

  • Erik B. February 4, 2009

    Sad. The other condos built have added alot by offering good rentals units. There is still demand for leasing units. Hanna Heights is leased out.

  • Squid February 4, 2009

    The line of suckers is still there, it’s just been temporarily interrupted.

  • Marguerite February 4, 2009

    So what happens next? I mean, this isn’t going to turn into the new Deriugin House, is it? I feel like there’s a giant chunk of this story missing…

  • tresssie February 5, 2009

    gee that’s sad. You mean, thorax, Tacoma is a lot like Chicago, or something…but well, Crenshaw…is posting my thoughts on the fecundity of condos …though I appreciate that new spaces with tenants need small furniture. (my dictionary was curiously left open in the shop to the page where “thorax” is defined with a dynamite drawing…and O’Tool, I thought of you…)

  • Mofo from the Hood February 5, 2009

    Look, Tacoma needs unfinished projects like Midtown Lofts. And Tacoma needs vacant lots with signage that has drawings of colorful breathtaking condos and drawings of cityscapes with shiny glass and steel office skyscrapers.

    Tacoma needs all these things because Tacoman’s love anticipation.

  • Thorax O'Tool February 5, 2009

    “my dictionary was curiously left open in the shop to the page where “thorax” is defined with a dynamite drawing“

    Huzzah for random chance.

    I wasn’t saying though, that Tacoma is like Chicago. I was actually saying that the MTown lofts being stalled at 2/3 done is certainly a lot better than some much bigger, more high profile projects out there.
    2/3 done and on hiatus for whatever time frame is less of an eyesore than a 150’ wide hole or a 35 story concrete hulk sitting there.

  • drizell February 6, 2009

    I’m sorry to see construction stalled on this building. Midtown Lofts is one my favorite new buildings in town. It’s a nice size, nice scale, great views, great location, classic floor plans, etc. Despite the presence of TRA’s ugly parking garage next door, Midtown Lofts is a great example of what Fawcett St. and many other downtown thoroughfares could become.

    Unfortunately, people like Crenshaw Sepulveda and Squid label potential condo buyers or renters as “suckers” because Midtown Lofts is located directly across the alley from the homeless shelter. This is one of the great joys of urban living: regular interaction with people different than you. The building’s construction alone has had a positive impact on the neighborhood already. Since construction began, the amount of illegal activity in the alley has dropped considerably. Once the building is occupied by full-time residents, criminals will feel much less secure conducting business there because they will be much more visible.

  • Jesse February 6, 2009

    “Line of suckers” Hmmm…

    Are you saying you wouldn’t ever want to live downtown? People who live in real downtowns live in condos and those are very often next to a diverse population… that’s what often times makes a city a worthwhile place to live. It’s just that, you probably want a lot more responsible types (not hooligans and riff-raff) as the main populus. I think Tacoma was getting there fast before the real estate crash.

    It’s the “line of suckers” that take a chance in faith with a city like Tacoma that things will turn around in that neighborhood that will ultimately make it the “place to be”.

    No “line of suckers” equals no gentrification.

  • Thorax O'Tool February 6, 2009

    The suckas in downtown often live in apartments too, let’s not forget. Some of the most developed cities actually feature more apartments than condos (London, Paris, NYC).

    But I digress.
    It is the affordability and the lack of new apartment development that gets my goat.

    The whole appeal in the first place of being in downtown is the exposure to a higher diversity of people than you get in the burbs (which tend to trend towards homogeneity). Being in the urban core and the neighborhoods near it does provide a richer, although not as sanitized experience than being in the outlying communities.
    Of course, it’s a choice. A LOT of people prefer the burbs, and have since the trend began in the 1920s. There is a massive stigma that downtowns in general have not shaken off yet. As downtowns grew in the early 20th century, they gradually became devoid of the middle and upper classes who fled to the burbs… leaving the ethnic minorities, immigrants and the poor. It was them who built the “vibrant” communities we associate with more “developed” cities, like the Lower East Side, Harlem and Greenwich Village in Manhattan for example.

    But alas, for I ramble again.
    The point I was slowly wandering to is that downtowns have perpetually been associated with a desparity between wealth and poverty, between slums and gentrification and between ethnic/religious/social minorities and majorities… it’s that dynamic that gives downtowns their grit, their romance, their danger, their appeal.

    Long story short, I’ll take the Chocolate City over the Vanilla Suburbs.

  • Max February 6, 2009

    We don’t need any more free loaders trying to ride the coat-tails of Tacoma property taxpayers to offset their tax abatement “ponzi” scam any longer! It is about time our council starts growing a spine and do something for the people who work and pay fricken high property taxes for a change and stop making excuses for those who bought a condo and “oh my god” need help with paying taxes!!

  • crenshaw sepulveda February 7, 2009

    From the MidTown Lofts own website:

    “Midtown Lofts is perfectly situated for the downtown of tomorrow. Amid the current growth of downtown neighborhoods, the influx of new restaurants, cultural interests and the expansion of the downtown core a new Middle Town is emerging.”

    Suckers may have not been the right word, idiots is more like it. If you believe this swill and buy into this development “designed to fit today’s dynamic lifestyles” I’d pretty much declare you an idiot. The fact that not one unit has been sold does reaffirm my faith in humanity and restores my hope for the future.

    Tacoma can have a great future, downtown Tacoma can have a great future. This future will not be built with the construction of overpriced condos that promise that future. The future we want will come when work force housing is available downtown, housing that a typical office worker, store clerk, or barista can afford. Get that in place first and the overpriced condos will sell like the proverbial hot cakes that some person living in work force housing will probably serve up in some trendy breakfast place of the future.

  • Thorax O'Tool February 7, 2009

    Nice point, Crenshaw.

    And while we’re at it, let’s get more businesses downtown too.

    Economically speaking, the area of this city that provides the most income and most jobs is not downtown (like it is with our bloated neighbor to the north). It’s the Port. That area is a hotbed of higher paying blue collar jobs and pretty much drives the economy in not just T-Town, but in Pierce Co… and to be fair, it is a really big player in the whole region.

    Speaking as a guy who works a blue collar job in the port, a LOT of people down there (at least at my work) prefer to live in outlying neighborhoods, and outlying cities. Of the 50 guys in my department (Operations), 19 of them live out in places like Roy or Graham. A couple live in King Co, and the rest live in like South Tacoma. I’m the only one even in the ring of neighborhoods around downtown.

    Thus the question remains: how do we get people downtown in the first place?

  • Thorax O'Tool February 7, 2009

    —> of course, I feel the need to mention something I forgot (would be nice if there was an Edit button).

    There are other neighborhoods in this city. 133 tends to favor downtown, and some of the ideas we cook up here would seem to promote downtown at the expense of other areas.
    I tend to favor downtown simply because there is a blurry line near Stadium HS where downtown ends (is it Division? Is it North 1st?)… but I’m equally biased towards the whole Stadium District and it’s neighborhoods as well.

    But there are a lot of other neighborhoods that need just as much (if not more) love than downtown. Hilltop and Lincoln come to mind.

    Granted, Exit 133 is conveniently located downtown, and many of it’s users live and work close to or in downtown.
    But it would be nice to see the City show some love to the other hoods.

    I’d hate to have a gleaming downtown and run down slums as far as the eye can see just as much as I’d hate to see urban decline like we had in the 70s, the late 80s and early 90s.

    Perhaps in the wake of a deepening depression recession, it’s wise to think about the city in a more holistic way, and treating it as such.

  • Squid February 9, 2009

    Drizzell & Jesse: for the record, I had no idea the ML was located across the alley from a homeless shelter. My reference to “suckers” was more about the lack of downtown amenities than it was about sketchy demographics. Lacking a robust retail/entertainment element downtown has limited appeal or potential for lux accomodations.

    Personally, I’d be happy to live in a downtown area with a financially diverse demographic as long as there was a there there. I disagree that Tacoma was getting there before economy went south. I think it was going nowhere fast. Show me all the retail that was created downtown during the boom. Then we’ll take a tour of all the buildings that have been boarded for 15 years. We lived through a huge real estate/building boom and have but incremental progress to show for it.

  • Jesse February 9, 2009

    Squid: Load the downtown core with people and the shopping will come.

  • Erik B. February 10, 2009

    Load the downtown core with people and the shopping will come.

    Yes. Downtown is dead because it lacks sufficient humans and the current businesses are trying to survive on the trickle of people who shop there.

    Theres been a few apartment and condos built in the last few years downtown. Metropolitan added quite a few. We need a ton more to add much more life.

  • CA February 10, 2009

    “I disagree that Tacoma was getting there before economy went south. I think it was going nowhere fast.”

    While I would agree that Tacoma’s development over the last decade was outpaced by Seattle and Bellevue, I think the above statement is demonstrably false. The UWT area, the museums, Theas Landing, Albers Mill Lofts, The Esplanade(yes i know it’s currently empty) the Courtyard Marriot and Pacific Grill, Sea Grill, the area of northern Pac Ave where the Matador, Paddy Coynes, and now Merende are, the St. Helens and Stadium neighborhoods that have grown, etc….and many others. All of these developments have taken place over the last 10-15 years.

    Am I suggesting that Tacoma has become a thriving and busy metropolitan center? No I am not. But to imply that not much has happened is equally silly.

  • Mofo from the Hood February 10, 2009

    Anybody interested in forming a business to sell the Midtown Lofts and The Esplanade as time-share condo’s?

  • Jesse February 10, 2009

    Ha! That’s a fantastic idea Mofo. But I bet they’ll be auctioned off like the condo’s on the Bremerton waterfront were. Someone’s gonna get some good deals if they do!

  • Squid February 10, 2009

    Agreed that downtown has gotten a bit better since I originally moved here in 1990. I just think that the improvement curve started to flatten out right around 2000-02, and it never really caught fire. I wrack my brain trying to figure out why Tacoma doesn’t catch fire in a manner similar to Seattle and Bellevue and can’t quite get my head around it. Our geography is at least as good as Seattle and better by leaps than Bellevue. There is just something about Tacoma though that discourages development.

  • I'm for Change (for tacoma) February 10, 2009

    There is just something about Tacoma though that discourages development.

    I am hardly an expert, but it might be that Tacoma is dirty. I walk, scoot, &/or take the bus most days. Walking around Tacoma you can really notice how flippin’ dirty it is. It appears that Tacomans (-mites?) couldn’t care less about Tacoma and we must not have trash service or a dump within 50 miles. Why if I’m a scout for a company looking to locate my business somewhere am I going to pick a place that has no respect for itself?

  • Jake February 10, 2009

    I think Tacoma is pretty clean for the most part. Downtown Tacoma is much cleaner than say Downtown Seattle. 6th Ave is like paradise when you compare it to Fremont in Seattle. That place look like a garbage dump.

  • CA February 10, 2009

    I’d say Tacoma is no dirtier than any other city of comparable size. For whatever reason, Tacoma simply has a more difficult time drawing capital than does Seattle and the east side. Once the Tacoma Mall opened up and emptied out downtown, many developers saw little reason to put their capital at risk by developing in downtown. I think the public projects(UWT, museums, Link) have had some success in “priming the pumps” of the downtown economy, but multiple decades of neglect will take many years to completely turn around. I am one who believes the last decade has been one of much improvement in downtown, and we should be proud of it, but we still have far to go.

  • David Boe February 10, 2009

    One of the main reasons development has not happened in Downtown Tacoma or the Mixed-use Centers is the underlying ecomonics of the cost of development compared to the potential rents to be charged to the ultimate occupants. It is simple math. If the cost of building a skookum mixed-use project in Kirkland is approximately the same as building the exact same project on MLK or McKinnley (except for the cost of the land that is), you get rents of $25-30 in Kirkland – but you get only $10-12 here. You can’t pay for the cost of construction for a new building with the underlying going rates in T-town (rents of $12/sf and less are available within our Downtown core!). Thus the only significant development, with few exceptions, in Tacoma is somehow subsidized by public funds or by those taking a very long return on their investment (i.e. a Haub or similar).

  • Thorax O'Tool February 11, 2009

    Then the question remains to be asked:

    How do we either lower building costs to make $12/ft profitable or get rents to rise high enough to be sustainable for development?

  • David Boe February 11, 2009

    #30 – Precisely. To address the question would mean shifting the paradigm of how development is looked at in Tacoma (from the top down). Most, if not all, of the economic development participants believe, and have publicly stated, that development in the Puget Sound area is trickle down (i.e. once Kirkland is full, and then Renton, then Auburn, well then it will be Tacoma’s turn). Given the current ecomonic situation, I beleive the time is right for a ‘Tacoma Model’ of development to emerge. So that begs the question, do we have the will to fully understand our situation? (cause hope is passive – and we need agressive to crack this nut that is over 40 years old).

  • Tora! Tora! Laura! February 11, 2009

    People also have to be realistic about: construction costs and what the market will/would bear; a city without forward-thinking or experienced public planners; and residents who start yelling that the rich are ruining Tacoma’s grittiness if they can’t rent a 1 bedroom apartment with a view for $500 a month because they could back when it wasn’t safe to go out downtown after dark (wow long sentence).

    In my opinion developers got way ahead of themselves building 30, 40, and 50+-unit condo complexes before downtown could or would support downtown business without getting rid of business-killing taxes and public policy like the lack of a comprehensive and sane downtown parking plan for visitors and potential developers.

    We have a city council without vision that makes tentative decisions and gives out money without performance clauses – like the Winthrop project.

    Mr. Boe you have mentioned $12/sq. ft. buildings for rent. Rents vary downtown for buildings, depending on the class and condition of the property – anywhere from $12 and under to up to $20+ per square foot.

    As a downtown building owner that invested nearly half a million dollars in my building more than five years ago, I know for a fact that the buildings that rent for $12 and under are in pretty bad shape.

    The window was lost for the Winthrop and now the city wants a “financial district” in an area anchored by an unbalanced ratio of low-income housing and social service agencies. It’s a no-brainer that Russell would want to send visiting big shots two blocks up to stay in a five star hotel and spend money downtown.

    The city can’t even put pressure on the owners to fix the Clocktower icon, which has become a metaphor for a city frozen in time and potential. If as the saying goes “Time is Money,” than what does a giant stopped clock say about a downtown “financial district?”

  • RR Anderson February 11, 2009

    another way to look at the frozen clocktower is IN THIS CITY, EACH MOMENT IS AN ETERNITY

  • Crenshaw Sepulveda February 11, 2009

    Tacoma does not deserve the talented people she has. One by one they will find better pastures. I don’t think any of us has the time to wait for Tacoma to turn around. The truth is that downtown Tacoma is not better than it has been over the last decade. The only difference is that it is more expensive, and not in a good way.

  • Jesse February 11, 2009

    “residents who start yelling that the rich are ruining Tacoma’s grittiness if they can’t rent a 1 bedroom apartment with a view for $500 a month because they could back when it wasn’t safe to go out downtown after dark“

    May I give a real-life example how the rich won’t ruin downtown??? Ok.

    About 5 years ago I lived in Portland. I am an educated guy with a good job… above average pay. I was in my late 20’s, and I wanted to live in the Pearl District which is an old warehouse district converted (dare I say gentrified?) from a hooker and drug infested rundown crap-hole into the best downtown area in Portland. It’s “the place to be” and live. It got expensive. Too expensive. I priced apartments and condos to see what I could get with my $45k a year salary… the answer was NOTHING. However, my girlfriend, who is uneducated, making $28k a year could afford my dream apartment. Why? Income restriced properties in nice areas. While I didn’t qualify, she did. The lowest rent I could find was $1450 (without parking) and she got a place for $700 (still no parking). So… is it fair? No. But that’s life. I got a place in the next good neighborhood over.

    That’s life.

  • crenshaw sepulveda February 11, 2009

    It is terrible to be too rich for your dreams.

  • Jesse February 11, 2009

    Rich equals $40k-ish a year?

  • Vlorg, the Mighty February 12, 2009

    When the median income is $22K, $40K seems like a Rockafeller’s salary.

  • Thorax O'Tool February 12, 2009

    Zing.

    Score one for Vlorg, the Mighty.

  • I'm for Change (for tacoma) February 12, 2009

    I read awhile back that in 2004 or 2005 (who remembers dates) the median income in NYC was $45,000. A quick ‘net search shows WA State reporting a median income for TAC @ $37,800 (no date available). Let’s just keep throwing various numbers and figures around, cause ya know, that really helps the discussion.

    I think Jesse had a valid point at #36.

  • Jesse February 12, 2009

    The point of my post at #36 is that you don’t really know what housing will do when uppity-ups with money move in even if you think you do. So stop assuming they’ll just ruin DT.

    According to Wiki: “The median income for a household in the city was $37,879, and the median income for a family was $45,567. Males had a median income of $35,820, versus $27,697 for females. The per capita income for the city was $19,130.”

  • ZOMG February 12, 2009

    Yes, and what good does it do when housing is running 5.2x the median income?

    Subprime is gone, Alt-A’s are gone, jumbos are at 8% APR.
    All the “well off” the last decade were the middle class living beyond their means, spending 50%+ of their income on housing. The rise in prices was met only by the middle class taking on ungodly sums of debt and using plastic.
    It was both unrealistic and unsustainable, it was all just simply “keeping up appearances”.

    I welcome expensive real estate in the downtown area — once there is the income to support it.

    We need jobs first people, not condos first.
    Jobs