Height Restrictions Get Another Look
Last November the City Council approved an increase to the building heights on the Foss Waterway. Since the site’s are on the shoreline, the Department of Ecology has to approve the changes. The Political Buzz blog over at the TNT is reporting that DoE’s public comment period is open and taking input. This issue was contentious when it came before Council…. will it be any less contentious this time?
Previously on Exit133
Link to the Political Buzz
Filed under: Developments
10 comments
T Thorax O'Tool April 22, 2008
Well, as long as the city actually imposes some design restrictions to minimize view blocking, I don’t mind if they went all the way to 200’.
For the record, the 180’ proposal is about the same height as Vista Del Ray by Stadium (184’).
While folks seem to like to point to the growth on the Seattle/Bellevue skylines, it brings this point to mind.
We’re not Seattle or Bellevue.
I’d love to see more highrises and hell, even a real scraper or two go up. I think that would be good for our self image, businesses downtown, et cetera… It just bears remembering that we have the chance to learn from Seattle’s mistakes, and we can still have progress and growth while preserving what makes T-town unique… we just have to make the effort.
J J. Cote April 23, 2008
I, for one, Don’t want to look anything like Seattle. How many will lose their view of the Mountain or the water with this height allowance.
The restrictions were put there for a reason. If the rules are broken or bypassed for one person, another will come along soon asking for the same allowances. What if THAT person wants to block YOUR view. Scream like a stuck pig, won’t you?
NO, NO, NO. Keep everyone on the same requirements. The only reason they want to build higher is so they can sell more condo’s on the same amount of land. Why should we give up our scenery so some developer can make an extra million bucks or more? We’ve catered enough to these greed merchants by giving them 10 year tax breaks.
O Old Timer April 23, 2008
J.Cote,
One mans lost view is another mans gain,kinda equals out imo. Hilltop is having the same issues with height because people want to protect a view of the Mt that they can only see from their attic window. Seems silly to me that folks would want to remain in the dark ages for the sake of seeing the mountain on a clear day from their rooftop. Yeah thats it lets protect the entire city’s view of a mountain. C’mon give me a break mountain views are not protected only desired.
C crenshaw sepulveda April 23, 2008
Spoken like a true developer, Old Timer. Even developers will block the views of their past projects (that were sold with views) to make more money selling the next project across the street with even better views. If the city changes their height restrictions they need to be getting a lot more out of the developers. How about some low income housing and let us get rid of this misconceived ten year tax abatement. I don’t think the city should allow the developers the ability to take away a view for nothing.
I I'm for Change (for tacoma) April 23, 2008
Why is no one talking about views being blocked when the proposed car museum gets mentioned? Because only East-Siders will lose on that one, not Hilltop, Downtown or the North-side?
D drizell April 24, 2008
Tacoma is not Seattle or Bellevue, nor does it want to be. However, Seattle and Bellevue both have something that Tacoma does not: enough residential density to support a high number of retail and service businesses throughout the downtown areas and in many neighborhood business districts. Tacoma simply lacks the density to allow these businesses to survive. Higher density can be achieved in lower buildings, but taller buildings make it easier. Without the increased density, whether through shorter or taller buildings, Tacoma will never cross the threshold between small town and big city.
O Old Timer April 24, 2008
So the question is posed to you my young drizell. How high should the building heights be in the MLK North/Central mixed use center area. This would be the area from 9th-15th east to Ist and west to Safeway.
E Erik B. April 24, 2008
As cities develop, one building is certainly going to block the view of another. There’s no right for the Wells Fargo building to an an exclusive view in all directions forever just because it was first.
If Seattle had tried to protect all of the views, they would have never had any building higher than Smith Tower.
Relative to other cities, Tacoma has had few large buildings buildings go up in the last 20 years.
both have something that Tacoma does not: enough residential density to support a high number of retail and service businesses throughout the downtown areas
Yep, the number of businesses that can be supported downtown is going to be in direct relation to how many people live in the area or visit. Relatively speaking, downtown is still pretty vacant. The demand still does not support anything more than mid rises.
D Dave April 24, 2008
IMO, nothing should be built any taller than what is existing. The condo next to M.O.G. should ultimately be the tallest building on the waterway or anywhere downhill from “A” St.
H Heather April 24, 2008
Please allow me to pretend I’m Kunstler for a minute or two…
How the bleep do you expect that folks are going to get in and out of their 12th floor apartments when we run out of energy and don’t have enough to run the bleeping elevators? The only people who will be enjoying the views then will be those with wonder woman stamina.