Old Town Tacoma - Old but not designated "Historic"
Old Town Tacoma – that idyllic, largely residential district perched above the once-teeming Ruston Way waterfront – is unabashedly old. But its inhabitants seem unable to come to agreement as to whether this neighborhood should be designated historic, though several of its structures hearken back to the very infancy of Tacoma. The conflict over historic designation for Old Town began in the 1970’s, and seems no closer to resolution now, according to reporting at the Tacoma Daily Index here.
Competing petitions have been presented to the City, both for and against the protections of historic district status. Previous entreaties in favor of historic review did not differentiate between residential areas and the prevailing commercial functions of the area between N. 30th and Ruston Way. This blanket approach contributed to the failure of those efforts. The latest proposal (which is supported by the North End Neighborhood Council) for historic status would exclude that commercial area; but even so, some citizens have been able to gather as many as 150 signatures in opposition to historic designation. These residents seem to base their opposition primarily upon the restrictive construction and remodeling rules historic status would bring.
The issue is an interesting one, and demands serious consideration. What, realistically, is the percentage of architecturally significant historic structures in the proposed area? In this particular neighborhood, would preservation restrictions provide heritage value to the public, or simply present inhibitions to homeowners? What parallels can be drawn between this proposed district and districts already designated as historic? Would historic preservation rules maintain any distinct character in an area with such a patternless mix of older and more modern homes? What, if anything, is lost if designation is never attained?
There will be a Public Information Session by the Landmarks Preservation Commission on April 27 regarding this issue.
Filed under: General
10 comments
R RR Anderson April 14, 2011
Paint it black, call it good. Digital billboard in every pot.. Buy now / invest!
L low bar April 14, 2011
hahahaha the job carr cabin is a replica!!! hahaha nice work tacoma daily index. if making everything historic means you can’t touch it and fuck up the environment even more than it is by building more shit and eyesoring the crap out of puyallup tribal land then historify everything you idiots.
J Jesse April 14, 2011
“What, realistically, is the percentage of architecturally significant historic structures in the proposed area?” — Daniel
Exactly. There’s a real mix of differing aged structures if you look closely. I’d probably tackle historic status structure by structure in Old Town Tacoma.
B Blue Buckle April 14, 2011
Good to see the North Tacoma Chapter of CAVE (Citizens Againste Virtually Everything) is alive and well.
A artifacts April 14, 2011
Residential historic districts work best in neighborhoods that share a common interest in preserving architectural character, authenticity and property values. The neighbors need to understand how tools like the special property tax valuation incentive work to keep and improve existing homes. And how they are stronger collectively in fending off corrosive commercial and institutional encroachment and speculation. The North Slope SRD is a great example, the Wedge District will be and sadly Old Town is not.
J james April 25, 2011
“The North Slope SRD is a great example”. Yeah right! First off, neither the North Slope nor Old Town have a cohesive or consistent enough residential building scale or architectural style to warrant excessive restrictions to new home construction and remodels. Both neighborhoods are a wonderful mix of apartments and small scale commercial, not just single family residential. Zoning codes best protect property owners against “corrosive commercial and institutional encroachment”, if that’s really to be feared in these neighborhoods.
If the Old Town designation leads to anything like the design restrictions of the North Slope SRD, we as property owners will be hand-cuffed to what some group of urban planners and activists think is an appropriate faux-historic style. It’s an awefully ‘broad brush’ to use on neighborhood filled with homes of all eras, scales, and styles. Design standards, like those in the North Slope SRD, don’t help to preserve a neighborhood. They impose foreign, silly, gingerbread aesthetics. I’m all for historic preservation of important buildings, but let’s keep neighborhood designations for areas that truely have a cohesive style worth preserving and not use them to impose historic styles on property owners.
D dolly varden April 26, 2011
I’m not sure the NSHD’s standards are so restrictive if you don’t have a nice — and historically important — old house to begin. My house, for instance, is a craftsman that was (unfortunately) de-craftsmaned before the historic district was formed. For that reason I can do anything I want to it even though it’s next door to an historic house. Leavenworth this ain’t.
T Tacoma Thinker April 26, 2011
I moved into this neighborhood because the old houses seem like remnants of a bygone era and I don’t want you to mess it up with so called creativity. Especially if you hire one of those damn modern architects to design your house. If you must fake it – then do so. There’s nothing wrong with fake. Fake is good. It’s your friend. Nothing should change -ever. Especially if the change means it reflects the condition of the world today. Never ever try something new or unique, it might be (gulp) ugly.
J james April 26, 2011
Dolly varden,
The NS SRD is, unfortunately, much more restrictive on new construction than you make it out be.
Tacoma Thinker,
Can’t quite figure out if you’re being sarcastic or just glib. Yes, modern architecture can be scary. But the huge, fake, plantation house that someone built on North Yakima a few years ago is even scarier. Really, a plantation house? It works with the NS code! These type of “style” codes don’t protect us from bad design. The people making the investment to hire licensed (real) architects probably aren’t what should be feared. A bigger problem is the public perception that “style” codes protect the community, when what they really do is take away rights. And this is coming from a liberal, so don’t chalk this to up to tea-party leanings! I’m all for regulations, but regulations should be objective and prove real benefit to the community. Height, bulk and scale are in the zoning code and they should be. These SRD’s go beyond that, dictating roof slope, decoration, etc.
T tom waits April 27, 2011
Yakima is not in the North Slope.