Exit133

January 8, 2009 · Derek

Proposal To Remove Parking Requirements in the IFSA

As we look back over several years of Exit133, parking discussions seem to cause folks to reminisce. Such interest. Such passion. Yet, it’s been a while. Well … parking may be a hot topic for Tacoma in 2009. Let’s begin!

The City of Tacoma has begun circulating revised parking requirements for our newly formed International Financial Services Area. The proposed amendment would state that, “Minimum and maximum off-street parking requirements do not apply within the International Financial Services Area (IFSA); parking provisions must comply with federal and state ADA regulations.” This would apply to both commercial and residential development within the area.

The goal is to decouple parking requirements from private development. Basically, let the market decide how much parking is required.

This proposal at this point only applies to the IFSA – the special area created by city resolution back in June with the intention of creating incentives for financial services companies. Do you remember the boundaries? Imagine the downhill portion of downtown from South 8th to just past South 15th – Matador to Tollefson Plaza. The western border is Broadway. The eastern border is … a cliff.

The proposed changes went before the city Planning Commission last night and the draft was approved to move forward. What does this mean? Well, it’s that time for public comment. The Planning Commission public hearing will be held on February 4th. Expect to see the City Council public hearing sometime in April. I’m sure you’ll have some opinions.

For more information and background, we highly suggest you read Andre Stone’s now classic open letter about parking.

Previously on Exit133 (Search)

Filed under: Parking

23 comments

  • crenshaw sepulveda January 8, 2009

    Given the state of the economy would anyone want to be connected to something called an “International Financial Services Area”? I think these days we are probably better off having a “Local Soup Kitchen Area”.

  • NSHDscott January 8, 2009

    Won’t need a lot of that parking anyway if the Link is extended into neighborhoods, especially if there is a garage at the far end of the extension (on much cheaper land, presumably).

  • Nick January 8, 2009

    This is great news – though if it passes the timing is a bit unfortunate. With the anticipated decline in the commercial real estate market, developers now have bigger hurdles to overcome to make building downtown viable. Here’s hoping things turn around in a year or so…

  • Jesse January 8, 2009

    Parking is cheap in Portland compared to Seattle because you can park on the outskirts of the city and take light rail or streetcar into your destination.

    Have I been living in a cave??? Mandated surface level parking by the city of Tacoma??? That can’t be true… is it?? Tell me it’s not so… insanely counter-productive.

  • Derek staff January 8, 2009

    Mandated surface level parking by the city of Tacoma???

    No. Not surface level. The city has requirements for off-street parking. Think of the parking garage in the Rainier Pacific Building for example.

  • Thorax O'Tool January 9, 2009

    If we want the city to keep doing good things, we gotta use positive reinforcement.

    Kinda like training a dog… if we don’t tell City Council what we want, and then reward them for that behavior, they’ll just keep peeing in the house and getting into the kitchen trash.

  • drizell January 9, 2009

    It looks like many of the large lots that are currently used for off-street parking (such as the Luzon lot, the TAPCO lot and the post office parking) fall within the IFSA. A couple years ago, Mr. Haub pitched an idea for a 14-story building on his property. Over half of the building was a parking garage to meet the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS of the Tacoma Municipal Code. Perhaps such a building may now actually come to fruition since it will be financially feasible for the first time due the absence of minimum parking requirements.

    This amendment is definitely worthy of our support. It’s a good start, but after it passes the fight should continue so that those regulations apply to not only to the wealthiest property owners in town, but smaller landowners with aspirations of developing their property at an urban intensity.

    There are undoubtedly numerous readers of Exit133 who wish to develop at an urban density, but are literally strangled by these parking regulations.

  • Nick January 9, 2009

    This might also make a great case study for what would be possible if Tacoma removed the parking requirement entirely.

    If this first proposal is approved, and we start to see some explosive growth in the area, it would make an excellent case for then removing the requirement for all of Tacoma. Wouldn’t THAT be nice!

  • Marty January 9, 2009

    Parking in Portland is cheaper because the funds from the parking system remain in the system to improve parking and transit.

    In Seattle the funds go into the general fund. So if Seattle needs money (like now) they raise parking tickets and meter rates.

  • Thorax O'Tool January 9, 2009

    I highly doubt we’d see explosive growth now even if the parking regulations were removed.

    But in 5-10 years when things finally turn around, we could make up for some lost time.
    I’d love to see T-Town get a new Tallest during my lifetime.

  • RR Anderson January 9, 2009

    I wish exit 133 would show more initiative… like throw up a petition or something. google docs makes online forms easy!

    what can people power accomplish? We prevented the Traveller’s lobotomy over at feed tacoma.

    that is all.

  • Thorax O'Tool January 9, 2009

    “I wish exit 133 would show more initiative“

    The Exit 133 tower on the corner of 13th & A… 113 stories costing a cool (2x)$113 million to build.

  • Derek staff January 9, 2009

    The Exit 133 tower on the corner of 13th & A

    We’re still a small company. Maybe 13.3 story mid-sized building. It’s not building to the maximum height of the 13th and A location, but it’s more practical for our current needs.

  • Thorax O'Tool January 9, 2009

    Those who do not dare to dream big will not achieve big.

    ————
    Of course, there is a fine line between dreaming big and taking out a $600 million construction loan…

  • John Sherman January 11, 2009

    Just who needs to drive downtown for any financial business within the IFSA that could quickly be done with just an internet connection, telephone, or a quick trip to an outlining business district with the City of Tacoma?

    And, just thinking about pay-for-parking in Tacoma everywhere: In Tacoma it has never cost-so-much or took-so-long to drive downtown; as a result, motorists would leave their car at home and use a mass-transit system instead, so paying for parking is not a disincentive to drive downtown anywhere, but an an incentive to shop, visit, and recreate at outlying business district areas and other shopping malls.

    Enjoy any new paid parking areas, because I will not visit those areas, so I will let other people support street parking fees that ‘Taxpayers’ paid for the street and the ‘Taxpayers’ might just own many of the off-street parking areas also?

  • Thorax O'Tool January 11, 2009

    “Just who needs to drive downtown for any financial business within the IFSA that could quickly be done with just an internet connection, telephone, or a quick trip to an outlining business district with the City of Tacoma?“

    Some of us (like yours truly) live on Downtown’s doorstep AND like to interact face-to-face with other real-live Homo sapiens.

    Old fashioned, yes.
    But it’s a way of life I don’t want to give up.

  • Jesse January 11, 2009

    “Just who needs to drive downtown for any financial business within the IFSA that could quickly be done with just an internet connection, telephone, or a quick trip to an outlining business district with the City of Tacoma?”

    The IFSA is for financial institutions and not necessarily neighborhood banks, as in, your local WAMU branch or something. It’s for headquarters of banks, processing locations, investment companies, etc. Front office stuff.

  • RR Anderson January 12, 2009

    have you considered CREDIT UNIONS? I hear Tapco is less evil than most banks

  • Thorax O'Tool January 12, 2009

    Yes, yes I have.

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

    How about KeyBank on that list? Don’t know if you know the make-up of Key and/or Bank of Tacoma but Key has a more local “headquarter” than BoT.

    CU’s are great if you need a car loan.

  • Thorax O'Tool January 12, 2009

    I was just counting banks that have their corporate headquarters in town. Key Bank is HQ’d in Cleveland.

    If we’re talking regional HQ’s, we should add Frontier Bank to the list as well. Possibly Wells Fargo too? I’m not exactly sure on those two.

    But regardless, my point was that the IFSA does have more companies than a lot of folk realize. Sure, we don’t have flashy 930 foot towers in the IFSA, but it’s not exactly a ghost town either.

  • John Sherman January 12, 2009

    For some history related to parking meters, downtowns, property values, transit, cars, and then the ‘Taxpayers’ downtown provides a historical reflective view; an interesting book read is:

    Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880-1950
    By Robert M. Fogelson
    Published by Yale University Press, 2003
    ISBN 0300098278, 9780300098273
    492 pages

    http://books.google.com/books?id=V5wH7qzDnnkC

  • Mecha Shiva January 12, 2009

    Thus, I proclaim upon the very mountaintops of the Internet:

    Hear me, O citizens of Tacoma! Your downtown sucks because of Bonney Lake! Truly, it is the rise of sprawl that has doomed our cities to wilt into the Dust of the Ages.