Exit133

December 9, 2009 · Derek · archive: txp/article

Rethinking Retail at Pacific Plaza

The one significant item on yesterday’s City Council study session was the consideration of a request to remove the retail requirement for part of Pacific Plaza. We first discussed this issue at the beginning of October. Then it got a bit more complicated when we discovered it was the state Attorney General that wanted the space. In today’s meeting, Dan Putnam and team, presented their position on the project, the future of retail, and why they need this change now.

The question before Council relates to the requirement in their agreement that the 35,000 feet on the ground floor of the Pacific Avenue side be used exclusively for retail. Finding a tenant has been a struggle. There are provisions in the contract that allow for alternate uses for the property with Council approval.

To support the Attorney General’s RFP, they need 14,000 feet on the ground floor. This would take 87 of 275 feet of Pacific Avenue frontage away from retail use.

Putnam outlined six reasons why the City should allow the change:

  1. The AG really wants to come to Pacific Plaza and he claims there is no close second place in consideration.
  2. The public benefits with better exposure for their consumer protection division and it adds people to the street.
  3. The AG’s limited exposure adds 50 feet of retail frontage when we consider the removal of the loading dock.
  4. The AG’s guarantees long term parking revenue that is at risk if they don’t locate within the parking system.
  5. The AG’s lease would fill the rest of their building so they can aggressively sign a major retail anchor.
  6. The AG’s lease stabilizes their financial position and reduces the risk of financial non-performance.

“If you approve this, we are committed to bringing retail to this location.”

Much of the discussion revolved around the $1 / year lease to Pacific Plaza for the first floor. The City Manager’s positions is that the rate was set as retail is defined as a public good. If the space isn’t used for retail, the lease rate needs to change to market value in order to avoid the gift of public funds. The definition of market value is the challenge given that Pacific Plaza has spent $8 million improving the space. They argued that the true value is now a negative number. What’s the right answer?

Personally, if you really want to know more about this issue, you should listen to the Study Session archive. It may be worth your time.

For more background, check out the The News Tribune

Previously on Exit133: Rethinking Retail in Downtown Tacoma

Filed under: dowtown-tacoma, tacoma-business

52 comments

  • Nick December 9, 2009

    “1. The AG really wants to come to Pacific Plaza and he claims there is no close second place in consideration.”

    I think we all know the AG was considering many locations downtown, including that Jet building owned by Chihuly.

    “If you approve this, we are committed to bringing retail to this location.”

    I’m sorry, didn’t you already make that commitment when forming a legally-binding agreement to exclusively host retail along Pacific? It doesn’t inspire confidence in any new claims to commitment when previous commitments have been backpedaled.

  • Nick December 9, 2009

    In all fairness, I do understand the desire to be flexible considering the economic circumstances and the current state of retail growth.

    How about a compromise? How about a long-term commitment to having 100% retail along Pacific, with a short-term agreement (say a 5 year allowance) to temporarily lease the space for other uses?

    That addresses the immediate need to fill the space while not sacrificing the long-term need to develop downtown (and specifically Pacific Ave.) into a walkable/livable place rich with retail options.

  • jamie from thriceallamerican December 9, 2009

    Also…“The public benefits with better exposure for their consumer protection division and it adds people to the street.” — Um, no, actually it’s just moving employees across the street, no net gain/loss of people on the street.

    Even if it is for the best for City Council to approve this agreement, Putnam’s comments on this are disingenuous and only serve to remind me of his role in the Luzon destruction.

  • Patricia December 9, 2009

    Would the AG still want it at market rate rent? Or are they just looking for a sweet deal? If they are willing to pay market rate and agree to a short lease as Nick suggests, I say let’s allow it. Then, if the owners are able to bring in retail for the rest of the space AND it looks like the AG’s office is drawing pedestrians and serving the public need after 5 years, THEN we can consider extending the lease.

    If a large employer like the AG’s office moves in, that could support small retail shops that cater to those folks. It would be a start.

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 9, 2009

    Why do people think that Pacific is some magic area for retail. Retail is in the toilet all over the country, what makes people think it will work on Pacific here in Tacoma? Am I missing something here? Having the AG office in the location is a start, do we really want that space vacant for years to come otherwise?

  • Morgan December 9, 2009

    For once, I agree with crenshaw. The question is really “how long do we want to wait for retail to come to Pacific.” I want it as much as the next person, but the market is trying to tell us something and we have our fingers in our collective ears.

    There is one other side benefit – the space they are vacating is freed up to alow someone else to move in at “Class C” rates.

  • jamie from thriceallamerican December 9, 2009

    I think many of us are concerned about the lease length. 10 years is a lot of time for the retail market to rebound and actually create some demand…

  • RR Anderson December 9, 2009

    trying to think of the appropriate cliche comment… what fits better? Robbing Peter to pay Paul OR Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic ??

  • Altered Chords December 9, 2009

    This is a good time to step back and examine our goals. There are plenty of downtown cores that have no retail. Maybe we’re one of them. Restaurants yes. But retail? What kind of retail will attract customers? Do we really need it in Pacific Plaza?

    Am I the only one that doesn’t sit in my downtown office wishing I could buy underwear the next block over? With a little careful plannin, I can buy underwear when I buy spinach at Costco.

    There’s no close 2nd to anyone wanting the space because retailers can see that the space is a dog for a retailer.

  • justanothergeoduck December 9, 2009

    Our city’s vision shouldn’t shift with every change in the prevailing winds. Somebody is steering this ship, right?

  • Nick December 9, 2009

    I also don’t wish I could buy underwear a block over from my downtown office. I DO wish I could buy a new pair of jeans, grab a new umbrella, pick up some groceries, and maybe snag a new lamp for my living room a block over.

    Yes other downtown cores don’t have retail, but that’s not the kind of place I want to live. Nor is it the most efficient way to design things.

    Also, the purpose of a downtown core is, by design, to focus economic activity in a general area. It promotes collaboration, improves the efficiency at which economic value is created, and reduces the cost of participation within the local economy. Last time I checked, consumer spending was a very significant component of our economy.

  • Mofo from the Hood December 9, 2009

    Bait and switch.

  • Nick December 9, 2009

    … also the loss of Russell should have taught us the value of diversification, and not placing all our eggs in one basket. That extends beyond our employers.

    Right now our downtown portfolio is not very balanced, heavily weighted towards professional employment. Like any investment, our downtown should be diversivied between employment, retail, and residential (among other things). Guess which of those we are most notably missing?

  • rick December 9, 2009

    Generally speaking, retailers make rational decisions based upon some fairly sophisticated models and buckets of market research data. These business professionals work diligently to avoid an epically stupid business decision — like investing in a retail location in a ghost town, you know, like downtown Tacoma after 5pm. Or downtown Tacoma at any hour on the weekend. “If we build it, they will come” is not a succesful strategy (well, maybe for Wal-Mart). Please make all lamp, underwear, spinach, umbrella and jean purchases at/near the mall and move along… Now, can we please get back to the topic of streetcars?

  • Altered Chords December 9, 2009

    I guess I buy lamps and jeans far less frequently than others that work downtown.

    How many lamps are you planning on purchasing this year Nick?

    Because if you are going to purchase 52 lamps this year and everyone else who works downtown is going to do that, then I’m opening “Altered Chords Lamp Store” downtown.

    I might even consider Pacific Plaza as a location.

  • T-Town December 9, 2009

    Tacoma has a problem with good ol’ boys. See, if you let developers get too cozy with the city manager, they tend to get whatever they want. Putnam wanted to city to cough up 20 million for indoor parking renovation. Then he demanded the city destroy the Luzon. Now he claims parking revenue will not materialize if the AG does not move in. He masterfully tailors agreements so he garners all the profits and Tacoma takes all the risks. Have we not seen this with condo developers?
    As long as we have the stench of desperation there will always be developers and investors ready to take advantage of a panicky city government. Let’s move slowly, invest in housing that is affordable and brings taxpaying renters into the city. Support small businesses that open shop – not developers. Create live-work code already! Close a few streets to traffic altogether and create a walk able center. Turn all the empty parking lots along Pacific into temporary green spaces with street food vendors. This happens all around the world. Why Tacoma is still stuck in the 60’s I can’t understand. Please, new city council, move us into the future.

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 9, 2009

    At 9th and Pacific, above the Hal of a Sub is the former Linconshire Hotel. It is vacant. A fair number of units up there can be housing. Why is it just sitting vacant? I forget how many room the old Linconshire had but I suspect even as single rooms they’d make fine studio apartments.

    Get the people living downtown and pretty much the rest follows. We are still several thousand housing units away from having a viable downtown. Fancy condos are fine but we need housing in all income areas. Same thing with subsidized housing like the Winthrop or the Olympus. We need more than the lowest rung of the economic ladder living downtown. A bit of diversity would be welcome.

  • Nick December 9, 2009

    Part of the problem with downtown retail is that Rick is correct, larger retailers select locations systematically and not on a gut feeling. The problem is, much of the market data they are basing decisions on predates the recent increase in residential growth downtown (as well as any change in demographics). The other problem of course, is that right now there are very few, if any, retailers looking at adding new locations. So even if they had market data current enough to include the recent population growth/change in demographics, now is also not the time to open up shop.

    Again this boils town to a timeline problem. Retail isn’t going to happen now, but it will most likely pencil out in the future. The issue at hand is whether or not public policy will position Tacoma to capitalize on opportunity when it does happen.

    Also, a place that sells those 52 lamps I need (read: any viable retailer) has to exist somewhere. I’d prefer it exist next to where I can also work and live, and not a congested 20 minute drive away at a soul-sucking mall in a sea of asphalt.

  • captiveyak December 9, 2009

    Jamie is right. The term of the lease is really the weak point in the argument. I think it’s reasonable to want to fill empty space during a down economy. After all, even if newer demographic studies are used, anchoring retail at Pacific Plaza is going to be a tough sell. But I don’t think a 10-year lease is an honest way to deal with it.

    Pacific Plaza is NOT a golden plum for the kind of rooted, recognizable retail that we need. It sits on a primary arterial street — excuse me — THE primary arterial street in a downtown area with a challenging topography of near-vertical cross streets. It’s a broad, highway-like road through an area well-suited for business development (i.e.: People parking for 8 hours at a time, limited locus of travel, easy access to freeway). Until a new street plan emerges, retaielrs are going to be worried about the convenience of access — i would think. Sure, there are lots of parking garages. But just look at Pacific Avenue — only a few blocks of it are really laid out for walking. Very few vibrant windowfronts. Broad street surrounded by relatively low horizons and space and gaps. Classic “i don’t want to walk here” psychology. The human element feels secondary to the traffic element.

    I’ve seen retail work in similar areas — the Macy’s downtown Seattle comes to mind — but every other example i think of comes with mitigating factors. Macy’s is near the convention center and Pike Market. There are several arterial circuit travel paths through and around the shopping area. The area is infinitely more walker friendly. There are multiple attractions balancing out the business atmosphere.

    Trying to force retail into Pacific Plaza right away is kind of like trying to get the Prom Queen to listen to your new Guided By Voices mixtape. It would be badass if the prom queen fell in love with Guided By Voices, but if you want a crack at it, you’ve got to be craftier. Work from the outside in. I think Division, Stadium, and the other districts surrounding downtown have a real potential for developing into the kind of lovely funkified shopping districts that are specfically designed to make people say, “Oh my slow down that looks funky i bet they have goat cheese or wool coats with large buttons!”

    Again, though, we need to know the rationale for the 10 year lease. The US economy doesn’t even run on a 10-year cycle anymore.

  • Erik B. December 10, 2009

    From my understanding, the AG would only take 25 percent of the retail frontage.

    Given the benefits of keeping the AG in the core of downtown (as they are likely to leave) as well as have a good chance of a grocery store are enough to change the terms.

    I would certainly argue for retail if the market would support it, but at this location, it does not.

    The best option for the city at this point is to agree to the change.

  • Jesse December 10, 2009

    The lack of retail downtown is a symptom of larger problems. Until the larger problems are fixed, retail will continue to die. There are only two fixes I can think of:

    1. Move the Simons Mall farther from downtown so the only major option for shopping, within a reasonable distance, is downtown.

    2. Flood the downtown with people who aren’t in the entitlement classes or have below average incomes.

    If I am opening a business, I want it near people with money to buy my goods and I want a lot of those people within a short distance so I’ll survive and thrive. Tacoma does not have that.

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 10, 2009

    Jesse, sounds like you are talking about Seattle.

  • Jesse December 10, 2009

    CS: Why? Is Tacoma not good enough to compete for good jobs and therefore higher earning city dwellers? Aim higher.

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 10, 2009

    Does anyone remember the retail that was at Pacific Plaza before it became Pacific Plaza?

  • joe-nate December 10, 2009

    City managers are the mischief-makers in Mayor Bill “Milquetoast” Baarsma’s Tacoma. City government bought Bimbo’s special sauce recipe in the convention center project but tossed the vintage pans: such a useless investment. If you want old-time Park Plaza South retail again, bring back the Dairy Dell and Taco Time. City Manager-style government is efficient but lacks vision. Baarsma was a great caretaker but hardly a man of brilliant outlook—just a consensus man who never rocked the boat on historic preservation: let the bricks of Charles Wright’s NPRR boomtown fall (is Old City Hall next?). Pacific Plaza is a consensus project and it is ironic that the AG jobs at issue are ones merely relocated from elsewhere in town, not new economic development. Pacific Plaza is a game but, in a town known for “inertia” to have setbacks as acceptable in the civic character, as relayed to me by the late historian Murray Morgan years ago, the only good that could come of letting the AG occupy such space is to force the developers of Pacific Plaza to operate a grocery store themselves if no other retailers are available. The city cannot wobble on that issue: Pacific Plaza owners must become retailers. If they are sucking on tax dollars for private benefit, they better provide a public benefit. The public should have a say in the rat-hole of public money used to subsidize private projects downtown that fail to meet their promised expectations. Yet expect the city manager to play games on the storefront issue—the council may let him get away with it as they later have cocktails with the city’s ruling class and congratulate themselves on their narrow visions of civic good. Exit 133 is one outlet for a call for transparency. One must hope good things will happen and public discourse is important in that process. Tacoma can do better than subsidize the ambitions of private parties now trying to change a promise made to the taxpayers.

  • You're Welcome December 11, 2009

    We can’t compare ourselves to Seattle. We’re so much better then that! If I wanted to be Seattle, then I would live there.

    I think the lack of retail has everything to do with the lack of population! 4,935 in the downtown T-town zip code. Do you still want to compare with Seattle? 10,632 live in the shopping core. And they have major malls to compete with on each end of the city!

    What makes a healthy downtown that attracts visitors and people? Why can’t we become a cool college town like Madison WI or Boise ID (I’m serious, visit one of those cities sometime and see what I mean). Our downtown should focus on the younger generation. Affordable and small apartments for students. Not gluttonous condos nobody in Tacoma can afford. And more bars and clubs so that kids can bar hop instead of spend the whole night at 1 place (and all of their $$). Make an awesome transportation system that targets that age group, like the military bases that are full of young singles who want to go clubbing. Movies? Ice skating rink? Outdoor theater? Whatever else those young-whipper-snappers like to do.

    I loves me some nice nights out at the fancy downtown restaurants, but I spend more money at Red Hot and The Spar. Targeting our downtown to the stuffy upper-class ain’t working.

  • Jesse December 11, 2009

    Cool area = people wanting to live there = high rents.

  • TacomaThinker December 11, 2009

    @25JN
    Very nice idea…let the owners subsidize the grocery store and enable people to move to downtown. Give Retail a reason to open. Make the project a financially successful model for future development. Keep the AG from moving to the Mall – which if anyone hasn’t noticed is real competition for big office space tenants. How would that feel?

  • Mofo from the Hood December 11, 2009

    Recommendation 1:

    Call it PACIFIC PLAZA MALL

  • Mofo from the Hood December 11, 2009

    Recommendation 2:

    Bikini Barista’s

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 11, 2009

    They tried the subsidized model for the Fedex store at the Convention Center, big failure there. Fedex couldn’t cut it even with the discount rent. You have to figure that downtown is kind of bad news for retail, even a State liquor store on Pacific ended up shutting down. You’d think the market for liquor would have been pretty good downtown.

  • Mofo from the Hood December 11, 2009

    Recommendation 3:

    Bikini Attorney Generalettes

  • CA December 11, 2009

    Drive around downtown and you’re gonna need your hands and feet to count all the empty retail/commercial units. Clearly there is not much of a demand for retail space, or leasers are still clinging to lease rates from a few years ago-thus nobody can afford it. I have no problem with the AG getting ground floor space. Lets face it, the economy is going to be difficult for quite some time, it may be a while before retail recovers.

    Asking the developer to remain committed to retail, in this economy, is a little like telling condo developers they cannot convert their buildings to apartments.

    Markets change.

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 11, 2009

    There are some things that can be done. Give NEW retail in downtown a break on the B&O tax would be a good start. Maybe even help some of the struggling retail with a break on the B&O. The landlords should really consider dropping the rates on the rents so that there can be some infill on the retail. Seems to me that good retail could bring on more. It certainly will help to have all the Attorneys General in the neighborhood, especially with the departure of Russell. Sure they will clear out by 5 PM, but pretty much everyone does.

  • Altered Chords December 11, 2009

    I actually heard that the reason Pastrami’s closed is because the landlord RAISED their rent.

    Is it true that even a liquor store can’t make it on Pacific Avenue?

  • dolly varden December 11, 2009

    A FedEx shop is totally different from, and lacks the drawing power of a Trader Joe’s or a Whole Foods. Those businesses would do well down there and bring more business and people with them. I’ve seen it happen in many other previously dead or sketchy neighborhoods, in many different cities.

  • Altered Chords December 11, 2009

    Isn’t there a grocery store finally being constructed at 25th and Yakima? It looks way to tall to be a grocery store. Does anyone know what it really is?

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 12, 2009

    If a Trader Joe’s would do well in downtown Tacoma they’d already be there. How the heck does University Place get a Trader Joe’s, they don’t even have a university. False advertising if you ask me.

  • Mortey December 12, 2009

    Developers Pleasants and Moses say they have a grocery store for the ELKs project. Putnum says he has one for Pacific Plaza. Someone’s not telling the truth because Downtown won’t support 2 grocery stores. PS. The Attorney General is already at 11th and Pacific so their employees are already shopping and eating and drinking coffee Downtown. They are also already renting parking downtown at North Plaza…so no gain there either. Creating one vacancy to fill another, this is just a pure developer bailout package.

  • TacomaThinker December 12, 2009

    Isn’t losing Russel enough? Wouldn’t it be awful to lose another group of people – this time to the mall? Doesn’t the AG in PP mean a grocery store within walking distance of UW – not a 5-10 minute drive as would be at the Elks?

    Results are good, Iron fists are bad.

    Let them move in to PP

  • jp solyom December 12, 2009

    Retail like fungus naturally sprouts up in the vicinity of a source of compatible nutrients. High end retail thrives in the vicinity of high income neighborhoods.
    It appears that the city planners have done little to create clusters of homogeneous residents with similar interests and income levels. Students have little money but want to be entertained late into the night and need to make noise. Retirees look for safety, convenience and quiet after 9 pm. They do not feel safe when confronted by idle packs of much stronger individuals hanging around strategic pedestrian points. So maybe planners could better segregate the population groups so that eventually there is a sufficiently large homogeneous group of people with similar lifestyles to support the desired retail.

  • Mofo from the Hood December 12, 2009

    I drove south from 7th and Pacific tonight around 7:30 and there was a fair amount of traffic and also filled diagonal parking spaces on the street.

    There’s a fair amount of vacant store fronts too, but they’re mostly high-end looking store fronts. Let’s call it inventory. Downtown Tacoma has some great inventory. Time to move some product. Let’s go. Turn the page. Start now. Ready, Set, Go!

  • KinTTown December 12, 2009

    Amen, Mofo. If we focus on the doom/gloom then the situation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Saying that nothing will ever work and we should give up our naive, pie-in-the sky visions of what Tacoma could become isn’t helping anyone or anything. Solutions, people.
    And why couldn’t downtown support two grocery stores? The Safeway and Metro Market are right across the street from each other and they both seem to be doing fine in Proctor. And why can’t one be smaller, like a Red Apple market, catering to the basic food and toiletry needs of college students in the UW Tacoma area?
    Why does it have to be all/nothing?

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 12, 2009

    I am surprised that the idea of having two grocery stores in downtown Tacoma hasn’t already occurred to any developers already. From what I am seeing here there is more than enough market to cover both stores and make the owners quite prosperous.

  • Mofo from the Hood December 14, 2009

    Saturday morning was sunny at 9am and so I walked from the densely populated Stadium district to downtown. From 1st and Tacoma Ave. to 9th & Broadway the walking time is about 15 minutes. I continued south on Broadway to 15th, where the Convention Center was built right in the middle of the street. So I hooked a left and then a quick right between the Marriot and the C.Center. Then I cut down 17th St. to Pac. Ave and onward to South 21st St. and then right to the alley and then right again northward toward the 19th St. staircase in the middle of UWT. Then up the steps to Market St. and northward to St. Helens, and up 6th Ave. and then through Wright Park back to Stadium D.—-Timewise, round trip is about an hour and a half.

    Overall impression: The buildings that I passed, especially at UWT, are a tidy mix of century-old brick and modern steel and glass. For the most part of my route the buildings and the streets look very well maintained and extraordinarily clean. Wright Park looks trimmed and nearly free of leaf fall. And oddly enough, the park and downtown was nearly free of people too.

    I see that the subtitle of this post is Business Math 101. From a pragmatic standpoint, renting Pacific Plaza to the AG is a logical decision with a highly probable stable and predictable future.

    I still think the Pacific Plaza storefront is possibly the most attractive entry downtown even considering all the other storefronts that I viewed on Saturday. I can easily imagine high-end retail in those windowed units at Pacific Plaza.

    There is something fundamentally flawed about how downtown is presented to potential tenants.

    I’m saying that before one gets to Business Math 101, the downtown environment needs to be explained—-from the outstanding buildings and distribution channels to the city’s central Puget Sound location.

    Regarding Pacific Plaza and the AG and Business Math 101, it is fundamental to generate cash flow.

    But the flaw in the Pacific Plaza planning is that the effort to procure retail tenants always had the fall-back option to restructure a contract compromise. I understand that business is about compromise. However, this particular business deal should be categorized as strictly retail because the downtown environment needs diversity. Now.

    Get out and walk downtown. The cityscape is more visually dynamic than ever.

  • RR Anderson December 14, 2009

    can someone set up a google street view map following Mofo’s winter wonderland Downtown tour?

  • TacomaThinker December 15, 2009

    I wonder what your Mofo time might be if you started at 4:00pm on a weekday?

  • Mofo from the Hood December 15, 2009

    Here’s walking time from 1st & Tacoma Ave. to the Post Office on South 40th & Cedar St..

    I started at 7pm and arrived at 8:22pm—-8 minutes before the last pick-up.

    I walked south on Tacoma Ave to the new Goodwill Building on S.27th and turned right up the hill to Yakima Ave. and cut over to S. 28th to J St., then down to Center ST.. Then I walked west to S. M ST., turned left and headed to 38th St. (there was a guy under the M ST. overpass making camp for the night). I made a right turn at 38th ST. and headed west. The sidewalk stops about a block past S. Alaska St. where a sign directs pedestrians to use the walking bridge over I-5, about two blocks right. Once over the bridge, I looped back over to 38th and used the stoplight crosswalk by Borders Books. Then I headed west again on 38th St. and turned left one block before Cedar ST. and then right at 39th and left at Cedar and across the P.O. parking lot to the indoor mail drop.

    Walking back to the Stadium Distict, I headed north on Cedar St. to 6th Ave and then turned right. When I got to Jason Lee Middle School at Sprague St., I followed Division Ave.. I got home at 9:50pm., so the way back was about the same travel time.

    If Pacific Plaza had a U.S. Post Office with a mail pick-up after 8pm, I think it would be a benefit to the community.

  • Altered Chords December 15, 2009

    During the deep freeze last week it occured to me that I needed milk for a side dish I was making.

    I put on an extra shirt, a sock on each foot, a shoe on each foot, a heavy winter parka like coat and a knit hat.
    elapsed time: 3 minutes

    I left my front door and headed south arriving at the intersection of 38th and Sheridan. I waited for a lull in traffic so that I could crosss the street, walked through the Safeway parking lot and found the milk section. I made my milk selection and purchased it and retraced my steps home.
    elapsed time out of house: 7 minutes.

    It took me 2X longer to get to the store as it did to get dressed to go outside.

    I demand that a grocery store be built right next to my house!

  • MrsIllich December 15, 2009

    The City Council is voting tonight on this proposal, from what I have been told. Please take time today to make sure your opinion is known to the Council. Park Place Cafe, Austin Chase, and Brodsky’s weren’t a fluke..retail can work if the City tries hard enough.

  • dni December 16, 2009

    Mortey @ 39. The story I heard is that there will not be two stores and neither location will be happening soon. It is also my understanding that without the anchor tenant of a grocery store in the Elks, the project won’t go forward. Is it the chicken, or the egg? Another big wait and see.

  • crenshaw sepulveda December 16, 2009

    In the mean time the city of Tacoma has given the developers of the Elks almost half a million bucks to play with. Can anyone say nice fat christmas bonuses for the developers?