Stadium District Changes on Council Agenda
A sharp eyed reader noted this little item on the city council agenda for December 18th:
Request No. 11628
Vacating a portion of North “G” Street lying between North 1st Street and North 2nd Street, for the purpose of additional parking and provisions of future retail growth opportunities.
This would be the portion of G Street in between the two sides of the Bruce Titus auto lot in the middle of the Stadium Business District.
The last time we wrote about the Stadium District it seemed like everybody on the street knew the story. Do you remember this discussion? So, who has details? What’s coming to our little neighborhood?
(Thank you, Jake)
Filed under: Neighborhoods, Stadium
14 comments
B Broadway resident December 11, 2007
C’mom, I bet you know.
Is it the rumored larger Thriftway/Condo combo?
D drizell December 11, 2007
Whatever it is, with the exception of single-family homes, it will be an improvement over a parking lot. I haven’t heard any of the rumors about the Thriftway. I have heard many people complain about parking at the Thriftway, even those that live two blocks away. If an expanded Thriftway is what this site is destined to become, let’s hope they figure out a more creative way to configure their parking other than having a ginormous surface lot, ala Metropolitan Market and Safeway in Proctor.
E Elliot December 11, 2007
“…for the purpose of additional parking…”
<rant>
Ah Tacoma, you’re so hard to love. Can we just be clear how much parking this city already has? Sometimes you have to park two blocks away in a city. That’s part of URBAN living. If folks want to be able to park in front of where they’re going, they should consider a strip-mall town.
</rant>
E Erik S December 11, 2007
Stadium Thriftway has enough parking, possibly excepting a narrow band between 5-6 on a weeknight. Even though, the current provisions are adequate. There is no sense building capacity for the annual high water mark (whenever that is…maybe the night before Thanksgiving) and letting the space go to waste the rest of the year just so that nobody EVER has to park down the block.
As for that bit of G street, I’d bet it’s for an expansion of the Chevy lot (both “retail expansion” and parking…which they already use the street for) but I hope it turns out to be something better.
E Erik S December 11, 2007
Sorry, I meant “Even then”, not “Even though”.
J Jim C December 12, 2007
An auto dealer is a terrible neighbor to have in a residential area – I live in the apartments right next door and have been enduring their high-powered 24/7 flood lights leaking through my blinds the whole time. They park their cars on the street, and periodically hook up a PA in the lot to yell at passerby in a fruitless attempt to sell more cars. For about a year they had one of those tacky, rainbow-striped inflatable balloon-machine thingies flapping in the breeze 24/7 (just recently they got rid of it.)
Most of all, if this block of G Street is “vacated” and then NOTHING HAPPENS (kind of like how Stadium Way has been in a shambles for over a year because there is a condo tower being constructed that seems to be going NOWHERE – meanwhile there are still about 200 orange barrels all over ther street!) I will concede that the city of Tacoma has no true interest in actually improving downtown, but more in offering motivation to developers and businesses to throw money around for no good reason.
For example: to whoever has mucked up (and is currently mucking) Stadium Way for your obviously ill-timed condo project: good luck unloading those things once you finally finish…
E Elliot December 12, 2007
Jim C,
Amen.
E Erik S December 12, 2007
Right on!
I’ve received dirty looks from a couple of employees when parking on that part of G Street. They already think they own it!
Walking home from the Thriftway Monday night I saw a guy peeing inside of the special sales exxxtravaganza tent is set up now in the north lot of the dealership. Ordinarily I don’t encourage such things, but on this occasion it felt like a form of street justice.
J Jim C December 12, 2007
I guess I hit the right nerve on this post – I was going to re-comment and apologize for my tone, but that doesn’t seem necessary ;)
Honestly, I don’t truly believe that the city has no real interest in improving the Stadium district for its residents (as opposed to being driven solely by developers as I implied) but it does seem, to me, that tighter regulation of these projects could help ease any friction that arises between business and the community. For instance, declare a timetable for the lane closures on Stadium Way. If the city plans on “vacating” a public right-of-way, such as on G, state why and to what benefit, generally, for the community. The vague concept of “parking and future retail” does not imply any community benefit. If, as some including myself suspect, that this block of G will soon be blacktopped and used as more unsold-truck-storage for Titus, then the community is a net loser (of land currently in the public domain) – the thought of which got me on my rant-horse in the first place this morning!
I think I may be attending my first City Council meeting as a Tacoman this coming Tuesday…
Kudos to the “sharp-eyed reader” and Exit 133 blogmaster for linking this so I could find it. I will be checking back more often!
E Erik B. December 12, 2007
Whatever it is, with the exception of single-family homes, it will be an improvement over a parking lot.
I agree. The parking lot is right in the middle of Stadium District now. A big dead zone.
The vague concept of “parking and future retail” does not imply any community benefit.
Retail located where the parking lot is located now would be a great benefit to the community and make Stadium more of a walkable neighborhood with an even great number of options within walking distance for a great many people. This could also reduce the number of car trips needed for nearby residents.
Of all of the mixed use centers in Tacoma, Stadium is likely the most improved in the last 5 years.
E Erik S December 12, 2007
Erik B, I agree that Stadium has made some big advances and that additional retail (technically, other retail) in place of the current car lot would be a boon. My concern is that the proposal is not to replace the car lot with different retailing activities but rather to expand the retailing of cars. Although I shouldn’t speak for Jim C, I believe that he feels the same way.
J Jim C December 12, 2007
I am pretty new to the area (in Tacoma less then two years) but I have definitely heard the horror stories about the way Stadium “used to be”, so I try to keep perspective without the benefit of having experienced the “old” neighborhood.
And, as much as I felt I had to malign Titus Ford in my post, they are a taxpaying business contributing to the infrastructure of the neighborhood – which is more than can be said for a true surface parking lot or set of cleared, unused parcels. What got me going was the language in the ordinance: not just “future retail”, but “provision of future retail growth opportunities”, which says to me: “at the request of some to-be-named developer who doesn’t have any clearly defined plans or financing for a project that will possibly include some mixed-use, eventually. For now, we’ll close it to traffic and Titus can park more cars on it.”
In the real world, good intentions don’t always add up to public benefit, no offense to anyone intended!
P.S. – almost posted before remembering: Tacoma Tent & Awning’s only entrance is on G between 1st & 2nd. They’d have to sell out, I think, before the city could vacate the street and consolidate any of the parcels.
B BrettS December 12, 2007
I’m in support of further further Stadium development, but is it necessary and wise to loose a section of G Street? I’d think not.
I frequently walk this neighborhood and G Street is an important tie to the residential neighborhood beyond. Our streets are a part of our pubilc space, assets, and view corridors. Once lost they are not easily replaced. I could see G Street changing. It serves little vehicular purpose, but could be a great pedestrian oriented street segment with good planing. I could even see granting a street vacancy below grade to allow for underground parking or a connection between two underground parking lots that might spur and ease development. These are the types of partnerships the city should consider to encourage development, not give aways.
While at it, lets make sure we’re preserving buildngs that give Stadium character. The Thriftway should expand within the existing walls of the old automotive building and take advatage of the frontage on mutiple sides of the block. Stadium is a great draw to get people to visit and move to Tacoma. Let’s not mess it up.
M morgan December 14, 2007
This HAS to be a misunderstanding! I can’t believe they would vacate a portion of the street. What portion?
Re: Thriftway –
The most recent report I heard was that they were going to start remoding the current space this Spring, move some departments around, and possibly blow out some walls to make more room.