State Attorney General Picks Pacific Plaza

TacomaThinker November 17, 2009

wonderful, now let’s get the grocery store, sell some condos, and get a water taxi to Urban Waters

Morty November 17, 2009

It’s a zero sum gain…the Attorney General is vacating 38,000 sq ft to take 33,000 sq ft 1 block away. They are willing to leave $15 a sq ft to pay 30.50 per sq ft or $570,000 per year to pay $1,006,500 per year…..and tens of thousands of dollars in moving cost to do it. What an outrage! A very poor use tax payer money!

6ther November 17, 2009

Typical T Town

Squid November 17, 2009

Wait a second. They are going to use prime street level space meant for retail for lawyers offices? This doesn’t even rise to re-arranging Titanic deck chairs status.

C’mon, even UWT was able to lease out street level retail.

jamie from thriceallamerican November 17, 2009

Yeah, this is total crap. Sorry to not have anything more insightful to say, but if we’re going to give up retail space it ought to at least be for someone who isn’t just carrying their office supplies across two streets and down the block…

RR Anderson November 17, 2009

It’s really funny… but why am I crying inside?

I voted for change.

DaveyDog November 17, 2009

Pacific Plaza was developed because it was supposed to offer great retail space downtown. And now that it’s built they want to change the use…..no way. Changing the use for one developer is a mistake and sets a bad precedent. Retail is difficult for everyone but if all the store fronts are allowed to convert to private offices downtown retail will disappear altogether

crenshaw sepulveda November 17, 2009

meh, there wasn’t much retail there to begin with, it seems that no one is stepping forward to rent it as retail space. How long do we want to keep this space vacant? Surely it can be converted back to retail use in the future if such an opportunity arrives.

Nick November 17, 2009

The only problem I have with it is that the justification for using public funds (read: TAX PAYER MONEY) was that it was going to provide a public good in the form of street-level retail. Now that part (or all?) of it will not be, how about refunding the city?

Personally, I’d love to see the city try some things to make retail happen there before we give up and let it be offices. How about a 5 or 10 year B&O tax abatement for retail-class businesses operating in that space? I know it’s a bit late, but sheesh…

dolly varden November 17, 2009

I’d support the city giving Trader Joe’s free rent in that space. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Dan November 17, 2009

Wow. This is depressing. Great for the building owners and bad for the City, State taxpayers and anyone who was hoping that there might be a reason to go downtown someday.

So, if I am understanding this correctly, the owners of this building got City aid to build the building, they are getting a State tenant to pay a strikingly high lease rate in a depressed economy with TONS of commercial space available, and they were the “experts” that the City turned to in deciding whether to tear down the Luzon Building next door. Things sure seem to work out well whenever the owners of that building have a meeting with someone who works for the government.

Jesse November 18, 2009

Making prime Pacific Ave storefront space into offices? Sad.

If they plan on staying in t-town long-term, why don’t they just build thier own building on one of the many vacant lots? In the long run, it’d be cheaper.

Altered Chords November 18, 2009

So the AG is increasing their annual rent expense by $436,500?

What’s our defecit?

Is this a bad dream?

DaveyDog November 18, 2009

If the city’s going to permit this property to change from retail to office use, other property in the downtown area ought to receive equal treatment.

TacomaThinker November 18, 2009

Tacoma is now doomed because three or four bays of windows won’t sell things and the Mariners are not going to win the World Series because they re-signed Ken Griffey Jr.

@10 you may not realize how close you’ve come to hitting the target

Thorax O'Tool November 18, 2009

I give up.

offbroadway November 18, 2009

ToT @ #16 “I give up”
Yeah, after all these years, I finally did, too. Luzon was last straw. Funny, I thought I’d feel better. But pushing this Tacoma noodle any more I am not.

Coco from Tacoma November 18, 2009

This just blows me away. The developer agrees to accept some kind of subsidy and promises to offer prime retail space in order to revive downtown and now the space is going to be used for commercial? Is this even legal? Why aren’t people making more of a fuss about this?

I have grown very fond of Tacoma. Downtown has so much potential and it is sad to see it looking like a ghost town due to lack of retail. I know the retail/commercial real estate market is hurting right now but this just does not make sense.

The notion of free rent to Trader Joes is a good one however not realistic because of the lack of parking but I think they could have tried to be a little more creative.

And on another note, isn’t that taxpayer money the attorney general will be using to move? And how do they justify paying double the square footage price? This fact alone is outrageous.

We need to write to the people we elected who promised to represent our best interests and the local paper. Write to your councilman. Do not give up so easily!!!

Douglas Tooley November 18, 2009

A bit of a tangent here, but Downtown Tacoma would be a good choice for State functions now based in Olympia – especially those focused on serving the Metropolitan Puget Sound.

The Thurston County hold on the State Bureaucracy could use at least a bit of a shakeup.

Mofo from the Hood November 18, 2009

Who ever said Tacoma has to make sense?

jamie from thriceallamerican November 18, 2009

@Coco, regarding lack of parking…the building is (wait for it) a parking garage. Seems like they could work something out.

captiveyak November 18, 2009

Such a fundamental change in use conditions for the space falls short of travesty, for sure. Every other day, one could look at a new event in Tacoma and say “The writing’s on the wall.” After a while, it’s just a wall and it’s just writing. The writing might say, “I like candybars” rather than “Wal-Mart is in your backyard tomorrow.”

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again — because i said it very quietly the first time: Tacoma needs to cater to the younger, educated market brought by the UWT campus. I am absolutely foolhardily confident that such a strategy would yield desireable results. Tacoma simply can’t outfox Seattle (for now) in attracting business development en masse. So, from that perspective, encouraging the government/bureaucracy/AG presence seems like a neat move. More of that should happen.

Whether it should happen in the PP, I don’t know.

Can Tacoma attract the kind of retail that we’d want to see in PP? For that specific location? I don’t know. Probably not until 2012 or thereabouts. Occupied space is occupied space.

In terms of overall vision, though —- yeah. It is a little bit of a discouraging prospect. There does seem to be a trending lack of concern for smart development in Tacoma. I am concerned about the sociological savvy of the City’s government.

So, all in all… I guess I could say I’ll wait and see how I feel about this.

jamie from thriceallamerican November 18, 2009

It seems worth pointing out explicitly that we’re talking about a 10 year lease here. So yes, we could someday convert the space back to retail, but someday is relatively far away.

captiveyak November 18, 2009

I agree ten years is a long time, and if you’re going to even bother talking about “someday”, you have to draw the line “somewhere”. This might indeed be the place to draw the line. I don’t know for sure.

It’s just not a particularly suprising move for any municipal gov’t in a situation like this. A decision of this nature in this kind of economy is certainly not unique to Tacoma. That doesn’t mean it’s not disappointing. I’m just not outraged because I’m not suprised.

Altered Chords November 18, 2009

Mr. Yak – It is my opinion that the AG move there is not “neat”. They are currently only a block or 2 away from park plaza. They’re already here.

Perhaps Gov. Gregoire would like me to feel pleased that the AG will have more plush offices soon but I don’t and I’m not pleased that the money I am sending to the state is being used to occupy space that could be contributing to a vibrant downtown.

That does it. I’m not paying sales tax anymore.

6ther November 18, 2009

@25 – Oh that’ll show them.

Well I’ll “one up” you pal.

I’m so mad, I’m gonna do nothing about it.

captiveyak November 18, 2009

The solution is clear: We all pool our resources to open our own retail store. I could sell drivel. I’m not sure what the rest of you bring to the table, but let’s discuss.

Altered Chords November 18, 2009

I can sell anything.

Drivel? You bet.

It comes with a 90 day guarantee and best of all, there’s NO SALES TAX!

joe-nate November 19, 2009

Irony. Forty-plus years ago, retail was set for Park Plaza South’s Pacific Avenue side. Some of that side stayed as empty dirt spaces for years until influential business folks got a variance to put surface parking in there screened by bars. The new Pacific Plaza is more lipstick on the same pig, except for the added insult its developers managed to get the adjacent Luzon Building torn down. That building was ripe for preservation a la the circa-1889 Brooklyn Block at the base of 1201 3rd Ave. in Seattle. Developers get whatever they want at Tacoma City Hall—to heck with aesthetics. Taxpayers foot the bill—it was not so long ago the city bought the Park Plazas from the banks that built them and is now turning at least one of them again over to the private sector. Such a lack of vision—if you wanted to see something like Pacific Plaza, go to Bellevue. Luzons cannot be found there and are now rare in Tacoma central business district.

RR Anderson November 19, 2009

why doesn’t CaptiveYak have a column on this exit 133 site?

subterranean November 19, 2009

I can’t fault the City too much for playing a zero sum game – that behavior is created at the top of the pyramid and it would have been another negative headline if the AG had left downtown Tacoma altogether.

I think, though, that the problem with trying to specialize in a cluster of government/municipal services/offices is that you end up with things like the Federal Court house on Pacific, it is completely out of touch with the type of aesthetic we are trying to achieve on Pacific Avenue. It creates a distinct separation between the sidewalk and the use (fencing) and separates the two museums as well as creates a kind of dead area. Nor does it maximize the possible height or mix of uses. Municipal buildings tend also to be designed for a kind of authority aesthetic, seat of power type architecture, rather than something that is conducive to a vibrant pedestrian atmosphere. Not that it isn’t possible to have a government building that achieves that, but the historical odds are long indeed.

tressie November 19, 2009

Teacher, captiveyak is copying off my paper…and Pittsburgh’s and Philly’s…and Brooklyn’s…..

on another note. Don’t bother with retail in Tacoma anymore. Walmart and Costco beat you to it. Unless you sell alcohol and hotdogs, nobody is buying.

RR Anderson November 19, 2009

glad somebody said it. The federal Courthouse in the Union Station is lame. May as well have a server farm in there.

You're Welcome November 19, 2009

Union Station was a crumbling mess before the courthouses took it over.

Altered Chords November 19, 2009

I like the way the Federal courhouse looks. I hope I never need to see it on the inside. Much like the AG offices wherever they may be.

captiveyak November 19, 2009

What if the AG’s new office really does refelct the soul of Tacoma? Would we accept this reflection of ourselves? What if we took all of our deepest longings and cast them into a Tacoma Zeitgeist Cauldron, and the most exciting thing that emerged was Tollefson Plaza? WHAT IF?

RR Anderson November 19, 2009

@37

who do you think you are, edgar allen poe?

tressie November 19, 2009

Union Station is better as a courthouse than a bus station, but then I’m a whimsikel paralegal. It’s not Tacoma’s fault the terrorists made the parking and fences necessary……It was gonna go the way of the Luzon, but for locals jumping up and down and making beauty happen ….I’ll always remember the day they installed the new bright shiny copper roof! WOW!

offbroadway November 19, 2009

You did it again, tressie – Us old-timers sure remember that. If I remember correctly, the roof was re-created by U.S. Sheetmetal (of Tacoma), stamped from the same dies that made the orginal. Saying we’d prefer another use for the station now is easy. Back then it was a miracle it wasn’t razed. It’s largely bottom-up efforts that have saved Tacoma. Too bad those efforts aren’t successful more often.

Erik B. November 19, 2009

The federal Courthouse in the Union Station is lame. May as well have a server farm in there.

The courthouse is actually added to Union Station. The station has stayed pretty much the same.

BonBon45 November 19, 2009

Just a couple things – #7 DaveyDog, Pacific Plaza was not developed for the purpose of providing “great retail space downtown”. It was developed because the then-existing structure was a completely hideous parking garage that nobody used. It does have space for retail, though, and the developers are likely to get it filled now that most of the building is occupied. #11 Dan, the developers of Pacific Plaza were not the “experts” that the city used in determining that the Luzon had to go. #21, Jamie from thriceallamerican, yes the new building has several levels of parking. However, it is a lot more than that, with floors of really beautiful spaces, and a green roof. #29, Joe-nate, the new Pacific Plaza is not “lipstick” on the same pig – have you compared it to the old structure? And it’s development had nothing to do with the razing of the Luzon. I know that that action angered many Tacomans, but don’t blame it on Pacific Place.

The new Pacific Plaza is a beautiful building that fits in with the renaissance of downtown Tacoma. I remember as a child, riding with my mother through downtown – and her having us duck down in the car because she thought it was so dangerous. Tacoma has come a long way and I am really happy that so many citizens stuck with her and make Tacoma their home. Although the government offices that will now inhabit part of the building will pay the rent from taxpayers money, all of the staff from the AG’s office and the other government offices will daily send money into the local economy – and we should feel grateful that they have decided to stay in Tacoma.

Dan November 19, 2009

Well thanks BonBon. I guess almost everyone stands corrected. Here’s some info for you to consider from the October 31 article in the TNT. It seems to indicate that three different structural engineers were consulted and the only one who recommended demolition was the one who owned a building next door, and that was the opinion the City decided to proceed with :

“The beginning of the end for the Luzon Building came June 10 when Tacoma Public Works Director Dick McKinley received a letter.

As a licensed structural engineer registered in the state of Washington, it is my duty to bring to light any public safety hazard that I am aware of,” wrote Daniel Putnam, the chief executive officer of PCS Structural Solutions and a member of the partnership redeveloping a city-owned parking garage. “The Luzon Building located at 13th and Pacific without a doubt falls into this category.

“I am also a partner in the Pacific Plaza mixed use project being developed in partnership with the City of Tacoma just north of the Luzon,” Putnam wrote. “Pacific Plaza will soon be finished and we anticipate significant increase in pedestrian activity in this area that is adjacent to the Luzon site.”

Putnam described the 119-year-old building as “an embarrassment” to the business district and “aesthetically unremarkable compared to many other older buildings in Tacoma.”

“I am greatly concerned about the risk the Luzon poses and the aesthetic blight that it casts upon the neighborhood.”

AND…

“To that end, Pleasants asked a Seattle engineer with lots of experience in troubled historic buildings to take a look.”

“In the absence of a significant environmental event, such as a moderate to large earthquake or an extreme snowfall, the exterior of the building does not appear to be an imminent collapse hazard that would endanger the general public,” wrote Terry Lundeen, a principal at Seattle engineering firm Coughlin Porter Lundeen. Bracing could keep the walls up, and wrapping the building with screening could keep any errant masonry from endangering passers-by”

“The city was not convinced. Collins (partner of building owner Dan Putnam), not Reichman or Lundeen, was cited when Anderson determined on Sept. 25 that because there was not an imminent deal to rehab the building, it would be demolished.”

BonBon45 November 19, 2009

Dan – for some reason I am unable to see your entire post, but I did look at the 10.31.2009 story in the TNT and I stand corrected – sorry. However, I still believe that the Pacific Plaza is an asset to downtown.

subterranean November 20, 2009

I’m glad they did what they had to do to save Union Station, but the larger point is that those governmental buildings are rarely a positive force for the kinds of pedestrian oriented and active streets that we are longing for. And the architecture is rarely what I would call inclusive – except that you could call “bliiind justice” (in my best Arlo Guthrie voice) inclusive in the broadest sense. The last thing we need are Homeland Security problems in our retail core.

DaveyDog November 20, 2009

@42 Pacific Plaza was developed impart with TAX PAYER MONEY with the agreement that the development would offer a public good. Everyone understands that the retail market is bad, but there has been great reuse suggestions here, grocery, UW centered business, restaurant etc, all of which offer a public good The simi-private Attorney General Office is not a public good. And as I understand it, the Attorney General won’t be able to occupy unless the change of use is permitted by the city council, I for one will urge the council not to allow the change.

Morty November 20, 2009

@42:
The Attorney General Office limited its search to the downtown Tacoma area so there never was a question of them leaving. However when you consider the large increase in rent the state will be paying and factor the money the City has already invested in the site the move makes no sense. Changing the use at Pacific Plaza, just to allow the Attorney General to occupy the space, will come at too great of a cost to tax payers and have absolutely no benefit to downtown what so ever. I am against the change of use as well.

RR Anderson November 20, 2009

No attorneys! Not in the lousy LEED parking garage! Insult added to injury. For god sakes they killed the Luzon.

Mofo from the Hood November 20, 2009

No big thing, the lawyers only want half of the first floor retail space. That leaves room for a bail bonds office and a tattoo parlor, and to sweeten the deal, I’ll go talk to the guy that runs the mini-market on the corner of 9th & Commerce St.—-Make Pacific Plaza a one-stop shopping experience.

No joke. I read all about how Tacoma promotes the arts. So, to get into the flow of how an artist thinks, I’m painting a word-picture of how great Pacific Avenue could be. C’mon y’all just add a Tacoma brushstroke—-it’s so easy. There’s plenty of empty storefronts just north of Pacific Plaza. How about a Department of Corrections substation on the corner of 11th & Pacific? And pretty soon the Junior League Second Closet will be leaving their space across the street from the upcoming Hell’s Kitchen—-Hmmm, How about a costume shop? A pawn shop would fit—-Pacific Avenue has a recorded history of such longtime successful retail.

Yes, the masterpiece called Tacoma is coming into view, one dirty brush stroke at a time.

RR Anderson November 20, 2009

Mofo, your cruelty is awe-inspiring.

captiveyak November 20, 2009

Morty, your argument is compelling. I’m slowly moving from ambivalent disappointment to moral fortitude on this issue.

If the Council is allowed to change the use for this instance, the skids are greased for similar decisions in the future. It would be a bad precedent to set.

Does anyone know of similar use modifications? Or perhaps use modifications that have resulted in public good? Anything we could do a nice comparison study on?

Mofo from the Hood November 20, 2009

Mr. captiveyak, you must be new around here.

Tacoman’s aren’t rational. They’re not irrational. They’re almost rational.

TacomaThinker November 21, 2009

I believe there are 10 window bays on PP and the AG will take up 3. All the effort and passion for a more urban Tacoma on this blog needs a better cause than 3 window bays. How about ideas on how to take the T-Renaissance to the next level once the banks start lending again.

How about an “Imagine Tacoma” brainstorm from everyone – which by the way deserves a big Congratulations on winning an AIA award last night.

Goooo Boe!

Mofo from the Hood November 21, 2009

“I believe there are 10 window bays on PP and the AG will take up 3. All the effort and passion for a more urban Tacoma on this blog needs a better cause than 3 window bays.”—-TT@53

I wonder if anyone would object to the AG taking the whole 1st floor in this respect—-they take the back section divided by a hallway, and then the whole front window section remains available for retail only.

justanothergeoduck November 21, 2009

“I believe there are 10 window bays on PP and the AG will take up 3. All the effort and passion for a more urban Tacoma on this blog needs a better cause than 3 window bays.”

I don’t think the retail requirement exemption/change process has specified just part of the first floor. So, sure, if approved the AG may be 3 of the windows. But then someone else can fill the remaining 7 with offices.

Retail is either important to us or it’s not. I don’t think making spot changes in the policy will ever be effective at driving any sort of vision. Vision?

Mofo from the Hood November 22, 2009

Pacific Plaza is a government owned building.

The government establishes the zoning and any other use-regulations.

What are you going to do about it? Get mad?

crenshaw sepulveda November 22, 2009

Yeah, and now that the Luzon is gone you can see the fancy sign Pacific Plaza has on the side of the building. Perhaps the real reason for getting rid of the Luzon, it obscured Pacific Plaza from the south?

Thorax O'Tool November 22, 2009

I’m telling ya, offer some big-name store some we-must-be-stupid-to-offer-you-this incentive to get ‘em downtown.

That or just move downtown to 38th & Pine

Squid November 22, 2009

Thorax, there is no incentive stupid enough for that. Free rent isn’t cheap enough or stupid enough. ‘Cause that’s not the issue.

TacomaThinker November 22, 2009

MF@53 I think thats a great idea but may not logistically work for the grocery store – won’t they need a back loading area? and the AG probably would like some daylight.

@55 My guess is the approval from council will hinge on the retention of those other spaces as retail, ie doing what it takes to get the ever coveted grocery store on Pac-Ave.

Thorax O'Tool November 23, 2009

Many cities have a downtown as well as a highly-developed midtown as well. Some good examples include NYC and LA.

Perhaps then, we should be trendsetters and rename the mall area as “Midtown” and allow highrises to be built there. Then in 15-20 years, the overcrowding will make downtown look like a desirable area to develop. Problem solved.

That or start building a highrise mall in downtown in 2010, taking 4 years to finish it, so that way it’ll be ready by 2015 when the economy finally bottoms out.

Squid November 23, 2009

Thorax: You just used “good example” and “LA” in the same sentence. Your account at the Credibility Bank has been appropriately debited.

Thorax O'Tool November 23, 2009

Squid, I request a hearing on that.

It’s all contextual, and please regard as to what LA provides a good example of: a midtown area. Not that LA is in and of itself a good example.

CONTEXT!

C O N T E X T ! ! !

Altered Chords November 23, 2009

We should be looking at Prague, Minsk or Tacna for examples not cities like Los Angeles, New York or Hong Kong.

Squid November 23, 2009

Oh, I got the context alright.

crenshaw sepulveda November 24, 2009

Tacoma, the Gdańsk of the northwest.

65 comments