The Luzon to be Demolished
It was just announced in the Tacoma City Council Study Session today that the historic Burnham & Root designed Luzon Building must be demolished. A memo from Dick McKinley, the City’s Public Works Director, states that it has been determined that bracing and repair of the building is not possible. The City Manager has signed an emergency contract and it will take the contractor about 5 days to complete once started. The City will try to salvage as much of the historic building as possible.
The City will pay the bill and charge the property owner the estimated $600k to demolish the building. A series of questions then begin, like:
1. Who owns the property
2. What environment cleanup conditions exist on the property
If you want to see photos and a bit of background from a more optimistic time, check our our story from last year: Luzon Unlocked.
Let the finger-pointing begin …
Filed under: General
56 comments
E Erik B. September 15, 2009
Today marks the cumulative result of 20+ years of indifference, apathy and ineptitude.
Now the dead zone downtown expands yet further.
R RR Anderson September 15, 2009
smell you later Gintz Group
M Maria September 15, 2009
Wow, I’m shocked at this turn of events. I guess this is a case of too little, too late. That Tacoma couldn’t find a way to preserve and restore this historical building is sad. I can’t help but wonder if some of the blame can be attributed to the economic downturn. I feel like the Gintz Group would have pulled it off if the economy hadn’t tanked so quickly, esp. in the housing and real estate sector.
A Andrew September 15, 2009
Second sad day in two weeks. Lets just fill it with another taxpayer funded parking garage, that helped Tacoma revitalize in the 70’s…didn’t it?
C c.rae September 15, 2009
Whew! It will be so nice to have 13th Street open again!
G gritcitygirl September 15, 2009
Yes. Woo hoo. 13th will be open again.
But at what cost!?!?
Total failure of leadership, both public and private. I’m disgusted.
For once, I agree with RR.
T Tacoma_Ben September 15, 2009
I am very disappointed in this final decision. The lack of innovation and desire to save a local treasure is a black mark on the city.
I cannot help to think that a big part of the problem is that most city officials don’t know who Burnham & Root are. If this building looked exactly the same and was in the same condition but was from an architect named Frank Lloyd Wright there would be a line down the street to stop the wrecking ball.
I guess it doesn’t matter than this building is directly in the lineage of Mr. Wright. Do they know that Burnham & Root trained Louis Sullivan who trained Frank Lloyd Wright?
I cannot wait for the vacant lot. It is going to be exactly what this city has been needing…
R RR Anderson September 15, 2009
Gintz was able to save the porn house.
win some lose some.
N NSHDscott September 15, 2009
But who will save the tree?!
A Altered Chords September 15, 2009
We don’t know who owns the property? If Gintz didn’t close on the purchase from the owner then Gintz just comes in and builds a new building on a plot of land that the city just cleared for them.
If Gintz owns it, then they pay the 600k and build a new building without all the expense of rennovating a historic building.
Trying to be optimistic here. There’s no way this is going to sit as a vacant lot. Is there?
E Elliot September 15, 2009
Wow, the city is out half a million dollars (pending collection, which can take years) and we get another pile of ruble downtown? I can feel my property value rising already…
M Mofo from the Hood September 15, 2009
I don’t think I’ll ever get the image of the Fun Circus out of my mind.
6 6ther September 15, 2009
Tacoma is reeling right now. We need new direction, and we need it fast. We bitch and moan about the same crap over and over again, but nothing changes. All the while our city is going to sh#t.
N NSHDscott September 15, 2009
What happens to the bricks? I imagine most will be too broken to reuse, but could the good ones be salvaged and used in the new construction on that site as a kind of hat-tip to the Luzon? And doing something with that tree – I think a lot of us have grown a bit fond of it. There are possible silver linings to everything …
N narndt September 15, 2009
That streetcar track in the first picture is a thing of beauty. Tacoma used to have it all figured out, it seems.
S subterranean September 15, 2009
I guess we consider a City loan offer of $1.65 million in UDAG funds to be a sign of apathy or lack of leadership? Why don’t we hold the financial institutions and private sector as accountable when these deals fall through… Seems to me Gintz group had a lot of passion about this and I’m sure the City Council knows who Burnham and Root are, Exit 133 has been talking about them for the last year, not to mention that we have a pretty active historic preservation community… How many times are we going to hear about a deal falling apart to save a treasure or redevelop a toxic site because of a lack of accessible financing? In my mind, once again, that is at the heart of the issue here.
A Andrew September 15, 2009
Finally, they’re actually doing something.
If the building was really as amazing as everyone says it is, a use would’ve been found for it long ago. Preserving something simply for the sake of a nebulous concept such as “history” can quickly become a self-defeating constraint.
Let’s be honest here. The destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria? That was sad. This is just a bunch of miscolored bricks.
A Altered Chords September 16, 2009
miscolored bricks perhaps buy I could make a great meat smoker/BBQ oven out of them. I’d tear out my garage and have that assembled in no time.
T tacoma1 September 16, 2009
Those are Tacoma’s miscolored bricks, and we wanted to keep them. Unfortunately, there wasn’t the money or politcal will to revive this old dog. Now, it’s one last trip to the vet.
Soon, it will be an even sadder when I go by, look uphill and see that the Luzon is gone forever.
S Squid September 16, 2009
AC, you might think twice about cooking in anything made of those bricks, given the high probability they have lead-based paint on them…
J Jesse September 16, 2009
Didn’t Pierce County own this building for 20 years? You’d think they’d slap a roof on it so the insides/frame didn’t rot away. Noone did that. Not Pierce County , not Gintz, not the previous short parade of owners. Nobody REALLY cares about this building or it would have been saved 20 years ago.
Next up on the demolition by decay program: The Murray Morgan Bridge. Can we sit on that 20 years too?
D Derek staff September 16, 2009
miscolored bricks perhaps buy I could make a great meat smoker/BBQ oven out of them.
The asbestos (which was mentioned repeatedly in today’s meeting) would give everything a nice spicy kick.
M Mofo from the Hood September 16, 2009
Pacific Avenue’s sleek modern Greyhound Station with a lunch counter and a dedicated rec room full of pinball machines–when that building was leveled I stood in the rubble, tightlipped, and gazed across at the Luzon, cursing that bunch of miscolored bricks.
C crenshaw sepulveda September 16, 2009
A question for the old timers, what was the name of the lunch counter in the old Greyhound station? For the really hardcore, what was the name of the lunch counter at the former Trailways on Pacific, now home to Chuckals.
H Heller September 16, 2009
So if bad news comes in three’s….
1)Russell
2)Luzon
3)???
what’s next? the Murray Morgan Bridge?
C Cleophus September 16, 2009
Tacoma needs some good news. Badly. Something to take the focus off decay, vacancy and abandoned projects. Something that actually materializes with real progress on the ground.
C Cleophus September 16, 2009
I really sense that Tacoma is at a very important point in terms of it’s future. I think that the possibility of Tacoma slipping right back to where it was in the 1970’s/early 1980’s is actually quite real. Based on the reactions at City Hall regarding Russell leaving, I don’t think they share that concern at all, and maybe they are right. Maybe they will just go out and find some other organization to fill all the vacant spaces that exist or will exist in the next 18 months.
But the risk they run is that the general direction of business and commerce downtown is clearly headed backwards, and it is really, really hard to attract new businesses into an area with so many obvious signs of economic and physical stagnation and decay (the closed bridge, the empty office space, the empty and incomplete condo buildings, the vacant lots). It’s hard to attract new businesses anywhere right now, but especially to communities that seem to be falling apart. If the tide does not turn soon, then it becomes a label that is very hard to shake – just ask the City of Detroit.
R RR Anderson September 16, 2009
The Joy building is looking good.
Any one bummed out aught to walk around UPS or UW Tacoma. The hustle and bustle of young adults will cheer you up.
D drizell September 16, 2009
I remember seeing the Luzon building in a magazine way back in like 1990, when I was in elementary school. Even then, it was THE symbol of urban decay in Tacoma. 20 years later, the building sits alone among a sea of improvements. It’s been given a hundred chances at a new life, but nothing has changed. It’s time for the building to come down.
A few months ago, when I was living in Arizona, a large city there made a public announcement that it was not funding a local traditional activity. Within two hours of the announcement, dozens of private donors stepped forward, pledging thousands of dollars to keep the program alive. Perhaps something similar will take place in Tacoma.
E Elliot September 16, 2009
@drizell:
This isn’t a real great time for private donors rescuing public services. Just ask Philly. That’s why government is important- it’s obligated by law to provide for the public good, whereas all we can do about private donors is hope they’re feeling generous.
F frizzlebee September 16, 2009
Inside tip: It will take roughly a week to get a contractor onsite before any demolition can take place. Meanwhile, negotiations/conversations can still occur. Perhaps this will be the final deadline that will motivate Gintz. Last-minute panic always worked for me on term papers…
C c.rae September 16, 2009
I agree with Andrew and RR Anderson. Yes it was beautiful and yes, it WAS designed by very talented architects. It WAS a great building back in the day, way back in the day, but it hasn’t really been a building for a long time now, its been a decaying shell. Hopefully, someday a new architect, yet to be discovered can build something great there. That would be ideal, but even if that doesn’t happen, we have to come to grips with the fact that this is no longer a building. It is a beautiful pile of old building materials that is blocking the road.
F Flyin' V September 16, 2009
Once gone, always gone. Yes, there is some upside to the demolition, but it’s very unfortunate nonetheless. Preservation and restoration is not in everyone’s intersest, but, it doesn’t change my desire to keep history in tact. It’s unfortunate that the parties involved couldn’t find a way to come together.
P P September 16, 2009
Do any of the knock-it-down-and-build-something-new folks believe there will be a new building on this site any time soon? There are a lot of empty dirt lots and parking lots in downtown Tacoma that are effectively shovel ready. I have a feeling that this soon-to-be-dug hole in the ground will remind us of this debacle for a very long time.
Y yo September 16, 2009
Although I would like to see a historical building saved, this one seemed to be too sick…
What would be cool is if this could be torn down and someone decides to build on that site and uses the original plans for the facade.
A Altered Chords September 16, 2009
My view:
Gintz: “we think we can rennovate that historic Luzon building with a tricky financing package.”
City of Tacoma: “That’s great, its a historic building – you must keep its look and feel to ensure everyone in Tacoma is happy”
Gintz: Everything is in place, we’ve got 1/2 the building leased so the lender and the city will give us the $$ we need to rennovate the building”
Ben Benanke: “the sky is falling…all is lost”
Company that signed lease: “never mind, we don’t want it anymore”
Lender: “no tenant, no $$”
Gintz: “ugh…if only it weren’t historic and we could just tear it down”
City of Tacoma: “we hearby declare this building a hazard. We are closing a street to drive home this point. If the owner doesn’t fix it we will just tear it down and bill them a fraction of what it would have cost them to rennovate it”
Gintz: “what a lucky break, now we can build something new”
PS – if you are afraid of eating lead and asbestos, you belong in Bellevue not Tacoma.
M Mofo from the Hood September 16, 2009
I’m surprised that the Luzon wasn’t hauled off to the dump years ago by the Tacoma CARES Program.
G grubedoo September 16, 2009
Maybe Tacoma will learn her lesson with the Luxon and not wait so long to save the Murray Morgan Bridge. Probably not though. When it comes to Tacoma I’m not optimistic.
S Sarah September 16, 2009
Shame on Tacoma city government for caving to the “dangerous building” nonsense. They will pay more to demolish this building and put it, and environmentally dangerous materials, into a landfill, than they would to brace it and take the appropriate level of consideration for what the building’s fate really should be.
We don’t need another parking lot downtown. This building is on the National Register of Historic Places for good reason and is a jewel in Tacoma’s architectural crown. If I had a cream pie to throw at City Hall and the Gintz Group…
C c.rae September 16, 2009
It would be a true slam in the face to the original architects if we were to be so unoriginal as to go back to the original plans for some fake facade to make it appear historic. That would be like losing a pet and then cloning it instead of greiving and trying to pick up the pieces and move on. I can’t stand fake nostalgia or things designed to look historical…Either it is historical (built during a specific time period) or it isn’t.
PS The idea that Tacomas should have to be more accepting of lead and asbestos than anyone else in the state or country is…unacceptable.
P precast September 16, 2009
My bets on Gintz for taking advantage of the situation. If they cared about the building they would have sold it and minimized their risk of rehabilitation, but guess what? Now they have no risk at all. Now we lose a treasure for Gintz’ short term gain.
S subterranean September 16, 2009
I’m sure there is some gain here for Gintz, but ultimately they will have to pay the cost of the demo. And – they did invest hundreds of thousands into engineering work (yup, must not have cared) and wanted to get those costs back out of it. Lest ye forget they recieved a real low ball offer – and that coming after the “buyer” had set themselves up as the last minute hero to swoop in and save the Luzon.
S Squid September 16, 2009
While the finger-pointing is going on, how about some love for Mike Bartlett, the California developer who owns property next to the Luzon and who wouldn’t extend his March deadline for allowing an elevator shaft to be built on his property. The shaft was going double as a reinforcement.
S Squid September 16, 2009
Oh and Mr. Altered Chords: suggesting I should move to Bellevue for my crack about the brick paint was just mean. I think the fact that I garden in a community plot contaminated with smelter-poo establishes by Tacoma cred just fine.
C crenshaw sepulveda September 16, 2009
How hard would it have been to go to the HomeDepot and put a giant tarp on the roof of the Luzon. Shoot they could have even gone to Griot’s Garage and gotten a real fancy one if plain blue was too pedestrian for the Luzon. This, I believe was supposed to happen. It is tough to tear down an historic building but it seems that those that wanted to have this happen just gotten their wish. This happens all the time. Interesting article in one of the Seattle papers on how old buildings are put into decay so they can be torn down for much larger developments. Slap an historic designation on a building and it is garlic to the vampire developer.
R Richard September 16, 2009
@38
Fantastic irony, almost as good as TAGRO
Good bye Luzon, hello Class A.
M Morgan September 18, 2009
Yes, the roof is sagging. Yes, there has been water leaking in. There’s even a tree growing out of the side. Yet, is there conclusive evidence that the Luzon is in imminent danger of collapsing?
The Luzon is truly Tacoma’s symbol of the day. The last dusty jewel of downtown. It doesn’t seem right to let it go without a fight. Where is the city’s leadership? Has it given up?
I think it’s a shame how one person can set into motion events that bring about the demise of a singularly unique historic building. Shame on you! You can put a garden on your roof, but the Luzon will always be greener.
M Morgan September 18, 2009
I remain unconvinced this building is in danger of collapsing. It is a shame how one person’s complaint can set in motion the demise of a uniquely singular historic building. The Luzon is greener than any building constructed today – including the new one now sitting across the street from the Luzon.
M Mofo from the Hood September 18, 2009
Let’s just have another look at those two recent photos above.
See that aftermarket metal bracing?
It’s over 30 years old.
Who’s been saving money in the piggy bank for 30 years to fix the Luzon?
Guess nobody really cared enough…
M Mofo from the Hood September 18, 2009
…just a bunch of miscolored bricks.
–Andrew @18
M Morgan September 19, 2009
Some cities require property owners to maintain their properties. What a concept.
T The Fish September 21, 2009
Saw the demolition company laying the groundwork for destruction early this morning…won’t last the week.
C crenshaw sepulveda September 21, 2009
It must be a race against time, if the Luzon falls down on its own the contractors don’t get paid.
G Gus September 22, 2009
I am confused why everyone is upset that we are taking down another empty brick eye-sore in downtown. Living downtown, when I stand on the roof of the building I live in and look at every old, vacant, brick buidling I wonder how close this city is to becoming one big slum. Improve, innovate, build a new identity, the current one we are holding on to is obviously not working.
Also how is a crumbling building filled with asbestos, lead paint and who knows what other toxic materials, greener than the new pacific building?
M Mofo from the Hood September 22, 2009
Yeah Gus, that’s an interesting viewpoint–that Tacoma’s Luzon looks like any other empty brick building in a city of empty brick buildings.
Still, there must be a reason why some people want to preserve Tacoma just as it is. There has been some interest in the idea that preserving old buildings can serve to provide multiple streams of income to a city–income beyond a buildings’ practical use. For example, if we could just preserve buildings like the Luzon then tourists from all points of the globe would vacation in Tacoma.
No Gus, Tacoma is not a gleaming collection of contemporary trends in architecture like Bellevue.
By the way, how come so many beautiful and rich people live in Bellevue?
How come people don’t see Tacoma for how really sophisticated it is?
R robert moses September 22, 2009
gus, the reason why the luzon, or any existing building, is greener than the pacific plaza, or any building being constructed, is 1) because it takes energy (carbon footprint) to demolish a building, and 2) it takes energy to build a new building.
so, no matter how efficiently a new building operates, the energy it saves by being so efficient will never make up for the energy expended in its construction. this includes energy invested manufacturing the components of the building, transporting these to the building site, and the energy expended assembling these materials into a building.
if the building replaces another building that has been torn down, you add the original energy investment in the original building’s construction, as well as the energy expended in demolition (and transport of the debris to the landfill) to the equation.
when those are added up, from a carbon footprint standpoint, rehabilitating and occupying an existing building is several times “greener” than building a nice shiny new efficient LEED certified building.
when you add the fact that the building is listed on the national, state and tacoma registers of historic places, it makes even less sense to demolish.