Two Downtown Parking Meetings This Month
The state of parking and the parking standards keeps coming up in discussions about planning the future of downtown. City Hall recognized these concerns and began holding a series of parking meetings way back in February.
City Manager Eric Anderson came back with some initial answers in April. Then last month, the City Manager took a vision package to a City Council study session.
Now the City is taking this package back to the public to get feedback and discuss. After reviewing the City’s downtown parking update, the idea of a multimodal, city-wide transporation strategy sounds like a great place to start (see Recommendation #1). There are other ideas familar to our readers like Recommendation #9: Eliminate parking minimums in zoning requirements.
What do you think? Is this what the future of parking looks like in
downtown? Tell the City. Tell us.
Meeting Information:
2007 Downtown Parking Meetings, Round 3
Foss Waterway Issues
Thursday (tomorrow), September 13, 5:30-7:00 pm
Museum of Glass
UWT Area Issues
Thursday, September 20, 5:30-7:00 pm
GWP 320 – Tacoma Room (above the UWT Bookstore)
Filed under: Parking
32 comments
K kc February 13, 2008
I really dislike this idea. I think there are so many areas of Tacoma that are mid-growth or under-utilized where economic investment needs to be made. If we start touching this specific area, we will soon be nothing but buildings, facilities, townhouses, condos and merchants. If you want to tear down Cheney and the parks building, go ahead. Just don’t put in anything to replace it!
D Douglas Tooley February 13, 2008
Putting the Parks building on the table seems strange. Certainly they can’t be thinking about tearing it down? If so, that, to me, indicates someone is hiding a major construction problem in a building that appears fantastic.
Making the site available to a large employer, should a good one appear, does seem like a good thing. At the moment there is plenty of housing in the City.
Supply of housing should remain such in Tacoma so that we are always somewhat cheaper than Seattle, but that’s not a problem right now.
Hopefully there will continue to be open space aspects of this area. I had the opportunity to explore it once with my dog, who wasn’t able to enter Snake Lake. China Lake and the Pierson trail on Hwy 16 are all part of the immediate neighborhood and hopefully this development will enhance those parks.
Perhaps a pedestrian bridge from the Pierson trail to China Lake could be funded, just north of 19th?
E Erik Hanberg February 13, 2008
KC, really?
This seems like a way to add density into a part of Tacoma without displacing current homeowners or bulldozing parks (as Heidelberg Park would stay in place). It’s a big piece of land that could be developed into something very cool and useful to the many residents that live nearby as a place for more shopping options and employment.
M michael g. February 13, 2008
I’d like to see Cheney Stadium torn down and a new minor league ballpark built where the outdated Tacoma Dome now sits.
D DavidS February 13, 2008
It’s too bad the fields and Foss are off limits. Not that I want them gone, but from an exposure/efficient land use perspective, they don’t work as well as they could.
The Heidelberg complex remains vacant for a good portion of the year, yet consumes the corner with the highest visibility off the freeway (& therefore accessible by non-motorized transportation).
Foss High School sprawls out in a suburban style layout, whereas a truely urban high school would add stories. Additionally, while not visible in the ortho above, the high school site has substantial view potential that is somewhat lost in the lower regions of the site.
If you’re going to do it, include programmatic restrictions, but get rid of the location restrictions.
E Erik Hanberg February 13, 2008
Since we’re on that thread, I’d like to once again say that I’d love Cheney Stadium to be out at Point Ruston. We would have one of the coolest stadiums in the country, minor league or major. Think Candlestick.
K kc February 13, 2008
yeah, and the traffic to and from Candlestick was a nightmare. LOL
D DavidS February 13, 2008
But think of the $1M condos that could be located on Cheapskate Hill. As a kid, did anyone else have any good names for the Foss hill outside the rightfield fence?
E Erik B. February 13, 2008
Talk about sprucing up a neighborhood. A group of public officials is looking at a dramatic change for Central Tacoma.
Here’s a chance to build something nice in Central which could use some investment.
There are tons of areas in Tacoma which have meaningless green suburban buffers which are neither a park or a building but just make the uses spread out so much one need to drive to everything.
I am glad they are hiring an planner to try to make something of it.
R RR Anderson February 13, 2008
exciting news for Central Tacoma!
D DavidS February 13, 2008
Just thinking out loud, if there is such great demand for an urban center in this area with good freeway access, consolidated land holdings, etc, why hasn’t the redevelopment of the Target center happened? This seems like an more appropriate place due to its connection to the nearby jobs base associated with Allenmore.
M morgan February 13, 2008
Well this is a strange one!
I’m with KC. By the time you remove the nearly brand new and very expensive Metro Parks headquarters, the school, and the baseball fields, you’ve left with about a quarter of the property left. And I don’t see the stadium going anywhere soon either. So what you have is a steep hillside with no infrastructure for new development. Frankly, I think it’s the wrong solution at the wrong time. If this were redeveloped it would result in a disconnected suburban sprawlish development. We need to focus growth where we need it most: in our existing mixed-use centers.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good exploratory exercise. But one that should be left for the blogs. I would much rather see our much needed tax dollars thrown at more useful projects. Let’s not go down the road University Place has is with their redevelopment project. As publicly owned land, I believe it should remain publicly owned and preserved as open space.
E Erik S February 13, 2008
While a new minor league stadium in Ruston would be cool (and I agree that a new stadium would be the biggest improvement to come from this plan) I would definitely prefer that it be built closer to downtown. In fact, I would prefer that it be closer to downtown than the Tacoma Dome is now. Think PGE Park in Portland, not Safeco in Seattle.
As for the rest of the plan, I think that piece of land may be a bit too isolated to produce anything other than a dense version of a suburban development, something along the lines of DuPont. The density would be a nice addition but I wouldn’t personally want to live there. Perhaps I’m wrong. I hope so.
T Tad February 13, 2008
i am also with kc, i fail to see the point in redeveloping this piece of land as outlined in the original post. the area around the target center on Union ave (or even the Fred Meyer complex across the street) seems much more appropriate for redevelopment.
personally, (and i know this will never happen) i would like to see that land integrated into the nature center and have that area become a huge mixed-use park.
M marc w. February 13, 2008
As I enjoy walking to Cheney on a spring/summer evening, I really hope it doesn’t move.
The aerial shot shows that there’s more space here than I’d thought. While you’d still never have all that much density, tying the trails to Fircrest and Central Tacoma could help get traffic (non vehicle!) into the area. I think certain kinds of shops or bars would be great out there, esp. since you can no longer go into the dugout tavern (gold club only) during games.
I’m having a hard time envisioning housing, but there are condo projects in stranger locations, I guess.
I don’t think it’d ever look like DuPont, Erik. It’s close to a couple of neighborhoods, and there’s existing shopping across 19th at the Fred Meyer. The whole thing wouldn’t just rise up ex nihilo.
As for preserving it as public space, you basically can’t go in any of the public space now. It’s just being wasted. It might be that we can’t do a whole lot with it, but it’s not at all like the University place situation (where you’d rip out a ton of existing businesses betting that one day you’ll get ‘better’ ones), and it’s not like it’s currently park land. If the best use is making a great park that can connect Snake lake to China Lake and the trails, awesome. If some mixed-use thing would work, that’s cool too.
(soapbox derby track = straight line down the hill, starting a bit west and south of the Parks bldg, right?)
L Les February 13, 2008
Bring back SoapBox racing! Two of my biggest memories – Racing on that hill as an 11 year old, and later flying down the abandoned track on a skateboard in the dark – great times
K kc February 13, 2008
Someone might say: hey, stick a couple great office complexes there, attract businesses, put hotels around them. Add in some residential to make it “mixed use.” (you can tell I don’t do city planning) Well, that’s fine until the economy kills off the businesses and we’re back to figuring out how to support and bail out those businesses. There’s nothing worse than an office complex ghost town. An eyesore to say the very least. I hope we keep the majority of businesses downtown. Same with office buildings/potential high rises. I want to see investment and growth in the city, but I really don’t like that location for it.
M michael g. February 13, 2008
I like Marc W.‘s idea. It would be great to see the property restored as a park connecting Snake and China Lakes. That part of town could use a natural park big enough to take a long run or walk in. I also agree with those who have said it’s better to channel growth downtown or redevelop existing commercial centers.
R RR Anderson February 13, 2008
on second though. Morgan is right. Though I’d like to see more food options within walking distance of my neighborhood.
C Christy February 13, 2008
I’m sorry, but what?…
We just spent an arse-load of tax dollars to add a second addition to Foss, I hope we wouldn’t be stupid enough to want to tear that down.
Just a few years ago our tax dollars built that park department building, are we really thinking about tearing that down as well. How many years left do we have before we pay that off.
As for Cheney, it’s only been a year or two since we turned that place around and started actually selling enough seats to make rent, so now we want to tear that out to put up a bunch of houses with the most prominent feature being the garage door? Give me a break. You can’t replace history. That goes for Cheney, the T-dome, David’s, the clock tower… YOU CAN’T REPLACE HISTORY.
Wake-up, we can’t be a city of fools!
C Christy February 13, 2008
Plenty of places exist in that area that need money for updating that will make existing Tacoma neighborhoods a better place to live and work in.
I say take your “Central Tacoma Urban Neighborhood” and shove it up your hemorrhoids!
D drizell February 13, 2008
I agree with many of the comments about focusing investment and attention elsewhere, but the core of my existence (the urban planner) tells me to be excited about this.
This is similar to Federal Way’s recent efforts to court development of an underused site. Many commenters on this site have said that is exactly what Tacoma needs to do: put out a Request For Proposals, and see what happens. Federal Way is getting four 20-story buildings for their efforts. Why not take advantage of this opportunity?
Also, while one may point out that their neighborhood needs improvement more than another, the truth is that the city’s neighborhoods need to function as a cohesive whole. If redevelopment of this suburban style property is done right, there could be spinoff benefits to initiate improvements in other parts of the city as well, such as, say, the city-owned land downtown.
I’d really like to see the RFP. I’m already dreaming of the possibilities.
G grubedoo February 13, 2008
Raze it all. Give it to Russell as a gift for their new campus.
E Erik B. February 13, 2008
I agree with many of the comments about focusing investment and attention elsewhere, but the core of my existence (the urban planner) tells me to be excited about this.
Its an urban infill in the middle of the city. Certainly ranks higher in my book that the NE Golf Course development which is on the edge of town.
I’d really like to see the RFP. I’m already dreaming of the possibilities.
The site has alot of potential. It could make alot more of Central a more walkable community with a good development here.
They are going to need some talent though.
R Ruby February 14, 2008
If Park land if public land; do we get some of the revenue from this proposed development?
Now let me run this one by everyone:
Metro Parks Headquarters is one of the locations being considered for the new pool location. It has been reported that in some meeting board members had alread refered to Metro Parks headquarters as the “Heidelberg Sports Complex”.
Life Center wants to turn Franklin Park into a foot ball field (hm former coach was on Park Board and assisted in hiring his friend Jack Wilson. LC ownes property in north end w/adm buildings on it. LC wants to trade a portion of Franklin Park for the property in N.End. See the picture here. If the dremlin, tress, open space is distroyed for “Heidelberg Sports Complex” and Cheney in turned into apartments then metro can move to the property in North End now owned by Life Center; Life can have Franklin Park for the football field and lets not forget that the new Revenue Task Force Report to Board of Park Commissioners: november 19, 2007 also suggets that Peck Field be a mixed use center; Titlow have a hotel and resturant and Blue Berry Park partner with Tacoma Housing Authority. Some will tell youthis will never happen; but a committee known as JMAC has been meeting for some time on education issues; now it has turned these issues into $$ generating meeting with School Dist, Metro Park, County, and City Staff. A JMAC meeting is scheduled for Feb 19 noon at Municipal Building; entrance on St. Helens.
Lots to think about.
Ruby
J jamie from thriceallamerican February 14, 2008
Grumble grumble…Life Center… Metro Parks better show some backbone on this one, we absolutely cannot afford to lose parks in an urban area.
R RR Anderson February 14, 2008
hands off snakelake!
Also, I bet I could clobber any of you slowpokes in a soapbox race. My racer is enfuego!
T tomtuttle February 14, 2008
Great conversation.
WHY is Heidelberg field off the table? Another whim-of-the-week by MPD staff? Or is there a legitimate reason? I really do want to know.
We can’t be serious about supplanting the MPD HQ and Foss HS. Too much money already spent there. Keeping the Rainiers franchise should be important to us; whether it is redeveloping this site in earnest or building a new stadium downtown.
The Titlow Pool replacement project is important to me; this site is the only one still under consideration that is not fatally flawed (Kandle neighbors don’t want it, Titlow has footprint and environmental problems). I like the idea of development as a mixed use park (pool, dog park, whatever else). It would also be nice if they could figure out a way to have some restaurant and retail near the stadium if it stays in that location.
K kc February 15, 2008
yes, i think metro parks wants to use the eventual new “urban village” as a revenue source. so what do you think of that?
Ruby… thanks for connecting the dots. I don’t want Life to get the pool. Life can move their church to Titlow. LOL…
R Ruby February 15, 2008
Life will not get the pool; but Metro Park Headquarters could move to the property now owned by Life; Life would get football field in the trade; The pool would go on MP headquarters property with urban village and sports complex.
K kc February 15, 2008
Ruby, you are a gem!
D DavidS February 15, 2008
If this is actually going to happen, they need to put all the pieces on the table, recognize that it will be phased in over 20 years and plan it appropriately. This would likely include a first phase that would rebuild the fields and infrastructure in the appropriate locations. Next phase should begin looking at private investment options. By the final phase a rebuild/relocation option for Foss should be on the table. (By then maybe we’d know what our school populations look like.)