Tacoma must build up, not out.

Concerns over high rise construction threaten a more equitable future for Tacoma.

On October 10th, a number of residents from Tacoma’s North End met to discuss the latest
potential development for the Proctor Neighborhood, a “Proctor Station Two”. Much like its
predecessor, Proctor Station Two will serve as a mixed use project, providing both residential
and retail space. Proctor Station One & Two join similar complexes like The Henry & Thea’s
Landing as part of a growing trend in high rise developments in Tacoma.

The principal criticism aimed at Proctor Station relates to the buildings height. Residents
worry that the unseemly size of the complex threatens to damage the character of the
neighborhood. Some have voiced concern over the potential noise generated from the building.
Others describe Proctor Station One as a hulking visual eyesore in an otherwise picturesque
neighborhood. Many have voiced their opposition to any further increase in the 65 foot ceiling
for buildings (approximately 6 floors) allowed under city zoning. Some have even pushed for the
laws to be rolled back in favor of the previous 45 foot ceiling.

To some extent, their anxieties are understandable. Established in the 1890’s, Proctor is
one of Tacoma’s oldest neighborhoods. It contains living reminders of Tacoma past; Proctors
Blue Mouse Theater is a nationally registered landmark in operation since 1923. Proctor Station
and other similarly sized buildings may be seen by some as an affront to the history of the
neighbourhood. These criticisms are rooted in aesthetic appeals, grounded in a notion of
Proctor as a quiet neighborhood with cute, convenient shops surrounded by craftsmen homes.
They do nothing to challenge, address, or mitigate the importance of high rise living complexes
in the formation of a more equitable Tacoma.

High rise living quarters are critical to the sustained development of a vibrant middle and
lower class in Tacoma. With 127,000 additional residents expected to move into the city by the
year 2040, the options are binary. Urbanization, and suburbanization. Building up, or building
out. The potential ramifications of suburbanization shouldn’t be unfamiliar to those abreast of
Tacoma’s history. The 1950’s saw Tacoma undergo a rapid period of suburbanization and
divestment that plunged it into a 40 year depression from which the city is only just recovering.
The abandoned buildings strewn throughout downtown should serve as a visual reminder to
those who continue to oppose the necessary long term infrastructure these high rises provide.
Much of the draw for these 127,000 new residents surrounds Tacoma’s reputation as an
affordable alternative to Seattle, which is experiencing a major housing crisis. With an inability to
cater to this population via the old single family homes Tacoma is known for, high rise
apartments present the only clear alternative to suburbanization, which would see thousands of
Tacoma residents (often the richest) abandon Tacoma in favor of nearby affluent suburbs.

Many of these 127,000 residents arriving in Tacoma will come from middle or lower class
households. As the current infrastructure the city has in place cannot properly accommodate
these new residents, a priority must be placed on developing more affordable housing options in
Tacoma. The most effective way to do so is to relax restriction on the size, height, and unit
number of housing complexes in Tacoma, which is exactly what an increase in the ceiling for
housing complex’s has done. An attempt to roll back the laws to only permit for a 45 foot ceiling
under the guise of maintaining the “character”, of a neighborhood is a treacherous position, as is
holding the aesthetic or historical appeal of anything above laws allowing for a more robust
lower and middle class.

Another criticism raised is the potential of increased traffic in the Proctor district as a
result of new Proctor Station residents and increased visitors to the area. How is this construed
as an issue? As someone who lives in the Proctor neighborhood, traffic is effectively
non-existent. That anyone in the neighborhood feels otherwise may be understood as an
example of perspective. In the context of Proctors sleepy history, the two to four blocks of
slightly reduced driving speeds in between 24th and 28th street may feel intolerable to some. In
the context of almost any other popular city district the criticism feels comical. In response to
said criticism, Public Works official Jennifer Kammerzell notes, “​Parking is pretty available and
it’s not at its capacity for use, so there really isn’t an on-street parking problem here”.

Much more compelling are criticisms focused on the need for low / mid income high rises
that don’t currently exist. Units at the Henry range from $1100 - $2900. Prices at Procter Station
range from $1195 - $2840, with an average resident income of $110,000 (over twice the
$50,439 average for Tacoma). These are not affordable places to live for the average Tacoma
resident. During the development stage in 2008, the city of Tacoma tweaked it’s multi-family tax
exemption program to allow for a 12 year property tax exemption if Proctor Station designated
at least 20% of their apartments as “affordable housing”. Proctor Station declined, signaling it's
a desire to cater exclusively to the wealthier pockets of Tacoma. This sadly represents the norm
rather than exception. However, it signals a willingness in local government to provide
affordable housing.

High rises are critical to a sustained, equitable future for Tacoma, but they cannot be
constructed to exclusively serve the wealthy. Let us not mistake the construction of Proctor
Station as some noble egalitarian quest, the motivations are principally financial. This shouldn’t
necessarily read as a criticism of these high end apartments, as their construction is a critical
first step to a more equitable form of high rise apartment. They lay the structural and political
framework for expansions, and their high end reputation may afford the initial investments
required. This might have proven more difficult were the first high rises a low / mid income
project, and therefore less lucrative investments.

As renters and residents of Tacoma, we have a moral responsibility to encourage the

development of low / mid income high rise apartment developments. The 127,000 new residents
moving into Tacoma by 2040 affords a tremendous potential opportunity. The advent of these
highrises can help create for financially prosperous, diverse, and equitable future for Tacoma.
While Proctor Station may not be personally indicative of the aforementioned affordable
housing, it’s developers success in relaxing restrictions must be commended and upheld. If the
locals of Tacoma’s North End succeed in defeating well funded projects like Proctor Station,
what chance would future low or middle income housing developments stand under the same
type of pressure?

Resources.

1. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article26294359.html
a. Timeline on Proctor Station construction, laws surrounding it, etc.
2. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article107425297.html
a. Article on Proctor Station Two, featuring the quote from Jennifer K.
3. http://postdefiance.com/the-complicated-urbanization-of-proctor/
a. Article criticizing proctor station.
4.