Destination Downtown - A destination for whom?

Walk across Chihuly’s Bridge of Glass and it is easy to see the effects of Tacoma’s “Destination Downtown” project.

At first glance it appears that Tacoma is experiencing a renaissance, but who is really benefiting and who is being left out?

Walk an extra block or two up the hill passed UWT or visit the area around Tacoma Avenue and 11th Street and it becomes plain to see: Tacoma’s downtown development plan is neglecting the inner city, while exclusively targeting the middle and upper middle class.

With a mix of apartments that start at $800 and run to $2200 per month one not need look any further than Thea’s Landing to see the results of this plan. The Harmon Lofts are approximately a thousand dollars and the Alber’s Mill restoration will create new apartments and art gallery. The prices are very exclusive and target the upper middle class and wealthy young professionals.

Meanwhile no comparable residential development or investment is taking place in the inner city neighborhoods.

In Section C of the District Policies the downtown plan states that Tacoma Avenue should be the focal point for artwork, a public square and a new boulevard to create a civic identity. This implies that a civic identity does not exist and thus the city must create one. Civic identity comes from within a community but it is not stamped upon one.

To change the identity of a place, the city would have to change the people, in this case African-Americans and other minorities. Instead the city should focus on the people who are there and learn from the civic identity of the place in order to better address the needs and wants of the community.

The new light rail originates at the Tacoma Dome, thus it is targeting commuters and suburbanites who can park at the Dome and ride in. It does not service the inner city. There are no rail lines going up to Hilltop, or to Salishan, or anywhere else.

Instead of integrating and connecting these neighborhoods with the development going on downtown, and thereby giving these residents access to better public transportation, retail, job opportunities, and the museum and educational facilites, the city has chosen to make the downtown more accessible to commuters and suburbanites. It clearly demonstrates who the city’s priority belongs to.

The city of Tacoma already has the Landmark Convention Center and the Sheraton Hotel, yet it has displaced a much needed homeless shelter in order to build yet another convention center and hotel. Granted, the homeless shelter has merely been moved, but the homeless people rely on access to downtown activity in order to survive via the informal economy. By pushing them out of downtown it will be even more difficult for them to survive.

It may be an aesthetic improvement, but the fundamental problems of homelessness have not been addressed. Everyday we interpret our surroundings and these interpretations create meaning in our lives. We read into our environment and what we see can tell us about our place in society. These perceptions may not be true, but they are very powerful and determine how we view reality.

In this case, we must ask if the downtown plan can be perceived as being equitable, inclusive and socially just. If it is not, or if it is perceived to be not, this perception could create feelings of despair, isolation, and resentment, compounding the problems these communities already face. The impact of these perceptions will assuredly leave an indelible mark on the mindset and attitudes of the children growing up in the midst of such stark contrasts.

I challenge people to take a closer look at the light rail, the Glass Museum, Thea’s Landing, and the new convention center. Compare these developments with the lack of visible investment and development in Hilltop. I do not argue that these developments will not have a positive impact on Tacoma, but I argue that they should be coupled with development that directly deals with the issues of housing, poverty, drug use, gangs, public transportation, and access to government and educational facilities.

The development that is occurring is divisive, inaccessible to the poor and exclusive, rather than inclusive, accessible, socially equitable and just.

That is my perception. I hope you will take the time to think about and examine your own.

-- Stephen Atkinson