The City of Lakewood received significant modifications to an application submitted in February 2024 that proposes adding market rate housing to Lakewood Towne Center in the parking lot area adjacent to the Barnes and Noble building.
The new project scope includes a total of 311 market rate housing units. These are composed of:
- 143 units in a five-story building.
- 168 units spread across seven, three-story garden-style buildings.
The project proposes 40,132-square-feet of common open area, 476 on-site parking stalls, indoor and outdoor amenity areas for tenants and large landscaped buffers. View the project application at the City of Lakewood permit dashboard here. Or contact Senior Planner Andrea Bell at the contact information listed below for the application and listed studies.
The public comment period for the proposal runs Friday, Sept. 20 to Oct. 4, 2024.
Written comments must include the permit number (#10185, Project ID #5447) and should be sent to the City of Lakewood Planning and Public Works department at the following addresses:
By mail:
- Attn: Andrea Bell
City of Lakewood Planning & Public Works
6000 Main Street SW
Lakewood, WA 98499
By email:
- Andrea Bell, Senior Planner
Abell@cityoflakewood.us
Lakewood Municipal Code requires a project of this type to go before the Hearing Examiner for review and public hearing. A public hearing date is pending and will be shared once it is set.
What is the meaning of “market rate housing”?
I remember when this was a mall with department stores! Those were the days!
I remember when it was the Villa Plaza before the Lakewood Mall was there. There was an old movie theater where the Barnes and Noble is now and Safeway was where the Town Hall is now, I remember Woolworths and a Trident Imports store. It is crazy to me that part of the city of Lakewood used to be a racetrack!
This does not address the Barnes and Nobel store or the traffic jam caused by so many units. I’m all for progress, however this seems excessive. What about the eyesore that is for sale behind CVS? It is ripe for development.
Ahh, now I get it.
“Market rate housing” is non-subsidized properties that are rented or owned by those who pay market-rate rents or who paid market value to purchase the property (people that can afford high rents).
It can lead to gentrification, which can displace existing residents and lead to a decrease in the diversity of a neighborhood.
Well, why didn’t somebody say so?
I am almost certain this is being driven by State Gov programs/initiatives/pressure to try to alleviate the total mess they have made of housing in the state but particularly the Puget Sound region. I also smell Fed Infrastructure $$ as an incentive for this. (bribe, if you will.). Of course housing affordability is driven by ill advised regulations pushing social engineering, environmental dogma, you name it.
And as has been pointed out – why that location? Already congested, and this will seriously add to the problem! As was also noted, there is a large plot where the old QFC was located, w/ less potential for serious ingress/egress issues, etc. Why not there. Finally, who is the developer and what connections are involved w/ that. Thinking of the recent 100th street vacation issue that got absndined.
Don’t get me wrong – I know that housing stock needs to be increased and affordability is a real issue. But I continue to sense that politics and connections, w/ unfortunate regulatory and zoning rules are a significant part of the problem that elected officials at all levels are to scared to push back on.
I hope there is truly comprehensive review if this proposal along w/ others that have been in the news that will strike a balance between sensible growth and preservation of the quality of life this area has worked so hard to create.
I am almost certain this is being driven by State Gov programs/initiatives/pressure to try to alleviate the total mess they have made of housing in the state but particularly the Puget Sound region. I also smell Fed Infrastructure $$ as an incentive for this. (bribe, if you will.). Of course housing affordability is driven by ill advised regulations pushing social engineering, environmental dogma, you name it.
And as has been pointed out – why that location? Already congested, and this will seriously add to the problem! As was also noted, there is a large plot where the old QFC was located, w/ less potential for serious ingress/egress issues, etc. Why not there. Finally, who is the developer and what connections are involved w/ that. Thinking of the recent 100th street vacation issue that got absndined.
Don’t get me wrong – I know that housing stock needs to be increased and affordability is a real issue. But I continue to sense that politics and connections, w/ unfortunate regulatory and zoning rules are a significant part of the problem that elected officials at all levels are to scared to push back on.
I hope there is truly comprehensive review if this proposal along w/ others that have been in the news that will strike a balance between sensible growth and preservation of the quality of life this area has worked so hard to create.