Phoenix CityScape Thread

[AZ KID]

I remember don saying that the office tower was going to be 355' but i assume that it would stay at 375' with the faa's approval. If the office towers height gets lowered I am going to have to agree with phxbyrd211. I still believe the project will have a positive affect on downtown but the potential of the three blocks ( now with the approved height) is enormous. Why not take advantage of it?

[bwonger06]

This building needs to be 510 feet. CityScape is suppose to be truly iconic and that can only happen if it can be seen from a distance. Theres nothing iconic about a building be overshadowed by almost every direction, but at 510 ft. the building would truly be able to stand out and especially if it is topped off with a nice crown.

(BTW visited LA over the weekend and dam the US bank tower is simply beautiful.)

[HX_Guy]

The opportunity that RED has here is almost unheard of in any big city today, to build an iconic, tallest building the state...at the very very core of the city. An opportunity like this will not come again. There is no denying the current market is very tough, almost non-existent. The amenities that Cityscape is bringing to the table will make it very desirable (grocery store, retail, restaurants, public park, light rail...all outside your door) but why not offer something that no one else in the Valley can, not Tempe, not Scottsdale, the opportunity to live in the tallest building in the state. That in itself will surely attract some buyers that may have looked elsewhere.
I was watching the Suns game last night and at every commercial break, they would show the Chase tower in downtown. Why? Because it is the tallest building in downtown and the icon of downtown at the moment. Cityscape could fill that spot easily. The publicity it will receive would be priceless.

[AZRAM]

Welcome to the forum. Whats the Ben Franklin quote on your avatar say? I imagine its the same as the one in your signature (which is a good one, thats often misattributed to Jefferson). But I like to imagine it says something like 'Holy crap I banged a lot of French sluts when I was the ambassador- can you believe that?" Because seriously, can you believe that?

Thanks, the quote is the same as my signature but I think yours would also be an accurate one for him. As I understand it, he was a bit of a party animal.

[PHX31]

The opportunity that RED has here is almost unheard of in any big city today, to build an iconic, tallest building the state...at the very very core of the city. An opportunity like this will not come again. There is no denying the current market is very tough, almost non-existent. The amenities that Cityscape is bringing to the table will make it very desirable (grocery store, retail, restaurants, public park, light rail...all outside your door) but why not offer something that no one else in the Valley can, not Tempe, not Scottsdale, the opportunity to live in the tallest building in the state. That in itself will surely attract some buyers that may have looked elsewhere.
I was watching the Suns game last night and at every commercial break, they would show the Chase tower in downtown. Why? Because it is the tallest building in downtown and the icon of downtown at the moment. Cityscape could fill that spot easily. The publicity it will receive would be priceless.

Yep, 100% correct. I thought the CityScape developers realized this (they initially a long time ago said 400', then came all the talk about the benefits of a new tallest - I know I posted it to their website - and they raised it to 510'). Maybe we just need to remind them on their website again, although I'm sure they've studied every angle of this project 50 times.

[HX_Guy]

I posted the comments on their site as well.

I don't know, I just don't see how they don't see the enormous impact of building a new tallest. As I mentioned, the publicity it would get every time the skyline is shown on the news, sport event, or anything else would be priceless. It would become the icon of Phoenix, much like the US Bank building is in L.A.

...then again, I'm not the one that is potentially investing hundreds of millions of dollars into the project. Who knows, if they truly can't make it happen, there has to be some reason.

People's voice seemed to have turned around and saved the art piece for the Civic Park Space, maybe we can do the same for Cityscape.

[admdavid]

One thing that needs to be addressed is the perception of how bad the market is, or really isn't. One of my best friends is a realtor and he said he is extremely busy right now. It has been slow, yes, but he has 4 closings this month alone and he says the market isn't anywhere as bad as the news reports would have us believe.

There are still tons of people moving into the Phoenix area and there is no reason, other than perception, to think that they won't be buying houses or condos or whatever. If the developers have vision, they will have sales.

[tempedude]

Build the new tallest and they will come. :yes:

Comon RED hear the voice of the masses

[HooverDam]

I like reading the posts on there and trying to figure out who's user name goes w/ the actual name :P

[andrewkfromaz]

...then again, I'm not the one that is potentially investing hundreds of millions of dollars into the project. Who knows, if they truly can't make it happen, there has to be some reason.

People's voice seemed to have turned around and saved the art piece for the Civic Park Space, maybe we can do the same for Cityscape.

I'd personally rather see Cityscape plan modestly and succeed than shoot for the stars and fail. The city has far too much invested in this project - if it were to fail b/c overly optimistic developers tried to please a few skyscraper worshipers, I would be very disappointed (as would we all).

[HX_Guy]

How do the project would fail because of building taller? Maybe you are thinking that they will take the money "saved" on building taller and using it toward such things as the streetscape etc? I doubt that would be the case.

I can think if only positive effects coming from building taller and the project having a better chance to succeed then otherwise.

[JimInCal]

There is no absolute guarantee for success with many developments, including Cityscape. Developers are not strangers to risk. This mix of retail, restaurants, office space, hotels, apartments, condo's and public "park" space is unprecedented for DT Phoenix. The incredible mix though, is the one aspect that bodes well for Cityscape's success, IMO. An analogy comes to mind: having a diverse mix of investments in one's financial portfolio or 401K plan hedges against any one component from pulling down the whole. I think the same can be said regarding the extreme mixed-use nature of the Cityscape plan. I read time and time again on this forum and other places, of the frustration and disappointment that results from short-sited, mediocre, visionless projects. With all it has going for it, why scale back Cityscape to "play it safe." This, more than any DT Phoenix project I can think of calls for vision, boldness and yes.... risk. Why not shoot for the stars for cryin out loud, it's about frickin time someone in the Phoenix development community did!

[admdavid]

While I don't think lack of height would doom CityScape by any means, I do think making a statement of the developer's confidence in the project by going forward and building the new tallest in AZ would do wonders for ensuring it's success. Scaling back just reeks of a lack of confidence in the final product and the overall hoped for success.

I don't think any of us are calling for fiscal irresponsibility, but they're planning on spending almost a Billion dollars on this project...why not do something that will be talked about and heralded?

Just my ever so humble opinion. :)

[gymratmanaz]

So does anything think that the powers that be read this forum and might hear our pleas? Also, does anyone think or have word that the Cityscpae Gods might be rethinking their height to reraise it up?

[JimInCal]

gymratmanaz: A couple of pages back I posted a link to a discussion topic I started on the Cityscape site itself. A lot of the forumers have been chiming in with comments (Yeah Team!). I think the Cityscape web site is likely the best place to make the point to the development team.

http://www.downtownphxrising.org/discussion_view.asp?disID=1092

[ljbuild]

JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

About a few days ago in the republic paper, THE FAA was analyizing the cityscape tower plan.
The end of the article said that it could take WEEKS!!! for the Faa to decide if the towers would be "hazardous".

BUT JUST A COUPLE DAYS LATER

In the same paper, it says that the FAA APPROVES TOWER PLAN. :cheers:

Now what the RED group needs to do is to step it up a hundred notches before something else (negative) crops up.:sly: :sly:

HOWEVER, the RED development group had scaled back on the height of the tallest towers to 400 ft. But they were still optimistic about changing the plan back to keeping the 500 footer, after the FAA appproval.

BUT,
What I wonder is if the FAA had approved the tower plan BASED ON THE SCALING DOWN ????

[tempedude]

^ the FAA approved the height at 510'....

[FireMedic]

I think they should make it right to 510ft

What a great marketing and selling point !

Phoenix highest !

[Phxbyrd211]

Since we are going round and round about it the original tower height was suppose to have been 525'. But does any of this really matter it RED is in over its head and incapable on delivering what they promised? The best solution would be to build an office/hotel combo tower to about 480'. The public would be happy, the city would be happy and the cityscape tenants would be ecstatic because the increased attention would bring them more business. By then market forces would mandate that the condo tower be 525' or more because the demand will be that high. The next two towers would surely be 450'+. If the market forces are currently against RED then they need to turn those forces around in their favor. Right now they risk making things worse for themselves and digging a deeper hole with the negative market forces. There is plenty of time to adjust construction schedules to make this happen.

[gymratmanaz]

Phxbyrd211, if only you were King of the forest.

[Phxbyrd211]

deleted

[gymratmanaz]

I disagree. I think it will be impressive. If you look, my posts are encouraging it to be. What's wrong with a positive attitude?.... I thought I was supporting your ideas. Look on the affirmative side!!!!!!

[Phxbyrd211]

I'm also positive gym. Thought you were trying to be cynical but now I see we see eye to eye.

[gymratmanaz]

and then some!!!!!!!!!! I am so excited to see what CS becomes.

[PhxPavilion]

While I would like a new tallest as much as the rest of you if they do build to 510' that's only 25' taller than the Chase tower; not much of a statement if you ask me. I do think building a new tallest just to finally overcome Chase after 30+ years is a statement in itself but I'm still dissappointed it's a hair race rather than a stool. I have more hope in a 600+ foot tower sometime in the future a little furthur north where the limit is 700'+.

[sundevilgrad]

While I would like a new tallest as much as the rest of you if they do build to 510' that's only 25' taller than the Chase tower; not much of a statement if you ask me. I do think building a new tallest just to finally overcome Chase after 30+ years is a statement in itself but I'm still dissappointed it's a hair race rather than a stool. I have more hope in a 600+ foot tower sometime in the future a little furthur north where the limit is 700'+.

That would take someone with deep pockets and real cajones... Something this town just doesn't seem to have.

[BA744PHX]

How do the project would fail because of building taller? Maybe you are thinking that they will take the money "saved" on building taller and using it toward such things as the streetscape etc? I doubt that would be the case.

I can think if only positive effects coming from building taller and the project having a better chance to succeed then otherwise.

Building taller doesnt mean the project will succed. the only time height will come into play is if your building something like the Burj Dubai where the height does matter. Otherwise no common person would care about going to CityScape just because they now have the new tallest building in the state. Also in reality 515ft is nothing really to brag about when it comes to what the rest of the country is building in height.

sorry if that sounds negative but its the truth

[kevininlb]

From your perspective in NYC, yeah 515 is nothing to brag about. But it is here. That's the point. This is Phoenix and we haven't had a new tallest in many of our lifetimes. A new one -- and something better than Chase, which in my opinion wouldn't be difficult to top -- is something a lot of people would be proud of.

[PhxSprawler]

Building taller doesnt mean the project will succed. the only time height will come into play is if your building something like the Burj Dubai where the height does matter. Otherwise no common person would care about going to CityScape just because they now have the new tallest building in the state. Also in reality 515ft is nothing really to brag about when it comes to what the rest of the country is building in height.

sorry if that sounds negative but its the truth

I have to disagree with you. Maybe no one in NYC will be willing to come to Phoenix to see a 510 foot building, but there would be a lot of interest among the 4 million + common folk that live in the metro area. It could have the highest observation deck (for those too lazy to climb the local mountains), and give Arizonans something to be proud of.

You would be surprised how many people in every major city appreciate their tallest building beyond the SSP forum.

[desertdj]

As far as the tallest building issue, I'd imagine it would be some type of attraction, especially if there were a sky deck or obesrvation deck, but we have something here that kind of deters from the tallest downtown view, which is driving a few short minutes to South Moutain where you can get an even better view of the city... free. Or you can hike Camelback mountain or Piestiwa Peak. You don't have those options in Chicago or New York, etc.

[BA744PHX]

From your perspective in NYC, yeah 515 is nothing to brag about. But it is here. That's the point. This is Phoenix and we haven't had a new tallest in many of our lifetimes. A new one -- and something better than Chase, which in my opinion wouldn't be difficult to top -- is something a lot of people would be proud of.

I was born and raised in Phoenix. So yes it will be nice to have a new tallest in PHX. but my point is it wont be the reason you will have people in the masses go to CityScape. Unless like said before if there is a observation deck or something that will make people go. Otherwise it will be the shopping and the dinning not a 515ft building... Most people honestly could careless.

Only we(skyscraperapge forum people) care

[Phxbyrd211]

I think it will make a difference for the people that might live there and the companies and retailers that might locate there. They will be more encouraged and pay a premium to be in the tallest building in the state. They are the real foundation of the project anyway and without them it doesn't matter how many tourists come to visit. But when they do visit their eye will be drawn to the tallest thing they see which would be Cityscape. Height is a natural magnet.

[bwonger06]

Building the new tallest will make the tower more well known. Go around and ask the average person if they know which tower is 44 Monroe or US Bank Center or Bank of America tower. Most will not know what the heck you are talking about it, but everyone knows Chase tower. A new tallest would bring the notoriety RED is seeking but if the tower falls short of Chase tower, it will become "another tower".

[BA744PHX]

Height will be a magnet to draw people to look. But 25ft higher then what is already there will not raise much eyebrows. Also retailers wont bank of the fact that their store is in the state's tallest building.. why...... well obviously 515ft can easily be beaten in height by some developer 5+ blocks up..... then what? move your location to be in the next states tallest? also on another note... its not like downtown phoenix is a major attraction for tourist.. lets be real....

and sorry i dont want to seem like im bashing phoenix but i think you guys are putting way to much into it on how the height will make CityScape thrive...

what phoenix needs is multiple 30-40 story towers in its downtown. I would personally rather see 5 400ft towers then one tower at 500ft and nothing with it. we need more density and more infilll in downtown.

AND ALOT OF SHOPPING AND RESTURANTS

[Phxbyrd211]

Hey, everyone wants 5 400ft towers and more shopping and restaurants too. I agree that 510' isn't making much of a statement which is why I think they should have stuck to the original 525' or more; the FAA would not have gone to the mattresses.

It's true that another building may come along and replace CS as the new tallest but what are the odds that it would happen within the lifetime of the tenant's lease? That building will also have to be at least a mile away from CS and may not have a large retail component anyway. As far as the heart of DT, CS is going to be the last word in tall buildings because it's the last large parking lot. When it comes to home buyers the only time that matters is the tallest building when they close the sale. After that who cares but the next homeowner?

After having lived on the east coast like you I learned that tourists will visit cities if they are good ones. What they usually say they are going for is museums and we can improve our museums and build new ones. But what they end up really enjoying is a touch of life in the big city. The shopping, the restaurants and nightlife and the hustle of it all will be what they tell their friends when they go home.

[PhxPavilion]

Height will be a magnet to draw people to look. But 25ft higher then what is already there will not raise much eyebrows. Also retailers wont bank of the fact that their store is in the state's tallest building.. why...... well obviously 515ft can easily be beaten in height by some developer 5+ blocks up..... then what? move your location to be in the next states tallest? also on another note... its not like downtown phoenix is a major attraction for tourist.. lets be real....

and sorry i dont want to seem like im bashing phoenix but i think you guys are putting way to much into it on how the height will make CityScape thrive...

what phoenix needs is multiple 30-40 story towers in its downtown. I would personally rather see 5 400ft towers then one tower at 500ft and nothing with it. we need more density and more infilll in downtown.

AND ALOT OF SHOPPING AND RESTURANTS

Agreed. We need alot more towers period, regardless of height and if we do get a new tallest it should be something worthwhile like an iconic 700' tower not something that will barely poke its head out from the rest of the skyline.

[combusean]

An iconic 700'er implies a major anchor tenant .... BofA just bought Countrywide, already a large employer in AZ. Maybe Wachovia could scare them into doing something as tremendous as lining something like that up and consolidating?

[HX_Guy]

Agreed. We need alot more towers period, regardless of height and if we do get a new tallest it should be something worthwhile like an iconic 700' tower not something that will barely poke its head out from the rest of the skyline.

I wouldn't consider it "barely"...the rest of the buildings around the Cityscape site are all under 400'. At 510', it would tower over them substantially.

[ArizonaGuy]

Height will be a magnet to draw people to look. But 25ft higher then what is already there will not raise much eyebrows. Also retailers wont bank of the fact that their store is in the state's tallest building.. why...... well obviously 515ft can easily be beaten in height by some developer 5+ blocks up..... then what? move your location to be in the next states tallest? also on another note... its not like downtown phoenix is a major attraction for tourist.. lets be real....

and sorry i dont want to seem like im bashing phoenix but i think you guys are putting way to much into it on how the height will make CityScape thrive...

what phoenix needs is multiple 30-40 story towers in its downtown. I would personally rather see 5 400ft towers then one tower at 500ft and nothing with it. we need more density and more infilll in downtown.

AND ALOT OF SHOPPING AND RESTURANTS

I definitely agree with having multiple 30-40 story towers down town. What this place needs is more high rises downtown to fill in all of the empty space.

[loftlovr]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e7/joelcontreras/Pics18/Cityscape.jpg

[combusean]

Hey, everyone wants 5 400ft towers and more shopping and restaurants too. I agree that 510' isn't making much of a statement which is why I think they should have stuck to the original 525' or more; the FAA would not have gone to the mattresses.

It's true that another building may come along and replace CS as the new tallest but what are the odds that it would happen within the lifetime of the tenant's lease? That building will also have to be at least a mile away from CS and may not have a large retail component anyway. As far as the heart of DT, CS is going to be the last word in tall buildings because it's the last large parking lot. When it comes to home buyers the only time that matters is the tallest building when the close the sale. After that who cares but the next homeowner?

CityScape works because it is right in the center of things. But there is something to be said about development anchoring the edges of downtown, like a slightly smaller sized development could happen on the Pappas site, which is about bigger than two blocks.

There's also something interesting in the assessors maps that's new for the two blocks bounded by Garfield and Pierce, Central Ave and 1st St a block from the light rail station. The Schneider Second Subdivision (2009 Sub) just appeared adjacent to a block that is also majority owned by Schneider. The remaining parcels are owned in equal amounts by the city and a couple individuals. There's something about it that just points to a very big development. It is just outside the downtown core and significant increased height could work there.

[PhxPavilion]

I wouldn't consider it "barely"...the rest of the buildings around the Cityscape site are all under 400'. At 510', it would tower over them substantially.

Chase doesn't exactly tower over the Phoenix skyline, so why would a building only 25' taller? My point is, it won't be that noticable, certainly nothing like the Sears Tower does in Chicago or the Empire state building in NY or the Library tower in LA and 510' is nothing in those cities, hell 700' isn't that tall.

[HX_Guy]

A rendering that appears on AZCentral about new office space in downtown.
It's the same as one we've seen before, expect that one cropped out the left part of the image (corner of 1st St and Jefferson). I like what I'm seeing in how it looks like to have street facing storefronts all around the corner.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/breaking/0114officespace.jpg

What do you guys think about the multi level design? Personally I would rather do without as it takes people off the street and creates more of a mall type atmosphere vs an urban downtown experience, but I guess it's needed to get the sq footage they want.

[HX_Guy]

Chase doesn't exactly tower over the Phoenix skyline, so why would a building only 25' taller? My point is, it won't be that noticable, certainly nothing like the Sears Tower does in Chicago or the Empire state building in NY or the Library tower in LA and 510' is nothing in those cities, hell 700' isn't that tall.

Chase tower doesn't exactly tower over anything becuase the US Bank building helps to step it down toward the rest of downtown. The difference between Chase and US Bank is only 79'.

The buildings around Cityscape would be Two Renaissance Square and Wells Fargo at 372', Bank of America at 360' and Phelps Dodge at 289'. The Wachovia tower would be the nearest tallest at 375' therefore the 510' tower would stand a full 135' above it's neighbors. I think that would stand out quite a bit.

[sundevilgrad]

A rendering that appears on AZCentral about new office space in downtown.
It's the same as one we've seen before, expect that one cropped out the left part of the image (corner of 1st St and Jefferson). I like what I'm seeing in how it looks like to have street facing storefronts all around the corner.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/breaking/0114officespace.jpg

What do you guys think about the multi level design? Personally I would rather do without as it takes people off the street and creates more of a mall type atmosphere vs an urban downtown experience, but I guess it's needed to get the sq footage they want.

I kind of like it. I think it could provide a "market" type feel if done right. However, that might be unlikely considering it will probably be filled with sitdown, suburban style restaurants and such...

[combusean]

I think that so long as it's above the streets and not secluded from them I can't complain too much, especially if they're activating the ground floor as much as they can as well. I dislike pedestrian bridges for this reason, but the stairs in the hump of Block 22 balance out the plaza on block 77. Most downtown malls are rather fortress-like from the street even if they do include windows, so this doesn't do a half bad job at 2 more levels of people stuff above the street, which I don't think I've seen in person before.

[tempedude]

Overall, I am pretty pleased with how Cityscape will look. It is far better than what Columbus,Ohio attempted with their major downtown urban revival('savior') project in the early 90's.

Know what Columbus did? They planted a huge enclosed 3 level suburban style mall smack in the heart of downtown. Yep, with JcPenny, Macys, Sears etc., just like you would find here, something like Arrowhead Mall. Whats worse is they built two 6 level parking garages with zero wrap around street level retail; and those garages were built on both sides of the mall, completely isolating it from the street. Yep the mall is surrounded by the garages on two sides. I could go on and on about the poor design and concept of putting this type of mall in the heart of any city, but I think you get my drift. I should add, the Columbus plan included zero new office space or condos with CityCenter.

Guess what...ding ding....the mall didn't revitalize downtown Columbus. The people that came to visit the mall drove downtown, parked their cars inside the parking structures, and went into the mall never to be seen or heard from again. End of story. :P My point here is that Columbus CityCenter (thats the name of the mall) never created pedestrian traffic in other areas of downtown as the city fathers were hoping. The explanation is pretty obvious.

Anyway, back to my main point. Despite all the criticism and teeth gnashing about what CityScape will or won't have, CityScape is pretty well thought out and could be far worse by the example I just gave, and I think you will agree. Ultimately its just one of the key elements that will revitalize downtown Phoenix. Now, hurry up and build the dang thing already. :banana:

[gymratmanaz]

PLUS, the pedestrian traffic at Cityscape is easily in simple walking distance to the Jackson Street Entertainment District - and visa versa. Cars driving on Jefferson might actually have to look both ways before turning to avoid pedestrians. What a novel and exciting challenge for us!!!!!!!!!!!

[HooverDam]

What do you guys think about the multi level design? Personally I would rather do without as it takes people off the street and creates more of a mall type atmosphere vs an urban downtown experience, but I guess it's needed to get the sq footage they want.

I could be wrong (usually am) but I think you may be putting too much literally on the 'people on the street' thing. Why do we want people on the street? Because it makes a city seem alive, it makes things safer and because pedestrians walking around window shopping increases the business the stores receive. I think the multi level design doesn't take away from any of that. The place that immediately came to my mind is Bourbon St in New Orleans there are a lot of balconies along the street and people party up their during Mardi Gras, and you wouldn't really say they aren't on the street.

From what I can tell, the CityScape design will keep a lot of people visible from the street, and walking in and out of the center. I like the design, it seems like its getting the most for its square footage.

[HX_Guy]

I think that so long as it's above the streets and not secluded from them I can't complain too much, especially if they're activating the ground floor as much as they can as well. I dislike pedestrian bridges for this reason, but the stairs in the hump of Block 22 balance out the plaza on block 77.

I'm the same way, I hate pedestrian bridges in urban environments. When was the last time you saw a pedestrian bridge in NYC, Chicago, or San Fran? I would rather have people on the street going between the different buildings then on a bridge or through some tunnel as is the case with the convention center.

[gymratmanaz]

They have them everywhere in Minnesota. They are skyways. Of course they have them due to winter. Bridges add depths and levels, making the city more diverse in architecture. how about the walkway between the two phases of the convention center? I think they are cool!!!

[HX_Guy]

I would personally not have them, again, because they take people off the street and put them in a tunnel. For convention goes I'm sure it's better as you are there for the convention, not to walk the street...but for people watching, it does nothing.

[Archdevil]

I would personally not have them, again, because they take people off the street and put them in a tunnel. For convention goes I'm sure it's better as you are there for the convention, not to walk the street...but for people watching, it does nothing.

I couldn't agree more! Pedestrian bridges remove people from the street and that is a bad thing especially for a city that needs all the help they can get when it comes to getting people on the street.

[combusean]

The skyway system in Minnesota seems sorta cool, but the inclusion of limited hour fast-service retail at the skylobbies does a double whammy against the street. We have enough of those issues in Phoenix.

[tempedude]

I am not really in favor of pedestrian bridges either. But, isn't the pedestrian bridge at CityScape just an open air bridge connecting the plazas. Something like the pedestrian bridge on University Ave. in Tempe at the ASU Campus? Once you cross you are back at street level again?

The one at CityScape isn't enclosed or connecting buildings or anything is it? I'm just a little confused on what its supposed to look like I guess.

[HX_Guy]

From what I have seen, the bridge is not enclosed but it does not go from the street level back to the street level. It appears to start on the 2nd level and finish on the second level across the street, you would then have to walk across the development to the stairs/escalators to get back to the street.

[andrewkfromaz]

The thing about people on the street is that you need a concentration; the street has to seem busy. When you divide it up (say between floors or between sidewalk and pedestrian bridge), the street seems less busy and people tend to feel pressure to go somewhere more happening or to get off the street. I don't think that the upper floors of open-air retail at Cityscape will make a difference either way. The people walking up there will be there for shopping at those stores only, drawing them and keeping them is the retailers' job. The people walking at sidewalk level are more likely to be walking from somewhere else to somewhere else, and just wanted to walk past Cityscape cause it's nicer than other routes.

[soleri]

I understand why Minneapolis has those skybridges given the harsh winters. But they pay a steep price in terms of vibrant street life. The city has some enviable attributes - downtown department stores, urban density, etc. - but downtown feels anemic despite them.

There's a lot of speculation that indoor malls are obsolescent. Scottsdale Fashion Square is the most successful mall in Arizona but I never want to go there. Even when it's crowded, it feels "dead" to me. Real cities are joyful because they're real. Homeless people on the sidewalk contribute more to urban ambiance than sterile parking garages or office building "plazas".

If CityScape is truly urban, you'll see multiple demographics and messiness. If it's too controlled and sterile, you'll see another mega-project that resembles a Potemkin village. Given the high investment, project managers will probably enforce strict conformity standards. It's a completely natural bias on their part but it may well just make CityScape too sterile for real life. Mega-projects will usually err on this side, and I'm not sure how you engineer for vitality. If downtown Phoenix were otherwise lively, this wouldn't be a critical issue. Unfortunately....

[gymratmanaz]

But with a bridge you can stand on it and wave to the masses below....You know, like Evita would have done......LOL

[andrewkfromaz]

I agree about indoor shopping malls. This weekend I had the opportunity to spend some time on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, and then some friends wanted to drop by Water Tower Place, a fairly massive 7-story indoor mall. Despite the frigid weather outdoors, the mall lacked the vitality of the open street, "managed" only by the city and the free market.
The one cool thing about the mall, that made the whole experience worth it for me, was visiting the bathroom and finding a Dyson Airblade in place of traditional hand dryers. Awesome.
I do wonder what the difference is between indoor malls and the newer outdoor malls. There's really nothing that sets them apart, other than the "newness" factor.

[Downtown_resident]

Despite all the criticism and teeth gnashing about what CityScape will or won't have, CityScape is pretty well thought out and could be far worse by the example I just gave, and I think you will agree. Ultimately its just one of the key elements that will revitalize downtown Phoenix. Now, hurry up and build the dang thing already. :banana:

CityScape should be better than an indoor mall or the Arizona Center, or Phoenix is incapable of learning from its mistakes, and we just wasted $90M. But can't we set the bar a little higher?

I don't know if I share the optimism for the project...the renderings all seem pretty inward-focused and the developer is being vague about too many of the details of the streetscape. I'll reserve judgment until we see more renderings or the real thing.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[soleri]

I agree about indoor shopping malls. This weekend I had the opportunity to spend some time on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, and then some friends wanted to drop by Water Tower Place, a fairly massive 7-story indoor mall. Despite the frigid weather outdoors, the mall lacked the vitality of the open street, "managed" only by the city and the free market.
The one cool thing about the mall, that made the whole experience worth it for me, was visiting the bathroom and finding a Dyson Airblade in place of traditional hand dryers. Awesome.
I do wonder what the difference is between indoor malls and the newer outdoor malls. There's really nothing that sets them apart, other than the "newness" factor.

The main difference is simply that: one's outside, the other inside. As obvious as that is, we can still miss its significance. There's something about being outside that's freeing. The simple act of going inside and then going outside is really fundamental to our human experience.

Those vertical malls on Michigan Avenue are dead, too. The street itself is great, but imagine how much better it would be if all those stores were on the street instead of being inside some airy box. Many downtown Chicago streets are dead because of too little retail.

CityScape could possibly fill in some of the blanks by having great exterior spaces. The retail will probably be standard-issue corporate behemoths, but if there's ample shade and water, the chemistry could well make up for that. Good design could go a long way to making CityScape more than another bland mega-project.

BTW, it's arguable that Arizona Center probably failed because the 400 E Van Buren building blocks the sun for too much of the day. Shade is great, but it becomes oppressive when there isn't enough sunlight close by. The most salient feature of the project - the gardens and waterscape - feel too dark. There are all sorts of ways to mediate the harsh sun with landscaping and shade screens. What a pity Arizona Center wasn't more sensitive to that issue.

[exit2lef]

I agree about indoor shopping malls. This weekend I had the opportunity to spend some time on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, and then some friends wanted to drop by Water Tower Place, a fairly massive 7-story indoor mall. Despite the frigid weather outdoors, the mall lacked the vitality of the open street, "managed" only by the city and the free market.
The one cool thing about the mall, that made the whole experience worth it for me, was visiting the bathroom and finding a Dyson Airblade in place of traditional hand dryers. Awesome.
I do wonder what the difference is between indoor malls and the newer outdoor malls. There's really nothing that sets them apart, other than the "newness" factor.

Different city; same observation: I was in Philadelphia for a business trip just a few days ago. Fortunately, my hotel and my meetings were all in Center City (what Philadelphians call their downtown), so I got to walk around and explore. There were two indoor malls I saw downtown -- the Gallery and the Shops at Liberty Place. Both had their uses, but neither was as interesting or as vital as the regular city streets. By and large, national chains were in the downtown indoor malls while more unique and local merchants occupied storefronts. Based on my observations in several cities, I think that indoor malls in downtowns often represent a futile attempt to out-suburb the suburbs. A city core is much better off focusing on its street life and its unique character.

[exit2lef]

As regards pedestrian bridges, skywalks, etc. -- These are sometimes advocated as a means of insulating people from summer heat in Phoenix. Of course, the same thing could probably be done more effectively by investing in mature shade trees along pedestrian corridors. Doing so would cost no more than building skywalks, use less energy for cooling, and keep pedestrian traffic on the street where it belongs.

[CANUC]

IMO I don’t like it. Consider that the image is from a panoramic view however if you zoom yourself into the human scale the space seems sparse and lacking significant shade. The setbacks also seem huge again almost like the buildings are running away from the street. There was talk of continuity like that seen along 1st Avenue between Van Buren and Washington on another thread but when you look close that this development I just don’t see that same flow. There is to much hardscape and not enough shade combined with the pedestrian bridge its almost as though the developer really just wants to draw people into the development and away from the street a la AZ Center style. I had the same impression of the redone ‘public space’ that is to replace PSP. In one of the renderings showing the public space there is an ironic image of an illustrated person squinting into the sun standing on a huge expanse of side walk with not a hint of cover, hell even the picture looked hot and sweaty.

[Phxbyrd211]

with all this talk of pedestrian bridges and sky bridges I'm reminded of what they came up with in Toronto although it may not be possible in Phoenix. There they have underground tunnels that connect buildings, transit and major attractions throughout downtown. The are various shopping arcades in the tunnels. They did this because obviously it gets cold in the winter there but also because it creates a pedestrian mass-transit option downtown which they considered important. Imagine if you could walk as the crow flies to Chase from a bar on Roosevelt Row and how much fast it would be. Just a thought but could a smaller version of this work from the middle of Cityscape to the heart of JSED? It could keep people cool in the heat of the day and unavoidably link the two projects for pedestrians and visitors.

[HooverDam]

with all this talk of pedestrian bridges and sky bridges I'm reminded of what they came up with in Toronto although it may not be possible in Phoenix. There they have underground tunnels that connect buildings, transit and major attractions throughout downtown. The are various shopping arcades in the tunnels. They did this because obviously it gets cold in the winter there but also because it creates a pedestrian mass-transit option downtown which they considered important. Imagine if you could walk as the crow flies to Chase from a bar on Roosevelt Row and how much fast it would be. Just a thought but could a smaller version of this work from the middle of Cityscape to the heart of JSED? It could keep people cool in the heat of the day and unavoidably link the two projects for pedestrians and visitors.

People are complaining about the bridges because it takes people off the street and kills the 'feel' of vitality. Your 'solution' has the exact same problems, and would be extremely expensive to implement.

I'll take trees and well thought out shade structures on the street, thanks.

[gymratmanaz]

Ditto

[Viperlord]

Overall, I am pretty pleased with how Cityscape will look. It is far better than what Columbus,Ohio attempted with their major downtown urban revival('savior') project in the early 90's.

Know what Columbus did? They planted a huge enclosed 3 level suburban style mall smack in the heart of downtown. Yep, with JcPenny, Macys, Sears etc., just like you would find here, something like Arrowhead Mall. Whats worse is they built two 6 level parking garages with zero wrap around street level retail; and those garages were built on both sides of the mall, completely isolating it from the street. Yep the mall is surrounded by the garages on two sides. I could go on and on about the poor design and concept of putting this type of mall in the heart of any city, but I think you get my drift. I should add, the Columbus plan included zero new office space or condos with CityCenter.

Guess what...ding ding....the mall didn't revitalize downtown Columbus. The people that came to visit the mall drove downtown, parked their cars inside the parking structures, and went into the mall never to be seen or heard from again. End of story. :P My point here is that Columbus CityCenter (thats the name of the mall) never created pedestrian traffic in other areas of downtown as the city fathers were hoping. The explanation is pretty obvious.

Anyway, back to my main point. Despite all the criticism and teeth gnashing about what CityScape will or won't have, CityScape is pretty well thought out and could be far worse by the example I just gave, and I think you will agree. Ultimately its just one of the key elements that will revitalize downtown Phoenix. Now, hurry up and build the dang thing already. :banana:


It is funny that you mention malls in the middle of downtown areas. They age rather quickly. Downtown Salt Lake had two large malls right across the street from eachother with parking garages and all on two large (10 acre blocks)

This is what Salt Lake is doing to them now...


crossroads block.
http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/images/construction/CR_11508_1.jpg

zcmi block
http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/images/construction/ZCMI_11508_2.jpg

City Creek Center,the new development that it taking place will have open air malls with a retractable glass roof, made by the same people who do the big stadium roofs. One of the options that they are looking at is going with a skybridge on the second floor to connect the two blocks. There has been major fights and arguments from people about the bridge. So, if Phoenix decides to ever add a bridge downtown it could turn into a long drawn out procedure.

[combusean]

^ Nah, not really. I don't even think getting a revocable lease from Streets warrants a hearing, tho I'm sure those issues are covered in site plan review which is open to the public. I don't think I've seen the issue come up really.

[soleri]

It is funny that you mention malls in the middle of downtown areas. They age rather quickly. Downtown Salt Lake had two large malls right across the street from eachother with parking garages and all on two large (10 acre blocks)

City Creek Center,the new development that it taking place will have open air malls with a retractable glass roof, made by the same people who do the big stadium roofs. One of the options that they are looking at is going with a skybridge on the second floor to connect the two blocks. There has been major fights and arguments from people about the bridge. So, if Phoenix decides to ever add a bridge downtown it could turn into a long drawn out procedure.

Exactly what are the issues with the "skybridge"? Downtown SLC is very interesting because it's really the business center of Utah, along with being its cultural and religious hub. That said, the downtown blocks are too long and the streets are too wide. It's a challenge to create a pedestrian ambiance for that reason. It may well be that the new downtown mall is really the best solution for those reasons. Still, SLC will pay a price in having less-than-exciting streetscapes.

[Viperlord]

The skybridge will be built across main street. Trax (lightrail) will run below it. The developer is saying that it is needed because the development is two floors. And it will help the second floor shops to be more profitable.

This new development isnt really a mall so to say...its a mixed use development. It will take the large Salt Lake Blocks and divide them down into smaller blocks with pedestrian access through the center, and stores and restaurants. along the walkways.

Downtown Salt Lake's blocks are 660' x 660' and the streets are over 100' wide. The wide streets make it easy to run lightrail down. And the long blocks make it so that the trax stations can accomodate longer trains during peak hours. SLC is now going through and encouraging midblock accessways for pedestrians in most development. plus the wide streets provide a lot of on street parking, which helps adjacent businesses. So, there are some ups and downs to the large blocks.


http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/downloads/conceptual_rendering_full.jpg


http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/downloads/residential.jpg


anyways.........

back to city scape discussion...

[sundevilgrad]

Seriously, when are the going to tear down PSP!

[gymratmanaz]

Did Cityscape move to SLC??????

[Phxbyrd211]

People are complaining about the bridges because it takes people off the street and kills the 'feel' of vitality. Your 'solution' has the exact same problems, and would be extremely expensive to implement.


I disagree somewhat. I admitted that the idea was unlikely because of the cost but the point was for Phoenix to think of some alternative solutions to the problems of access and movement of pedestrians. Yes, technically a tunnel would take people off the street but I don't believe that it would kill the feel of vitality and in fact it might increase that feeling downtown. Cities that have either subways or significant amount of underground establishments feel very alive and exciting. The sight of people going into and coming out of the ground is very alluring to a tourist or suburban resident. Also the main time of year for this to be used would be the summer when you really don't expect many people to be on the street in the first place. your main objective is to get people outside to do anything away from their home or work. The shade and potential air conditioning of an underground tunnel and shopping/dinning arcade would be attractive on a hot day or cold winter night. This is a place, unlike CS where small independent local shops could open with lower rents and cool hip wine bars and jazz clubs could flourish. Imagine climbing out of the tunnel to a misted view of JSED at 1st ave. and Jackson? Probably not going to happen but a unique solution none the less.

[PHXguyinOKC]

so, is there any work being done at the CS site?? I drove by there 2 Jan when i was in town and there was some heavy equipment there.

[Tfom]

Seriously, when are the going to tear down PSP!

I was trying to get together a crew (or posse if you will) over a month ago, any takers yet?

[gymratmanaz]

Count me in....I'll get my pitchfork and a torch!

[HX_Guy]

A new renderings from CBRE's website showing the office tower with the condo tower behind. It's similar to the one we previously saw, except for some subtle changes to the design and of course, the condo tower now appearing.
The condo/hotel tower seems to be around 38 +/- floors.

http://www.loopnet.com/Attachments/D/A/E/xy_DAEE0A23-9098-4B7D-97A6-3A9090B4CB67__.jpg

[loftlovr]

Westward Ho antannae is missing? Or is that different building?

Salt Lake sure has an impressive backdrop of snowy Mountains!

[HX_Guy]

That's the historic city hall, not the Westward Ho.

[JimInCal]

:previous: loftlvr, that's the historic Phoenix City Hall in the background...one of my favorite buildings DT.


EDIT: HX, you beat me to it by seconds!

[soleri]

Did Cityscape move to SLC??????

It's actually interesting to compare the two projects, which might serve to frame some of the issues downtown Phoenix faces. The SLC development - City Creek - is like CityScape in being mixed-use. A key difference is that City Creek will have two major department stores (Nordstrom's and Macy's) and 500,000 sf of other retail. SLC has some built-in advantages because it's downtown is really the business center of Utah. Even though the city is much smaller than Phoenix (less than 200,000), it never lost its role as the regional hub. I'm not saying we can emulate SLC because the differences are simply too profound. What's fascinating, however, is how much the downtown projects resemble one another in scope and ambition.

[sundevilgrad]

It's actually interesting to compare the two projects, which might serve to frame some of the issues downtown Phoenix faces. The SLC development - City Creek - is like CityScape in being mixed-use. A key difference is that City Creek will have two major department stores (Nordstrom's and Macy's) and 500,000 sf of other retail. SLC has some built-in advantages because it's downtown is really the business center of Utah. Even though the city is much smaller than Phoenix (less than 200,000), it never lost its role as the regional hub. I'm not saying we can emulate SLC because the differences are simply too profound. What's fascinating, however, is how much the downtown projects resemble one another in scope and ambition.

Soleri - don't you think that downtown Phoenix is the business center of Arizona? I know that there are a few areas that draw some of the major business away (i.e. midtown, biltmore, tempe, and the airparks), but there is still no place in Arizona that holds as "business" as DT Phoenix...

[soleri]

Soleri - don't you think that downtown Phoenix is the business center of Arizona? I know that there are a few areas that draw some of the major business away (i.e. midtown, biltmore, tempe, and the airparks), but there is still no place in Arizona that holds as "business" as DT Phoenix...

No. Business means exactly what it says, and there isn't a single brokerage downtown. There's extremely little retail, either, so the impression is inescapable that downtown is more tangential to the state's economic life than a centralizing force. Yes, the major banks are headquartered there (none that are home-grown) but they are the ceremonial heads of state in an economy that is diverse and consumer-dependent. Government, of course, is important, as are the major law firms that mediate the legal arrangements of powerful interests.

You're right to note the multiple business hubs here. It's more accurate to say we're polycentric - multiple hubs and subcores. Scottsdale Airpark, of course, is one. The Biltmore area another. We're very much like LA in that way although LA has a much larger downtown.

The lack of a business hub has real-world consequences. It means downtown looks and feels anemic. It means there's no overarching economic vision in the state, and it means there's no nerve center that works with government to get things done. Instead, major businesses will be physically distant from one another and government. They have their lobbyists make sure the tax and regulatory climate remain favorable to them, but are otherwise disinterested players in the state's future.

[sundevilgrad]

Interesting take.

[andrewkfromaz]

The lack of a business hub has real-world consequences. It means downtown looks and feels anemic. It means there's no overarching economic vision in the state, and it means there's no nerve center that works with government to get things done. Instead, major businesses will be physically distant from one another and government. They have their lobbyists make sure the tax and regulatory climate remain favorable to them, but are otherwise disinterested players in the state's future.
Is your name Jon Talton?

I have to say that there are businesses based in AZ or with substantial AZ operations that make significant contributions to downtown organizations. One example that comes immediately to mind is the wall with plaques honoring major donors to the AZ Science Center. Companies like Phelps Dodge, US Air, and Intel have worked hard to keep that place (and other institutions) open, despite the fact that their operations may not be near downtown. I think you're putting too much emphasis on proximity. Phoenix does need more larger companies that will increase capital investment from the private sector.

[kevininlb]

:previous: Well, Wachovia is coming to downtown in a big way. And Chase is in talks to acquire Washington Mutual, which would presumably give Chase an even bigger presence DT.

Not arguing the overall point -- that we could use a lot more -- only that there's some positive momentum.

[soleri]

Is your name Jon Talton?

.

I wish. Talton had a much deeper understanding of Arizona's economic climate than a Bob Robb or the madcap deniers at The Goldwater Institute. He was unpopular for that reason. Now, even mega-booster Elliott Pollack is predicting a five year housing turndown for Arizona. (http://www.azcentral.com/realestate/articles/0117realestatetrends0117.html) That's our major economic sector, if you're keeping score.

Also, I didn't state that Arizona doesn't have corporate powerhouses. Only that they don't coalesce into a functional business roundtable that effectively charts Arizona's economic future. This is the key issue to understanding downtown. You're not going to wish Phoenix into a regional hub when business doesn't identify itself as a crucial community pillar. While I have the highest regard for people like John Sperling, Doug Parker, Craig Barrett, and Steve Whisler, they're not Phoenix cheerleaders per se. I might think differently if all their corporate HQs were downtown (props to Phelps Dodge, of course). This illustrates how globalism has made corporations much less loyal to their headquarter cities. The problem is hardly unique to Phoenix. Still, our downtown suffers today for a historic pattern of too few corporate visionaries. It's not simply an accident that downtown is the way it is. There are factual reasons for its anemia.

[HooverDam]

. He was unpopular for that reason.

Ive tried to explain this to you before, but John Talton was unpopular because he is an ASS. You can disagree without being disagreeable, something Talton never even attempted to do. He was a know it all in the absolutely worst way.

[exit2lef]

I detested Talton's incessant negativity, but his grasp of the facts was generally good. It wasn't that he was wrong about the challenges facing Phoenix, it's that he consistently overlooked the good and his columns therefore lacked balance.

Back on the issue at hand, Soleri makes a good point. Many locally based companies such as US Airways, Avnet, and Apollo Group are responsible for employing thousands of people and give actively to local charities. Nevertheless, because their facilities are distributed in suburban locations, they aren't as visible as community leaders as they can and should be.

[combusean]

I think Intel et al do a particular good job as community leaders but just don't really think outside the suburban edge cities in which they land. I grew up in Chandler and saw a lot of that first hand--the city and schools benefit from having corporate charity within their borders.

My mom runs a community health center out of San Marcos Elementary and Toyota has been very kind to her in the past. The kinds of people she serves don't exactly come up when most people think Chandler, but they do exist.

Then again, in terms of needing it--I would prefer seeing the square miles of misery outside of downtown Phoenix get that sort of investment first/as well, but that's probably for no other reasons than it's there my loyalties now lie.

It's unfortunate that the leaders that have emerged over the last few years and seem to guide most of the direction here are all from the public sector: Napolitano, Gordon, and Crow on one side of an equation, Thomas and Arpaio on the other. Soleri is pretty spot on when he talks about the lack of a "corporate roundtable" in Phoenix. Ironically, despite my berating them in that other post in the Phoenix vs thread, I wonder if there's some unsung aspect to the Phoenix 40 that we might actually be missing these days apropos to this discussion. I think some groups such as Valley Forward probably don't do a half bad job but have difficulty connecting to the average citizen.

It would be nice if The Powers That Be could move past the traditional issues that currently divide us. Take immigration. Spirited debate has merits but nothing deserves the unending attention it gets from both the media and to a different extent, law enforcement. Phoenix is weaker as a result of these large-scale distractions.

[andrewkfromaz]

Only that they don't coalesce into a functional business roundtable that effectively charts Arizona's economic future. This is the key issue to understanding downtown. You're not going to wish Phoenix into a regional hub when business doesn't identify itself as a crucial community pillar.

I think the first part of this is where I have the hardest time. How does any group of businesses and their respective leaders chart a region's economic future?

[soleri]

I think the first part of this is where I have the hardest time. How does any group of businesses and their respective leaders chart a region's economic future?

By talking to each other, local pols, the media, etc. It's called networking and was the indispensable way in which cities used to unite behind a shared vision. In old Phoenix, a Walter Bimson would call Gene Pulliam back in the late 60s and tell him he planned to build the city's tallest building (what we call the Chase Tower today) downtown despite the belief it should go further up Central. Or it's how the Phoenix Art Museum was created in the late 50s. Local fatcats united behind an idea that Phoenix needed a cultural institution since it was growing so fast. It's how Phoenix Civic Plaza came to be. It's how politicians would engage corporations to relocate to Arizona by showing a united front, possibly promising subsidies to them, or making sure their concerns about our education system were addressed.

None of this is a mystery. It's how things got done in every city. Yes, it would create resentment among some because they were the local elite and did not welcome everyone to their soirees. Over time, the old coalitions would break down, sometimes replaced by new ones, and other times, deteriorate to the point where power vacuums were created. As Sean notes above, we have politicians like Napolitano and Gordon filling it today, which is problematic. They can't will businesses to relocate downtown, or shake the money tree for worthy causes. They don't bring the same degree of clout to the legislature, either. A CEO calling a legislator is a call that never gets put on hold.

Arizona's old networks were crucial to civic pride, development, and good government. Today, power has devolved to different power vectors altogether. We see it in the rise of talk radio, a symptom of radical populism that's redirected Arizona's politics to reflect national issues, usually on the right. It's why, as Yeats wrote, "the centre cannot hold..... The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity". Most people don't read newspapers now, and the electronic media tend to concentrate on sensationalistic stories.

Just 25 years ago, Arizona was still being governed by smart and powerful people with a commitment to this place: Bruce Babbitt, Burton Barr, Alfredo Gutierrez, James Simmons, Gene Rice, Carolyn Warner, John Teets, Jerry Colangelo, et al. These people did great things but they unwittingly laid the groundwork for today's power vacuum. They didn't question the strategy of sprawl, which underlies the social and political breakdown of American society. Phoenix functioned reasonably well when the population was under two million. But it couldn't maintain that balance as it grew larger and spread out. Today, it's simply too unwieldy and beyond anyone's ability to master or control.

Phil Gordon and Michael Crow probably understand the ramifications of this situation better than anyone. They hope to create enough of a nervous system downtown that it becomes possible over time to guide Arizona to make smarter and better choices. Against them, you have the entire libertarian political ethos that suggests any kind of guidance is tantamount to "industrial policy" or worse, "socialism". I'm definitely rooting for Gordon and Crow but it may be too late for them. If that's the case, downtown will remain the pea brain of a huge dinosaur.

[jvbahn]

:previous: Brilliantly stated. Especially the last sentence.

[HX_Guy]

The ABANDONMENT HEARING OFFICER will hold a hearing open to the public on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. located in Assembly Room C, 1st Floor, Phoenix City Hall, 200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

Application: V070120A

Applicant: Red Development, LLC.

Subject: Right-of-way adjacent to Block 22, bounded by Washington St., Central Ave., Jefferson St., and 1st St., described as: the eastern 15’ of Central Ave. right-of-way; the northern 9.5’ of Jefferson Street right-of-way; the western 25.5’ of 1st Street right-of-way adjacent to the south 180.52 feet of Block 22; and the western 15’ of 1st Street right-of-way adjacent to the north 102.75 feet of Block 22.


So what's the deal with the abandonment? Who knows this "stuff"? Combusean?

[PHX31]

Looks to me like the city is abandoning their right of way adjacent to Block 22. Those are pretty big chunks of the street rights of way (meaning, less-wide streets, or at least less land that could potentially be part of the street cross section.)

Abandoning right of way is a pretty big deal for cities, maybe that's why they have hearings for it.

[gymratmanaz]

I still don't totally understand what "Abandoning" means. Talk to me like I am ten.

[PhxSprawler]

I think the first part of this is where I have the hardest time. How does any group of businesses and their respective leaders chart a region's economic future?

I think Charlotte is a great example of corporate leaders controlling the regional economic future. The good ol' boy network of leaders from Charlotte worked with local companies to turn a sleepy southern city into a bustling international metropolis. If you find yourself in downtown Charlotte, you notice that everyone you meet seems to work for Wachovia or Bank of America, or work to support one of these two companies. These banks own the majority of the downtown area, and have persuaded suppliers and other businesses to locate there. Everything including housing, stadiums, restaurants, public arts, parks, and even public trolleys are financed or commissioned by one or both of these two banks. They have more control over the regional area than any mayor or councilperson. They have effectively put Charlotte on the map.

If we had a single company as large that was as dedicated to Phoenix, we would certainly start seeing major changes to the downtown landscape. Instead, we are a city made up of regional headquarters of companies like Intel, PhelpsDodge (Freeport McMoRan), Chase, and Bank of America, where they are interested in the area as long as our weather is nice and costs of doing business are low. They don't have the engrained support for Phoenix as a home-grown corporation might have.

In my optimistic opinion, our city is simply too new. Our next generation will have more native Phoenicians with more pride and will face better education and business opportunities. What native wouldn't love to claim responsibility for the tallest building in his hometown or the largest employer of seven-figure salaried employees? The opportunity is certainly ripe for some future Phoenix-lover(s).

[HX_Guy]

I still don't totally understand what "Abandoning" means. Talk to me like I am ten.

I'm with you on this one...

I don't know much of anything when it comes to ROW...what exactly does it mean they they are abandoning their right of way? Giving Cityscape that part of the street...to develop on, or...?