PDA

View Full Version : Phoenix CityScape Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

HooverDam
Apr 17, 2007, 5:33 PM
This is the first time I have looked at this thread.. Seems VERY similar to the City Creek Center in SLC..

I've never been to SLC, and thus am not familiar w/ the City Creek Center, if we get something like that, would you say thats a good thing? How has that project worked out for you guys?

wrendog
Apr 17, 2007, 5:39 PM
well, the project just started (I noticed on the first page in this thread that the timeline for CityScape was 2006-20011, which is exactly the timeline for CCC), so I can't comment on how it's working out, but renderings look great and construction is progressing rapidly. CCC will have 3 20+ story residential towers and some smaller commercial and res towers too. It will have "open space" and a skybridge (well that is being debated right now). We are excited here. There is a thread in this forum that specifically relates to the project with descriptions and renderings on the first page. Check 'em out! http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=117672

Archdevil
Apr 17, 2007, 7:52 PM
I emailed RED a couple of weeks ago and they said they have not set an official ground breaking yet but hope to get started this summer. It was also mentioned that they are working on parking garage and design concepts. So who knows at this point, I guess we will just all have to wait and see. I think the fact that they are responding to emails shows that the project will eventually happen.

nbrindley
Apr 17, 2007, 11:02 PM
Phoenix Development Thread, Post 1367 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2757796&postcount=1367)

The document HX Guy posted lists Feb. 2008 for start of construction.

ljbuild
Apr 23, 2007, 11:11 PM
IT is time for the city of PHOENIX TO quit letting these lowlife, fowl smelling, forever-whining,stupid" save patriots" skumbags stall this project.
FIRST OF ALL A CONCRETE, UNSHADED PIECE OF CRAP LIKE PATRIOTS PARK DOES NOT BELONG IN PHOENIX TO BEGIN WITH PEROID!!!!!
A PARK LIKE THAT BELONGS IN COOLER CITIES LIKE SEATTLE OR PORTLAND.
A PARK SIMILAR TO CENTRAL PARK IN NEW YORK IS WHAT IS WHAT BELONGS IN A HOT CITY LIKE PHOENIX. "WE NEED SHADE NOT CONCRETE"
PHOENIX HAS TALKED ABOUT CHANGING DOWNTOWN.
Well then change it. This cityscape project will contain something that the ASU STUDENTS will benefit greatly from: A GROCERY STORE.
TO THE CITY OF PHOENIX, IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COME DOWNTOWN, YOU NEED TO BUILD SOMETHING (LIKE CITYSCAPE) THAT WILL ATTRACT PEOPLE DOWN THERE AND IF ANYTHING USE YOUR POWERS AGAINST AND/OR PUT A CURFEW AGAINST THESE "SAVE PATRIOTS BRAINLESS IDIOTS"
AND GET GOING ON THIS PROJECT.
IN ADDITION,
SOME PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT THE DESERT BEING BLADED. WELL !! WELL!!
I CAN SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH YOU. HOWEVER NOW THAT THE FOCUS IS BEING SHIFTED DOWNTOWN IN TERMS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE THESE """TUMBLEWEED-HEADED" SAVE PATRIOTS SKUMBAGS POPPING UP THAT WILL CAUSE MORE DESERT TO BE BLADED.
BECAUSE NO DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO THRU ALL THIS B.S. WHEN THEY CAN JUST FLY WAY OUT TO THE SUBURBS AND BEYOND AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH MESS LIKE THIS OR "SOME PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
NOW TO THE ONES WHO ARE AGAINST BLADING THE DESERT, BRING YOUR FIGHT DOWNTOWN AND LASH IT OUT AGAINST THESE "SAVE PATRIOTS" LOW-LIFE SMELLY SKUMBAGS.

HooverDam
Apr 23, 2007, 11:20 PM
^Welcome to the forum and all, but please learn to type like you aren't 12 years old. TALKING IN ALL CAPS IS ANNOYING AND MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A TOOL.

^See, nobody likes that.

sundevilgrad
Apr 24, 2007, 2:41 AM
I don't think it's the save PSP people holding-up this project anymore, unless they're planning on filing a lawsuit or something. I thought the save PSP stuff was done when the Parks Board voted in favor of the project?

BTW... You're preaching to the chior when you come onto a "skyscraper" forum and start railing against suburbia and touting the benefits of urban development. Yes, the city of Phoenix could do a better job as a catalyst and facilitator of these projects but they've also come along way in the past few years. Slowly, but surely we're seeing the change happen. Cityscape won't make or break downtown. It'd be a very nice addition in my opinion, but I think the ball is already rolling and gaining momentum. Maybe we're starting to hit the low-end of the "critical-mass" all the talking heads like to refer to when talking about DT Phoenix. 2009. ASU, Sheraton, 44 Monroe, Hotel Monroe, SCS, Light Rail, Alta, and the new convention center will all be operational, and there's a chance that Cityscape, The W, Copperpointe, Orpheum 2, Cosmopolitan Tower, Central Park East, The Jet and the Jackson Street entertainment district will working towards completion.

District8
Apr 24, 2007, 3:37 AM
I wish someone would give me a $100,000,000 under ground parking garage. It really helps the economics of a deal.

andrewkfromaz
Apr 24, 2007, 6:07 AM
The non-profit group from NYC Project for Public Spaces has several great examples of what public parks in downtown areas CAN be (http://www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/info/parks_plazas_squares_projects/houston_park). It's far too late for PSP, but maybe someday we can see some changes to Margaret T. Hance Park (Deck Park) that make it a place people (besides bums) want to be.

Also hopefully the CityScape project will get public open space RIGHT. I don't think it's too much to ask. I'm not too optimistic that the developer has the experience to do it right immediately, but maybe after the project is built it can be upgraded. Phoenix's malls tend to get substantial infrastructure/aesthetic upgrades over the years, so I don't think what they build immediately will necessarily represent the long-term future.

jvbahn
Apr 24, 2007, 10:02 AM
I must say I agree with HooverDam on the all caps thing...there is enough drama on this page without having RAGEFUL CAPS PEOPLE.... Points eloquently made with subdued lower case letters are always appreciated.:cool:

By the way, is it just me, or has the PHX crowd become awfully quiet in recent days, is nothing happening? Usually the weekend is when people get out there and start taking pics.

HooverDam
Apr 24, 2007, 4:02 PM
but maybe someday we can see some changes to Margaret T. Hance Park (Deck Park) that make it a place people (besides bums) want to be.


Deck Park is pretty much a disaster. I live very close to it, but when I want to go to a park, I usually ride my back past it and go up to Montery park (3rd st/Oak).

The first problem w/ Deck Park is that its just a big grass field. Want to play softball there? Sorry.What about a soccer goal? Look somewhere else. How about basketball? Nope. The area directly west of Central Ave that is a little concrete scape would be a great spot for tennis, racquet ball or tether ball, but instead its a concrete slab of nothingness.

The park has a water feature, just south of the library, but has anyone ever seen it turned on? I haven't, it just sits there collecting mold and telling visitors to go away. Even the grass the city used in the park is terrible. Its not lush or nice. I don't feel like diving for a poorly thrown football on that dusty mess. The parks department needs to learn to do things right, or not at all, that grass is incredible unappealing.

It would be nice if the Japanese Friendship garden was also a part of the park and had free admission, as it would expand the scope of the park.

The biggest problem facing the park though is that there isn't enough density surrounding it to make it well used. Sure, perhaps people using the library might go sit in the park for a minute, and the cameramen from 12 News may use it on their smoke break, but who else?

It would be fantastic if the underused parking lot adjacent to W Culver St was sold off and developed into townhouses/rowhouses/brownstones. It seems to me you could develop half of that lot and still have plenty of parking for park visitors. Its the typical Phoenix obsession w/ surface parking lots. Go to Google Maps or Microsoft Live.com and notice how many parking lots surruond the area that go mostly unused. The lot along 3rd St for instance, could probably stand to have development on it, perhaps a midrise office building, with garage parking for itself and the adjacent church.

Heck, look at the HUGE surface lot north of the Library. It would be much better if the north half of that lot was turned into a garage (and in a dream world, an office tower, w/ garage on the bottom for itself and library patrons), with ground floor retail, and then have the south section of the current lot turned into more green open space, thus surronding the library in parkland.

There is also a section of the park thats bounded by the I10, Culver St, 3rd ave and 5th ave that seems completely cut off from the rest of the park. I'd be happy if they scrapped it all together and something was developed there.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but Deck Park is Phoenix's only chance for something a nice urban, large urban park, and they (unsurprisingly dropped the ball). Even if they did do a lot of renovations to the park, its probably far too small to ever become something magnificent like Central Park in NYC or Forrest Park in St Louis.

ljbuild
Apr 24, 2007, 4:41 PM
By The Way Thanks For Reading My Post , However
All I Care About Is That It Is Readable , Other Wise This Is Not A Grade Or Grammar School I Am Attending. At Least I Didn't Use Cuss Or Swear Words Like I Have Found "here And There" Throughout This Forum.
Unless You Are The Type That I Described Above And I Just Happened To "hit Home With You"
Not To Forget, Go Suns!!!!!!!!

Vicelord John
Apr 24, 2007, 4:51 PM
I sEe YoUr CaPiTaLiZaTiOn Of ThE fIrSt LeTtEr Of EvErY wOrD, aNd RaIsE yOu OnE tEeNaGe GiRl SpEaK.

sundevilgrad
Apr 24, 2007, 5:02 PM
F-in Vandercook, funny shit man...

vertex
Apr 24, 2007, 5:05 PM
Deck Park is pretty much a disaster. I live very close to it, but when I want to go to a park, I usually ride my back past it and go up to Montery park (3rd st/Oak).

The first problem w/ Deck Park is that its just a big grass field. Want to play softball there? Sorry.What about a soccer goal? Look somewhere else. How about basketball? Nope. The area directly west of Central Ave that is a little concrete scape would be a great spot for tennis, racquet ball or tether ball, but instead its a concrete slab of nothingness.

The park has a water feature, just south of the library, but has anyone ever seen it turned on? I haven't, it just sits there collecting mold and telling visitors to go away. Even the grass the city used in the park is terrible. Its not lush or nice. I don't feel like diving for a poorly thrown football on that dusty mess. The parks department needs to learn to do things right, or not at all, that grass is incredible unappealing.

It would be nice if the Japanese Friendship garden was also a part of the park and had free admission, as it would expand the scope of the park.

The biggest problem facing the park though is that there isn't enough density surrounding it to make it well used. Sure, perhaps people using the library might go sit in the park for a minute, and the cameramen from 12 News may use it on their smoke break, but who else?

It would be fantastic if the underused parking lot adjacent to W Culver St was sold off and developed into townhouses/rowhouses/brownstones. It seems to me you could develop half of that lot and still have plenty of parking for park visitors. Its the typical Phoenix obsession w/ surface parking lots. Go to Google Maps or Microsoft Live.com and notice how many parking lots surruond the area that go mostly unused. The lot along 3rd St for instance, could probably stand to have development on it, perhaps a midrise office building, with garage parking for itself and the adjacent church.

Heck, look at the HUGE surface lot north of the Library. It would be much better if the north half of that lot was turned into a garage (and in a dream world, an office tower, w/ garage on the bottom for itself and library patrons), with ground floor retail, and then have the south section of the current lot turned into more green open space, thus surronding the library in parkland.

There is also a section of the park thats bounded by the I10, Culver St, 3rd ave and 5th ave that seems completely cut off from the rest of the park. I'd be happy if they scrapped it all together and something was developed there.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but Deck Park is Phoenix's only chance for something a nice urban, large urban park, and they (unsurprisingly dropped the ball). Even if they did do a lot of renovations to the park, its probably far too small to ever become something magnificent like Central Park in NYC or Forrest Park in St Louis.

HD, just curious to know (in your estimation) how many events do you see held in the deck park? I don't live downtown, but it just 'appears' that many city-sponsored events are held at Indian school park instead. The deck park used to get a lot of city events back in the early/mid 90's, before Indian school opened up.

Phoenix will probably do something with the park in the near future, especially with all of the nearby apartments/condos going up. I agree, it's a fantastic resource, and one of only two decently-sized 'urban' parks in the valley that also have great views (Tempe beach park being the other).

As a matter of fact, Phoenix could learn a lot about scheduling events in their park from Tempe. There is something going on in the beach park about every other weekend, even during the summers. Deck park could be used in a similar way.

HooverDam
Apr 24, 2007, 5:14 PM
HD, just curious to know (in your estimation) how many events do you see held in the deck park? I don't live downtown, but it just 'appears' that many city-sponsored events are held at Indian school park instead. The deck park used to get a lot of city events back in the early/mid 90's, before Indian school opened up.


Thats tough to say, I can't see the park or anything from my window, but it seems to have stuff going on at least once a month. The last big thing I remember was the Sister Cities Festival which I checked out. It was an alright event, but it just seemed like a big travel/vacation promotion. I went thinking that each sister city was going to have unique food from its home country (I don't know where I got that idea, guess I assumed), so I was disappointed when it was just your typical carnival food.

Speaking of carnivals, adding an element like that to Deck park could perhaps bring more users to it. Maybe it would be too similar to the Kiddie Land at Encanto, but imagine if Deck Park had something like the London Eye in it:

http://www.infolondon.co.uk/images/london-eye.jpg

If you added just one big attraction like that, shops, arcades w/ games, cafes and offices would be falling all over themselves to get near it. Look what the lake did for Tempe. If Phoenix could figure out something along those lines, I'd think it would be very advantageous to the area.

andrewkfromaz
Apr 24, 2007, 7:25 PM
You guys should check the link I posted. There is a ton of really good advice for programming parks so that they get a lot of usage, amenities that draw people, and so on. One thing I thought was notable is that the size of the park doesn't really matter, there are great smaller-sized parks as well. Actually, Deck Park is pretty big anyway. There is certainly enough room to make it a special place. The way it is now is clearly unappealing and boring. It could be so much better...

I disagree with your assessment of the lot north of the Library. It could be more dense parking, but the way it is now, it provides free parking for a variety of things and could help provide parking for the park, if the park was ever managed correctly to draw people.

nbrindley
Apr 24, 2007, 11:13 PM
I sEe YoUr CaPiTaLiZaTiOn Of ThE fIrSt LeTtEr Of EvErY wOrD, aNd RaIsE yOu OnE tEeNaGe GiRl SpEaK.

His unusual capitalization scheme is due to a filter that is built into the forum software. ljbuild actually typed his post entirely in caps, but the forum software modified it to be less offensive to the eyes.


ljbuild, please do not type all in caps, it is annoying to read, and gives the impression that you are shouting everything, which is also annoying.

ljbuild
Apr 25, 2007, 1:54 AM
HEY HooverDam sorry if i offended you BUT you don't have to read my posts if you dont want to, choice is yours!
BUT I AM simply making a point.
Im a PRO-GROWTH person. I like to see things CHANGE for the better for Phoenix and more money and JOBS pumped into this city. Every time Phoenix is compared to just about any other american city, PHOENIX, is always lagging behind. less than ten years ago Phoenix was the BIGGEST metropolitan area in the nation without an adequate freeway system.
Yes we have come a long way in that era. BUT, because the city waited so long to build them, once they finsih the new ones they are already near obsolete. THE DOWNTOWN has a similar blueprint.
Here is the situation, PHOENIX is the 5th largest city in the nation in terms of population. BUT ! The Downtown HAS NOT SHOWN IT !!!!
Now i am not blind, i do see the things taking shape downtown (light-rail, new convention center etc.) HOWEVER, when someone comes along with an idea to spruce up downtown or even anywhere in Phoenix, and you have some BACKWARDS THINKING IDIOT/S GET IN THE WAY of progress, that is what PISSES me off.
For example, Phoenix is also lagging behind in HOTEL space. The SHERATON hotel alone wont cut it.
So here you have the "W" HOTEL trying to help fill that gap. BUT , what do you have in the way, More idots trying to save an ugly "sun mercantile" bldg. that is on the site that is only good enough to draw rats and cobwebs.
ANYTHING that will make downtown better and STICK-OUT im all for it.

HX_Guy
Apr 25, 2007, 2:13 AM
A new permit was issued for CityScape on 04/20. Not sure what it is or it's importance, but at least it's something showing progress...

Permit# ABND-070049 Issue Date 4/20/07 Expires 4/19/08
Permit Description ABANDONMENT APPLICATION
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

Description/Scope of Work: MISCELLANEOUS

EFFECTIVE BUILDING CODES: 2003 IBC, 2003 IRC, 2003 IMC, 2003 IECC (As amended by the 2004 supplement), 2005 NEC, ARIZONA STATE PLUMBING CODE, 2003 IFC

DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
BETWEEN CENTRAL AVE & 1ST ST, WASHINGTIN & JEFFERSON, BLOCK 22
TWO ALLEYS AND PUE'S

loftlovr
Apr 25, 2007, 8:05 AM
ljbuild-
Welcome to the forum.
Or should I say, WELCOME TO THE FORUM!
(messing with you)

Archdevil
Apr 25, 2007, 12:35 PM
ljbuild HEY HooverDam sorry if i offended you BUT you don't have to read my posts if you dont want to, choice is yours!
BUT I AM simply making a point.
Im a PRO-GROWTH person. I like to see things CHANGE for the better for Phoenix and more money and JOBS pumped into this city. Every time Phoenix is compared to just about any other american city, PHOENIX, is always lagging behind. less than ten years ago Phoenix was the BIGGEST metropolitan area in the nation without an adequate freeway system.
Yes we have come a long way in that era. BUT, because the city waited so long to build them, once they finsih the new ones they are already near obsolete. THE DOWNTOWN has a similar blueprint.
Here is the situation, PHOENIX is the 5th largest city in the nation in terms of population. BUT ! The Downtown HAS NOT SHOWN IT !!!!
Now i am not blind, i do see the things taking shape downtown (light-rail, new convention center etc.) HOWEVER, when someone comes along with an idea to spruce up downtown or even anywhere in Phoenix, and you have some BACKWARDS THINKING IDIOT/S GET IN THE WAY of progress, that is what PISSES me off.
For example, Phoenix is also lagging behind in HOTEL space. The SHERATON hotel alone wont cut it.
So here you have the "W" HOTEL trying to help fill that gap. BUT , what do you have in the way, More idots trying to save an ugly "sun mercantile" bldg. that is on the site that is only good enough to draw rats and cobwebs.
ANYTHING that will make downtown better and STICK-OUT im all for it.

Regarding the Sun Mercantile building.... There are a lot of people that would argue for historic preservation and there are a lot of people that would say historic preservation and adaptive reuse will help downtown to become a vibrant place. I really don't have a huge opinion on it, I go either way and I am all for development. However, the developer of the W is not being fare to the city in my opinion. They want a 39 story hotel and everyone supports that, plus they are developing condo's directly North of the Sun Merc. The problem is that they said they wanted to reuse the Sun Merc in the name of historic preservation and they are not planning on doing that. They want to gut the entire building and just use the old facade. That just doesn't fit into most people's idea of adaptive reuse. So I think we really need to care about these things as a community. We are all pro development here but at the same time we need to be asking the hard questions. Like .... Why can't the developer preserve this one little historic structure? Why can't we preserve the little history that remains downtown? Why should we allow developers to plow anything out of the way to make way for new developments? All I am trying to say is that you should consider the issue and realize what the city would lose if we let developers make all of the decisions. These guys just take and take so they can make big big money! I think that maybe they could start to give a little back to the community by actually helping to preserve something the community finds valuable. If the developer really cared about the community then this development would be under construction right now and the Sun Merc would be un-touched....instead it is being held up in court!:(

Downtown_resident
Apr 25, 2007, 3:43 PM
Archdevil, you're exactly right. Sarver has had opportunities to do this project the right way so that the Sun Merc could be preserved and we'd get the W Hotel, which would be a great addition to downtown. First, he could have chosen the alternate Will Bruder design that wrapped around the Sun Merc. Second, he could have compromised with the DVC and the other plaintiffs on the lawsuit in the same way that David Wallach did in building the Summit. Sarver wanted no part of any compromise and chose to go full-bore into litigation. Finally, my understanding is that Sarver pulled some dirty tricks behind the scenes with the city with regard to extra height on the hotel (and a broken promise to leave alone Sun Merc) but that's all I want to say about that.

This is an important matter because if Sarver succeeds, it essentially says that no historic building in Phoenix is safe from the wrecking ball. This is not a building owned by a private party, or the developer itself-- it's owned by the City of Phoenix-- all of us! And with all due respect to LJ, he needs to get his facts straight with regard to the Sun Merc's history and importance-- it's been listed on the National Register of Historic Places for 22 years and has been on the Phoenix Historic Property Register since 1987. It was not sitting empty-- it housed the Phoenix Suns Athletic Club for years and was going to become the first branch of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004 before Sarver decided he had to drive a 10-story stake through its heart.

Finally, LJ, taking a step back, if you don't understand the need for historic preservation, go spend some time in LoDo in Denver, or the Gas Lamp District in San Diego, or in lower Manhattan. These were all areas that were poised to be demolished in favor of 'progress' until a few stinky idiots got in the way and saved the buildings. What do you think of those areas now? Answer me that, and then remember, this problem is even more acute in Phoenix because we have so little history left.

Archdevil
Apr 25, 2007, 4:36 PM
as far as the dirty tricks go, the story I heard was that Sarver proposed the hotel at a lower height , I think 30 floors. In that proposal they had also had the condos punched through the Sun Merch. I think that is when historic preservation jumped in and tried to comprimise with him by suggesting that he build the tower taller and leave the Sun Merch alone. So Sarver took it back to the drawing boards and came back with a new proposal with the added height on the tower and still tearing down the Sun Merch! What a jerk! I wouldn't have a problem running this guy out of town for good. I really don't think the city needs to try to keep these dirty developers around, as downtown grows more developers will be interested. I say better off waiting for the right guys then letting jerks like Sarver screw us all.

wrendog
Apr 25, 2007, 4:39 PM
wow.. ljbuild is a PASSIONATE fella..

kevininlb
Apr 26, 2007, 5:23 PM
:previous: Ugh, I hate this s**t about preservation. I'm sorry, there's plenty of old sh*t all over Phoenix. We don't need to save one ugly building. I say Sarver is doing what any good developer would do. He's pushing a design he thinks -- right or wrong -- is best for his business and the area. Personally, I'm with him on this one. And besides, the whole Jackson Street Entertainment District will preserve and beautify a lot of crap that's looking awfully crappy and unused at the moment. I'm afraid what will happen with the W is this, Sarver will pull out rather than compromise on that stupid building.

:yuck:

HooverDam
Apr 26, 2007, 5:48 PM
^Im halfway with you. If Sarver wants to tear the roof off of the building- which you can't see from the ground and is certainly not part of the buildings uniqueness- I don't see a problem with that. Leaving the facade is good enough for me, I've never seen so much trouble over a roof.

But I disagree that there is plenty of old stuff in Phoenix, we have very little, and would should try to preserve what we have.

kevininlb
Apr 26, 2007, 6:27 PM
:previous: I know you're right. I just find it irritating when progress is stymied in the name of preservation. My point, simplistic though it might be, is that DT needs progress more than it needs preservation.

Downtown_resident
Apr 26, 2007, 7:20 PM
Garbage. "Progress" and "preservation" aren't antithetical. As I said in an earlier post, LoDo, GasLamp, and huge parts of Lower Manhattan were all potentially going to be razed in favor of "progress." That never happened-- and today, looking back, do you think that was a mistake?

Phoenix has to preserve its history because it has so little left (so much has been torn down in the name of progress). And for downtown Phoenix, from a strategy standpoint, it's crucial. Why should anyone care about downtown Phoenix versus the 24th and Camelback area, or Kierland, or Old Town Scottsdale, or downtown Tempe? As we all probably agree, those places currently all beat downtown in terms of number of pedestrians, retail, entertainment, high-end jobs, and probably housing. The only competitive edge downtown really has in spades on those places is its uniqueness as a product of its history. And downtown has been giving away that advantage for decades. Seriously, why should I prefer the W downtown to the Ritz on Camelback if the areas have been homogenized to the point of sameness? Why would anyone?

HooverDam
Apr 26, 2007, 7:32 PM
^And a roof that you've never seen, nor has anyone else seen, makes downtown a more unique place how? Its a freaking roof. Its not the Sistine Chapel's roof we are talking about here. I think if you preserve the rest of the building thats a reasonable compromise.

As to why you'd prefer the W, location. Its close to Chase/USAC, the Convention Center, the Symphony and lots of great theaters. And if the city wasn't run by a bunch of boneheads it would also be near championship golf near the river bed, but thats another story.

I totally know where you are coming from, its a shame that Phoenix has knocked down so much of its history, especially places like the Fox Theater, but I don't think the unseen roof a warehouse is going to make any slight shred of difference in the long run.

DevdogAZ
Apr 26, 2007, 8:55 PM
Not to mention that the roof was redone by Jerry Colangelo when the building was transformed into the Suns Athletic Club, so the roof has no historic value anyway.

I've got no problem with trying to preserve things that are historically significant. But preserving a single story warehouse in an area that really needs some height just doesn't make sense. What if there were some beautiful old house on the block that CityScape is going to be built on? Some of you would probably prefer that it be preserved, even though a house in the middle of a city just isn't compatible planning. I say let Sarver move ahead with whatever plans he has. If it includes maintaining the facade of Sun Merc, good for him. But if it doesn't, I won't care. If the building is really that important to people, they should pay to have it dismantled and re-erected as a museum in a more appropriate location.

Downtown_resident
Apr 26, 2007, 9:01 PM
I can't believe you're seriously calling that a "compromise." Just take one look at the rendering that shows the W "flex space" stuck on top of Sun Merc-- the 10 story building decapitates and then totally overwhelms the Sun Merc, which might as well not even be there anymore. As far as the interior of the building, go to the Bentley Gallery, or take a look at post #1548 in Phoenix Development news (interior of Tommyknocker Brewery)-- the roof and interior trussing are some of the coolest parts of the old warehouses. Anyway, while you say it's "just a roof," the building will be compromised to the point where it will immediately be de-listed from the National Register of Historic Places.

I hear what you're saying as far as the incremental change of losing Sun Merc, but you've got to draw a line somewhere. Phoenix's history has been lost piece by piece because each case boiled down to, "I don't think this will matter that much..." In this instance, as this building is owned by the city of Phoenix-- not the developer like the Madison Square Garden-- this is pretty sickening news for historic preservation in the Phoenix area.

And what about Sarver's dirty tricks and absolute refusal to compromise, even when a viable alternative design existed? Did you know this "flex space" targeted to sit on Sun Merc may have been earmarked as a (10-story) parking garage before the council stipulated that it couldn't be used for such? It amazes me how much people are willing to overlook because of a fancy rendering.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

jvbahn
Apr 26, 2007, 9:05 PM
The best part is that from what I've been told the roof that currently exists is not part of the original structure. It's an addition from a bit later period, still old, but not super-old.

Sort of like that damned radio tower on the Westward Ho. What a beautiful example of 1920's Art Deco/Spanish Colonial almost ruined by a 1950's antennae that hasn't been used since the 1970's. Someone really needs to take that nasty thing down and restore the Ho:haha: to its original beauty.

As for the Sarver design, as long as the building's walls are still there, who cares about the interior, no one's been inside it anyway, and no one will if it doesn't get built, so whining about the building is a moot point. I would love to preserve the old buildings, but a dead city that serves as a museum piece is not any sort of answer.

Downtown_resident
Apr 26, 2007, 9:41 PM
Once again, as several of you seem mistaken on this point, the building was not unoccupied. It was the Suns Athletic Complex for years and was only closed down in 2004 when it was to be refitted to house a branch of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Tons of people would've come into the building. Yeah, it's vacant now thanks to the uncompromising ways of one developer who was already rich as hell...

Regardless, the litigation rolls on and I'm done rehashing these arguments. The defendants are bringing a new attorney onto the case, hardly a sign that the matter is winding down...

CANUC
Apr 26, 2007, 10:00 PM
Downtown_resident, so the reality is that you are completely opposed to the 10 story building on top of the Mercantile building. So if you had a choice you would indeed stymie development in the name of preservation regardless of the compromise the developer would make. So it's an all or nothing position? Also I find the ‘evil developer’ attitude tired and the bravado you throw out there with the this comment Regardless, the litigation rolls on and I'm done rehashing these arguments. The defendants are bringing a new attorney onto the case, hardly a sign that the matter is winding down... just seem counter productive and will cause more people to oppose your stance than to feel like a solution can be found. Also why do you keep glossing over the fact that the roof is not original to the structure and therefore has no historical significance? Honestly do you really believe that the city would stop Sarver from developing his project in it’s current form? Lets be realistic the only reason this thing won’t get built would be because of market conditions.

jvbahn
Apr 26, 2007, 10:49 PM
Thanks for the illumination about the roof and the various designs, but I must admit, I'd much rather have the development there and a section of city that is viable. It's part of a larger ensemble, and I agree with your argument that Phoenix urgently needs preservation of its historic buildings, but I don't feel this is a compromise, since the original structure was altered to have the current roof. Since Carver has expanded his project to include almost every developer and landowner in that area, it'll mean much more for the positive long-term development and viability of that section of the city. I can seriously deal with the lack of the roof structure knowing that 500 million of development dollars will go to renovating a street that is now absolutely nothing to the citizens of PHX, except for the few of us dorks who actually are interested in what's going on.

Before we get to the "attack the rich capitalist asshole" argument, I'm wondering who else is going to put down millions of their own money in order to develop any given corner of Phoenix. You don't build a 39 story tower with a 40K salary. It's these sorts of people who make things or break things, I'd much rather see his vision work(yes, the fancy rendering), than have the dust-bowl that is the current Jackson Street any day. If I'm a sellout, so be it, but I prefer to view it as pragmatic reality. Just build something, goddamn it!

I know this argument means nothing to you, because your passionate about the preservation of what's there, and that's great, if Phoenix had more people like you in the 60's and 70's, downtown would already be a renovated, thriving destination, but unfortunately that's not the case, so.......

Downtown_resident
Apr 26, 2007, 11:28 PM
Downtown_resident, so the reality is that you are completely opposed to the 10 story building on top of the Mercantile building.

Yes.

So if you had a choice you would indeed stymie development in the name of preservation regardless of the compromise the developer would make.

Sarver has not made any compromise. His plan is exactly the same as the one he started with, other than the fact that the 30-story W is now 39 stories (still with the 10-story "flex space").

So it's an all or nothing position?

That isn't fair. There were, and are, other alternatives here which would be great compromises-- Sarver could have chosen the Bruder design. If a 30-story tower and 10-story annex were OK in the beginning, then why couldn't they go with just the 39-story tower? Couldn't Sarver try another design, probably just as expensive as paying legal fees to fight it out in court? What if they added height to the 39-story tower (already FAA-approved)? What about more height on the 'toilet seat' portion of the W? And why is Sarver's initial bargaining point viewed as a 'compromise?'

Also I find the ‘evil developer’ attitude tired and the bravado you throw out there with the this comment

Regardless, the litigation rolls on and I'm done rehashing these arguments. The defendants are bringing a new attorney onto the case, hardly a sign that the matter is winding down...

What bravado? I don't believe developers are all 'evil,' (a word I reserve for far worse actions than breaching the integrity of a building), and I'm a capitalist too and there's nothing wrong with making money. But don't you at least sense a tiny smidgeon of greed at work here in the dirty tricks we discussed above?

Also why do you keep glossing over the fact that the roof is not original to the structure and therefore has no historical significance?

If there were no 'historical significance' to the fact that the roof is being compromised, the building wouldn't be coming off the historic register. The rendering says it all-- the Sun Merc for all intents and purposes is the quaint basement of a 10-story structure.

Honestly do you really believe that the city would stop Sarver from developing his project in it’s current form?
No. The city voted on this and approved it. A court could-- it has-- halted it and believe me the developers could not move now if they wanted. Ultimately though you are probably right, when the litigation is resolved market conditions will dictate whether this is built as Sarver will not compromise.

OK, now I think I'm done...let me just say it is a real shame the Sun Merc fiasco had to happen. I think the W is a great project for downtown and I would love nothing more than to see it get built and Sun Merc to stay intact. And I'm happy if Sarver makes some money on the deal too.

I do doubt that ideal scenario will happen. So, in lieu of that ideal, it's OK for the people to try to force some compromise. What can I say? I'm passionate about Phoenix and what little history we have left, so I'm willing to fight for it instead of accepting the vision of some guy from San Diego.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

HooverDam
Apr 26, 2007, 11:28 PM
I didn't even know the roof thats on the building now isn't the original roof, all the more reason this case is ridiculous then. I've seen the renderings, I don't mind how Sarvers building will hang over the Sun Merc, its fine by me, I wish it was Bruders design like everyone else, but that ship has sailed.

PHX31
Apr 27, 2007, 12:07 AM
I agree with everyone but downtown resident. Besides, it's not the Sun Merc anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, it's an abandoned Phoenix Suns athletic club. You're essentially lobbying to preserve something that really isn't.

What's wrong with taking old and incorporating new? As in, keeping the facade and look of the building and incorporating a new structure on top? Aside from you don't think it looks good? There's plenty of these type of reuse buildings all over the place in many cities. What do you think about the UofA medical school downtown that took the place of the old Phoenix Union High School? There's now a big glass cube behind one of the "historic" buildings. Would you rather that not be there in order to see the entire historic building?

Eh, this is a slam dunk argument, nevermind all that I've said. If the entire structure was being demolished, I know most of us would be up in arms, but it's not, everything you can see now, is staying, so what's the big deal?

jvbahn
Apr 27, 2007, 12:57 AM
Haha, careful with that "slam dunk argument" statement. Look how Iraq turned out when that was said, you could curse the whole thing and it would just stay in litigation forever and nothing would be built. :jester:

HooverDam
Apr 27, 2007, 1:30 AM
some guy from Tucson

Fixed that for ya :D

Archdevil
Apr 27, 2007, 4:47 PM
Lets be realistic the only reason this thing won’t get built would be because of market conditions.

This is really the only logical statement I have read in this argument! This is probably the one thing that the city could actually use in the name of preservation. Bottom line is.. If the market is right and the developer WILL make money then he isn't going to just walk away from it. The fact is the developer would spend less time dicking around with the Sun Merc and just concentrate on what is allowed. Unfortunatly the market just hasn't been 100% in favor of the development. Historically the market hasn't been downtown and the city has had to give tons of incentives to developers just to get them to build something. I think that in the next couple of years we will see the market conditions mature to the point where the city can tell a developer that they have to preserve a building and the development will still go through. Obviously money is what is important here and I doubt Sarver is going to throw a tantrum because he can't tear downt he sun merc. So if the city just puts its foot down and says "NO you must preserve the Sun Merc at all costs" then Sarver has a choice to build the W on the land available or leave. If money can be made then Sarver will comply with the city and save the Sun Merc while developing the W. If money can be made and he can convince the city to let him tear down the sun merc so he can make even more money then that is what he will do. In any case the market has to be right or nothing is going to happen anyway.

I just think Sarver is a jerk because of his dirty tricks, there are probably more where those came from. I do think the hotel would be better if they preserved the Sun Merc. A new 39 story tower with an old wherehouse at the base would be something very cool. I think it would make a great space for a nice restaurant and a nice contrast between the old and the new. I personally think the idea of just leaving the facade is rediculous and if they are going to do something that tacky they might as well just tear the thing down. I am for preservation in Phoenix but I am not going to cry if they tear down the Sun Merc, it would be a sad loss but by now I would imagine that most people have just become numb to the tearing down of historic buildings in Phoenix. In fact if there is one thing this city is good at , it would be erasing it's history. Take a look at downtown, we spend more time tearing down great buildings then we do building new ones. Maybe its just the nature of this city and something we should all just get used to. Well obviously a lot of you are already used to it so its just a few of us that need to get used to it.

HooverDam
Apr 27, 2007, 6:43 PM
Erg, this is such an agitating debate. Why is just saving the facade tacky? The interior has already been totally changed over the years when it became the Suns Athletic Club. The roof was redone by Colangelo. So the only part that is historic is the facade! Sarver is willing to save that part! So what is the problem here folks?

Also, I do think the market will support the W. We keep hearing about how badly downtown needs more hotel space, even beyond what the Sheraton will offer. Downtown doesn't have a large luxury hotel, this will fill that need.

HooverDam
Apr 27, 2007, 6:43 PM
Oops, double post

sundevilgrad
Apr 27, 2007, 6:45 PM
I've been saying this for over a year now, but you're arguing about something that's never going to happen. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I doubt I will be. The W's not going to get built.

jvbahn
Apr 27, 2007, 6:48 PM
I say we pool our money together and open the "Skyscraperpage Forum's Chinese Laundry and Restaurant." The building will get used, the historic preservation people will be happy, the Chinese will be happy, and we'll have something do do other than post here and bitch about the world's most inane building. It's a win-win.:banana:

Archdevil
Apr 27, 2007, 7:23 PM
Erg, this is such an agitating debate. Why is just saving the facade tacky? The interior has already been totally changed over the years when it became the Suns Athletic Club. The roof was redone by Colangelo. So the only part that is historic is the facade! Sarver is willing to save that part! So what is the problem here folks?

I am not trying to agitate anyone, nor do I have major emotional ties to the Sun Merc. Trust me , my life will not be affected either way and I sure as hell am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball. I completly support all development downtown, and I understand that sometimes we need to tear things down to make way for new developments. All I am saying is maybe we should consider preserving it. Are you going to make money on the development? probably not! So why would you just want to hang from Sarvers nuts and let him do whatever he wants? We should be looking at what is best for the city , its our city and we should control the developmet! This guy doesn't give a shit about you or me , he only cares about making money! And that is fine, but we all need to acknowledge that and we shouldn't be afraid to tell them " hey if your going to develop this project, this is how your going to do it" It would just be nice to have a little history left here!

HooverDam
Apr 27, 2007, 7:48 PM
You are right, I don't stand to directly profit over the project. But we all profit if the project happens. It brings more money to the business' we may work in, makes downtown more lively, helps the Jackson St project, etc but I don't have to tell you that.

I just don't have a control complex like a lot of people do. Its not my property, its not my business, it being owned by the city doesn't make it anymore mine than if it was owned by a private firm. I happen to think Sarvers current plan is what's best for the city (outside of the unrealistic proposals, like reverting to Bruders design) and I wish the project could get under way.

DevdogAZ
Apr 27, 2007, 7:57 PM
I am not trying to agitate anyone, nor do I have major emotional ties to the Sun Merc. Trust me , my life will not be affected either way and I sure as hell am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball. I completly support all development downtown, and I understand that sometimes we need to tear things down to make way for new developments. All I am saying is maybe we should consider preserving it. Are you going to make money on the development? probably not! So why would you just want to hang from Sarvers nuts and let him do whatever he wants? We should be looking at what is best for the city , its our city and we should control the developmet! This guy doesn't give a shit about you or me , he only cares about making money! And that is fine, but we all need to acknowledge that and we shouldn't be afraid to tell them " hey if your going to develop this project, this is how your going to do it" It would just be nice to have a little history left here!

But you didn't address the question. What's tacky about simply incorporating the facade into the new building? The facade is the only original part of the structure anyway. I don't see why anyone wants to preserve the building in it's current form. It's a complete eyesore on a block with a modern arena and right next to what will be a very modern hotel. Incorporate the facade: fine with me. Tear it down: fine with me. Hinder development in order to preserve a crap building: Not fine at all.

I don't care who Sarver is or what his motives are. It shouldn't matter to anyone. He wants to build a tall building in downtown PHX. That's all that matters. The fact that he apparently played some "dirty tricks" (which I don't buy at all) or that he's from out of town, or that he's got enough money, or whatever other reason you want to give, shouldn't matter at all.

Archdevil
Apr 28, 2007, 12:58 AM
But you didn't address the question. What's tacky about simply incorporating the facade into the new building?

Yes, I know I havn't addressed this question yet. I am searching for words or an analogy that could help me explain why this idea bothers me. I know Norman Foster did something similar in New York with the Hearst Tower and it worked nice. However the Hearst building was a much larger structure to begin with. 6 stories makes for a nice base, I think the facade of the Sun Merc is simply to thin and to small to have the same kind of presence. Seriously what is the point of doing that anyway? If you aren't going to preserve the building then just tear it down! I think the problem you seem to have is that you can't see past the "TALL BUILDING" . And maybe I am just having this conversation in the wrong forum but I am a supporter of urban environments. By urban I mean high density and mixed use and "high rise" doesn't define urban. Some of the greatest urban cities in the world have very few skyscrapers.... Rome, Paris to name a couple. You should also understand that another skyscraper isn't going to make downtown any more popular than it is right now! Put it this way, in architecture we study precidents in order to inform our new designs. They act as a kind of guide book that says, hmmm no that didn't work or this idea worked very well. If you use precidents of cities in this argument then every great city in the world has historic buildings and historic preservation is a major concern. Phoenix, which I love, is also a joke among great cities and hardly comperable in the global community. That said, Phoenix also has a long history of tearing down historic buildings. Now I know its not directly related but one could say that its the lack of preservation and the mindset of the people here that keeps this city from really developing. The mindset that I speak of is that of people like you who would tear down their own grandmothers house to make way for new buildings. There is enough vacant land downtown to keep developers busy for the next 20 years. So how about we concentate on that before we go tearing down what we already have. Maybe this argument is simply not one worth having, similar to religion and politics , maybe we should just agree to disagree and see what the court decides. As I said before, I am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball, and that wrecking ball won't stop at the Sun Merc either! Better yet, if the Sun Merc goes then they should just go ahead and tear down every other historic building in Phoenix! There is no sense having these arguments every time a developer comes to town with pretty renderings. Plus that way the ground work would already be done for them.

HooverDam
Apr 28, 2007, 1:10 AM
^You completely undermine any point you have when you say "Well if we can't save a non historic roof, we might as well tear down every other historic building in Phoenix!"

To paraphrase Allen Iverson:
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4854/20020507iverson2se6.jpg

"We're talking about a roof? Not a historic building, but a roof!? We're trying to make Phoenix a great city and we're in here talking about a roof? A replaced, non historic roof!? Not a building, not the facade, not the bricks you can see and touch, a roof? We're talking about a roof"

PHX602
Apr 28, 2007, 4:27 AM
lmfao:haha:

sundevilgrad
Apr 28, 2007, 4:33 AM
^You completely undermine any point you have when you say "Well if we can't save a non historic roof, we might as well tear down every other historic building in Phoenix!"

To paraphrase Allen Iverson:
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4854/20020507iverson2se6.jpg

"We're talking about a roof? Not a historic building, but a roof!? We're trying to make Phoenix a great city and we're in here talking about a roof? A replaced, non historic roof!? Not a building, not the facade, not the bricks you can see and touch, a roof? We're talking about a roof"



Holy shit, that is funny! Practice man, we talkin 'bout practice, man!

kevininlb
Apr 28, 2007, 4:00 PM
preservation of facades can be done and is done. someone mentioned the hearst building in nyc. Park Tower in Chicago also did it. you can't see it well in this pic but it's the two-story-ish section on the right side of building. i worked across the street when it was being built. people were up in arms about these old buildings being knocked down; park tower compromised, keeping only the facades. personally, i would've knocked them down, but it turned out pretty well. compromise can work and the preservations get what they want (sort of) and so do those in favor of progress.

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=299312

guess i'll also just post link. doesn't look like i know how to post pics yet

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=299312

DevdogAZ
Apr 30, 2007, 7:45 PM
Yes, I know I havn't addressed this question yet. I am searching for words or an analogy that could help me explain why this idea bothers me. I know Norman Foster did something similar in New York with the Hearst Tower and it worked nice. However the Hearst building was a much larger structure to begin with. 6 stories makes for a nice base, I think the facade of the Sun Merc is simply to thin and to small to have the same kind of presence. Seriously what is the point of doing that anyway? If you aren't going to preserve the building then just tear it down! I think the problem you seem to have is that you can't see past the "TALL BUILDING" . And maybe I am just having this conversation in the wrong forum but I am a supporter of urban environments. By urban I mean high density and mixed use and "high rise" doesn't define urban. Some of the greatest urban cities in the world have very few skyscrapers.... Rome, Paris to name a couple. You should also understand that another skyscraper isn't going to make downtown any more popular than it is right now! Put it this way, in architecture we study precidents in order to inform our new designs. They act as a kind of guide book that says, hmmm no that didn't work or this idea worked very well. If you use precidents of cities in this argument then every great city in the world has historic buildings and historic preservation is a major concern. Phoenix, which I love, is also a joke among great cities and hardly comperable in the global community. That said, Phoenix also has a long history of tearing down historic buildings. Now I know its not directly related but one could say that its the lack of preservation and the mindset of the people here that keeps this city from really developing. The mindset that I speak of is that of people like you who would tear down their own grandmothers house to make way for new buildings. There is enough vacant land downtown to keep developers busy for the next 20 years. So how about we concentate on that before we go tearing down what we already have. Maybe this argument is simply not one worth having, similar to religion and politics , maybe we should just agree to disagree and see what the court decides. As I said before, I am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball, and that wrecking ball won't stop at the Sun Merc either! Better yet, if the Sun Merc goes then they should just go ahead and tear down every other historic building in Phoenix! There is no sense having these arguments every time a developer comes to town with pretty renderings. Plus that way the ground work would already be done for them.
While the tall building would be nice, that's not really what I care about. I'm more disturbed by the fact that someone can't simply buy a property and do with it what they want without interference from outside parties who claim to have some kind of "community interest" in the property.

If there's something truly historic or unique about a building, I think a developer has a duty to preserve it, and I'll stand behind anyone who wants to rant and rail against developers who don't live up to this. But I don't think there's anything about the Sun Merc that's worth saving. It's small, ugly, run down, and totally out of place on that block. I'd prefer to see it torn down. However, if the developer is offering to incorporate the facade into the new construction, I think that should be commended and the preservationists should be happy. To require anything more from the developer when such an insignificant building is holding up such a monumental development is ridiculous, IMO.

combusean
Apr 30, 2007, 9:03 PM
Ugh, I hate this s**t about preservation. I'm sorry, there's plenty of old sh*t all over Phoenix. We don't need to save one ugly building. I say Sarver is doing what any good developer would do. He's pushing a design he thinks -- right or wrong -- is best for his business and the area. Personally, I'm with him on this one. And besides, the whole Jackson Street Entertainment District will preserve and beautify a lot of crap that's looking awfully crappy and unused at the moment. I'm afraid what will happen with the W is this, Sarver will pull out rather than compromise on that stupid building.

I know you're right. I just find it irritating when progress is stymied in the name of preservation. My point, simplistic though it might be, is that DT needs progress more than it needs preservation.

If people got in the way of "progress" in any of the preceding 40 years since downtown started to die off, we wouldn't have the problems we would, eg, vacant lots everywhere.


I didn't even know the roof thats on the building now isn't the original roof, all the more reason this case is ridiculous then. I've seen the renderings, I don't mind how Sarvers building will hang over the Sun Merc, its fine by me, I wish it was Bruders design like everyone else, but that ship has sailed.

Grr... I hate rehashing arguments all over again but some of you need to learn that there's more to a roof than just the sandwich roll they replace every fifteen years anyway and is not a component to the historic aspects of the building.

It's like an old chair. The black mesh that's stapled on to the bottom is regularly replaced. The frame and cushions are the antique part, and removing or replacement of the black mesh does not change the historic character of the chair.

Let's do a cross-section of the Sun Merc building as it could stand appropriately rehabilitated.

#_______________________________________#
#XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX#
#XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX#
# #
# #
# #
# unobstructed #
# open space #
# #
# #
# #

Key: # - original brick side
X - original trussing
_ - the rolled roof that
Colangelo replaced


This is what the building will look like with the structure on top


[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
# [][][][][][][][][][][][][] #
#=======================================#
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #
# || || || || #

Key: # - original brick, with new shoring
= - concrete roof
[] - glass thing on top
|| - interior concrete support columns


If you cannot understand why this building would be de-listed and its historic character eliminated, I don't know what else will.

Besides, it's not the Sun Merc anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, it's an abandoned Phoenix Suns athletic club. You're essentially lobbying to preserve something that really isn't.

Wait a minute--that's one of the most preposterous anti-preservation arguments I've ever heard. Just because the people are dead and the use has changed doesn't mean it's ever happened? That's completely bogus. It's why they call it a historic building--because the building is the only thing left from its history!

Archdevil
Apr 30, 2007, 9:41 PM
Lovin those sections Combusean!! :tup: however I don't think anything is going to change the minds of some people. Some people just don't find history important. Or they feel as though they should be the one's deciding what history is important and what can go! Hell, who needs historic buildings when we can just tear them down and replace them with something that you can find in every other city in the world! Thats what we want right, We want Phoenix to just blend in to the rest of the world! There is no need for it to stand out as an original or interesting city! :koko:

HooverDam
Apr 30, 2007, 10:13 PM
AH, so its not a roof thats important, its trusses none of us have ever seen- my word, that certainly changes things. :rolleyes:

This isn't the Orpheum, this isn't the Fox Theater, this isn't Historic City Hall, its a brown brick cube (something the warehouse district has a lot of), thats facade is going to be kept in tact, I for one can't ask for anything else. Sarver wants to add support columns, and remove some trusses that we've never seen anyway, I don't see the big deal.

It comes down to this, which would you rather have:

The Sun Merc, as it stands today, not being used, just sitting there being 'historic' and adding nothing to the neighborhood or...

Have a 36 story hotel and condo structure that it going to 1. change Phoenix's skyline, 2. keep move conventioneers and high end clients in downtown instead of at the Biltmore or somewhere else, 3. Add more retail to the streets-cape, and increase its liveliness, 4. dramatically help the Jackson St project work by making sure there are always people near it.

I don't see how you could choose the former. I know someone is going to say something like "well I want a third option, I want the Bruder design, or the hotel and the Sun Mercs super special trusses", but thats not an option, sorry.

Robert Sarver is trying to pump a ton of money and life into downtown with this project, and people are standing in the way because of trusses they've never seen, I just don't get it.

PHX31
Apr 30, 2007, 10:25 PM
/\ You forgot it's going to be delisted as a historic building... yet another list no one has ever seen nor gives two shits about. It's nice to tell someone that some building is on a list of historic buildings, but two seconds later they'll completely forget.. it's just not that big of a deal.

I'm sure the trusses are beautiful. But again, no one sees them. The important part of the building, the facade, will be saved, which I'm sure we all think is good.

combusean
Apr 30, 2007, 11:17 PM
AH, so its not a roof thats important, its trusses none of us have ever seen- my word, that certainly changes things.


Have you seen the interior of Tovrea Castle? I haven't. Nobody has in 30 years except the people that are renovating it. That doesn't mean it's not there and that it's not important.

I'm sure there's a way to incorporate the trusses in and around the concrete support columns and things like that, perhaps by leaving the roof over the museum space as is. (ding ding?) But given Sarver's tactics so far I just don't trust that he'd spend an extra $40 to do it. After having been lied to and pushed around, I don't blame the Sun Merc folks for suing.

I don't see how you could choose the former. I know someone is going to say something like "well I want a third option, I want the Bruder design, or the hotel and the Sun Mercs super special trusses", but thats not an option, sorry.

That's exactly the problem with the process so far. It is a given that Sarver et al are going to develop it simply because they lease space at the arena. It is a given that they are going to select the best and only design. It is a given that alternative options (I'm really not crazy about Bruder's design) are impossible. It is a given that they are reputable and this is going to happen, but, contradictingly, they need tax dollars or public property first. It is a given that anybody opposed to the project in its current form is opposed to it in its entirety, because any suggestions they would have to improve the project are wrong anyway. It is a given that Phoenix will be developed not from ivory tower penthouses, neighborhood councils, nor swank engineering offices, but in superior court, because that's damn near where every project ends up. What the hell?

Why is it that in Phoenix people give developers so much leeway with the public good? Why do we place so much faith in them to do exactly the right thing when every single time I've heard the argument before they've been proven wrong? People toss out euphemisms like revitalisation and progress when we really don't know those are given.

Even as an aside, the definitions of progress in this town are many. Yours does not necessarily fit mine, so it is almost spurious to put it out there to begin with. It's progress to an element I don't think is critical to downtown's success except for the professional basketball players who will be staying there.

If the W was really going to happen or had to happen it would be happening now. The fact that we are subsiding it says that there's no reason to build it--in a normal market it should've been proposed hitherto on any number of vacant lots. Perhaps if there were no Sarver, that would be happening without a fight. Sarver, on the other hand, is fine getting tied up and monopolising Phoenix's path to a W. If it had to get built, Sarver would have started going to the negotiating table in earnest.

But if Sarver wants to prove his salt, he can build the toilet first. Then he can flush Sun Merc into it. It's very easy to look at a boring brick cube compared to the significant height (its only redeeming quality) of the W and say that's progress, but the scenario that I fear is Sun Merc's destruction (in its current form) for no damn reason. If Sun Merc gets torn apart, and for whatever reason the W doesn't happen, we're left with a fraction of what we started with.

Let's bring this back on topic--CityScape. Compare the approved project with what we first saw. Everybody associated with the savepatriotspark.org movement was derided for the same reasons the Sun Merc folks are now. But if we had shut up, we wouldn't be getting a better project--I like the flexible event space, etc. That's my solace out of the eight months I put into it. Why shouldn't Sarver be held to the same public standard?

plinko
Apr 30, 2007, 11:32 PM
(Continuing the W discussion - sorry...:D)

Curiosity question, what type of historic building is the SunMerc? National? State? City/County? It does make some difference in what should or should not be allowed. If it's a National Historic Landmark, there are guidelines that protect, yes, even the roof trusses (for some reason a bunch of you seem to have the trusses and structure confused with the waterproofing membrane - THESE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS).

Anyway, I'm not going to comment on the architectural merits of the W design, but I will say that there are some things to consider in terms of why things are the way they are.

I can think of a great example of a hotel project where an historic building was at the base. The Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento, built in 1999, restored a wonderful Julia Morgan warehouse building as part of its base. The tower is built over its own base (including parking) and is attached to the Morgan building. The original trusses have been preserved to free span what became a wonderful public space. Now this was a warehouse building, a building that sat essentially publicly inaccessible for years. But as part of this project, the facade gets the attention that it deserves, and the trusswork which is EQUALLY indicative of the architecture and structures of that era is repaired and exposed for all the public to see as part of their hotel experience. Not a bad thing...

A couple of photos (Oddly I couldn't find any of my own photos of the exterior, just the interior):

Courtesy sacrs.org:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/Sheraton_Grand_Hotel.jpg

Courtesy portland.indymedia.org:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/untitled.jpg

The interior trusses (images courtesy of me!):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/070125SAC121.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/070125SAC122.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Random/070125SAC123.jpg

Now maybe the trusses of the SunMerc are wood and in poor shape? Maybe they aren't particularly historic (altered over the years)...then again, so is the facade is it not? My basic point is that the trusses are likely as equally historic (in terms of what they are) as the facade. They may not be publicly visible now, but I assure you that if they were preserved that they would have to be.

soleri
Apr 30, 2007, 11:37 PM
Excuse for interjecting myself here, but there are extremely few people like Robert Sarver willing to put their private capital downtown. This is not an idle concern we can weigh against an historic if otherwise marginal building. There is, in fact, no real equivalency. If preservationists want to make a cause celebre out of the Sun Merc building, at least be honest enough to state that what's being preserved would in other city be a joke.

Phoenix won't rediscover its historic roots by fetishizing a few leftover warehouses. We can, however, get serious about the real-world tradeoffs involved in making a city both attractive and dynamic. In the case of Phoenix, we let the context of historic architecture vanish a long time ago (Chinatown, e.g.). The wonderful buildings we did have are largely gone but a W Hotel in our otherwise woebegone downtown is a major deal. That's why there's really no political support either on the Council or the public at large for a pristine Sun Merc building. The scales are so tipped in favor of the W that the debate here verges on surrealistic nitpicking.

HooverDam
Apr 30, 2007, 11:44 PM
^Good to see you posting Soleri, thought you had gone the way of Don B.

plinko
Apr 30, 2007, 11:53 PM
Excuse for interjecting myself here, but there are extremely few people like Robert Sarver willing to put their private capital downtown. This is not an idle concern we can weigh against an historic if otherwise marginal building. There is, in fact, no real equivalency. If preservationists want to make a cause celebre out of the Sun Merc building, at least be honest enough to state that what's being preserved would in other city be a joke.

Phoenix won't rediscover its historic roots by fetishizing a few leftover warehouses. We can, however, get serious about the real-world tradeoffs involved in making a city both attractive and dynamic. In the case of Phoenix, we let the context of historic architecture vanish a long time ago (Chinatown, e.g.). The wonderful buildings we did have are largely gone but a W Hotel in our otherwise woebegone downtown is a major deal. That's why there's really no political support either on the Council or the public at large for a pristine Sun Merc building. The scales are so tipped in favor of the W that the debate here verges on surrealistic nitpicking.

That's why I asked what TYPE of historic building it is. If it's on the National Historic Register (uber architect, unique style, etc), then by all means it should conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. If it's just a local thing, I'm alot more on the fence.

That being said, to play devil's advocate...I'm curious why so many are certain that Sarver can make the project pencil with just the tower? Sarver isn't stupid, he's not going to push a project that's going to lose him money. If the project penciled with a single tower, trust me he would have already done it. Not like construction of the project now is the same as when first proposed two years ago (steel, concrete, copper prices are absurd at the moment). So it's cheaper for Sarver to legally fight this in court and push this version. It isn't some ego thing. It's basic economics...

combusean
May 1, 2007, 12:14 AM
That's why I asked what TYPE of historic building it is. If it's on the National Historic Register (uber architect, unique style, etc), then by all means it should conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. If it's just a local thing, I'm alot more on the fence.

That being said, to play devil's advocate...I'm curious why so many are certain that Sarver can make the project pencil with just the tower? Sarver isn't stupid, he's not going to push a project that's going to lose him money. If the project penciled with a single tower, trust me he would have already done it. Not like construction of the project now is the same as when first proposed two years ago (steel, concrete, copper prices are absurd at the moment). So it's cheaper for Sarver to legally fight this in court and push this version. It isn't some ego thing. It's basic economics...

It is on both the National Register and the Phoenix Register.

soleri
May 1, 2007, 12:28 AM
That's why I asked what TYPE of historic building it is. If it's on the National Historic Register (uber architect, unique style, etc), then by all means it should conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. If it's just a local thing, I'm alot more on the fence.

That being said, to play devil's advocate...I'm curious why so many are certain that Sarver can make the project pencil with just the tower? Sarver isn't stupid, he's not going to push a project that's going to lose him money. If the project penciled with a single tower, trust me he would have already done it. Not like construction of the project now is the same as when first proposed two years ago (steel, concrete, copper prices are absurd at the moment). So it's cheaper for Sarver to legally fight this in court and push this version. It isn't some ego thing. It's basic economics...


This is a point I've stressed over and over. If the market for the W's condos were really there, this thing would be under construction now. But downtown condos are not hot so Sarver is waiting, all the while spending some chump change on legal representation over an issue that could have been easily brokered otherwise.

I can only guess what Sarver is thinking but he's not going to take a huge risk here. It's not the lawsuit that's the major impediment; it's the market.

jvbahn
May 1, 2007, 12:38 AM
Thank you for re-appearing, soleri. It's nice to have the voice of reason on this forum resurface. The lawsuit makes a good cover to bide time until the market improves(currently hitting the skids in terms of investors willing to cough up the millions necessary for a tower like this).

vertex
May 1, 2007, 1:47 AM
Has anybody given 2 cents to the idea of moving the Sun Merc instead?

Why doesn't the city buy one of the empty lots a few blocks further south in the warehouse district, take the building apart brick-by-brick, and put it there instead? It will still manage to stay in context with the neighborhood, and be out of harms way.

In case anyone didn't know, there is plenty of precedent for this; about half the buildings that make up Heritage Square were moved from other spots in the neighborhood back in the 1970's, including the Rosson house, the Carriage house, and the house that holds part of Pizzeria Bianco.

combusean
May 1, 2007, 4:24 AM
^ It is the last standing building of downtown Phoenix's old Chinatown, another reason people are making such a fuss over it. Moving it would defeat the purpose.

sundevilgrad
May 1, 2007, 5:12 AM
So, any Cityscape news on this thread?

HX_Guy
May 1, 2007, 5:47 AM
Seriously...why isn't this being discussed in the Phoenix Development thread or in something for the W?


As for CityScape news, another permit was issued on 04/26 and I got an email from John Bacon stating they are expecting new images mid-May.

Permit# PAPP-0701810 Issue Date 4/26/07 Expires 4/25/08
Permit Description CITYSCAPE
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

PHX NATIVE 929
May 1, 2007, 6:04 AM
You hit the nail on the head HooverDam.

PHX NATIVE 929
May 1, 2007, 6:07 AM
"It comes down to this, which would you rather have:

The Sun Merc, as it stands today, not being used, just sitting there being 'historic' and adding nothing to the neighborhood or...

Have a 36 story hotel and condo structure that it going to 1. change Phoenix's skyline, 2. keep move conventioneers and high end clients in downtown instead of at the Biltmore or somewhere else, 3. Add more retail to the streets-cape, and increase its liveliness, 4. dramatically help the Jackson St project work by making sure there are always people near it.

I don't see how you could choose the former. I know someone is going to say something like "well I want a third option, I want the Bruder design, or the hotel and the Sun Mercs super special trusses", but thats not an option, sorry.

Robert Sarver is trying to pump a ton of money and life into downtown with this project, and people are standing in the way because of trusses they've never seen, I just don't get it."

Right on the money.

PHX NATIVE 929
May 1, 2007, 6:09 AM
"Excuse for interjecting myself here, but there are extremely few people like Robert Sarver willing to put their private capital downtown. This is not an idle concern we can weigh against an historic if otherwise marginal building. There is, in fact, no real equivalency. If preservationists want to make a cause celebre out of the Sun Merc building, at least be honest enough to state that what's being preserved would in other city be a joke.

Phoenix won't rediscover its historic roots by fetishizing a few leftover warehouses. We can, however, get serious about the real-world tradeoffs involved in making a city both attractive and dynamic. In the case of Phoenix, we let the context of historic architecture vanish a long time ago (Chinatown, e.g.). The wonderful buildings we did have are largely gone but a W Hotel in our otherwise woebegone downtown is a major deal. That's why there's really no political support either on the Council or the public at large for a pristine Sun Merc building. The scales are so tipped in favor of the W that the debate here verges on surrealistic nitpicking."

Possibly the first time I've nodded my head in agreement while reading one of your posts Soleri.

loftlovr
May 1, 2007, 9:47 AM
What a fabulous W hotel debate! (in the Cityscape thread)
Anyone thought of creating a W hotel thread?

I see both sides.
In all- I would see the Sun Merc altered if it meant getting a World class 5 star Modern hotel skyscraper.

Shawn you have held an amazing argument for saving the building in it's entirety.
Question- In your opinion are we better off with Chase Field (And the draw it brings to Downtown) than we were before it (with dozens of vacant warehouses)?

I wish there was a way to keep the building as is- I wish the project penciled out without having to build on top of the SunMerc....

I did like Bruder's plan and how it seemed it would turn pedestrians in to magnetized drone mummies walking towards the building!
But DFD just hit a homerun with Portland Place so I am going to assume the renderings are just weak for the proposed W.

Why can't the trusses be re-used underneath the concrete roof?
If the concrete beams were limited and the trusses re-used- I would be okay with it. All rennovated properties get altered some what these days. -Like The Fontenelle House. The brick is preserved and the look and feel of the exterior.... but the insides were completely rebuilt.

combusean
May 1, 2007, 4:08 PM
Sean you have held an amazing argument for saving the building in it's entirety.

I think there's a better design than what we've got and Bruder's "Rio on Acid" version. Perhaps it's not feasible that the entire building should be saved, and that the best option is really a combination of all three methods available: Cantilevering, intermingling the support columns with the trussing, and simply leaving a part of the building untouched where the museum goes.


Question- In your opinion are we better off with Chase Field (And the draw it brings to Downtown) than we were before it (with dozens of vacant warehouses)?

Chase Field works only for a small fraction of the year when there's an event there. The other time it's a massive deadzone that contributes nothing to the streetscape. I'd take flat brick walls over those tacky baseballs any day.

HooverDam
May 1, 2007, 4:31 PM
I
Chase Field works only for a small fraction of the year when there's an event there. The other time it's a massive deadzone that contributes nothing to the streetscape. I'd take flat brick walls over those tacky baseballs any day.

So you are against any baseball stadium there, or just the way Chase turned out? If Chase was wrapped in retail or something like that you'd be OK w/ it?

Baseball has the most games per year of any sport, so really Chase Field is probably one of our most used sports venues, along w/ USAC because it hosts 3 teams plus other live entertainment events. Its not like we are talking about the Cardinals stadium which hosts 8 home games a year and once and a while a huge concert.

CANUC
May 1, 2007, 5:57 PM
I'd take flat brick walls over those tacky baseballs any day.
Ouch, careful Combusean there are some staunch sports fans on this forum, myself included. But seriously I strongly disagree with this comment. Let me explain; I was at the Suns game last Tuesday at the same time Randy Johnson was making his debut on the mound for the D-Backs. The Suns game started at 7:30pm so we arrived at 4:30 thinking that it would give us sufficient time to get dinner and have a few drinks before the game.

Well let me tell you we were wrong, there were some of the largest crowds I have ever seen. Marjele’s and the Hardrock were by reservation only, Cooper’s Town, Coach & Willi’s had nearly two hour waiting times. We ended up catching one of those ‘taxi’ bikes to the Tee Pee. After dinner we decided to skip the bikes and walked back to the arena and let me tell you first it wasn’t as far as we thought and the walk was rather pleasant and a lot of what is discussed on this forum really came to surface. There were people everywhere the idea that DT is dead just seemed absurd and when we reached Jackson Street I had to admire SCS the enormous potential that Jackson Street has, I mean it’s just incomprehensible that the Entertainment District isn’t under construction NOW. Also after the game ended, close to 10:00pm there were still people mingling around but of course the lack of places to visit didn’t do the crowds justice. So no I disagree strongly with you that had the warehouse been saved they would have done more for downtown than what Chase Field and the US Airways have done, the proof is in the people.

loftlovr
May 1, 2007, 6:50 PM
Combusean-
I only posed the question because I am conflicted- like you....
Chase (BOB) or Vacant Warehouses that could have been awesome retail and Loft buildings?
I wish there had been a way for both...
It makes me want to cry when I think of the ability those buildings had- we could have been a bit more Denver-like or Gaslamp like...
Soleri once told me that approximately 20 cool buildings were destroyed in that area to make room for BOB.
But in all- I am okay seeing a "small portion" of our buildings go if it means to make way for something as Grand as BOB.
I am not insinuating we tear down the Warehouse District to make room for Disney Park, but I am okay with say The Washburn Piano building or the Tempe dome being razed if it means a much better use of the land.
Where do you draw the line?
Case by case I guess.
Right now there is some major controversy regarding Opus and the old Mushroom looking VNB on 44th and Indian School. I love the building and do not want to see such an iconic structure go.
Think if we had Fox theater still- and the allure it would add to our Downtown. Would we ever tear down the Orpheum Theater or Westward Ho? Hell no....
Sun Merc- I would not ever want to see it go....
But I think the important part is the red brick exterior and that would be preserved. (If I had my way the building would pencil out without needing to alter the Sun Merc) -But I would rather see it altered than destroyed outright.
You do make a strong argument for full-preservation though!
I hope the trusses can be saved and integrated with the building.
Your point is the manipulation and seediness regarding the trusses by the developer to the City, and I get that.

combusean
May 1, 2007, 7:37 PM
But in all- I am okay seeing a "small portion" of our buildings go if it means to make way for something as Grand as BOB.

I don't know what the obsession is with putting arenas and things like that directly downtown. Unless you can truly integrate them, like we haven't, put these central cities on the periphery. If America West Arena or Bob was closer to Buckeye or something like that it would have probably worked better--that way those venues would feed into the warehouse district rather than destroying it outright. This is how Denver did it, and it worked really well. Or, if we knew we were building light rail when we built BOB, it would have worked anywhere along the route. It already looks like an airplane hanger--why not put it near the airport?

I don't think we really ever had a good stock of buildings on par with LoDo in Denver. They simply built them bigger and better there. Right now, it's kind of wasteful turning one story warehouse after one story warehouse into high-priced studios and lofts when you really have to dig deep in cases to know the historic element. Why is this brown cube different from the other? Jensen's LoJack proposal works pretty well to this regard.

Downtown Voices said the Jackson St designs look like "Disneyland." Maybe. There are some things that need work and refinement, but the better question is... if not Jensen's plan for the Warehouse District, then what? Everyone's personal investments are at stake in these things, but you're not going to find a middle ground between downtown Phoenix land speculators and their tenants who want nothing more than the low-cost, leisurely lifestyle the artist's lifestyle affords. The lawsuit they filed on the Summit at Copper Square folks was just outright silly.

But there's no line to be drawn for historic preservation. I think the preservationists have it wrong constantly pushing a hard line philosophy. You set yourself up to lose that way. Every building is a case-by-case basis. Some can be razed, moved, cantilevered, integrated, reused, facadomised, whatever. I dislike that there are developers like Jerry Sarver and I am glad that there are developers like Dale Jensen. Both of them deal with historic preservation, but the DVC folks won't like any of them.

CANUC
May 1, 2007, 9:08 PM
I don't know what the obsession is with putting arenas and things like that directly downtown. Unless you can truly integrate them, like we haven't, put these central cities on the periphery. If America West Arena or Bob was closer to Buckeye or something like that it would have probably worked better--that way those venues would feed into the warehouse district rather than destroying it outright.
Uh, what? I don’t get how you’re rationalizing that the Chase Field and the US Airways arena are “destroying” the warehouse district. Again, read my previous post. From what I have personally seen what is actually occurring is the complete opposite of what you state. On that day alone both venues were sold out with over 49,000 at Chase and over 19,000 for the Suns arena for a total of 68,000 bodies drawn to the very area that you believe is being destroyed. Again many, many people spilled over into the warehouse district pumping life and money into the area. How is this a bad thing? Lets pretend that Chase and the Arena were indeed built in Buckeye. What do you see that could possibly draw 68,000 people to the same area if both venues were absent? It certainly wouldn’t be residential condos since we have seen that the market just isn’t there. Don’t you believe that in fact one is feeding the other? Don’t you see how the fact that these two venues attract head count helps the surrounding area? Do you believe SCS would have been built if these two venues were in Buckeye?

I mean I’m no cheerleader for subsidizing private ball parks on tax payers dollars but to ignore the positives is a bit disingenuous. Hell look at Westgate, the very reason it exist is because the Cardinals stadium and Coyotes arena. As Steve Ellman said in a press conference “we’ve brought 1 billion dollars of investment to a cotton field”.

plinko
May 1, 2007, 9:18 PM
^Totally irrelevant to the discussion (I only looked it up because I remembered thinking last week that it was a really low number), but the official attendance at the D'Backs game last Tuesday with Johnson pitching was 19,508?

BTW, Sean didn't say that the BOB should have been built in Buckeye, he said on or near Buckeye...as in Buckeye Road.

Personally I think 7th Avenue and Jefferson (SW corner) would have been a fabulous location for the BOB. Right next to a potential renovated commuter rail / lite rail oriented Phoenix Union Station.

combusean
May 1, 2007, 9:26 PM
^ Yeah ... that whole street that's, ya know, a mile south of Van Buren. :rolleyes:

CANUC
May 1, 2007, 9:40 PM
OK, my mistake but when he said put these central cities on the periphery. If America West Arena or Bob was closer to Buckeye or something like that it would have probably worked better I thought you meant the city of Buckeye. Which actually makes Combuseans post make more sense because I didn’t understand when he said that way those venues would feed into the warehouse district rather than destroying it outright. Anyways I still don’t understand the overall sentiment that they are destroying the warehouse district. Again I’ll take your word for it, over 19,000 in attendance for Randy Johnson’s debut plus a sell out crowd at the arena – trust me it was sold out – for a total of over 38,000 bodies. Again, what can you see that would draw that type of crowd absent those to venues and how is that destroying the warehouse district?

HX_Guy
May 2, 2007, 12:50 AM
Looks like the permits are coming a little faster now...

Permit# PLAT-070091 Issue Date 5/1/07 Expires 4/30/09
Permit Description CITYSCAPE
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

combusean
May 2, 2007, 1:13 AM
. Anyways I still don’t understand the overall sentiment that they are destroying the warehouse district. Again I’ll take your word for it, over 19,000 in attendance for Randy Johnson’s debut plus a sell out crowd at the arena – trust me it was sold out – for a total of over 38,000 bodies. Again, what can you see that would draw that type of crowd absent those to venues and how is that destroying the warehouse district?

Because it's four square blocks for something that's used up (granted by a whole lot of people) only a fraction of the time. The other 90% of the year it's an utter dead-zone. They could have at least tried to make it not suck, but I'm glad it's supposed to get a retrofit.

sundevilgrad
May 2, 2007, 1:53 AM
Thanks for the CITYSCAPE news HX.

HooverDam
May 2, 2007, 2:10 AM
Because it's four square blocks for something that's used up (granted by a whole lot of people) only a fraction of the time. The other 90% of the year it's an utter dead-zone. They could have at least tried to make it not suck, but I'm glad it's supposed to get a retrofit.

You must be doing some 'new math', 90% of the year it sits empty? The D'backs alone have 81 home games a year, thats approximately 22% of the days of the year that there are at least 20,000 people there. So lets say the Dbacks average 20,000 people per game in a down year, thats 1,620,000 bodies per year going downtown, buying food, drinks and spending their money in the cities core. I don't care what kind of amazing warehouse district could've been built, it wouldn't have attracted 1.62 million people a year.

That doesn't even include the events that happen at Chase (womens basketball, monster trucks, formerly the Insight Bowl, motor cross, etc) which bring thousands of people downtown as well.

I totally agree that Chase does create deadzones, and I wish it were wrapped in retail, but I can't hate on the ballpark too much. It has helped the Jackson area, and the Jackson St plans wouldnt be happening with out it. As far as dead zones go, while they are never desirable, Chase is probably located in the most acceptable location for a dead zone. Seventh street effectively acts as a border for downtown, especially with the large bridge which Chase butts up against, there was almost no chance of anything lively going along there. The west side of Chase with the plaza and Sliders does a very good job of creating a busy streetscape, especially on event days. I wish the North side of the ballpark had something similar to this, but it wouldn't matter anyway with things like the convention center and the Garage Mahal killing street liveliness.

combusean
May 2, 2007, 7:06 AM
OK, my mistake but when he said

put these central cities on the periphery. If America West Arena or Bob was closer to Buckeye or something like that it would have probably worked better

I thought you meant the city of Buckeye. Which actually makes Combuseans post make more sense because I didn’t understand when he said


I meant put those central city amenities (brain fart) on the periphery of downtown, but just not right smack in the middle on top of and over god knows what. Sorry.

You must be doing some 'new math', 90% of the year it sits empty? The D'backs alone have 81 home games a year, thats approximately 22% of the days of the year that there are at least 20,000 people there.

For a game that goes on ... 1/6th? of the day? I count every single hour of every single day. If we intend to create a "24/7" downtown, we have to look at individual projects on this level. Next time you see a flashy rendering of any project, always ask yourself where the people are coming from. Will they still be idly milling around when it's 110 out? What about at 3 AM?

oh, and yes, this is a cityscape thread that has gone to all ends of offtopic, but aside from the usual permit stuff that any two-bit developer can put together there's really not that much to talk about. I'd rather keep the thread alive with good, thoughtful discussion in the meantime. When we see construction photos and more detailed plans we'll have forgotten about this silly Sun Merc stuff for a while.

HooverDam
May 2, 2007, 7:58 AM
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I think Chase Field and USAC have been two huge pieces in getting downtown to where it is today, and we wouldn't be close to where we are with out them. Folks who live out in the 'burbs need things like that to draw them out of the TGI Fridays and into downtown. USAC is also going to be potentially wrapped in retail as we all know as part of the Jackson St plan, so the dead zones it creates will be done away with to some degree.

Even if the warehouses would've been left there and by some stroke of extreme luck a 24/7 area did emerge (highly unlikely, thats only emerging now because of the ballparks), I doubt it would have the economic impact of 1.6 million visitors a year (remember that number is on the extreme low end).

More than anything, the ballparks/arena's give downtown an image that its a safe, family oriented, fun place to be, and that is something important that I don't think can be measured.

jvbahn
May 2, 2007, 10:42 AM
Hey guys, is it cool if we take this discussion to the "Phoenix Development News" thread. Cityscape and the ballpark aren't even in the same "ballpark."

I've provided my warehouse district/ballpark assessment there, if anyone would like to follow so we can get CityScape thread back on track(a track which is probably going nowhere for a couple months).

JimInCal
May 10, 2007, 8:01 PM
How awesome would this be for Cityscape, with the Luhrs Tower showing through the hole? Here's the thread link for this project in Miami. I'm antsy to see the new C-scape renderings we were promised for mid-May.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=2825842

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/5876/collegestation4hk4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

HooverDam
May 11, 2007, 12:34 AM
How awesome would this be for Cityscape, with the Luhrs Tower showing through the hole? Here's the thread link for this project in Miami. I'm antsy to see the new C-scape renderings we were promised for mid-May.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=2825842

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/5876/collegestation4hk4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It would be amazing, but let us not get our hopes up. We know we are getting 4 brown squares, if we get anything better than that, lets count our blessings. Im setting my hopes low so they can hopefully be beaten.

alexjon
May 11, 2007, 2:06 AM
Phoenix is getting 3 8 story buildings and 15 stories of parking.

I have said it, so it will be.

kevininlb
May 11, 2007, 2:48 PM
[QUOTE=JimInCal;2826907]How awesome would this be for Cityscape, with the Luhrs Tower showing through the hole? Here's the thread link for this project in Miami. I'm antsy to see the new C-scape renderings we were promised for mid-May.

:previous: any word on renderings? i'm nervous about this...(please let it be great)...

HX_Guy
May 11, 2007, 7:04 PM
No new images until the first week of June.

Azndragon837
May 11, 2007, 8:51 PM
I don't know if this update has been announced, but I heard from Phoenix that CityScape submitted preliminary site plans for review this week, thereby beginning the planning entitlement process...finally!

-Andrew

District8
May 13, 2007, 11:21 PM
You can go the City website and look up any plans that have been formally submitted to the City for approval, including preliminary site plans. www.phoenix.gov. It's easy.

HX_Guy
May 14, 2007, 2:03 AM
Where do you click once you're at the city's website? The only place I've found has been http://phoenix.gov/haht-nsapi/hsrun.hse/payf/DSDOPPROD/DSDOLP.htx;start=HS_dsdOnlPermits and while that shows permits issued, they is never really anything detailed.

District8
May 14, 2007, 3:29 AM
Where do you click once you're at the city's website? The only place I've found has been http://phoenix.gov/haht-nsapi/hsrun.hse/payf/DSDOPPROD/DSDOLP.htx;start=HS_dsdOnlPermits and while that shows permits issued, they is never really anything detailed.


You want to look in the Development Services, Online Services, permit and plan review. The best information is for applications that are under review and pending. You get reviewers comments, etc. Permits issued don't tell you much.