Tucson Development Thread [Archive] - Page 2

combusean

Jan 13, 2006, 11:35 PM

I think everyone makes excellent points. I don't think we're actually disagreeing. I think we all WANT the same thing. I don't think it's practical. We don't deal in Soviet economics here. Social engineering fails every time. The reality is that most American cities are car-dependent. Newer, Sun Belt cities even more so. I would love to see all cities go vertical. Ain't going to happen. That said, we need to find solutions that work for all.

A good start would be streamlining zoning codes as Tempe has done to encourage mixed use, pedestrian friendly development with limited setbacks. Tucson may never go vertical as skyscraper enthusiasts use the word, but there is plenty of room in that city for 2 - 4 story condo and apartment blocks, that with decent urban design, could encourage more people to take transit.

It's a matter of taking existing demand for multifamily housing with just as many provisions for the sidewalk than the driveway. That's not to say you can't do both--the perfect urban developments perfectly accomodates both.

There is certainly no easy solution in Tucson for it's traffic problems. Doesn't mean we should ignore any more. I'm absolutely livid that the numbskulls that run this city are starting to mumble about taking parts of I-10 that run through DT and "submerging" it at astronomical cost. Absurd. Absolutely no reason for it. Take the money and build a reasonable (ie. 3 lanes, unimpeded, depressed, sound-proofed) freeway down Grant or Speedway.

The dollars for Rio Nuevo come out of a tax district created by the state for that purpose. Highway projects go through considerably different financing and approval processes, so there's no provision that the money would be transferred--the electorate makes that decision. You do have to be exceedingly mindful of that--voters get tired of seeing twice the tax for one concept really quick.

Yes, it will be painful. Yes, business will be relocated. Yes, people will bitch and moan. But in the end, it will be worth. It's a start. If not a major street, then the Rillito River. Something. Light rail won't work here because there too few "people centers". No real CBD. No large employment centers along Broadway. It would require too many stops. My guess is that nobody would use it either.

The Rillito would work well as a limited access parkway sort of like Phoenix's Grand Ave or Aviation Pkwy, if they realigned River Rd. I don't particularly like the idea of building out there as I see the pattern of development more along I-19. A crosstown freeway would make more sense if they connected it back up with the 10, but Tucson is a long ways away from needing such a highway.

Light rail could work in Tucson under the basic premise that instead of building a freeway that's only needed during rush hour, you could feasibly have 24 hour transit service instead that does more or less the same job at alleviating congestion during that time frame. Sooner or later, it simply becomes more cost effective.

If they can redo their bus system around it, OD on TOD, and intelligently place park and ride lots, ilight rail in combination with expanded streetscars would be worth it in the long run.

I think 30 years from now cars will actually be less of an issue than they are now. I think the oil issues will (finally) force government to explore alternative sources of energy that will require lighter materials. Cars will become lighter and cleaner. Probably smaller too. People will like cars again someday. That's my theory. But who knows.

With Iran building their oil bourse, the end of the petrodollar is approaching us sooner than peak oil and has far more disastrous implications. This is something you need to plan and build for now. But doomsday economic theories aside, people need sustainable alternatives--look at what happened when Katrina hit.

In the end, I agree with everything above. But I also don't think it's 100% realistic. But ideas are good. There are more good ideas in this forum than in just about any municipal office in any city.

Well said.

soleri

Jan 14, 2006, 12:41 AM

I lived in Tucson back in the heyday of controlled or slow growth. At one time, slow-growthers had a majority on the city council and the board of supervisors. The feeling at the time was that Tucson was about to lose the very qualities which made it special, particularly the Sonoran Desert. Unfortunately, their thinking wasn't strategically sophisticated. Instead of opting for county-wide growth limits, they focused instead on keeping Tucson from annexing areas on the periphery. What this did was essentially let developers decide the fate of Tucson from outside its walls. The sprawl easily leapfrogged Tucson's city limits, new towns were incorporated, and the influx of suburbanites made Pima County more conservative.

Today, there's a power fragmentation between the city and county. The environmentalists, liberals, and urbanists all favor light rail as the best means to respond to transportation woes. The homebuilders, their paid political allies, and suburbanites favor freeways. This stand-off appears to worsen with each passing year.

The example of Phoenix is always looming over every discussion. Even the rightwingers prefer Tucson avoid this fate. Yet the siren song of freeways somehow suggests you can build freeways JUST ENOUGH, or NOT TOO MUCH, or JUST WHAT WE NEED. Phoenix proves otherwise. The more you build, the more you need. That's the logic of car-based growth. You cannot build a freeway to solve a transportation problem without also compounding that problem. Moreover, air quality in Phoenix is worsening along with traffic congestion. This is the Faustian bargain Los Angeles struck 50 years ago, and Phoenix 20 years ago. There is simply no escape from this hell.

Given the examples of LA and Phoenix, now expensively retrofitting themselves for mass transit, wouldn't Tucson be better advised to forgo the hell part and move directly to the solution part? Just a thought....

kaneui

Jan 14, 2006, 1:09 AM

As expected, City Mgr. Mike Hein is shaking up both the direction and pace of Rio Nuevo, with the private sector anticipated to take on a larger role in both the planning and construction of future downtown projects:

Bigger developer role in Rio Nuevo
City announces project retooling

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
1.13.2006

City officials announced a massive retooling Thursday of Rio Nuevo — including turning chunks of the Downtown redevelopment project over to private developers for "master planning." Tucson made mistakes in "over-promising and under-delivering" on Rio Nuevo, City Manager Mike Hein said, explaining the motive behind the changes. Hein said more realistic expectations will measure progress for the project in "decades, not years." "We're looking at the potential of doing a master plan for parts of Downtown," Hein said, adding that developers will be at the forefront of that effort.

Criticism that Rio Nuevo has been long on planning in the six years since it was approved by voters, while delivering little, prompted a shake-up that led to Assistant City Manager Karen Thoreson's taking a job elsewhere and Rio Nuevo Development Director Randy Emerson's job being eliminated.

In a memo to the City Council Thursday, Hein said the shake-up will continue. His plans include:
● Stripping Rio Nuevo of its status as independent branch of the city.
● Closing the project's Downtown office, moving the operation into Planning Department offices at the McArthur Building, next to the Ronstadt Transit Center and putting them under Planning Director Albert Elias.
● Tapping Tucson Convention Center Director Rich Singer to secure a Downtown arena, evaluate the University of Arizona Science Center and plan the Civic Plaza. Elias will lead art, cultural and heritage projects, including rebuilding the San Agust�n Mission and other buildings from Tucson's birthplace.
● Hein himself taking a bigger leadership role, especially on putting Interstate 10 underground through Downtown.
● Enlisting the private sector to an even greater extent.

In addition, in order to soothe the expectations of the public — which has become frustrated with its direction — the city must make it clear to the community what a "reasonable pace" is for the development and why it will take longer, Hein said in the memo.

Details on how the role of private developers will increase, and what the changes mean for existing Rio Nuevo plans, remain sketchy. "We must challenge the private sector to provide ideas in appropriate ways," he said in the memo.

Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko, who will keep his job and will be given the task of enlisting more private sector participation, said the city needs to put it's property in the hands of developers to let them "do what they do." "We need to stop the analysis and planning and get our real estate on the market," he said.

Shelko cited two areas the city could sell to developers: 12 acres on the west bank of the Santa Cruz River south of Congress Street, and the various parking lots of the Tucson Convention Center that he said total 15 to 20 acres. Two other sites that the city will focus on in the next year are the Congress Street corridor and the Warehouse District on Toole Avenue, Shelko said.

Hein said some of the criticisms aimed at Rio Nuevo are "fair questions," including those questioning the pace of improvements and what the city has done with the $31.8 million it has spent Downtown. "We need to do a better job of communicating with the public," Hein said. "We announce that things will happen and then they don't happen by the expected date. These things don't happen quickly."

While the city is not hitting the brakes on Rio Nuevo, it isn't stomping its foot down on the accelerator either. Hein said this does not mean that the city is "shrinking Rio Nuevo" but wants to do more with a smaller staff. That's typical Hein, said Singer, who added the city manager is "walking the walk." He said the restructuring is a positive thing. The public tends to think "unless there is a major project with steel coming out of the ground, there's nothing happening," Singer said. The Convention Center director said he is excited about leading Tucson's drive for a new arena and a new UA Science Center.

While council members generally applauded the restructuring, Councilman Jose Ibarra said the city doesn't have the luxury of time, because it's been six years since the project was approved, and the city has lost credibility over that time. Still, he said, he approved of the shake-up, which he added some council members have been wanting for two years. He said he wants the new focus and the new team to get going quickly. "I'm proud to hear that he has admitted that mistakes have been made in the past," Ibarra said. "It is true. We needed to to tell that to the public."

Councilwoman Carol West said the fresh eyes that come with new leaders will yield new ideas for Rio Nuevo. West said she agreed with Hein that redevelopment takes time. "I'm like a broken record on that one," she said.

For Mayor Bob Walkup, it's the lack of commercial development with Rio Nuevo that has troubled him the most. "We've all been uncomfortable with the private sector involvement, especially in the commercial area," Walkup said. "Where are the commercial developers? Why do we have storefronts boarded up Downtown?"

The mayor said that by retooling Rio Nuevo and taking a more active role, Hein is doing "what we asked him to do." Both Walkup and Hein said the changes won't hurt their chances of getting the Rio Nuevo special tax district extended for 20 or 30 years, but rather will help it. The law is now expected to feed $124 million into Rio Nuevo by the time it expires in 2012. A 20-year extension would add $580 million that the city would have to match, while a 30-year extension would add $1.01 billion.

The city manager said the changes "should indicate to the Legislature and the public that we've heard their concerns." The mayor said the original 10 years didn't create enough capital to fully revitalize Downtown, and the extension would make Rio Nuevo "more beefy." He said the shake-up shows the Legislature the city is serious about its Downtown. "Without retooling it, we would have been vulnerable on the argument," Walkup said.

Rio Nuevo money
$124 million

Funds expected from the special taxing district over its current 10-year life
$31.8 million

Amount spent since voters approved the district in 1999
$381.5 million

PROJECTED PRIVATE INVESTMENT DOWNTOWN IN CONJUNCTION WITH RIO NUEVO IMPROVEMENTS

Possible impact/ What restructuring could mean for major Rio Nuevo projects:
Projects completed/No impact:
l Restoration of Fox Theatre.
l Tucson Convention Center ticket window expansion.
l Rialto Theatre.
l Pennington Street Garage.

Projects that have started or are in advanced planning:
l Mercado District housing — Development started.
l Re-creation of the San Agust�n mission and other historic structures from Tucson's birthplace — In advanced planning and a council priority.
l Presidio Historic Park — Ground broken this year.

Projects in early planning phases or unstarted that could be affected by a slowdown:
l Depot Plaza housing and commercial — In planning.
l Arizona State Museum — Feasibility study started.
l Civic/Cultural Plazas — In planning.
l Arizona Historical Society Museum — Feasibility study started.
l Arena — Feasibility study near completion.
l University of Arizona Science Center and Rainbow Bridge — In planning.
l Convention hotel — No action.
l Visitors and Trade Center — No action.
l Rancho Chuk-Son — No action.

Portland/Phoenix Guy

Jan 14, 2006, 2:59 AM

Sorry this is such a late response but I honestly agree with both somethingfast & soleri in how they view what Tucson should do. Having grown up in Portland I think its fair to offer my viewpoint since I see PDX is brought up so much in these recent posts.

Most of the freeways were built in Portland before the landmark UGB however with that said our highways aren't huge at all but rather 3 lanes each direction (max4 but only for like a 1/2 mile in selective spots) for a metro of 2.1-2.6ish million depending if you count Salem or not. With that said our area has grown alot but not our highways and main throughways per se. In our forums we countlessly talk about much needed highways b/c of the traffic. Since our city is more dense, the freeways fill up much faster but its a good thing since the traffic is almost induced to force ridership on MAX & our bus system. And though our highways are narrow our roads have enough green space in the middle to accomodate 5-6 lanes in each direction in most part if we really wanted to but we decided to plan for the future and use it for MetroAreaXpress our version of light rail.

Im sure Im preaching to the choir and you all know of this already but maybe what you dont realize is that virtually all of our major proposals for transportation are related only to improving road conditions and adding more MAX lines to serve the city. This I feel is a stark contrast to PHX and why TUC shouldn't emulate Phoenix in the slighest. Our city builds a street car system downtown, a MAX line to the airport, a North line and an extension to the extreme W metro in Hillsboro. Planning is also on the works for two S extensions of MAX PLUS a commuter rail line! In roughly the same timeline PHX builds the 202 sprawls out everywhere and contemplates the 303 (Aguafria NW Valley?) and 404/505(pinal?) though I will give them a + for the ASU/lightrail thing though if they built lightrail half as fast as thier freeways maybe they would have it a little better:shrug: .

I am in no way sayin PDX is better than these places, we got our own problems and I love PHX & Tucson......and im sure its hard with the growth rates so unbelievably high but we have our own lil phoenix across the river in Vancouver which has grown considerably b/c of annexation and poor planning which brings up another point. I honestly see tucson being ok so long as it doesn't start annexing everything the eye can see on the horizon!

In all, the city is very time consuming to get anywhere in which I agree to the prior people that have expressed this concern. I too thought about Tucson with another highway in it but honestly instead of a crosstown freeway maybe all of that money should improve the countless potholes and/or start a commuter rail to PHX perhaps? After all this time of seeing PHX spread out why would you want to copy thier same fate in a highway? And if that is the case then you as a town are basically bending over and saying "stick it in." Sorry if you dont like it but TAKE A RISK and TRY to think of something different than just crosstown highways, I mean honestly whats the worst that can happen.......the project failing just like the freeways? Do I think spending millions of $ on a bridge is the best thing either? I dont know....honestly the city needs some sort of a landmark & the downtown is dead and I think it would be a great addition to the city but on the other hand I can sympathize why people would be pissed when money could be so many other things.

Hopefully Tucson wont try to copy Phoenix with its sprawl anymore than it has...

Don B.

Jan 14, 2006, 1:08 PM

Did you all see this video?

http://www.azstarnet.com/business/

On the right side, you will see:

An animated tour of the proposed science center bridge

Click on launch video.

:)

--don

somethingfast

Jan 14, 2006, 5:15 PM

Thanks for the heads up on that one, Don. Looks slick. Not sure I like the concept on a functional level (will a long corridor feel work?) but I like it in terms of aesthetic and "landmark" potential. On that note, I would build something considerably taller (600ft like St. Louis Arch maybe?) and have some sort of observation platform up there. The project has lots of potential. It's just too progressive for Tucson to get behind, though, unless someone at a civic level really champions it.

kaneui

Jan 23, 2006, 10:38 AM

The local business community is encouraged by City Manager Mike Hein's efforts to re-energize and refocus Rio Nuevo, bringing new hope for Tucson's downtown revitalization:

Developers, chamber say new Rio Nuevo is opportunity
Phillip S. Moore
Inside Tucson Business
Friday, Jan 20, 2006

Ground has been broken and site preparation work continues for the Mercado District at Menlo Park, the showcase “new urban” housing and commercial center, south of West Congress Street near Grande Avenue.

However, whether it will continue to set the tone for the rest of downtown Tucson’s redevelopment is now in doubt as the project’s sponsor, Rio Nuevo, undergoes a sweeping transformation under the direction of Tucson City Manager Mike Hein.

Announced in a memo to the city council late last week, Hein said he is dismantling the organization as it has existed since 1999. The office on Congress Street will be closing and the staff will be incorporated into existing city departments, which will assume responsibility for Rio Nuevo’s various redevelopment agendas.

Calling the move a way to foster better communications and enhance the city’s ability to meeting the expectations of the mayor, council and community, he reassigned responsibility for the proposed Flandrau Science Center, arena and civic plaza to Rich Singer, director of the Tucson Convention Center. Responsibility for the east and west side Tucson Origins Heritage Parks and other arts and cultural projects were given to Planning Director Albert Elias.

Hein, along with Greg Shelko, current director of Rio Nuevo, will be pursuing greater private sector involvement, especially in redeveloping the city’s inventory of vacant or underutilized property, most left over from the 35-year-old Tucson Urban Renewal project.

Among the real estate potentially available to developers are the 20 acres of vacant property, now used as Tucson Convention Center’s overflow parking lots, and 12 acres immediately adjacent to the Mercado District.

That might mean a bigger project for the district and its six builders, said Rio Development’s Managing Partner Jerry Dixon, “but that will depend on how things are going in the next six months.”

Dixon said, “Nobody likes change, and were happy with the people we were working with at Rio Nuevo, but we’ll have to see how the changes affect us.

What may change is how the city prioritizes Rio Nuevo, which would be a change for the better, he said. “I’d like to see an easier time getting permits and more concessions to builders as they put the land out to play. Incentives would make it easier for builders to commit to developing it.”

Making it easier to develop is at the top of Hein’s agenda, he said. “There are lot of parcels around downtown, not just the vacant land by I-10 but also places to the east and north. The private sector may have alternatives for this land we haven’t contemplated. Unless we allow the mayor and council to consider all the options, we won’t know if we’re foregoing opportunities.”

The most dramatic change could be a move away from requests for proposal for specific lots. Instead, Hein said the city could choose the development of a coordinated master plan. “What are our options? This is a good way to find out.”

Those options could be dramatically changed if the plan for lowering and capping Interstate 10 go forward. Now being considered, the plan will lower the freeway below the adjacent land from St. Mary’s Road to 22nd Street. Approximately 800 feet of the freeway right of way south of Congress would be covered, “providing significantly more developable land and options for developing it,” he said.

“I think we’re going to see a variety of uses, for the convention center, arts and cultural venues and residential. What we’ll have to do next is sort out when they go, how they go and the like. I know there’s a desire to show short-term success, but we don’t want to choose that in a way that limits our choices for long-term success,” Hein said.

John Camper, president of the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, said he’s ready to work with the city in any way possible. “The Chamber was a major force in getting the first tax increment funding bill approved, and we’re working to get an extension. So, the Chamber is happy to play whatever role is needed.”

Camper said he hopes housing is given a top priority by the new Rio Nuevo because no redevelopment plan can work without it. “If the housing is there, people will follow. Then, the specialty stores, pharmacies, grocery stores and other services will follow them, and that will give new life to downtown.”

The arena also makes sense, he said, because it will allow the convention center to handle conventions, and the combination of an arena and conference center will make a new hotel or expansion of an existing one more possible. “This is something that makes sense for Tucson, and Rich Singer is the man to do it.”

Mostly, Camper said, he sees the change at Rio Nuevo as a way to overcome the perception that the project has been dragging. “So the fact that Mike Hein is trying to get people together again to decide where we want to go is great. From that we can develop a strong public-private partnership with a vision, and from that will emerge something we can make happen.”

Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Executive Director Joe Snell said he applauds Hein’s decision because “success of a downtown is critically important to the broader scheme of economic development.”

It’s a focus for labor and for business development, and it’s a focus for entertainment and cultural activities. “Also, I think it helps a city with its identity. Just look at those cities with a strong downtown and you can see how that downtown helps give the city an identity and sense of place.”

Snell said, “I’m excited by what’s happening. We’re heading in the right direction by giving a greater role to the private sector because the private sector is where economic development happens. We’ll need a public sector, too, but the city seems to be looking to find the right balance, and that is critical.”

kaneui

Jan 24, 2006, 9:50 PM

Is momentum building to kill yet another transportation plan for the Tucson metro area?

The silver lining in this cloud is that if Tucsonans continue to disagree on how to deal with their worsening, sprawl-induced traffic gridlock, it will only push residents to live closer to the city's employment centers, encourage more infill development, and perhaps even generate some real urban transportation solutions.

2nd group will oppose 20-year RTA plan, tax
Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
1.24.2006

A second group has announced plans to oppose the Regional Transportation Authority's 20-year plan to improve Tucson-area transportation and proposed half-cent sales tax.

Tucson Needs a Real Transportation Plan will urge voters to defeat the RTA's proposed plan and tax on May 16, contending those proposals won't solve the area's transportation problems, said Ken O'Day, a founding member of the group. The RTA plan lacks vision, he said, because it's dependent on "the same old failed ideas" — mainly, widening existing roads and streets — which hurt residents and businesses that are forced to move.

O'Day said his group opposes the plan and tax "simply because we just don't think it's a good plan," unlike Enough, the first group formed to oppose the RTA plan, whose members include longtime anti-tax and limited-government activists.

At least one group has been formed to encourage voters to support the plan: Yes for Regional Transportation. Yes member Steve Farley said the RTA plan includes provisions to help residents and businesses that would be displaced by the projects. Before the work is done, members of the public would participate in corridor development plans, he said.

O'Day's group says the $87.7 million in RTA funds for a "modern streetcar," to be matched by a federal grant, is an example that shows the projects cost too much and benefit too few. The 3.9-mile streetcar system would run from the Arizona Health Sciences Center to the Rio Nuevo area west of Downtown. Instead, O'Day said, the plan should have included a system of express buses, which would cost about $30 million for the same route.

Farley said studies show the streetcar would attract riders and help boost Downtown redevelopment.

● To find out more about Tucson Needs a Real Transportation Plan, e-mail tucsonrealplan@gmail.com or go online to www.tucsonrealplan.com

● To find out more about the Regional Transportation Authority's plan, go online to www.rtamobility.com or call Steffannie Koeneman, the RTA's public-participation manager, at 770-9410.

soleri

Jan 25, 2006, 1:10 AM

It's a staple of rightwing theology that rail is too expensive and doesn't work. But the experience in virtually every city with light rail or trolleys is that it attracts new riders and TOD. Buses, by contrast, tend to get mired in traffic and simply lack the "cool" factor that attends rail. Tucson, so far, has opted for the Phoenix approach of dispersed, horizontal development with all the resulting traffic snarls. Freeways will literally set this template in concrete. This being Arizona, it's hard to imagine Tucson thinking creatively instead of reflexively. But I've got my fingers crossed....

kaneui

Feb 4, 2006, 1:18 AM

Plaza Centro--a proposed eight-story, mixed-use development for the Greyhound bus depot site on the east end of downtown--is favored by nearby businesses, but could cancel the already-delayed 4th Ave. underpass replacement, which 4th Ave. merchants want:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/PlazaCentroproposal.png

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/GreyhoundBusDepot.jpg
The old Greyhound bus depot

Developer's plaza may kill 4th Ave. underpass
By Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.02.2006

The stalled Fourth Avenue underpass project could be canceled entirely if the city agrees to a developer's proposed eight-story commercial and condo project where the Greyhound Bus Depot now sits at the east end of Downtown.

Jim Campbell's proposal also would require closing parts of East Congress Street and North Fourth and Toole avenues. Vehicles coming into Downtown from the east would remain on East Broadway, which would become a two-way street, until they reach Fifth or Herbert avenues, then jog up to Congress. "The key is to get (through) traffic out of Downtown," he said, echoing a theme city officials voiced when they reduced the number of lanes on Congress and Broadway in June.

City officials declined to comment on Campbell's proposal, which was sent to City Manager Mike Hein on Jan. 17, other than to say they've just begun to study it. Two major players in Downtown redevelopment — Doug Biggers, executive director of the Rialto Theatre renovation project, and Hotel Congress owner Richard Oseran — said they like the idea. The Rialto sits next to the depot and the hotel is just across the street.

Scrapping plans for a new Fourth Avenue underpass got a chilly reception, however, from the Fourth Avenue Merchants Association, which fears that will delay completion of the Barraza-Aviation Parkway. Campbell proposes to develop a total of 2.5 acres in and around the Greyhound terminal, at 2 S. Fourth Ave., into a pedestrian-friendly complex he calls Plaza Centro.

His plans call for street-level commercial development on a portion of the depot property, extending out into the area where Congress and Fourth Avenue now run. That would be topped with several floors of parking and an unspecified number of residential units.

The city gave Campbell the first right to develop the Greyhound property in November as part of a land-swap deal to preserve a portion of historic Fort Lowell. "I'm intrigued by the idea, because I think it could contribute to creating a genuine sense of place on the east end at the gateway to Downtown," Biggers said.

Donovan Durband, executive director of the Tucson Downtown Alliance, says Campbell's proposal would accomplish a lot of goals that Downtown merchants and city officials have pursued. Those include reducing the amount of through traffic Downtown, increasing parking and converting streets to two-way traffic, he said. But, Durband said, "Whether it's feasible to eliminate the new Fourth Avenue underpass remains to be seen."

Fourth Avenue merchants, believe a new underpass is needed to replace the old structure, built in 1916, said John Sedwick, the association's executive director. Sedwick said that although members of the merchants association's board of directors have seen only the basic concept of Campbell's plan, "We are not in favor of anything that further delays construction of the underpass."

The underpass project has already been delayed several times, most recently in October when the only bid was $31 million — 50 percent above the city estimate. Campbell said his proposal doesn't absolutely require dropping the underpass project. But it would help his development and enable pedestrians to stroll from Plaza Centro to nearby attractions such as the Rialto Theatre, the Hotel Congress and the Historic Train Depot. He estimates the potential value of his project at between $25 million and $50 million.

"The (city's) plan hurts this part of town," Campbell said, because it creates pockets of land around the 0.8-acre bus station site that are separated by Congress and Toole. That makes sense to Oseran, whose Hotel Congress is at 311 E. Congress St. "I like the idea of having a better use for the land than just as a transit route, and fully developing it, instead of having a series of separated parcels," he said. His plan also would create additional parking, which Oseran said is badly needed in the area.

Campbell said the money the city would save on the underpass could be used for other parkway needs. That appeals to Biggers, despite his longtime support for the new underpass. "The price tag of the new underpass is huge," he said. Campbell said the old underpass would have to be modified to accommodate the streetcar the city has proposed to run from the UA area to Rio Nuevo Downtown, along with vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Campbell agreed that part of the proposal would require some difficult engineering — among other things, the tunnel would have to be made at least 4 feet deeper.

Jim Glock, director of the city's Transportation Department, said it's too early to comment on Campbell's plan. Department staffers have met with him once and will meet with him again on Monday, he said. Glock said Campbell told him he does not want his proposal to alter the city's schedule of moving forward on the Fourth Avenue project.

Greyhound's old station is scheduled to be demolished shortly after the company moves its operations into a temporary site at Congress and the westbound I-10 frontage road by the end of March. It will operate there until a new permanent station is built at North Sixth and North Toole avenues.

kaneui

Feb 4, 2006, 1:33 AM

With a study citing added costs of $285M and an additional six years to complete, Tucson has decided to scrap the idea of submerging 1.5 miles of I-10 as it is widened through the downtown area:

High cost sinks I-10 tunnel plan

By Rob O'Dell and Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.03.2006

The much-hyped Interstate 10 tunnel through Downtown Tucson hit the ground Thursday with a $374 million thud. That's what it would cost to depress the 1.5-mile stretch of freeway from West St. Mary's Road to 29th Street, including a 600- to 800-foot tunnel, according to a study done for the city by HDR Inc. Widening the same stretch of freeway above ground level, as the state now plans, would cost $89 million, a difference of $285 million.

And that doesn't include the cost of buying two motels and a fast-food restaurant that would be needed for putting the road underground. City Manager Mike Hein said the city didn't calculate the cost of acquiring the right of way because the project cost too much already. "When you see $285 million plus the right of way, it gets expensive obviously," Hein said.

Additionally, the report says building just the Downtown section of roadway would take 5 1/2 years. Changes in the northern half of the project — from Prince Road to St. Mary's — required to make the connection with the Downtown segment, would add another 3 1/2 years, said Assistant City Manager Karen Masbruch, bringing the total time to get it built to nine years — three times as long as the state had planned to take.

The news was enough to prompt Mayor Bob Walkup, Councilman Jose Ibarra and county Supervisors Richard El�as and Sharon Bronson, who originally sought the study, to sign a letter describing the tunnel plan as "unreasonable," and saying the state should go ahead with its plan to widen the freeway above ground. Putting I-10 underground would have required buying out the businesses along the west side of the freeway in order to put in a temporary frontage road to carry traffic from the highway while it would be shut down as it was being lowered. The city would have had to condemn or buy parts of Carl's Jr., Days Inn and the Riverpark Inn.

While the council won't take a formal vote on the study until Tuesday, Hein said, "I don't see a great deal of hope in the project. "Clearly the cost is more than people find acceptable. It's clearly expensive and it clearly will take a lot of time."

No further studies are planned on depressing the highway, Masbruch said, noting that the HDR study cost the city $200,000. City and county officials who pushed the underground plan said they were disappointed to hear it won't happen, but were glad that they took a hard look at the possibility before the Arizona Department of Transportation started widening I-10 later this year.

"We tried really hard to make it work," said Ibarra, who represents the area. "Unfortunately, the time and the price was too high, and it was too much of an obstacle that we had to walk away from the project. "What we wanted to do is connect the East and West sides. We needed to show that we would take a last look and a final shot at the project."

El�as, chairman of Board of Supervisors, said the proposal cost too much and the added time for completion "would be a significant hardship on everybody."
Still, he said the tunnel proposal stirred debate about Rio Nuevo and the state freeway plan, which he said the city and county should try to modify to better meet the needs of the community. El�as said it is a travesty that ADOT's widening would actually raise the highway by eight feet.

Steve Leal, the Democratic councilman from Ward 5, said he was saddened by the news that depressing I-10 would cost an extra $285 million. He said connecting the East and West sides would have been "the most important thing that the city could have done for the community and the Downtown ever." "Frankly, I'm disappointed," said Walkup, adding that the city still needs to work strategically to improve Downtown. "And that's still going to happen, no matter what happens with I-10."

Lillian Lopez-Grant, a West Side community activist and a member of the Menlo Park Neighborhood Association, said she loved the idea of depressing I-10. She said she's very disappointed city officials didn't try to get ADOT to consider the proposal "until the last minute." "I am disappointed, but most of us kind of figured it would come out this way." Lopez-Grant said. "As usual, they're (city officials) a day late and dollar short."

West Side residents still could get more of a connection to Downtown. A proposal from the county would create or improve five "crossings" — tunnels — underneath I-10. In a memo to Hein, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry proposed the new connections. They include: a new tunnel at Simpson Street; enlarging the Clark Street tunnel; a new tunnel south of St. Mary's Road near Arroyo Chico for bicyclists and pedestrians; and enlarging underpasses at both St. Mary's and Congress Street to provide more room for future expansion and for pedestrians and bicyclists. Huckelberry estimated the cost of the five "openings" at $30 million to $40 million.

Si Schorr, a skeptic of the underground I-10, said he supports looking into the new openings and said widening I-10 should go out to bid as soon as possible. Schorr said the new openings could either be included in the project, or ADOT could bid the project in stages with the new openings added later. "I would hope that we could proceed with the project as soon as possible," he said. "I think people in the community, especially those who use I-10 to get to work, are expecting progress. And I think we've got to give them that progress."

Huckelberry said the reality is that depressing the freeway was not feasible and the city and county need to look at other options. "It ties up the interstate for five and a half more years and I think that's just unacceptable from most perspectives," he said. "It would be desirable to have a different outcome. . . . But from the beginning, I think everybody knew it was a long shot."

somethingfast

Feb 4, 2006, 10:11 PM

^ That was such an asinine plan to begin with. Unbelievable really. Bunch of dumbasses run this city. Sorry, I'm just sick of these "pie in the sky" transportation plans here in Tucson that not only are impractical as hell but would have zero chance of getting through a vote. The people here aren't nearly as stupid as the civic "leaders".

Upward

Feb 5, 2006, 12:17 AM

Making it easier for pedestrians to cross the freeway makes a lot more sense than tunneling the entire freeway (since it's been there for so long as it is).

somethingfast

Feb 5, 2006, 3:44 PM

Exactly. Problem solved. Mucho dinero saved for (yeah, right) better uses.

oliveurban

Feb 6, 2006, 11:50 AM

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/PlazaCentroproposal.png

Great plan.

Expanding the trolley line farther south into downtown Tucson is a good idea in the meantime ...

kaneui

Feb 10, 2006, 1:10 AM

(duplicate post deleted)

kaneui

Feb 10, 2006, 1:11 AM

(duplicate post deleted)

kaneui

Feb 10, 2006, 1:55 AM

(duplicate post deleted)

kaneui

Feb 10, 2006, 2:03 AM

As Tucson considers new mass transit options, an initial 3.6-mile streetcar line segment is part of the proposed regional transportation plan going before voters on May 16:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/trolley.jpg

Locally-Preferred Alternative

by Lee Allen
Downtown Tucsonan
February, 2006

Do not confuse this streetcar with the one named “Desire.” In Tucson terminology, this streetcar concept is referred to as the “locally preferred alternative” approved recently by Mayor and Council and awaiting ultimate approval by voters as part of the Regional Transportation Authority balloting on May 16. “The council’s unanimous vote expressed support for the proposed alignment of the modern streetcar as a critical part of our overall regional transportation plan,” says Midtown (Ward 6) Council Member Nina Trasoff.

Cost of the nearly four-mile system has been ballparked anywhere from $75 million to $100 million. “Forget those numbers,” says Shellie Ginn, Tucson Transportation Department project manager. “Previous stories have contained errors. If you’re looking for exact mileage, it’s 3.61 miles with our capital costs running $89.2 million. If we meet Federal Transportation Authority criteria and pass their approval process, it’s possible the feds could match 50 percent of that cost.” Making a lot of assumptions, if everything went as planned and on schedule, streetcars could be rolling through town in 5 years.

Rolling, as in a route designed to connect major activity centers from the Arizona Health Sciences Center north of Speedway and Campbell, zig-zagging its way downtown to Menlo Park. “This streetcar line could be the nucleus for a potential expanded regional system,” according to the Tucson Department of Transportation web page.” Council Member Trasoff said the streetcar option would provide a better long-range bang for the buck in comparing it to a fixed bus route and the need to replace those buses.

Tucson transit activist Steve Farley participated in the detailed study of the streetcar proposal and thinks the time is right for its inception. “A modern streetcar line would carry twice the passengers per mile than our current busiest bus route carries,” he said. “And the cost over 20 years is cheaper than the cost of an equivalent bus circulator because buses wear out four times faster than streetcars.”

The streetcars would work in concert with the historic trolley as a potential supplemental system. Old Pueblo Trolley CEO Gene Caywood says OPT hauls an average of 27,000 passengers per year on a three-day-a-week U of A to 4th Avenue route while a city study projects a streetcar system could carry up to 4,200 passenger trips per weekday.

“Once people see a streetcar, touch it, and ride it, they’ll see this is one thing they want more of. Buses don’t have the sex appeal of a streetcar and when you’re trying to get people to voluntarily leave their car at home and come Downtown, you want to have a more attractive mode,” Farley said.

As proposed, the streetcar would be a fixed-guideway electric rail system operating at street level, sharing lanes with other vehicles with an ability to operate safely in either high traffic or high pedestrian activity areas. The streetcar concept received the green light after evaluation of a number of criteria such as cost, ridership, compatibility, economic development, traffic and environmental issues, and community support. Project philosophy was to keep things simple and inexpensive by using as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, somewhat akin to a system successfully in use in Portland, Oregon that carries 6,000 passengers over a 6-mile loop each day.

Voters are being asked to pay much of the project cost through revenues from the Regional Transportation Authority and a half-cent sales tax that would be levied if the issue is approved in May. “It’s all up to the voters,” says Trasoff. “I hope they look clearly at the plan to see how all the parts come together. If you step back and look at the region as a whole, you’ll see it’s a smart move to approve the streetcar option.”

soleri

Feb 10, 2006, 5:41 AM

Here's hoping the voters approve. I drive in Phoenix, and I can't wait for the day when light rail is operational. I live less than a 1/2 mile from a stop and it will take me to just about anywhere I want to go here: downtown, the airport, the library, and Tempe. The experience of driving gets worse each year. There's no way to pave our way out of congestion and growth means the congestion will only worsen.

The siren song of freeways may sound sweet to the ears of some Tucsonans,
but a streetcar will do much, much more to improve the quality of life there.

oliveurban

Feb 10, 2006, 10:41 AM

^ Agreed.

kaneui

Feb 15, 2006, 1:37 AM

With theater attendance in decline nationwide, one has to wonder if Harkin's aggressive expansion plans make much sense, population growth notwithstanding:

Harkins set to begin building first Tucson theater
The Business Journal of Phoenix
2-14-06

Harkins Theatres will begin construction later this year on an 18-screen, 81,000-square-foot megaplex that will mark its first foray into the Tucson market, the developer of the project of the project.

Scottsdale-based Barclay Group is adding on to the existing Westpoint Crossing Shopping Center at the intersection of Interstate 19 and Irvington Road in Tucson. Upon completion of the second phase of construction, which includes the new theater, the project will be rebranded as the Tucson Spectrum.

The theater complex, slated for completion in mid-2007, will feature a children's play area in the lobby and a gourmet snack center. The current Westpoint Crossing retailer lineup includes Target, The Home Depot, Ross Dress for Less, Marshall's, Michael's, Office Max and PetSmart. The second phase of development will add, in addition to Harkins, JCPenney, Best Buy, Sports Authority, Bed Bath & Beyond and Shoe Pavilion.

Following the completion of the second phase, the Tucson Spectrum will comprise a little over a million square feet, making it the largest open-air shopping center in Southern Arizona.

"The addition of Harkins Theatres will transform Westpoint Crossing from a power center into a regional open-air mall with entertainment as a major component," said Trey Eakin, senior vice president of development for Barclay Group.

Barclay Group has developed more than 4 million square feet of retail space, it claims, and has an additional 4 million square feet planned for development in the next four years.

Scottsdale-based Harkins Theatres currently operates more than 200 screens in Arizona and Oklahoma. According to the company's Web site, it plans to expand to California, Colorado and Texas this year.

soleri

Feb 15, 2006, 2:13 AM

Off the Harkins web site, a list of other future multiplexes:

Arizona

Parke West 14
NWC - Loop 101 and Northern
Peoria, AZ
Fall 2006

Santan Village 18
NWC - Loop 202 and Williams Field Rd.
Gilbert, AZ
Winter 2006

Chandler Crossroads Towne Center 14
SEC - Gilbert and Loop 202
Chandler, AZ
Winter 2006

Tempe Market Place 18
SWC - Loop 101 and Loop 202
Tempe, AZ
Spring 2007

Spectrum 14
SEC - 19th Avenue and Bethany Home Rd.
Phoenix, AZ
Spring 2007

Norterra 14
NEC - Happy Valley & I-17
Phoenix, AZ
Spring 2007

Signal Butte Marketplace 14
NWC - US 60 and Signal Butte
Mesa, AZ
Spring 2007

Casa Grande 14
NEC - I-10 and Florence
Case Grande, AZ
Fall 2007

Estrella Falls 14
NEC - I-10 and Pebble Creek Pkwy
Goodyear, AZ
Winter 2007

Prasada 14
NEC - Loop 303 and Cactus Lane
Surprise, AZ
Spring 2008

California

Moreno Valley 16
SEC - I-215 and SR 60
Moreno Valley, CA
Spring 2006

Chino Hills 18
SWC - SR 71 and Chino Ave.
Chino Hills, CA
Summer 2006

Colorado

Northfield at Stapleton 18
NEC - I-70 and I-270
Denver, CO
Spring 2006

Texas

Coit Center 16
Coit and SR190
Plano, TX
Spring 2006

Southlake Town Square 14
SEC - South Carroll Ave. and SH 114
Southlake (DFW), TX
Summer 2006

Grand Prairie 18
I-20 and Highway 360
Grand Prairie, TX
Fall 2006

Azndragon837

Feb 15, 2006, 4:12 AM

^Damn, that's a lot of expansion. I am glad Harkins is expanding the Christown 11 one into 14, because I used to go to that one when I was a kid, but then MetroCenter opened its Harkins, and AMC with its 30 screen one in Deer Valley. It'll be nice to drive 2.5 miles to Spectrum Mall (Christown).

Soleri, where do you live by the way? You are very lucky to reside less than a 1/2 mile from a light rail stop (which one)?

-Andrew

soleri

Feb 15, 2006, 4:41 AM

^I live near Missouri and 7th Avenue, almost directly behind the new Starbucks on the corner. I'm happy, too, about the new Harkins' theaters, which will be less than a mile away.

BTW, I keep wanting to do a photo thread about 7th Avenue between Camelback and Indian School. The city is investing some money in the "Melrose" area, and some funky new stores have opened recently. There's a new independent coffee shop, Copper State, almost ready for business. The old Melrose Lanes is being torn down and there's a proposed 8 story mixed-use project being discussed for the site. Phoenix has so little of this kind of steetscape (San Diego has tons of it) that I'm wanting to foster a bit of awareness about this strip. Only problem: it's hardly photogenic. Parts, in fact, are butt ugly. With light rail coming, I think the area will begin to pick up dramatically, so all the changes are really exciting.

Nod to Tuscon: it's got a lot of potentially great streetscapes, like the Campbell and Grant area. I used to fantasize about a streetcar going from the University in that direction. It appears the new one slated will come close, but.....

kaneui

Feb 19, 2006, 11:16 PM

After buying the property from the city for $100, given permission to tear down the historic Pusch building, and then sitting on the vacant land for 18 months, Bourn Properties is now asking Tucson for an additional $4.3M in incentives to redevelop the downtown "Thrifty block," a request that has outraged certain downtown interests and City Council members:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/ThePost.jpg
rendering of The Post on Congress,
the "Thrifty block" redevelopment project

Bourn's Downtown wish list is criticized
By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.19.2006

The developer who pressed the city to tear down a 100-year-old Downtown building, and then let property sit vacant for 18 months, now is asking the city for $4.3 million more in help to build something there. Bourn Properties, which bought most of the block of East Congress Street from the city for $100, sent a list to the city this month outlining $4.3 million in potential public contributions to the project. That total doesn't include savings from a 10-year property tax abatement that's also on its list.

The list includes: building sidewalks, utility hookups and public parking; waiving taxes on construction, building permit fees and impact fees; reducing or eliminating sales taxes on retail; abating county real estate taxes for 10 years; and potentially waiving requirements for on-site loading and commercial on-site parking.

Bourn Properties said it was simply a list of potential ways the city could help out. Some city officials said the negotiations are still in their infancy. But that didn't stop the outrage from those who had opposed the Bourn project from the start.

Downtown lawyer Roy Martin, a staunch opponent of tearing down the 19th-century Pusch building built by pioneer rancher George Pusch, said it was "unreal" that Bourn was asking for more. He questioned why the city would give millions of dollars on top of providing the land at virtually no cost, granting permission to quickly tear down the building and then paying for the demolition and debris removal. The city paid $500,000 for work on the block, according to the Rio Nuevo office. "It's absolutely outrageous," Martin said.

In response to a growing storm of public outrage, Bourn said in June 2004 it would do everything it could to preserve the building. But after receiving approval of its plan from the City Council, the building was quickly reduced to rubble by that September. "They said it was urgent that the property had to come down immediately," Martin said. "They said it was vital and had to be done."

It has been a vacant block ever since, and Councilman Jose Ibarra, a Democrat, said that 18 months of inactivity should have the city reassessing its agreement with Bourn. "It's beyond frustration," Ibarra said. "We were asked to hurry on all aspects of this project. Now 18 months later it's the same vacant lot."

He said it was "totally inappropriate" for Bourn to ask for more money, adding that maybe "it's time to give an opportunity to someone who can put this project together." The city and Bourn were supposed to come up with a final development agreement in January for the development of 61 loft condos built over a row of shops and restaurants, reaching up eight stories valued at about $23 million. The block, situated between Scott and Stone avenues, once included the Thrifty Drug Store, Fields' Jewelers, Little Cafe Poca Cosa and the Pusch building that was last used by a restaurant called Talk of the Town.

Oscar Turner, Bourn's project manager, said the list isn't a demand, but "a laundry list of things the city could wish to participate in." "What we're trying to do is make sure we get the best possible project," he said.

A potential agreement with the city will be discussed Thursday at a meeting of the City Council's Rio Nuevo subcommittee, said Councilwoman Nina Trasoff, a Democrat. Trasoff said she wants to work in good faith with Bourn, and said she's willing to be flexible, but not $4.3 million worth of flexible. "He's had this property for 18 months now," she said. "I hope he can pull it off but … the bottom line is we have to move forward on that block."

City Manager Mike Hein said it's clear the City Council wants closure on that empty Downtown block, and said he is interested in moving ahead on some of the Downtown Rio Nuevo promises that have been "dangling" for years. Still, he said, requests such as Bourn's aren't unusual for developers. "It's a bullet-point list of wishes," Hein said. "I wouldn't even characterize it as an ask right now."

Republican Mayor Bob Walkup agreed, saying the request wasn't surprising and that the issue will be sorted out by the city staff and the council.

THE WISH LIST

● Public incentives requested by Bourn Properties for Downtown Thrifty block:

- Sidewalk construction, landscaping, construction of retail storefronts, utility hookups, restoration of Indian Trading Post facade and construction of one level of public parking: $2.4 million.

- Reduce tax on construction and fees for building permit, and eliminate impact fees: $950,000.

- Reduce or eliminate sales tax on retail: $80,000 a year for 10 years.

- Eliminate or reduce county taxes and fees: $855,000.

- Abate county real estate taxes for 10 years: no price listed.

- Grant variances or expedite process for property rezoning, on-site loading requirements and on-site commercial parking requirements.

Total: $4.3 million

"It's beyond frustration. We were asked to hurry on all aspects of this project. Now 18 months later it's the same vacant lot."
Jose Ibarra
Democratic councilman

kaneui

Feb 22, 2006, 10:52 AM

A 30-year extension of the TIF support for Rio Nuevo edges closer to reality in the state legislature:

House OKs Rio Nuevo extension
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.22.2006

A 30-year extension of the city's Downtown Rio Nuevo redevelopment district was approved Tuesday by the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate.

The extension was approved by a 35-18 vote with seven lawmakers not voting. Of the Southern Arizona delegation, only Rep. Ted Downing, D-Tucson, voted against the bill, while Rep. Marian McClure, R-Tucson, didn't vote.

The current 10-year special taxing district was created by voters in 1999, and is expected to bring in about $124 million for projects in the Downtown and immediate West Side areas. A 30-year extension would bring in $1 billion more.

Downing said he voted against the bill because it didn't require going back to the voters for approval. "I don't think we're on firm ground unless voters are given the ability to decide," he said.

Rep. Steve Huffman said getting approval from the House was a huge step. The Oro Valley Republican said, "This is just a bill that makes sense for a lot of people." He said it was especially satisfying because when the bill was first introduced many people questioned, "Why would anybody in Phoenix vote for something in Tucson?"

From the Tucson Downtown Alliance, more reasons to support this funding for Rio Nuevo:

TIF not a tax extension
Re: the Feb. 14 letter to the editor "Vote needed."

The extension of the Rio Nuevo tax increment financing from 10 years to 40 years is not an extension of a tax. It is an extension of the period of time during which the state sales taxes that we already pay when we shop at businesses along Broadway will be rebated to Tucson to support Downtown redevelopment. We can direct the proceeds of those existing taxes to stay in our city or we can let the state Legislature spend them elsewhere.

The TIF extension bill is not about taxation, but about the distribution of existing sales taxes. When Tucson residents fully understand this distinction, it should be obvious to them that this is a winning proposition for our city.

Donovan Durband
Executive director, Tucson Downtown Alliance, Tucson

Upward

Feb 22, 2006, 4:43 PM

Harkins in Tucson? It's about time! That town has the most expensive damn theaters I've ever seen.

A lot of those new Harkins locations are scary, though, for how far out in the sprawl they are...

kaneui

Feb 24, 2006, 11:43 PM

More development delays for downtown Tucson:

1.After rejecting his request for $4.3M in additional incentives for the "Thrifty block" redevelopment project, Tucson gave Don Bourn 45 days to finalize a development agreement with the city. (Sounds like Bourn may not have the expertise/experience to pull this off.)

2. Although his proposed Plaza Centro project at the east end of Congress was rejected by a Rio Nuevo subcommittee as unfeasible, developer Jim Campbell says he'll resubmit the proposal within a month.

Get moving, city tells developer
Bourn must make progress; panelists say no to incentives

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2.24.2006

Developer Don Bourn got a warning from City Council members Thursday that any more delays in building on a vacant block Downtown will send them looking for a new builder. The three-member Rio Nuevo subcommittee also told Bourn the city won't be offering his company any major incentives that aren't available to other builders.

The subcommittee also heard a Transportation Department report that developer Jim Campbell's proposal to create a "Plaza Centro" at the east end of Congress Street is not feasible.

Council members Jose Ibarra, Nina Trasoff and Steve Leal voted to give Bourn 30 to 45 days to finalize a development agreement with the city and bring it back to them for approval. They agreed to fast track a rezoning to help Bourn out, but added they would put strict restrictions on Bourn from now on. Any failure to meet the new conditions will trigger a search for a new developer, they said.

"Time is not a luxury anymore," Ibarra said referring to the new timetable for getting the project done. "Everybody needs to be held accountable," he said. Bourn was originally awarded the right to develop much of the south side of East Congress between Stone and Scott avenues in June 2004, getting the land for $100. Bourn pressed to have existing buildings on the block, including a pre-1900 structure built by pioneer rancher George Pusch, torn down quickly, only to leave the property vacant for 18 months.This month he asked for more than $4 million in potential public assistance from the city.

Bourn acknowledged he made a mistake not buying an adjacent parking lot from Chase Bank (then Bank One) before trying to develop the property. Bourn said without the parking lot, on which the city was supposed to build a parking garage, he had to go for an alternate plan.

The plan Bourn presented was for a 13- or 14-story building with about 90 condos and two levels of parking. The plan includes demolishing the roughly 90-year-old Bank One Annex, adjacent to the Chase building. Bourn said it has to be taken down to allow cars to get into the parking garage.

The project would cost between $30 million and $36 million and include 17,000 square feet of retail. Preparing the land would take 12 to 16 months, he said, while construction would take another 16 to 20 months. He stressed he has already spent $1.3 million on the project and said he feels his company "is out on a limb here." "A lot of my development friends say 'your nuts,' " he said, although he stressed he is still committed to the project.

In other business, City Transportation Director Jim Glock said a proposal to scrap the new Fourth Avenue Underpass to accommodate Campbell's proposed development is not feasible. He said simply improving the existing underpass would slow and disrupt traffic and traffic-signal progression through Downtown. He said it would also delay underpass construction 12 to 24 months.

Campbell, who wants to build an eight-story commercial and condominium project where the old Greyhound Bus Depot now sits at the east end of Downtown, was unfazed and will present his proposal again to the committee within a month.

kaneui

Mar 8, 2006, 8:29 PM

Another bit of activity for the plodding Rio Nuevo project...

$26M OK'd for fire headquarters
Downtown cops get more space as part of deal

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
3.08.2006

Downtown Tucson will have a new fire headquarters and an expanded police administration center after the Tucson City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to spend $26 million on a new fire station in Rio Nuevo. The fire administration building, to be located on the south side of Cushing Street where it intersects with Clark and Granada avenues, will allow the Police Department to expand its headquarters, which is adjacent to the current fire headquarters.

Council members called it the equivalent of killing two birds with one fire station. Karin Uhlich called the approach the most resource-efficient plan the city could make. Police officials said they would either move some of their functions into the fire headquarters or knock down the building to expand its current headquarters into that space. The new fire headquarters will be a complex housing fire administration, Fire Station No.1 and the department's fire prevention bureau.

The $26 million project will be paid for with a type of bonds that don't require voter approval, which will be repaid over 15 years from the money saved from the city's turning its half of operation of the regional library over to the county. However, City Manager Mike Hein said $26 million is just a rough estimate because there is no blueprint yet for the building. "We don't have a definitive cost because we don't have a design," Hein said. No projected construction date has been set. The city manager said the location — now a Tucson Convention Center parking lot — was identified to be either commercial or high-density housing as part of the city's Downtown Rio Nuevo redevelopment district.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff commended the staff's meetings with area neighborhood associations — Barrio Viejo and Barrio Santa Rosa — and noted residents' support of the fire station. Pedro Gonzales, head of the Barrio Viejo Neighborhood Association, said he is usually fighting City Hall, but on this night he was speaking in favor of the project. "We are working in partnership with the city of Tucson for a change," Gonzales said.

Only one person spoke against the new fire headquarters, anti-tax activist John Kromko. He said it was disgraceful that Tucson was one of the only cities with no fire or police impact fees for new development. He said the new station should be financed with impact fees on growth, and said the money saved from spinning off the library should be put toward reducing the city's garbage fee, which was raised in 2004.

In other business, the council approved a revised list of park-fee reductions, which eliminated some ill-considered cuts approved in December, including fees for beer permits, commercial wedding fees and vendor permits. The council finalized the list of park-fee rollbacks, which are intended to help the average Tucsonan, from their 2005 levels to 2002 levels. It will cost the city an extra $40,000 this fiscal year, and about $394,000 in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

kaneui

Mar 10, 2006, 9:25 AM

The UofA and Tucson are aiming to capture their share of Arizona's emerging biotech industry:

Arizona Biosciences Park - rendering
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/AZBiosciencesPark-rendering.jpg

Arizona Biosciences Park - site plan
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/AZBiosciencesPark-siteplan.png

UA lays out plans for S. Side bio park
OK sought to create management setup

By Thomas Stauffer
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
3.09.2006

The University of Arizona wants to create a nonprofit corporation to mastermind a "technology district" aimed at advancing Tucson's and the University of Arizona's position in the biotech industry. The Arizona Board of Regents will vote today in Tucson on the proposed Research Development Corp., which would manage the development of the planned Arizona Biosciences Park at South Kino Parkway and East 36th Street. The nonprofit corporation also would oversee the planned expansion of the UA's Science and Technology Park at 9000 S. Rita Road.

The Arizona Biosciences Park is envisioned as a 65-acre campus of high-tech research labs, offices, and a hotel and conference center. The park will lease the secured, state-of-the-art labs, research buildings and office space to private companies, as the UA does at its Science and Technology Park. The first phase of development would build the hotel and conference center and a multiuse office complex at the biosciences park, said Bruce Wright, UA associate vice president for economic development.

The offices built in that phase may be anchored by the new Critical Path Institute. C-Path, as it is known, is a partnership of the UA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the technology development firm SRI International Inc. It aims to develop new approaches and technologies to streamline and reform the drug-approval process.

Expansion at the UA Science and Tech Park, 12 miles to the southeast of the proposed biosciences park, will include a hotel and conference center, a golf course, offices, labs, and roads on 1,000 acres of the park, Wright said. If approved, the new Research Development Corp. would likely ask the regents for $20 million to $25 million in bonding authority to finance phase one of the hotel project, which could break ground as early as this summer, he added. "We would hope to finance the subsequent phases off the revenues generated by the hotel," Wright said.

Today, the UA tech park is approaching full occupancy, Wright said. About 40,000 square feet of office space is all that remains vacant in the 1.9 million square feet at the park, he said. When the UA bought the property from IBM Corp. for $98 million in 1994, there were two companies with about 1,200 employees operating there. Today, 30 companies employ more than 7,000 people, park spokeswoman Molly Gilbert said.

Wright said he and other officials of the UA Office of Economic Development have spent about four years working on the biosciences park concept. Other candidate sites included a parcel near University Medical Center, two sites within the city's Rio Nuevo Downtown redevelopment project, and at the UA's Campus Agricultural Center at 4101 N. Campbell Ave. "This site kept rising to the top, for all kinds of reasons," Wright said.

The UA hired Seattle-based NBBJ, which bills itself as the nation's third-largest design firm, to prepare site plans and development concepts. The 65 acres at the site were part of a land swap with KB Home for 132 acres at the Science and Technology Park. That land swap may have steered the UA toward the Kino site without a fully vetted process of the best location for the massive biosciences undertaking, said Bob Davis, a first vice president of CB Richard Ellis who specializes in industrial real estate.

"We have one shot as a community to get this bioscience thing right," Davis said. "I don't know how carefully other sites were evaluated, and there hasn't been a public, independent study that says this project at this location will work." The biosciences park is part of a larger, mixed-use project billed as the "The Bridges," which is slated to include more than 750 homes built by KB Home and Lennar/US Home Corp. and "Tucson Marketplace at The Bridges," a 975,000 square-foot retail complex by Eastbourne Investments Ltd. The project would fill the area bounded by South Park Avenue, East 36th Street, South Kino Parkway, and Interstate 10. Homes in the plan would also be built west of the main parcel on land north of I-10 and on both sides of Park Avenue.

The combination of uses for the project will allow residents the option and convenience of walking or biking to work, shopping, entertainment and recreation, said John Bremond, KB Home Tucson Division President. "We believe this is a very special opportunity for people to live in a very pedestrian-friendly, bicycle-friendly environment," Bremond said.

kaneui

Mar 10, 2006, 9:39 AM

A compromise between Tucson's original plan and developer Jim Campbell's proposal for the 4th Ave. underpass could result in both cost savings and a much improved design:

Council panel OKs new 4th Ave. underpass design
By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
3.09.2006

In the span of two weeks, Developer Jim Campbell's plan for the Fourth Avenue underpass and a "Plaza Centro" went from impossible to visionary. On Thursday, a City Council subcommittee voted to scrap years of planning for the Fourth Avenue underpass to accommodate Campbell's plans for a $50 million commercial and housing development on a lot at the east end of Downtown, where the Greyhound bus depot was located.

The three-member subcommittee gave its blessing to a new underpass design and alignment that will require gutting most of the historic 1916 underpass that now runs at the east end of Downtown, connecting North Fourth Avenue and Congress Street. The new proposal will have an new, wider underpass built along the alignment of the historic underpass.

The new design would allow for north-south lanes that would accommodate streetcars and trolley cars along them, as they would "travel with traffic." The former design had a dedicated trolley lane. There would also be dedicated pathways for pedestrians and bicycles.

The change in design still needs approval from the full council. The new proposal would not drastically alter street alignment Downtown, as Campbell's original proposal did. Instead Congress Street and Broadway would remain one-way, and Herbert Street would be converted to a walkway. Toole Avenue could also be closed under the proposal, although Campbell said that was flexible.

Councilman Steve Leal said this new proposal was truly a "hybrid" of both Campbell's and the city's earlier proposals. Only two weeks ago, Campbell was told by city Transportation Director Jim Glock at a Rio Nuevo meeting that his project was not feasible because of traffic impacts Downtown. But on Thursday, the two pitched the new tunnel alignment together. "I'm really thrilled because it seemed two weeks ago you were so far apart," said Councilwoman Nina Trasoff.

Campbell said he kept pitching his idea to build a new tunnel where the current historic underpass now sits because "nobody likes the new-tunnel, dual-tunnel idea," in which the city would have built a new underpass and kept the historic one for pedestrians. "It was design by committee and was not pleasing to anybody," said Campbell, who has a right of first refusal to buy the Greyhound property.

He said he would take credit for being a "pain in the butt to make this happen" but said ultimately it was a compromise between himself and the city. In the proposal unveiled Thursday, Congress Street would split Campbell's property with a movie theater, a restaurant and townhouse lofts on the former Greyhound site, and retail space and a landmark tower just across the street to the northeast.

Glock said the new design will delay bidding the project for a year from its intended start date. The new timeline would be 16 to 18 months for permitting and design and 18 months for construction, Glock said. "Three years from today hopefully you'll be covering a ribbon-cutting," Glock said. He couldn't give a price tag for the new underpass design, but said there would be cost savings "in the millions of dollars" over the two-underpass proposal, which was most recently bid at $31 million.

Richard Oseran, owner of the Hotel Congress, said the compromise between the city and Campbell showed there is new hope for Rio Nuevo. "There's a new City Council, a new city manager and a new day," Oseran said. "People have decided to work together and make compromises, and when they do that anything is possible."

kaneui

Mar 10, 2006, 9:45 AM

Thrifty Block is back to Plan A
Developer drops high-rise in favor of original design

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
3.10.2006

Developer Don Bourn unveiled a new proposal for the Downtown Thrifty Block on Thursday. Bourn is dropping the proposal he pitched just two weeks ago for a 13- or 14-story development with 90 to 95 condominium units and two levels of above-ground parking, built over 17,000 square feet of retail space on the Congress Street site. His proposal also called for the demolition of the neighboring Bank One Annex building.

Thursday night he told the City Council's Rio Nuevo subcommittee he wants to go back to the same design he originally promised 18 months ago, when his company was selected to develop the site — minus a city-built parking garage that was to be built on an adjacent lot. "We decided to back to the original design," he said. "There a significant premium on speed and getting this done. … Our thinking is we're going full steam ahead on this."

Bourn, the head of Bourn Partners, said he tried to react to feedback from both the community and the city in going back to the original design, which calls for a five-story structure with roughly 40 condos, one floor of underground parking and more than 10,000 square feet of retail space. It will be designed with a glass and brick or stucco facade, and will also incorporate the Bank Annex into the project instead of demolishing it. The Indian Trading Post building at Scott Avenue and Congress will also be rehabbed as part of the project.

Bourn was originally awarded the right to develop much of the south side of East Congress between Stone and Scott avenues in June 2004, getting the land for $100. Bourn pressed to have existing buildings on the block, including a pre-1900 structure built by pioneer rancher George Pusch, torn down quickly, only to leave the property vacant for 18 months.

In February, he asked for more than $4 million in potential public assistance from the city, but was told two weeks ago that the city would not be offering any major incentives that aren't available to other builders. Bourn said not getting those incentives played a small role in backtracking on the building plans, but he said he was mainly reacting to community and city feedback. "I think you've been responsive," said Councilman Steve Leal.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said she was happy to see the project moving forward, but wanted to know about the strict guidelines that Bourn will have on the project. Greg Shelko, Rio Nuevo director, told the committee the city's development agreement with Bourn will have a series of three-month options, and Bourn must meet certain criteria to have the agreement continue. He said a development agreement with Bourn is 98 percent done and would be presented in April. "There's a lot of carrots and sticks in the plan," Trasoff said. Still, she said the "teamwork is there" between the city and Bourn.

kaneui

Mar 17, 2006, 9:58 AM

A recent feasibility study says new buildings for the Arizona Historical Society and Arizona State Museum on the west side of Rio Nuevo near I-10 could triple their annual visitor count, with construction costs estimated at over $1OOM for the two structures:

Arizona Historical Society - entrance
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/entrance-AZHistoricalSociety.jpg

current Arizona State Museum
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/ArizonaStateMuseum.jpg

Relocation would aid 2 museums, study says
By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
3.15.2006

A study on the economic feasibility of locating two museums on the West Side says they could attract 322,000 visitors a year. That's more than triple what the museums draw at their current locations near the University of Arizona Main Gate.

The feasibility study for the Arizona Historical Society and the Arizona State Museum was required by the city of Tucson for the two facilities to qualify for a planned $16 million subsidy from the Rio Nuevo Downtown redevelopment program. Planners estimate the two new museums could cost a combined $100 million.

The study was conducted by ConsultEcon Inc., a private economic research firm. "They've established their feasibility now," Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko said. "We've moved from planning to pre-development." Shelko said the extra 322,000 visitors to the museums would bring that many more residents to the Downtown area to browse, eat and shop. He said the report shows the museums would be a boon to Downtown and the Rio Nuevo project.

The next step is developing architectural plans and figuring costs for the two buildings, which would be built near the reconstructed Convento and chapel of the San Agustín Mission west of Interstate 10 near the Santa Cruz River, Shelko said.

Representatives of the two museums said their existing facilities now attract about 50,000 visitors each. They said the jump in attendance is expected because of the better location, the increased number of exhibits, the facilities' newness and the ability to package the two museums with the adjacent recreation at the Convento and other historical structures.
Other museums Downtown include the Tucson Museum of Art, with 64,000 annual visitors, and the Tucson Children's Museum, with 70,000 visits per year.

Bill Ponder, chief administrative officer for the Arizona Historical Society, said the study validates the society's plan for the new museum. He said current plans call for a new $60 million museum on the West Side. "It shows that given a prominent location, with a project of this magnitude, that it can be a successful project," Ponder said.

Beth Grindell, associate director of the Arizona State Museum, said the two museums would create a cultural and historic district on the West Side near Downtown. The most recent estimate for a new State Museum is $47 million, but that's considered outdated and low, Grindell said. "We're excited that the study was as good as it was," Grindell said. "We're hoping there will be a lot of public support for this." The study is expected to go to the City Council next week.

kaneui

Mar 25, 2006, 4:31 AM

The proposed tax increment financing (TIF) extension for Rio Nuevo--as important to Tucson's downtown redevelopment as Phoenix's recent bond election was for its downtown--moved closer to approval in the state legislature. Although it has been amended somewhat, the extension will provide Tucson $1B over 30 years beyond 2013.

Tucson sorely needs the revenue, since the metro area--with a substantial percentage of its nearly one million residents in unincorporated areas--already loses significant amounts of state sales taxes distributed only to incorporated cities.

(NOTE: studies for the housing, retail and office sectors in downtown Phoenix revealed that successful downtown redevelopment efforts in many major cities had TIF support--although new TIF districts are apparently no longer allowed under Arizona law. The reports can be found at http://www.coppersquare.com/business/infocenter/Business_Summary/Redevelopment_Area_Business_Summary/ )

Panel's bill a $1B Rio Nuevo boost
Multitude of strings are attached before full Arizona Senate can act

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
03.23.2006

A bid to extend Tucson's Rio Nuevo district cleared a major hurdle Wednesday, with a Senate committee approving a bill that would bring in $1 billion to redevelop Downtown. Moving the bill forward to the entire Senate, however, didn't come without a price. Sen. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley, the Commerce Committee chair, added an amendment to the bill that would shave about $150 million off Rio Nuevo's total haul for the district's 40-year life span. The amendment also would prevent the city from using eminent domain within the district or using it to expand Rio Nuevo boundaries to adjacent properties.

Still, city officials said they got enough of what they wanted to make the amendment worth it. The vote was 5-2 with one committee member not voting. "It's still a great bill and it allows us to do what we want to do," said city lobbyist Mary Okoye.

The bill was basically stripped down to just creating a new 30-year extension of the district after the current 10-year district ends in 2013, City Manager Mike Hein said. The 30-year extension would take growth in state sales taxes over the 2013 levels, instead of the 1999 levels when the district was approved by voters. That difference could cost the city $150 million over the 30 years of the extension, with that money instead going to the state, Scott Douthitt, the city's finance director, estimated.

Hein met with Leff several times — including missing the Tuesday City Council meeting to travel to Phoenix — to hammer out an amendment that was palatable enough to have Leff hear the bill in committee. Hein said the bill wouldn't have advanced without the changes. Leff agreed, and said she wouldn't have voted for it or even heard it in her committee had the city not agreed to her amendment. Hein said the city had considered using a strike-all amendment to an unrelated bill if it couldn't win Leff's approval, but he said it was better to agree to the compromise and have it pass the committee.

The city violated the spirit of the tax increment finance (TIF) law by gerrymandering the district when it drew the boundaries to include El Con and Park Place malls, Leff said. She said taking the growth in state sales taxes from 2013 instead of 1999 will force the city to create more retail development Downtown to generate enough money to fund all the projects it wants to build. "It was a bad, bad bill before the changes were made," Leff said. "I still have reservations."

The way the TIF works is that the growth in state sales taxes is kept in Tucson to help redevelop Downtown, instead of being sent back to the state. The catch is that it must be matched by city money or public projects that the city is involved in.

Leff said she still hasn't decided whether to vote for the bill when it comes to the Senate floor but added that she planned to put a second amendment on the bill when it came to the floor to prevent any Rio Nuevo money from being used for a new City Hall, because she has heard concerns that the money could be used for that purpose. She said the city is aware of that second amendment and doesn't oppose it. Hein said the city would oppose other amendments to the bill but said he didn't think that building a City Hall with Rio Nuevo money was doable politically in Tucson.

The bill, which was originally sponsored by Rep. Steve Huffman, R-Oro Valley, has already passed the state House. If the Senate gives it approval, the bill will go back to Huffman — who told the committee Tuesday he was supportive of the amendment — and then to the full House for a final vote. Hein said the city has a good shot at winning the 16 votes needed for approval in the Senate. Leff was less confident, saying the city had a lot of work to do. She noted concerns of several committee members over Rio Nuevo's lack of progress and the fact that state law no longer allows for TIF districts.

kaneui

Mar 29, 2006, 6:43 AM

After receiving public input on his initial plans, controversial architect Rafael Vinoly returns to Tucson on April 27 to present a scaled-down version of his proposed Rainbow Arch for downtown:

initial rendering of Rainbow Arch
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/UAScienceCenterbridge.jpg

Architect seeks arch support in Tucson
By Philip S. Moore
Inside Tucson Business
March 27, 2006

Bringing revised plans for the proposed Rainbow Arch, New York Architect Rafael Viñoly will be coming to Tucson to speak at an April 27 town hall meeting, sponsored by the Flandrau Science Center.

Seeking to overcome criticism, including complaints that the proposed $350 million “iconic” structure as too tall and too expensive, Viñoly will be unveiling a revised version of his arch, incorporating changes to “provide a better sound buffer from the highway and offer more connectivity between the two sides of the project,” said Alexis Faust, executive director of the center, now located on the University of Arizona campus.

“We’ve heard the feedback from the community and have adjusted the design to respond,” she said.

The controversial architect, whose plan for a World Cultural Center, a towering steel mesh cage encasing an office building and suspending an observation deck, was second choice in the competition to replace the World Trade Center, is also trying to win support from the community, which will need to raise more than $250 million in a few months to build the structure.

Faust said the science center, which has permission to issue $58 million in revenue bonds from the Arizona Board of Regents, as well as $20 million in allocated tax increment financing money from the City of Tucson and $4 million from the Federal Highway Administration, is still far short of the funding needed to complete the span and other buildings at the planned project.

Even with the planned $20 million endowment, “We’ll need about $250 million,” she said. While optimistic about the possibility, “since they raised the funding for the Millennium Park in Chicago in two years,” Faust said, “We’ll be working on that.”

Along with the major public events, such as the upcoming town hall meeting, she said the staff has made presentations on the project at several community meetings. She said, “Basically, wherever they’ll let us speak, we’re giving presentations on the economic impact of the project.” Faust said, “We want people to understand how important this and how much of a difference this will make for Tucson.”

Attempting to again highlight that significance, the University of Arizona followed up a City of Tucson announcement on the results of an economic impact report on the proposed new Arizona State Museum and Arizona Historical Society, planned for property adjacent to the Tucson Origins Heritage Park. The university’s report noted that attendance would increase 22 percent, from 332,000 to 406,000 per year, if the museums were clustered with the Rainbow Arch project.

Meanwhile, the greatest impact on tourism spending is still expected from those who never go into either the science center or the museums, according to the report by ConsultEcon, the Cambridge, Mass., the consultant that prepared both the Flandrau and museum impact studies.

Total economic impact of the 599,000 people visiting the science center is estimated at $87.2 million, or approximately $146 per person. The 332,000 people visiting the museums is forecast to be $52 million, or $157 per person. Economic impact from the estimated 422,000 Tucson visitors who simply stop to see the arch but don’t go inside is estimated to be $362 million, equal to $858 per person.

“That’s because most of those who buy a ticket to go inside the museums and science center will be local residents. They don’t have the same impact as visitors, all of them coming from outside the local area,” said Rob Vugteveen, director of marketing and outreach for the Flandrau.

While he admits the impact of an architectural tourist attraction in a city that already attracts three million visitors a year, as opposed to similar projects in cities such as Milwaukee, St. Louis or Chattanooga that don’t normally attract many tourists, is difficult to easily enumerate, Vugteveen said they have confidence in ConsultEcon’s calculations.

“If they were just telling us what we want to hear, they wouldn’t have said no to the aquarium,” he said. “If all they did was serve as ‘yes-people,’ they wouldn’t stay in business. Projects they said would be successful have turned out to be successful and those they said wouldn’t succeed, haven’t succeeded.”

While other sources of funding are being considered, central to paying for the proposed Flandrau Rainbow Arch is additional tax increment finance support, and City of Tucson Finance Director Scott Douthitt said that depends on the Arizona Legislature, which is being asked to extend the current 10-year plan to 40 years, which will increase the spending power of the city from $124 to $400 million.

The proposal, HB-2702, has passed the House of Representatives and Senate Commerce Committee. So, it’s likely that the city will receive the 30-year extension. However, under the city’s current two-to-one rule for spending the TIF money, support for the $350 million center would still only increase from $20 to $117 million, narrowing the University of Arizona’s funding gap but still leaving $151 million to be raised. The city could adopt the state’s one-to-one match ratio, “but that’s a mayor and council decision.”

Douthitt said, “We could have more money to spend under the TIF program than we’ve estimated because we projected a 1.5 percent growth rate, which is very conservative. However, when you’re look out more than 30 years from now, it’s hard to have a crystal ball. In this situation, we’d rather be conservative than optimistic.”

soleri

Mar 29, 2006, 3:36 PM

The controversial architect, whose plan for a World Cultural Center, a towering steel mesh cage encasing an office building and suspending an observation deck, was second choice in the competition to replace the World Trade Center, is also trying to win support from the community, which will need to raise more than $250 million in a few months to build the structure.

Huh? I don't recall Vinoly being in that hunt.

I like the daring design, but there's something a bit too desperate about this whole approach to downtown revival. The basic elements of a functional core need to be in place first, and Tucson is about to put some very expensive lipstick on a pig. What if Tucson actually took the money and built an adequate light rail system, or created an entertainment district in the existing downtown infrastructure? The latter is really already in place - what it needs is some zoning latitude to permit late-night clubbing and music. Special legislative approval for later closing hours would help. As bad as downtown Tucson is, at least there's something to work with (compare and contrast to the Dead Zone 110 miles north). Tucson's funkiness is a plus here, and I'd rather see the remnants of a once-cool downtown than a gussied-up tourist trap.

kaneui

Mar 31, 2006, 1:03 AM

^ I agree that Tucson should focus on the basics of a functional urban core rather than some over-the-top, Disneyland-style attraction to bring people downtown. Personally, I think the arch as currently proposed is out of scale and does not evoke a sense of place for either Tucson nor its Sonoran desert locale. Plus, as cash-strapped as the city is to provide basic necessities, I would bet most Tucsonans are not keen on forking over an additional $200+M to fund this project.

Yes, the UofA can build its science center on both sides of the freeway, but a much simpler and scaled-down, functional, and attractive pedestrian bridge to connect the two will be just fine.

soleri

Mar 31, 2006, 9:59 PM

Residential Revolution

Downtown housing proposals are abundant--but are low- and middle-income buyers being excluded?

By DAVE DEVINE
Tucson Weekly

A housing revolution is underway in Tucson's central city. But because of high home prices, will the revolution exclude much of the middle class? And will lower-income families be shoved off to separate housing projects, or will they be allowed to live in the same areas as the upscale crowds apparently getting ready to invade downtown?
"It's scary how good downtown can be," foresees homebuilder Michael Keith. "In a decade, downtown Tucson will be every bit as dynamic as those in Albuquerque, Denver or Santa Barbara. But it needs to be diverse to be dynamic."

Not since the 1960s, when "urban renewal" removed hundreds of homes and swept thousands--mostly poor, Mexican-American people--out of the way to make room for construction of the Tucson Convention Center and other government buildings, has the residential face of downtown been poised for such a change. Now an area populated by 20,000 mostly daytime government workers, downtown is on the brink of a real renaissance, supporters insist.

Of course, similar predictions have been proudly proclaimed numerous times over the past several decades. From the glowing prophecies made about the impacts La Placita Village would have when it opened in 1973, to the recent, unrealized dream of building a high-rise condominium project next to the Joel. D. Valdez Main Library on Stone Avenue, downtown's rebirth has had a very long and difficult labor.

Not to be forgotten are thousands of people already living within a short distance of the core of downtown, who shop in the few retail establishments available in the area. In general, many of these people are not financially well-off, with statistics from six years ago showing 55 percent of them earning less than $20,000 annually.

But with hundreds of condominiums and single-family homes either legitimately planned or being built within a few blocks of downtown's center, that situation might be about to change--dramatically.

John Wesley Miller is a 72-year-old Tucson native, and he's been anticipating this revolution.

"The future downtown is not going to be the same as when I grew up here, but it will have a lot of the character of old-time Tucson," he says. "There'll be friendliness and cultural activities with a residential climate, which will result in the demand for services and shopping increasing."

Several years ago, Miller purchased vacant property along Third Avenue in the Armory Park neighborhood. Since then, he has been constructing energy-efficient homes in the Armory Park del Sol subdivision, and expects to shortly complete the last of the almost 100 units.

Miller admits initial interest in the project was slowed considerably by Sept. 11 and its economic aftermath, but he indicates things have recently turned around in a big way. "We sold 31 homes in 2005," he says, "and 20 more are under construction now. If I had 99 more lots to build on, they'd sell out in a couple of years."

Miller's project points out the reality of buying a new home downtown: The average price in the subdivision last year was $450,000, and is rising 1 percent per month. Plus, Miller adds, he has a contract to build a $1 million home in the development.

However, some lower-cost new homes are still available downtown (along with some reasonably priced rental units). Local builder Tom Doucette is putting the final touches on 41 Oaxacan-hued single-family homes in his portion of the Paseo Estrella development, along 22nd Street just west of Interstate 10. With an average 1,600-square-foot house selling for $210,000, all the homes were snatched up long before the project was even completed.

The Martin Luther King Apartments, at Congress Street and Fifth Avenue, are slated for demolition later this year to make room for Tom Warne's residential and commercial project, Depot Plaza. Warne hopes it is completed by early 2008, and says it will have 790- to 1,400-square-foot condominiums ranging in price from $190,000 to $225,000.

Warne is convinced the development can be built and sold for about $240 per square foot. Most other proposed downtown condominium projects, however, won't be that inexpensive. With construction costs exploding and land prices rising rapidly, many developers expect to charge at least $300 per square foot for a new unit in the area.

Chris Walker, a developer of the Lofts at Fifth Avenue, echoes the opinions of several other condominium builders when he estimates his typical unit will sell for between $300,000 and $350,000. In downtown's defense, Walker emphasizes the cost must be compared to the average sales price for a new single family home in Tucson, which in January was more than $296,000.

Ken Scoville, a historian and retired school teacher, notes that it's almost impossible for a one-income household to purchase a home in Tucson today. "A single teacher with a Ph.D. and 30 years of experience couldn't buy a home. It almost requires two incomes to purchase."

A few years ago, foothills resident Scoville was interested in buying a Keith-built home in the proposed Mercado District of Menlo Park, located on Congress Street west of Interstate 10. But eventually, both he and the builder found it impossible to follow through.

"I couldn't build $170,000 houses for lots of little reasons," explains Keith. As far as he knows, no one else involved with the plan has picked up on the idea.

Looking at the future prospects for downtown, Scoville concludes: "We've got to come up with different levels of housing costs downtown, starting in the $150,000 range. If we don't, at first glance, it seems like we'll only have high- and low-income people living there."

Keith agrees about the importance of economic diversity, pointing to the Santa Rosa neighborhood south of downtown as the blueprint of what the entire area should become. "You can't tell income, ethnicity, gender or martial status from the outside of a home," he says of Santa Rosa. "It has truly become a melting pot."

To help accomplish that goal for all of downtown, Keith believes the city of Tucson must be much more aggressive in raising funds to promote moderately priced housing in the area. "With the land the city government owns, they could become more of a market driver of development. They could sell that land at market rates to raise funds to subsidize affordable housing. They can do this."

With "affordable" often employed as a buzz word for government-subsidized housing inhabited mostly by low-income households, "moderately priced" is the term frequently used to describe homes which can be afforded by middle-class families. And it is this category of home which might be in very short supply.

Downtown developer Randi Dorman is highly critical of the way City Hall has approached the central-city housing issue.

She was part of a team that converted the former Arizona Ice and Cold Storage facility into the Ice House Lofts, a 51-unit condominium complex east of downtown. Pointing out no new condominiums have even broken ground since the Ice House opened some time ago, Dorman believes the city must do several things if it wants to see moderately priced housing in the area.

"They need to step up to the plate through either incentives or subsidies," she insists. "Right now, (that's limited) to a $10,000 fee waiver. That's nice, but it's not really much help. Instead, it's kind of a token."

Suggesting additional financial incentives would promote more moderate housing prices, Dorman has a series of ideas. These include additional fee waivers, along with reduction or elimination of impact fees and abatement of property taxes while a project is in the process of development.

"The city has to decide where to promote housing, and I believe it should focus on downtown. These incentives would help to mitigate the (financial) risks, and those risks are great."

Believing most local politicians don't appreciate these risks nor realize how difficult it is to make a residential project profitable, Dorman adds: "I don't know if people know the economics of developing downtown."

Keith agrees there are challenges for developers interested in downtown. "There are underlying problems with the price of land, and hidden costs in doing business downtown."

For proposed condominium towers tucked on small sites, the cost of providing parking can also be an enormous expense. Forced to install parking either underground or as part of a massive, multi-story structure instead of being able to pave acres of vacant flat land, developers have to recoup the extra parking costs through their sales price.

Dorman additionally thinks City Hall should consider making direct, low-interest loans to downtown developers to promote more moderate housing prices. Revising the city's process for selling its downtown land is another item high on her list of proposed changes.

"The Request for Proposal process is tragic," she says. She speaks from experience; her company was not chosen two years ago to develop a prime piece of downtown real estate. Calling the selection committee in that case "incompetent," Dorman states: "It's such a terrible process that we will never propose another project (for city-owned land) unless the process is changed."

One firm which successfully completed the city's RFP procedures is Rio Development Company, acquiring property for 250 homes in the Menlo Park neighborhood. Site preparation for the project is now underway, but it reportedly will only have four affordable units--not the 24 originally anticipated.

Company spokesperson Susan Assadi becomes defensive while discussing the subject. Assadi indicates the firm is familiar with the city's community-wide target of 10 percent affordable housing. Trying to change the subject, she encourages only positive comments concerning her client's development.

In contrast, Menlo Park resident Lillian Lopez-Grant isn't bashful about sharing her opinions about the new westside Mercado project.

"We didn't want low-income housing in the development," she declares. "Folks here wanted to see a little bit better population coming in. We don't want to be ghettoized."

Reflecting on the rapidly rising housing prices in Tucson, Lopez-Grant continues: "All five of my kids moved away from Menlo Park, and it would have been nice to have them nearby. But there's no place in town where people of moderate or middle income, such as teachers, nurses or police officers, can afford to buy new houses."

From her perspective, Lopez-Grant is happy the city wasn't more aggressive in pushing affordably priced housing in the new subdivision. "The city shouldn't be in the development business," she states. "They can't find their way out of a paper bag."

James Brooks, chair of the city's Metropolitan Housing Commission, appears ambivalent about the need to focus on affordable housing downtown. "We'd like to see as much as possible," he says, "but recognize it's not always possible. Forcing (developers) to provide it can be a negative."

On the other hand, Ward 6 Councilwoman Nina Trasoff thinks City Hall needs to push much harder in promoting affordable housing downtown, an area which she represents. Trasoff also believes the city should almost always ask for some affordably priced units to be included within projects built on city-owned land. "Instead of segregating these units, we need to look at ways to build them into projects. I don't think that's impossible."

But that hasn't been done in some of the half-dozen cases of downtown housing proposed for city-owned land. According to a few builders who are attempting to purchase the property to construct condominiums, they have not been requested to set aside any affordable units during negotiations with city staff members. However, others have been: One is David Ollanik, a partner in the proposal to build One West at the corner of Speedway Boulevard and Stone Avenue.

"It came up in the discussions," Ollanik recalls of incorporating affordable units in the project. "Because of the steel construction (which we'll use) combined with the huge price increases seen over the last two years, it is very tough to do." As an alternative to including these affordable units on what he describes as a "top corner," Ollanik has instead suggested other sites for affordable housing in the Dunbar/Spring neighborhood, where his project is located.

That idea, though, has been rejected by city staff members. Emily Nottingham, head of the Community Services Department, says she would like to see an onsite "affordability component" be part of the One West project. She also thinks it should be required at The Post, the controversial and long-delayed condominium proposal near Stone Avenue and Congress Street, even though it wasn't part of the original negotiations for that land.

How many affordable homes would be included in these two projects remains under discussion, but Nottingham points out there are several ways of accomplishing the objective. "They could be smaller units," she says, "or not have as many amenities." Plus, she adds, the city could bring cash to the table to reduce the mortgage payments.

Explaining why some downtown projects to be built on land acquired from the city won't include affordable units, Nottingham says: "It's all about timing. Earlier, the market was unsure, but as we move forward with more (residential) projects, it becomes a more feasible component."

From his vantage point, Ollanik offers a different explanation about why he, but not some other downtown developers, is being asked by city officials to include affordable units: "They've got to pick on somebody."

Nottingham emphasizes the city is directly responsible for implementing many other lower-priced units in the area. Paging through a copy of the 2004 document "Affordable Housing in Downtown Tucson," Nottingham checks off the progress made in meeting the report's goals. These steps include building 51 new, single-family homes in the area, along with 11 rental units in the proposed renovation of the Rialto apartments on Congress Street.

"We're continuing to pay a lot of attention to this," Nottingham says of the affordability issue. "It's an interesting challenge, since the more successful we are (in revitalizing downtown) means an increasing challenge of keeping housing affordable."

Affordable housing is not the only concern regarding proposed new developments.

Chris Gans, who owns property near Walker's proposed condominium development, has concerns about the traffic problems the project will create. Gans also expresses regret that the development team didn't stay in closer contact with people in the neighborhood. In the end, though, he supports the project.

"I like the idea of infill," Gans says, "if done with sensitivity for the neighborhood. This project is a lot of density in a small place, but I'd rather see that than (developers) tearing up more desert."

Walker agrees, and states: "If it just continues to sprawl, Tucson won't retain the brightest minds of the UA. Now, the community lacks vibrant culture, but it can build that (downtown) so these people will stay here."

For her part, Ice House developer Dorman stresses that great urban architectural designs can result from building downtown. In comparison, she says: "Too many residential projects are putting up crap in the middle of the desert."

Characterizing those who live in the Ice House as smart, sophisticated, interesting and creative, Dorman indicates most range in age from their 30s to the 50s. "In Tucson," she observes, "there aren't jobs that pay enough for those in their 20s to afford condominiums."

Keith is a big fan of the Ice House.

"I think you can define Tucson history as before the Ice House and after it," he says. "At no other period of time would it have been possible. It showed Tucson as a whole is changing in more dramatic ways than realized. The Ice House illustrated there are a number of micro-markets for housing downtown, which developers and City Hall need to be cognizant of. It's a very unique situation."

According to Walker, the Lofts on Fifth Avenue is trying to tap into one of these markets--people who are interested in living in an existing urban environment. Anticipating that the demolition of the former YMCA building which now sits on the site should be completed by the end of April, Walker says of the future inhabitants: "They'll have the ability to walk to the Fourth Avenue shopping district. That's not a pipe dream, and we're not relying on the Rio Nuevo (downtown revitalization effort) to make the project a success."

Like everyone else building housing downtown, Steve Fenton, the developer of Academy Lofts, located in an existing historic structure on Sixth Avenue, sees his potential buyers and renters as a diverse group. "They'll be downtown workers and UA-related people, along with an older clientele and empty-nesters."

Hoping to open his project shortly, Fenton states renters will pay between $750 and $1,750 a month for the various-sized units. "We're getting a great group of tenants," he says. "I'm excited."

A recently released report on the future of downtown housing shows proponents of the area may have much more to be excited about in the future. Prepared for the city of Tucson by Economics Research Associates, the study concludes that over the next 15 years, between 4,600 and 6,900 new housing units could be built in the greater downtown area, which means thousands of more people living, shopping and possibly working there.

Warne sees a very bright future ahead for downtown. "In 10 years," he predicts, "we'll see more private-sector employment, several thousand more housing units and a retail-service sector oriented to those who live and work in the area. There'll be a collage of entertainment to draw people from across Pima County, and because of the ease of transportation, the area will be extremely interactive with Fourth Avenue as well as the UA."

Dorman is more cautiously optimistic about downtown's prospects. "The city really needs to get its act together," she says. "If it does, (the success of downtown) is a sure thing. If it doesn't, it may happen anyway."

kaneui

Apr 3, 2006, 10:05 PM

^Agreed, Tucson needs to get its act together; but then again, so does Phoenix. With rapidly escalating land and materials costs, low- and middle-income housing becomes less and less feasible for developers unless municipalities adopt workable mechanisms to make it viable (i.e., profitable).

As noted in studies done for Phoenix, the majority of demand for downtown housing is on the middle to low end. So why are there not more proposals to meet that demand? Developers, generally, prefer to gravitate toward the narrow segment of high-end product with its higher profit margins. Without a vision and plan that include the necessary financial incentives to make it attractive, "affordable" housing in these downtowns will continue to be little more than a pipe dream.

soleri

Apr 6, 2006, 5:04 AM

This belongs in City Discussions, where I'll post it too. But the Tucson award really stands out.

Chicago – April 4, 2005 – After reviewing more than 160 submission for how well they embody and advance the principles of the Charter of the New Urbanism, a jury of accomplished urbanists has selected 17 projects for New Urbanism’s highest honor, recognition as Charter Award winners.

The 17 projects are diverse both in location and type –- hailing from three continents and taking forms such as affordable housing, transit-oriented development, high-density infill plans, wilderness preservation, freeway-taming strategies, and new town development. In architectural expression, they range from Carolina low-country vernacular to contextual modernism. Yet despite these differences, the projects share a common commitment to first-rate placemaking and the community-strengthening principles of the Charter.

In a year when new urbanist charrettes and follow-up efforts are bringing hope for renewal to Gulf Coast areas destroyed by hurricanes, this year’s Charter Awards honorees use design excellence and the principles of the Charter to improve other challenging contexts, including:

• The threatened farmland outside Paris, where an elegantly designed, compact new town on the TGV line is helping the French government implement a managed growth strategy (Cooper Robertson and Partners).
• An economically declining small town on Virginia’s Eastern Shore where new low-cost homes on an extension of the town fabric shelter 52 households and a community farm creates new economic opportunities (Cox, RBGC Architecture, Research and Urbanism).
• The sprawling 8000+ acres of the US Army's Fort Belvoir, where twelve walkable urban villages are reinventing military housing at the base and creating a new spirit of community for military families (Torti Gallas and Partners).
• Vancouver’s high-intensity downtown, where towers have proliferated as street life has grown more lively and humane under the guidance of a central area plan featuring a “Living First” strategy (City of Vancouver).
• The outskirts of Cabinda, Angola where a town plan replaces haphazard growth with a livable town while preserving coveted forests (Gary White and Associates).
• Formerly abandoned, graffiti-strewn space in downtown Columbus, OH, now reconnected to the city by a modern-day Ponte Vecchio, a retail bridge crossing I-670 (Meleca Architecture).
• Fourteen acres near the heart of Tucson where culturally and environmentally sensitive infill development is knitting the downtown together again after ill-fated urban renewal efforts swept away previous generations of urban fabric (Moule Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists).
• The automobile-oriented core of the model suburban community of Columbia, MD, which will finally become the vibrant town center town founders had hoped for thanks to a master plan calling for higher densities, small urban blocks, and public spaces (Design Collective).
• The downtown and jewelry district of Providence, RI, now severed by an interstate freeway, but soon to be joined under a plan that re-routes the freeway, reconnects urban fabric, and promotes infill development that strengthens the city’s relationship to its waterfront (Sasaki Associates).

Other honored projects include Boston’s Newest Smart Growth Corridor (Goody, Clancy and Associates), Crewkerne-Easthams Architectural and Design Code (Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment), Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza Revitalization (Torti Gallas and Partners), Historic Front Street (Cook + Fox Architects), the Village at Palmetto Bluff (Historical Concepts),Mission Meridian (Moule Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists), and Arnhem City Center (Robert A.M. Stern Architects). An award in the student/faculty category went to the University of Maryland for Hatchett Point in Old Lyme, Conn. and an honorable mention went to the University of Miami for its hurricane-relief housing submission, Mississippi Mobile Homes. Learn more about this year’s winners.

On behalf of CNU and its board of directors, CNU President John Norquist congratulated all 2006 honorees for their impressive achievements. “Many, many project teams set out to create projects that live up to the principles of the Charter, but very few actually achieve that standard,” said Norquist. “The Charter stands as both a tough challenge and a potentially valuable promise. For those who commit to excellence and achieve it, the benefits are enduring places and stronger communities.”

The winners are awarded in three categories reflecting the three scales of the Charter of the New Urbanism. They will receive their awards at a lunchtime ceremony in Providence, RI on Friday, June 2 during Fourteenth Congress for the New Urbanism, which runs from June 1-4.

kaneui

Apr 7, 2006, 9:34 AM

^The article didn't specifically name the project, but I suspected it was the Mercado District in Rio Nuevo, which was confirmed after checking the website of the well-known Southern California architectural firm. (http://www.mparchitects.com/index2.html)

(architect's description of the Mercado District)
This area once contained the historic Convento and Presidio de San Augustin, dating from the 1700's, which were bulldozed in the 1950's to make room for a landfill. In 1999, the City of Tucson decided to remedy the significant ills caused by Urban Renewal, adopting a strategy to reclaim its proud heritage and repair this area of the City. The Mercado District Master Plan is one of the first steps toward Tucson's embracing its rich past and future. This is an 8 block, 7 plaza plan that will provide 300 dwellings and 100,000 square feet of commercial space. The plan is based on the local urban patterns of Tucson's barrio, using a public realm of narrow streets, plazas, jardines and paseos, with buildings close to the street providing much needed shade for pedestrians and personal, internal space within the blocks. A new 3-4 story, arcaded 'main street' terminates at the historic site of Tucson's beginnings, providing additional access to the Menlo Park neighborhood and to visitors of 3 major civic institutions: The University of Arizona Science Center, The Mercado, and the Tucson Origins Center. The residential buildings will primarily be rammed earth and adobe structures with commercial and residential buildings based on local, historic precedents.

Site plan

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MercadoDistrictMap.jpg

barrio-style residences

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MercadoDistResidential.jpg

Additional renderings and information can be found at http://www.mercadodistrict.com/.

kaneui

Apr 10, 2006, 11:04 AM

Athough not growing as fast as Phoenix, Tucson's growth rate is speeding up, with the sprawl now spreading into Cochise and southern Pinal counties as the metro population nears one million:

The boom in Metro Tucson
Leapfrog projects, higher-end homes fuel growth; desert preservation a priority

Jonathan J. Higuera
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 10, 2006 12:00 AM

It's not uncommon for first-time visitors to Tucson to fall in love with the lush Sonoran Desert landscape and decide to make it their new home.

Accommodating demand for housing and maintaining the desert environment have created a challenge that has sparked many a contentious debate within the community.

Since 2000, new-home permits have jumped nearly 65 percent, although they are dwarfed by the 63,570 new-home permits in metro Phoenix in 2005.

Last year, 11,762 new housing permits were issued, a record for the area, up from 7,172 in 2000. Most of those homes were in Pima County, which has about 950,000 residents and is expected to grow to more than 1 million in a year or two.

The growth is reflected in the number of builders of new homes who have flocked to the area. Toll Brothers, Beazer Homes and K. Hovnanian, to name a few, have established Tucson operations in the past year.

Newcomers to the area and trade-up buyers continue to drive demand for new homes, particularly higher-priced houses.

"From our surveys, it is evident there is more demand in higher-price points," said John Bremond, president of KB Home's Tucson division.

KB has provided a spectrum of housing options, from entry-level, to midrange to upper end. Because the Tucson economy offers lower median wages than the national median, much of the demand for upper-end homes is coming from outside the area.

"People are coming from places where they have established a sizable equity in their homes," Bremond said.

The town of Marana, which sits northwest of Tucson and is accessible from Interstate 10 is one hot spot. The Town Council shrewdly had annexed land during the past few decades and began planning for growth.

2 spots in Marana
Now, more than 14,000 residential lots are being reviewed by the town's planners. At present, Marana is home to two of the region's active master-planned communities: Dove Mountain, a community at the base of the Tortolita Mountains, and Gladden Farms, which has 600 homes built and an additional 1,400 planned in just its first phase.

Most of the growth is south of I-10 in agricultural areas. High-end growth has concentrated north of I-10, which also is where the federal government designated a giant swath of desert as habitat for pygmy owls. The pygmy owl may be de-listed as an endangered species in the near future, and it is unclear what impact that would have on land set aside for them.

It's not something Marana is paying much attention to at the moment, Town Manager Michael Reuwsaat said.

"We're doing about 150 home permits a month," he said. "We've developed and implemented the strictest design standards in the region, and the town has been fairly creative in getting the developers to pay for the infrastructure up front."

For example, the town, which recently completed building its new municipal complex, requires developers and home builders to pay construction sales taxes as well as impact fees to cover the costs of infrastructure. Still, it offers to credit them back some of the money as the infrastructure and amenities are put in place.

The result has been a mix of high-end, midrange and entry- level housing. The golf community of Dove Mountain, which sits at the base of the Tortolita Mountains and extends into several canyons there, is at the high end. Recently, its Gallery Golf Club was chosen as the site of a PGA Tour event, starting in 2007.

Paul Zucarelli and his wife, Beth, moved to Canyon Pass, a high-end section within Dove Mountain, about three years ago. They've been in love with their new home and development ever since.

"It's one of the best high-desert canyon settings in the state," said Zucarelli, who owns an employee benefits firm.

In fact, he was so impressed that he moved his mother into a home in Heritage Highlands, the active-adult section of Dove Mountain, and his adult children have a home in the Preserve at Dove Mountain.

"You have homes that young families can afford, and you have high-end million-dollar homes," he said. "My neighborhood has unbelievable spacing."

Steve Huffman, a state legislator who now is running for the congressional seat set to be vacated by the retiring Jim Kolbe, is a real estate agent for Realty Executives.

He said, "Marana has done a really good job of getting buy-in from the community. They are really the model.

"They are one of the fastest-growing communities in the state, and when they move forward on a plan, there's not a lot of controversy."

Seeking cheaper land
This year, the number of new-home permits for the entire metro area is expected to drop to about 10,200 permits as the frenetic pace of last year's buying frenzy cools, said John Strobeck, a housing market consultant who tracks the area's new-home activity.

Still, long-term, some are projecting new-home permits to reach 15,000 and beyond in the next five years.

This year, only 8,000 new homes will be built in Pima County. The rest will be in the neighboring counties of Pinal and Cochise. The percentage of new homes built outside Pima County's boundaries will continue to grow in subsequent years, Strobeck predicted.

Land prices have shot up in Pima County, sending developers across county lines in search of less expensive dirt to develop.

"We're seeing tons of leapfrog growth," said Strobeck, referring to developments that increasingly are on the fringes of metro Tucson. "There's no concentric growth."

A major reason for the spiraling land prices is the lack of availability of developable land. Although similar in size to Maricopa County, Pima County has but 821,000 acres of its nearly 6 million in private hands. That compares with about 1.8 million acres of private land in Maricopa County.

Much of Pima County's land is owned by the state and federal government. Indian reservations also take up more than 40 percent of the county's land mass.

"Land is beginning to be a problem," said Marshall Vest, a senior economist at the University of Arizona, who follows the housing industry closely.

The land squeeze could be eased by the state Land Department as it begins to auction off some of its holdings, but those auctions have yet to occur.

The department did open an office there last year and is planning to hold several auctions this year, although the parcels are small by developer standards, ranging from 40 to 400 acres.

High land prices have in turn led to higher home prices. In February, the median price of a new home was $254,000, up from $219,000, in the same month in 2005.

Affordability issues
Other factors driving up prices were speculators, who bought homes with the intention of flipping them for profits; rising costs for construction materials; and government-required impact fees paid by developers and home builders. The Southern Arizona Home Builders Association maintains that government-imposed impact fees tack on an average of $16,000 to the price of a new home in the Tucson area.

That may be one reason developers increasingly have catered to high-end consumers with bigger, more expensive homes.

"Developers can look to build densely packed affordable homes or go after the higher-income marketplace," Huffman said. "It seems like the focus has been on the higher end the last couple of years."

Even on the resale side, the past few years have been tough for first-time home buyers, he added. "It's an issue we, as a community, have to work on, and it won't be solved overnight."

To make way for the growth and to balance conservation, Pima County created the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan two years ago to limit building in unincorporated parts of the county, further cutting into developable land. Also, a federal designation of land as critical habitat for the endangered pygmy owl shut off areas for growth.

The number of active master-planned communities could triple in the next few years, said Will White, head of the Tucson office for Arizona Land Advisors, a land brokerage firm.

"We've got a really unique area here," he said. "The challenge will be integrating the beauty of the desert with the amount of growth and people moving here."

kaneui

Apr 17, 2006, 6:19 AM

With a new transportation plan up for voters' approval next month, Tucson looks at the transportation lessons of Phoenix, as more freeways are no longer the answer they were once thought to be, with construction costs spiraling and revised laws requiring multimodal transportation funding:

Think you might see more of these big Phoenix freeways replicated in Tucson? Think again.

The 202 intersection with the Hohokam Expressway (Arizona 143) near Sky Harbor Airport
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Loop202Hwy.jpg

Construction on Loop 202 near Alma School Rd., Nov. 2004
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Loop202const.jpg

Southbound 101 in Scottsdale approaching the interchange with the 202
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Loop101and202Interchange.jpg

Looking north for transit lessons
Phoenix happy enough to renew its half-cent tax

By Tim Ellis
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
4.16.2006

PHOENIX — Twenty years after voters here approved plans to build a series of roadways to relieve congestion, and a half-cent sales tax to pay for them, rush-hour traffic still crawls and, in some areas, grinds to a stop. Occasional gridlock notwithstanding, Valley of the Sun voters were happy enough with the results that in 2004 they approved a second 20-year plan.

They also renewed the half-cent-per-dollar sales tax to raise some $16 billion, for two more loop freeways, more lanes and extensions for existing freeway loops and to boost transit, including a 27.7-mile light-rail system. That voter confidence was born of a recognition that Phoenix-area traffic congestion is not as bad as it would have been if they hadn't passed the first 20-year transportation-improvement plan, said Eric Anderson, transportation director for the Maricopa Association of Governments.

With Pima County voters going to the polls next month to decide on their own transportation plan and tax, some may wonder what they can learn from metro Phoenix's last two decades of laying asphalt. There, about 138 miles of loop roads and freeway-like parkways were built under the first 20-year transportation plan, passed in 1985. But rapid growth in and around Phoenix since then has dumped more cars into the system than the authors of that ambitious plan could have anticipated.

Even with the sales-tax renewal, officials are scrambling to get the state to pay for other road-building and widening projects to catch up with explosive growth in outlying areas fueled by cheaper home prices — a scenario that is now starting to duplicate itself in northern Pima and southern Pinal counties. "The numbers are just staggering," Anderson said of up to 600,000 homes that could be built in Pinal County alone in the coming years.

One of the biggest successes of the Maricopa plan was the construction of Loop 101, which loops around the north side of Phoenix and connects Interstate 10 from around Tolleson on the west side to the booming cities of Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa and Chandler on the east. "One of the things that we did right was build loop roads," Anderson said. "It was the right place, the right time for that."

Phoenix-area plan succeeded
Studies by the Texas Transportation Institute confirm the Phoenix area has improved its ability to handle peak rush-hour traffic more than most major metro areas, said Tim Lomax, a researcher with the institute. From 1982 through 2003, the average amount of time Phoenix-area motorists spent in rush-hour traffic increased from 18 to 45 hours, according to the institute's 2005 mobility report, while the population of the Phoenix metro area more than doubled, from 1.4 million to 3 million, Lomax said. But the Phoenix area's ranking among 85 metro areas studied by the institute greatly improved, from the sixth-most-congested city in the country in '82 to 18th in '03.

During the same time, Tucson's population grew from 450,000 to 720,000. Rush-hour travel time, though, went from five hours to 36 hours, and the city's congestion ranking went from 51st to 30th — still not as bad as Phoenix, but a significant move in the wrong direction. That slide in traffic conditions means Pima County voters are facing a situation that's starting to resemble what their counterparts in Maricopa County confronted in 1985. But the 20-year transportation plan Pima voters will consider on May 16, along with a half-cent sales tax to support it, will be very different from Maricopa's first plan.

Maricopa went for freeways
Like Tucson, Phoenix in 1985 was a growing city surrounded by even faster growing suburbs that were dumping huge amounts of traffic on roadways designed for far fewer vehicles. Also like Tucson, the main thoroughfares in and around Phoenix were the two major freeways, Interstates 10 and 17, and three state highways, Arizona 51, 60 and 87.

But while the Maricopa county response was a plan devoted almost exclusively to freeways and parkways, Pima County voters will see no such thing on their ballot. Instead, the roadway-building portion of the plan proposes 35 projects that mainly would add more lanes to nine east-west and nine north-south arterial streets. Only 58 percent of estimated $2.1 billion to be raised goes for roads at all. The rest goes for transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, safety and environmental impacts.

Anderson said the Pima plan's no-freeway approach makes sense to him, because the Tucson area already is built-out — which makes roads much more expensive to construct. "It's always better to build roads before development comes in," he said.

Keno Hawker, mayor of Mesa and chairman of the Maricopa Association of Governments, said the freeway concept worked for the Phoenix area 20-some years ago but probably wouldn't now — either there or in Pima County.
"In Maricopa County, we were so lacking in freeways that that's where all the money was spent," Hawker said. "But that was then. Times have changed. You can't necessarily do that now."

Victor Mendez, director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, said his agency — which built Maricopa County's parkway and loop network — learned a lot from the experience. "We had to build in some areas that were already urbanized," he said. "Other areas that were wide open, agricultural land, they were easier to build in, but still cost a lot of time and money to buy and condemn for right of way — even more if we had to relocate businesses.
"In many cases we'd end up in court for long periods of time," Mendez said.

Freeways too costly
Tim Ahrens, RTA manager, said the high cost of building large roadways like a crosstown parkway persuaded the RTA board and staff to scale back an initial idea to use some of the $2.1 billion to complete the Barraza-Aviation Parkway. "We looked at a freeway initially — we looked at it long and hard, and we decided we'd use up all the money just with that one project," he said. Realizing this, members of the RTA board last summer voted to drop a $200 million proposal to complete the eastern end of the unfinished parkway and instead opted to buy right-of-way land and design a connection to I-10 for $19.6 million. The plan still includes $76.1 million for a one-mile, four-lane roadway to connect the western end of the Aviation Parkway from where it ends at Broadway to I-10, via St. Mary's Road.

Another factor that makes road-building more expensive here is Phoenix is relatively flat, whereas Tucson, surrounded by mountains, is more hilly and crisscrossed with washes. That requires construction of culverts and other drainage structures, which are critical to protecting roadways from the eroding effects of water. That kind of terrain "makes it really expensive to build roads," Anderson said.

State, federal requirements
Ahrens said Tucson also has to take a different approach than the earlier Phoenix plan because the current state law authorizing formation of the RTA requires plans for several modes of transportation, as do federal transportation laws, said David Schwartz, a longtime Phoenix transit advocate. Because of that — and a growing desire for transportation alternatives fueled by, among other things, rising gasoline prices — public transit and other modes are becoming an important part of transportation plans, said Schwartz, a former deputy chief of staff for former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza.

*Transportation election May 16*

Pima, Maricopa transportation plans — a comparison

Similarities
l Main source of revenue: a half-cent sales tax approved by voters.

l Audits required twice annually — although that was not required for the first Maricopa plan until reforms were enacted in the mid-1990s because of financial problems caused by lower-than-anticipated revenues and higher-than-anticipated costs.

l Plans administered by the regional council of governments: the Maricopa Association of Governments in Maricopa County and the Pima Association of Governments in Pima. Although formally speaking, the Pima plan would be managed by a separate entity known as the Regional Transportation Authority, both PAG and the RTA share the same staff and leadership; the PAG regional council sits as the RTA board.

Differences
l The first Maricopa plan was almost entirely devoted to road-building; the Pima plan is more varied — 58 percent of the tax revenues would go to road-building; 27 percent to public transit; 9 percent to safety improvements, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and 6 percent to environment and economic assistance.

l Roads built under the first Maricopa plan mainly were larger roadways such as parkways and expressways; the Pima plan includes no such roadway — almost all of the Pima roadway projects would go to widening existing east-west and north-south arterials.

l The Arizona Department of Transportation built the freeways and parkways in the Maricopa plan; ADOT plays a much smaller role in the Pima plan, mainly coordinating with local jurisdictions in projects involving state or interstate highways.

kaneui

Apr 20, 2006, 10:17 AM

Tucson to receive its 1st hotel casino

Stephanie Paterik
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 20, 2006 12:00 AM

The Tohono O'odham Nation will break ground on Tucson's first casino hotel Monday, continuing a growing trend among Arizona's gaming tribes. The community will build a new Desert Diamond Casino next to the old one on the Nogales Highway and add an adjoining hotel, conference center and restaurants. Once construction is done, it will knock down the oldest Desert Diamond casino, which opened in 1993 and is showing signs of age.

Details about the project will not be released until next week. The development will break new ground in southern Arizona, said Treena Parvello, a spokeswoman for the project. "We'll be the first casino in Tucson to have a hotel," she said. "We will try and maintain business as much as we can (during construction)." Desert Diamond's expansion is the latest example of Arizona tribes building on the success of their casinos.

The Salt River Indian Community plans to build a casino hotel up to 15 stories tall to replace Casino Arizona at Talking Stick's temporary facilities, northeast of Loop 101 and Indian Bend Road. Harrah's Phoenix Ak-Chin Casino Resort is considering an expansion or "repositioning," according to Warnick & Co., a consulting firm that tracks the local lodging industry. And the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation opened a Radisson in November.

The Gila River Indian Community began expanding Vee Quiva Casino in January. It researched the feasibility of building a hotel near the Wild Horse Pass Casino south of Phoenix but tabled the idea. Instead, it will consider building a ballroom and timeshares at the nearby Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa in the near term and adding guest rooms in the long term.

Lower interest
The spate of new development is a result of the compacts Arizona voters approved in 2002, ensuring gambling would continue for 23 years. That guarantee is helping tribes finance big projects at lower interest rates, said Christa Severns, spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Gaming.

"The reason tribes needed that (compact) is it gives you enough time to tell your lenders you have a guaranteed funding stream," she said. Those compacts allow for just one more casino in Tucson and no additional casinos in Maricopa County. That limit is forcing tribes to upgrade the casinos they have and diversify with hotels, conference centers, theme parks and golf courses to increase revenue. "A lot of casinos are working on remodeling and updating," Severns said. "People were concerned there would be unbridled growth in the casino industry. No, it's just an improvement of facilities."

Jobs created
Desert Diamond's new hotel will create jobs on the reservation and attract Phoenix residents, said Sheila Morago, executive director of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association. "Sometimes you don't have enough time to go away, but it's a nice break to sit by someone else's pool and get waited on," she said. "It allows locals to have a mini vacation."

Don B.

Apr 20, 2006, 1:55 PM

^ Interesting.

Tucson still needs a beltway badly. It takes currently 40 minutes to drive 10 miles from Marana to Sabino Canyon. This is hampering economic development as companies are locating in Phoenix, where it is easier to get around, than Tucson.

If Tucson is not going to build a beltway, then they need to build a dedicated BRT or light rail line instead.

Myopic vision = future pain and even worse congestion. Pay now or pay later - the rule is always the same.

Because of the relative lack of economic development, Tucson is even more unaffordable than Phoenix. They have nearly the same real estate costs, but wages are depressed and are fully 20% less than Phoenix.

--don

soleri

Apr 20, 2006, 4:16 PM

^It's hard for me to see how a beltway helps Tucson. What it would do is magnfiy the opportunity for sprawl. As we've seen here in Phoenix, freeways always open up more far-flung tracts of land for housing. If you love urbanism, freeways are toxic. If you love the desert, freeways are doubly horrifying.

Tucson's economy is actually MORE diversified than Phoenix. That's not saying much (Raytheon and IBM can only go so far), but it's important to note that the economy is less dependent on the real estate-industrial complex than Phoenix. Lower-paying McJobs (service jobs which get spun off from sprawl-related functions) represent most of the job growth in Maricopa County.

Real estate costs can be seen as a quality-of-life tax. Very nice places always cost more to live in. That people are willing to pay more to live with less actually is a sign of value. While the overall quality of life in Tucson is declining (I went to school there back in the 70s and it was magical), living can be much more pleasant than in Phoenix, especially if you bicycle, walk or take the bus.

As far as getting to your aunt's house in Sabino Canyon, count your blessings. Tucson's eventual implosion will be far less catastrophic than the one in Phoenix. And when it does come, there will still be one of most magnificent topographies on Earth to enjoy. Sad to say, the one in Phoenix will have been mostly bladed away.

Don B.

Apr 20, 2006, 6:12 PM

^ Well, the beltway I envision encircling Tucson paralleling River Road wouldn't do much to further sprawl, because most of the sprawl has already moved on to farther out places in the Tucson metro area. What it would do is facilitate normal travel around the city possible without spending half an hour in congested auto traffic to get a bottle of milk. Nasty narrow potholed roads with no sidewalks or curbs and swinging traffic lights from cheap cables does not an urban paradise make. Tucson isn't urban or even suburban, it's just raw and primitive. The city screams CHEAP because the people there want low taxes above all else. That's why the wealthier half of the metro area is in unincorporated areas. They don't want to pay "city taxes" or be subject to the "hegemony" of the city of Tucson.

If Tucson's economy is so grand, why is Phoenix's per capita and household income so much higher? Why is Phoenix's new job market much more vibrant than Tucson's, with much higher salaries? How many skyscrapers are going up in Tucson? Logic would dictate that a metro area that is one-fourth the size of Phoenix have one-fourth of the high-rise construction of Phoenix, yet Tucson basically has nothing going on. Nothing. It's not even one-tenth or one-twentieth that of Phoenix.

--don

soleri

Apr 20, 2006, 6:54 PM

^, what you're arguing for is not a beltway but a crosstown freeway. I know River Road is to the north, but in the overall metro area, it's still in the middle. I'm glad I don't have to drive in Tucson, so I can afford to be selfish here. If Tucson can hang out for a decade or two, sanity might emerge in this country about sprawl, high energy consumption, and the entire automotive-based castastrophe. In my fantasy, Tucson develops light rail, streetcar lines, relevant TOD, and a density ethic. If this doesn't materialize, at least Tucson will still have a kind of funky charm in our post-petroleum, post-industrial poverty. Arizona doesn't need two Phoenixes.

I don't argue Tucson's economy is better so much as diversified. Again, sprawl has usurped what was once a mixed economy in Phoenix. It's Tucson, not Phoenix, which is actually better situated for the future. At some point, and it may not be that far off, the sprawl industry collapses from its own contradictions. At that point, Tucson will still have significant economic contributions (relative to its size) from non-real estate industries.

Tucson made a critical error in the 1970s by limiting annexations. The Catalina Foothills neighborhoods didn't want to be annexed, of course, but Tucson should have been more aggressive nonetheless. The thinking at the time was that Tucson would somehow limit growth by imposing its own boundary. We can see how naive that is now.

It's interesting that Tucson has so little high-rise construction. Part of this is the gravitational pull of Phoenix, and the emerging fact that Tucson is now a satellite of The Blob. You could make a comparison to San Diego and LA. SD's economy is strong, and there is a lot of high-rise condo construction going on. But SD is otherwise completely in LA's shadow. Tucson's best strategy, however, is not simply to pull the plug and adopt the Phoenix strategy of hyper-exburban growth. If Tucson can resist the siren song of freeways, there is an opportunity for growth at the core, especially as fuel escalates in cost. This is a strategy that may even help Phoenix down the road. As skyscraper enthusiasts, we can both agree that density at the core is a good thing. You get there by not feeding the monster of suburbanization, which is what freeways do.

Don B.

Apr 20, 2006, 8:51 PM

somethingfast

Apr 20, 2006, 9:17 PM

^^ You both make good arguments. I live in Tucson and I sympathize with both angles. My feeling is that Tucson is hopelessly lost. We have a totally clueless city council and little leadership anywhere for that matter.

I do think SOME sort of cross-town freeway or a mini-loop around the Rillito River is totally necessary. Beyond that, I agree that we should encourage infill and density, which can be done of course through tax incentives, etc.

DT Tucson is absolutely pathetic. The kicker is that it has lots of potential. It's actually much "nice" in setting that DT Phoenix, by a country mile. But the city does NOTHING to encourage private investment, which is the source of investment on the horizon given political climate.

I love Tucson and I hate it. Nobody wants nor expects it to be another Phoenix. It will always be in Phoenix's shadow and that's fine. The trouble is, Tucson is in a constant state of paralysis bc is it overwhelmed by its fears of Phoenix, and most of them them are totally unfounded.

oliveurban

Apr 20, 2006, 9:24 PM

Nobody wants nor expects it to be another Phoenix. It will always be in Phoenix's shadow and that's fine. The trouble is, Tucson is in a constant state of paralysis bc is it overwhelmed by its fears of Phoenix, and most of them them are totally unfounded.

I definitely agree with this.

soleri

Apr 20, 2006, 9:35 PM

^ I disagree about your general concept of freeways. They don't always feed suburban development. Suburban sprawl can occur all by itself without freeways. Phoenix was basically nothing but sprawl in 1975 before the coming of the Loops, part of I-10, US 60 and SR 51. In fact, Phoenix became the largest city in the U.S. with virtually no freeways by 1985, when Maricopa County taxpayers, likely fed up with the ever-worsening congestion, passed the first half-cent sales tax.

To make my point even more clear, in 1980, Phoenix and Kansas City were about the same size in terms of their metro populations. Phoenix was at 1.5 million and Kansas City was at 1.3 million. Phoenix had virtually no freeways and Kansas City had 316 miles of freeways completed, including one complete beltway (I-435) and parts of two more (I-470 and I-635). Yet, both cities have suffered from immense sprawl since World War II. The only reason why KC has more skyscrapers is because it is a considerably older city than Phoenix, and KC was once much larger than Phoenix.

The freeway in Tucson I mentioned before, running east along River Road from I-10, then looping south along Pantano Wash to I-10 again on the southeast side, then heading west by the airport on the south side of town before turning north on the near west side is not a simple "crosstown freeway" as you put it, and I apologize for not being more clear about my thought process here. I envision a true, albeit small beltway, and one sorely needed in that congested burg. Building this small beltway will not "turn Tucson into Phoenix." Tucson will never be as large as Phoenix and we can both agree that is a good thing. However, Tucson today is the largest city in the United States without a beltway. Heck, cities less than half the size of Tucson back east like Wichita, Sioux Falls and Omaha have beltways.

I think building such a small beltway in Tucson, along with light rail to all four points of the compass from downtown, would serve Tucson's economic interests much better than the "head-in-the-sand" approach that city is following now. Again, pay now or pay later...the day is coming when such things will be sorely needed.

I'll sum up my thoughts on Tucson like this: Today, Kansas City has almost 2 million people. Tucson has about half as many people, yet it is far easier to get around Kansas City than Tucson.

--don

It's true Phoenix was a sprawl town prior to the intense freeway construction program that's ongoing. But freeways are indispensible for feeding sprawl, and the mega-sprawl Phoenix is now experiencing would be unthinkable without prior freeway construction. If Phoenix had not voted for freeway construction in the mid 80s, what would have happened? Obviously traffic on major arterials would be snarled, and commutes would be long and exasperating. In other words, people might actually have been motivated to live closer to work, use mass transit, live centrally, and accept density. The reasons Phoenix is the least urban large city in America include its history and peculiar flat topography. But freeways are a crucial ingredient in radically decentralizing Phoenix.

You (Don) and I agree on just about everything that's important in this forum. If I disagree with you strongly on this issue, it's not because I think you're being blind. Your viewpoint is quite commonsensical. My viewpoint is radical and Luddite. But I would still prefer to see the mayhem and chaos of sprawl unmitigated by freeways. I think that disaster needs to be seen for what it is, not swept under the carpet so it appears to work. Sprawl is the antithesis of what we love here - cities, density, tall buildings - and we feed sprawl everytime we try to make it work just a little bit better.

soleri

Apr 20, 2006, 9:37 PM

Don B.

Apr 20, 2006, 9:39 PM

^ Agreed. In fact, to some degree, the same relationship exists between Phoenix and Los Angeles. As Tucson fears becoming more like Phoenix, Phoenix feared for many decades becoming like Los Angeles, which is why freeways were resisted by Phoenicians for so long, and like Tucsonians fear today.

*smack* Come back to reality. The people are coming. Tucson is supposed to become the same size as Kansas City is today within a few decades, with a metro population of around 1.7 to 2.0 million people by 2030. If something drastic is not done, driving in New York City in 30 years will be pleasurable compared to Tucson's horrific congestion.

As Phoenix proved for many decades, the people are going to move here regardless of whether your infrastructure can bear it or not. Best to prepare for the coming onslaught.

--don

somethingfast

Apr 20, 2006, 9:55 PM

^ 100% correct. It's time to do SOMETHING about transporation other than to keep building 2 and 3-lane roads with stoplights every half mile. It's beyond insane. I really honestly feel that Tucson might have the worse surface street traffic in American based on its population. It's really that bad.

Yes, build freeways or build light rail but, for God's sake, build something other than freakin' roads.

HooverDam

Apr 20, 2006, 10:10 PM

I agree w/ Don, sprawl is going to happen with or with out a beltway. Some people need to realize that just because they like living near their jobs, that doesnt mean its everyones preference. I have a friend who gladly drives 45 minutes to work everyday because he likes living out in the boonies and being able to see stars at night.

Not everyones view of an ideal city is this:

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9538/metropolis9ac.gif

oliveurban

Apr 20, 2006, 10:24 PM

Many of you have already seen this (http://www.tucsonlightrail.com). Something similar would have been a good starting point:

http://www.savetucson.org/initiativebigmaps.gif
Larger version: http://www.savetucson.org/initiativebigmaps.jpg

kaneui

Apr 22, 2006, 3:15 AM

With new financial partner Town West, Jim Counts is headed to the City Council with a revised $40M mixed-use redevelopment project to bring his Nimbus Brewery to the downtown warehouse arts district, which would also feature 130 condos up to 12 stories high:

rendering - Nimbus Brewery project
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/NimbusBreweryproject.jpg

Nimbus returns as contender in Downtown revitalization

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
04.21.2006

Nimbus Brewery's bid to move Downtown has a new partner and a new lease on life with the city. City Council members on the Rio Nuevo subcommittee said they had been prepared to end discussion with the owner of Nimbus because of a lack of progress on his proposal to move the business to 2.8 acres at North Stone Avenue and West Franklin Street, at the east end of the warehouse arts district. But council members said they were impressed with the brewery's new partner, Town West Design Development Inc., which has taken over as the main developer of the now roughly $40 million project.

Under the proposal announced Thursday, Town West would help Nimbus owner Jim Counts build his $5 million brewery and Counts would pay Town West back similar to the way a home mortgage is structured, Counts said. Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said she was impressed with the new plan laid out by Town West's vice president, Raul Reyes. Reyes touted the new $20 million Sam Hughes Place project that Town West recently completed at East Sixth Street and North Campbell Avenue, along with another $25 million building project at East Fifth Street and North Wilmot Road as proof that "we know we can handle a project like this." "They come in today with what they haven't had for six months," Trasoff said after the meeting. "We've spent too much time looking at pretty pictures and nice plans. This is a giant step forward for the validity of the project."

Even with the positive remarks, the committee forwarded the project to the whole City Council without a recommendation. In fact, Councilman Steve Leal advocated for taking the 2.8-acre property out to bid because Nimbus owner Counts had missed a deadline in January to submit a viable project to move his popular microbrewery from west of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base to Downtown. That was after the City Council granted Counts a 90-day exclusive negotiating period in mid-October.

"There are still a lot of questions whether this is a feasible project," said City Councilman Jose Ibarra, though he added, "The project does excite me." The committee instructed Town West to meet with city staffers to allow them to determine the financial feasibility of the plan and take a hard look at the company's finances. The council is expected to consider the project May 2 or May 9.

"We have not analyzed the project with numbers," Ibarra said, noting Nimbus was supposed to have specific financial information for the project in January. "That makes me nervous." The committee instructed Town West to meet with neighborhood stakeholders to inform them of the new plans for the brewery project and to get their views.

One community stakeholder has already come out against the plan. Warehouse Arts Management Organization board member Natasha Winnik told the panel her group was against the plan because very little in the project was geared toward the arts.

Town West said it needed no financial help from the city to construct the $40 million project other than for the city to sell it the land, valued between $1.5 million and $3 million, for a nominal fee. In all, the project includes Nimbus' $5 million, two-story brewery with outside seating, an outdoor stage and amphitheater, 130 condominiums in four buildings, a health club, retail and office space, and two levels of underground parking. The plan also calls for the city to vacate part of Ninth Avenue to provide parking for the project. The four buildings all have first-floor retail and office space. One building located in the north of the project is two stories, while the buildings fronting Franklin Street step up from five stories to seven stories to 12 stories.

Counts was visibly choked up at the end of his speech when he implored the council to approve his project, which he said has forced him to be away from his wife for the last three months. After acknowledging that he has "ruffled some feathers" with his project, he began crying and told the panel, "Sorry, I'm getting emotional."

Don B.

Apr 22, 2006, 10:04 AM

^ You have got to be kidding me:

One community stakeholder has already come out against the plan. Warehouse Arts Management Organization board member Natasha Winnik told the panel her group was against the plan because very little in the project was geared toward the arts.

Now, if that isn't a prime example of cutting off your nose to spite your face, I don't know what is. What an idiot! Not every project needs to be "geared to the arts." Lame!

--don

PHX31

Apr 22, 2006, 10:54 AM

Downtown Tucson has a lot more potential than downtown Phoenix. The setting, as you note, is lovely, and the surrounding neighborhoods are priceless. Keep the faith. Tucson's day is coming.

I don't want to start a *heated* debate, but... I totally disagree. Downtown Tucson is much like the SW portion of Downtown Phoenix... government buildings with very little interaction with the street. Other portions of both downtowns actually have some decent semblance of "urban" pedestrian-oriented streets and buildings, the main difference of these areas is Phoenix seems more "big-city" while Tucson seems more "quaint". The surrounding neighborhoods of Phoenix are either hell on earth, or excellent (south of the tracks vs Roosevelt) and I think the entire downtown area of Phoenix is full of potential. The surrounding neighborhoods of Tucson are either shit or charming.
I guess I just don't see how DT Tucson has a lot more potential, nor how you are making it seem like Phoenix is/has nothing.

soleri

Apr 22, 2006, 2:50 PM

^DT Tucson still has its retail infrastructure. Granted, there's nothing there, but if and when the day comes that Tucson begins to recentralize, it's there ready to serve another day. By contrast, DT Phoenix has basically nothing, which more than anything else keeps it from becoming 24/7.

About a dozen years ago, the arts scene in Tucson coalesced downtown, and many of the old storefronts took on a 2nd life as galleries. This didn't last but it did show the exciting possibilities that exist there. Also, downtown ties into 4th Avenue, Tucson's hippest street and gateway to the university.

The crap in DT Tucson is the predictable "revitalization" product from 30 some years ago: the convention center, the dull-as-dirt "mixed-use" project (La Placita Village), and the neo-Stalinist government builidings. While excruciating in themselves, they didn't completely take out the old downtown. Whenever I'm there, I find myself inventorying the wonderful things that are left. I'll quote myself here: neglect can be the handmaiden of preservation, and downtown Tucson's relative lack of success can be also be seen as future potential.

PHX31

Apr 22, 2006, 7:46 PM

Again, I disagree to an extent. Phoenix doesn't have "basically nothing" as far as retail infrastructure goes. It may not be the same as a 4th Ave (which by the way is separated from DT Tucson by the tracks, although it is a nice street to have so close to downtown), and it may not exactly be whole streets lined with single story retail (not sure Tucson even has this), but there are plenty of areas of DT with retail, and short jaunts outside of downtown are close and ripe for revitalization to tie it all together again. I'm thinking about:
DT: Central & 1st Ave. There's already jewelry stores and small markets and a bunch of small restaurants, and the good thing is they are below taller buildings.
North on Central: Heading up central towards Roosevelt there are still semblances of retail possibilities. That whole strip with that hideous Jungle Cabaret, moving up towards the now old Jewelry Box, circles, etc, and even further there's the Greek restaurant and much more. We all know the potential of Roosevelt... but the whole street leading up to Roosevelt is full of potential.
Warehouse district: Already some bars, and then places like the poisoned pen, the bakery, etc.

The "Phoenix bashing" still tires me (not that you were necessarily bashing), do you not see the potential, or do you choose to ignore it simply because it should already be better for a city the size of Phoenix? (Maybe you're just bitter, as am I, about the building stock that was lost in Phoenix due to mid-century revitalization. But there is a bright side to that, starting with DT ASU. It's a totally different cat as compared to older, stately, pedestrian-oriented Phoenix, but, take the good with the bad.)

I agree Tucson has it share of great existing and potential areas, but to say Phoenix has "basically nothing" and Tucson has "a lot more potential" I just don't see it.

soleri

Apr 22, 2006, 11:30 PM

^I would agree that the Roosevelt neighborhood (basically everything north of Fillmore) represents Phoenix's best possibility for some kind of street scene. The problem is that we've yet to see that evolution save the clubs (Amsterdam, Palazzo, et al). ASU downtown will be a major spark plug, of course, although I'm not clear how it will manifest. The Jewelry Box, Jungle Club and all that crap will be torn down - a blessed event, to be sure. I love the Bentley Projects, but it's pretty much it's own island in the lower downtown area. Over time, with the Summit and other condo projects getting built, there may grow some kind of connective tissue between it and the rest of downtown.

I bash Phoenix because I think we've got to penetrate the denial that's pretty much condemns our city to its suburban paradigm. When we don't tell the truth, anything that comes along is greeted as good news. This could be another dead zone parking garage, another historic building razed, or another superblock creation that doesn't energize the street or contexualize with what's there.

At the same time, I'm cheerleading as fast as I can. I give tours on a weekly basis to people I know, trying to get them interested in living downtown, selling its possibilities, and cataloguing its architectural treasures. It's not easy because I hate bullshitting anyone. What I will do is speak honestly about the potential downtown embodies, starting with ASU and light rail, and extending to the residential boom in and around downtown.

I think DT Phoenix has learned the hard way how not to revitalize. We're not unique. If you go to San Diego, you see many of the same dreadful decisions in the 60s and 70s. DT Denver was still a glorious city in the 1960s before urban renewal, which struck our sister city in a particularly brutal way. The devastation of historic landmarks still makes me cringe. I tell people that had Denver been much more sensitive about its vintage architecture, it would now be the Paris of North America.

Overall, I'm happy with the past few years here. Phoenix's downtown is very much an EARLY work in progress, but at least the omens look positive. Tucson is working hard, too, but doesn't yet have the same energy or wealth available. In this sense (an ironic one, to be sure), the growth on the edges of Phoenix has allowed some crumbs of wealth to fall into the center. Virtually everything that's happening downtown is a product of public money, and the few private projects are tentative spin-offs from this economic infusion.

I love Tucson for many reasons, but the foremost one has to be its architectural heritage. You can tell this is an older city, slower, and less eager to discard the past. Yes, they've suffered from a typically boosterish cabal of car dealers and land speculators who've made fortunes turning this gem into a Little Phoenix. But somehow, Tucson survives, battered and bruised, yet still vital in its center.

kaneui

Apr 24, 2006, 5:28 AM

Big pharma expands in Tucson

The Business Journal of Phoenix
April 21, 2006
by Angela Gonzales

One of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies is increasing its presence in Tucson. Paris-based Sanofi-Aventis, known for its Plavix blood-thinning drug, bought 11.5 acres in Oro Valley's Innovation Park to build a 100,000-square-foot research and development facility. The new complex will be three times as large as the company's existing 35,000-square-foot R&D space in Oro Valley. Employees are expected to move out of the old facility and into the new space in 2008.

Steve Corney, managing principal at the Phoenix office of Staubach Co., who represented Sanofi-Aventis in the $3 million land transaction, said the company looked at several biotech hubs in the Tucson area before picking the location. The Phoenix area was not in the running because the company already employs 65 people in Tucson and did not want to disrupt them, said Marc Greene, director of media relations for Sanofi-Aventis.

"We are planning to recruit maybe 20 more scientists over the next three to five years," Greene said. He said it's too early to say, but some scientists may be moved from existing research facilities around the world. Others could be hired locally.

The drug-maker is becoming more involved with the local community. It is expected to join Tucson-based Critical Path Institute's Predictive Safety Consortium in an effort to get drugs to market sooner.

Sanofi-Aventis would join Merck & Co. Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Schering-Plough Corp., Novartis, Roche Inc., GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb in the consortium, which is working with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to establish research tools to predict the safety of new treatments before they go into clinical testing.

"I'm really pleased that they and other smaller companies are finding that (Tucson) is a good, positive environment to be a part of," said Dr. Ray Woosley, president and chief executive of C-Path. Woosley said Sanofi-Aventis' Tucson roots go back to 1990 when four University of Arizona professors created Selectide Corp., which was purchased by several other companies and finally by Aventis. Sanofi bought Aventis in August 2004.

kaneui

Apr 25, 2006, 8:32 AM

Looks like a Ritz-Carlton resort is coming to Tucson--specifically, at the Dove Mountain community in suburban Marana:

The Gallery South course at Dove Mountain
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/GalleryCourse-DoveMountain.jpg

Of luxury and golf
Inside Tucson Business
by David Hatfield
April 24, 2006

More confirmation plans are moving along toward building a Ritz-Carlton luxury resort at Dove Mountain: J.W. “Bill” Marriott was in town recently walking the site. People in the industry say that doesn’t happen unless a deal has been struck. Marriott is the CEO of Marriott International, Ritz-Carlton’s parent company.

Although those involved remain tight-lipped when it comes to official announcements, David Mehl’s Cottonwood Properties has filed development plans labeled “Ritz Carlton Resort @ Dove Mountain” with the Marana planning department. It was Mehl’s firm that developed La Paloma and the Westin La Paloma Resort and Spa in the Catalina Foothills in the 1980s.

The plans for the Ritz-Carlton describe a resort northwest of the intersection of Tangerine Road and Dove Mountain Boulevard that would be composed of a four-story building with 199 rooms and 51 casita rooms located around the property. The entire development is 99 acres but that includes a new golf course and luxury homes.

Among those who expect the Ritz-Carlton to become a reality include pretty much everyone involved with the Accenture Match Play Championship that next year will start bringing the world’s top 64 golfers to The Gallery South Course at Dove Mountain each February for the annual tournament.

For the first few years, at least, it’s going to be a bit of a commute as the tournament “headquarters” hotel is going to be the JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort and Spa in the Tucson Mountains n probably a 40-minute drive on a good day.

Even if things continue moving smoothly on the Ritz-Carlton, ground breaking probably won’t take place until at least next year. Similar construction projects have been known to take as long as three years, which would mean the resort would open in 2010, coincidentally the final year of Accenture’s current sponsorship deal for the Match Play tournament.

About that Match Play Championship, here’s some advice for any business thinking it wants to show off and entertain a little bit at next February’s event: When presented with the opportunity to buy tickets, don’t dawdle. They haven’t even gone on sale yet but they’re going fast.

Although money hasn’t changed hands in all cases, every one of the planned V.I.P. suites and venues has been spoken for. Due to the nature of match play, they’re going to limit the number of tickets as the tournament progresses so that by the weekend there will be only 7,000 tickets issued each day. Considering 5½ times that number used to show up on a weekend day at Tucson National for the “B” list golfers at the Chrysler Classic, this is liable to be one hot ticket.

These tickets won’t be cheap either. Packages will range from $1,250 for two tickets to each day on up to $50,000, which gets you some extra goodies. Astounding to think about isn’t it? A Ritz-Carlton, $50,000 for golf tickets; somebody has a lot of confidence in Tucson.

kaneui

Apr 29, 2006, 2:10 AM

Rafael Vinoly's somewhat revised drawings of his proposed iconic bridge/museum to span I-10 in downtown Tucson, now estimated to cost at least $350M, draw mixed reviews. (Hmmm....wonder what would happen if a monsoon lightning bolt hit this thing?)

Spotlights would illuminate the bridge with rainbow colors at night.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/NewVinolyBridgeRendering2.jpg

The bridge's proposed Flandrau Science Center. Vinoly's latest design adds circular ramps to lead
people onto the bridge. And the middle of the bridge is now about 50 feet across.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/NewVinolyBridgeRendering.jpg

Comments on bridge span range of opinions
By Jon Gambrell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
4.28.2006

Everyone loves a rainbow, but when it comes to the color — or even the existence — of a proposed bridge containing the University of Arizona's Science Center, Tucson is undecided. About 175 people came to a Thursday-night event to question, laud or criticize the museum-and-bridge design by New York-based architect Rafael Viñoly.

After being shown artist's new and improved renderings of the proposed bridge spanning Interstate 10 and the Santa Cruz River, a show of hands found half the audience supporting having it white — the original color, which earlier drew some community criticism. The other half preferred an earthy brown.

But some, like Irma Juanita Moreno, questioned the project, which current estimates put at $350 million to construct. "I think the price is going to go higher," said Moreno, 67, of Tucson. "This is too dramatic, too out of context and too costly."

Viñoly's latest design, unveiled at the Thursday meeting, adds circular ramps to lead passers-by onto the bridge. And the middle of the bridge now stretches about 50 feet across, providing more of a promenade rather than just a catwalk across the interstate, Viñoly said. Teflon cloth runs over the bridge, diffusing the sun. The cloth also catches spotlights at night, with one artist's rendering showing a rainbow stretching from purple to red across the bridge's 1,250-foot span.

As of now, the UA has lined up about $100 million for the project, said Robert Smith, the university's director of Facility Design & Construction. Officials say they've started a capital campaign to raise funds and continue to look at other options to pay for the center. Construction could begin as early as next spring.

Audience members offered other critiques of the design, questioning the lack of bicycle lanes and requesting solar panels be installed along suspension bridge's curling spine. But pictures of the bridge illuminated like a rainbow drew the most support during the evening. "It is universal, it is timeless," said Teresa Toro, 34, of Tucson. "To me, being able to see a rainbow every evening would be beautiful."

However, Tucson resident Gayle Hartmann garnered her own applause when she suggested Tucson has a lot of "wonderful things we could do, and this is not it." "I guess what we need is a quiet bridge," said Hartmann, 64. "Not one that screams at us."

Seetha V. Ramaiah, a Phoenix resident who came to the hearing, urged the architect to move forward with the plans. "In my opinion, this will be a landmark in Arizona after the Grand Canyon," said Ramaiah, 70. "We have got to dream big and go for it. Tucson needs to be on the map."

HooverDam

Apr 29, 2006, 2:46 AM

As someone who lives in Phoenix, this is the first time I think I've ever said this, Im jealous of Tucson. Phoenix needs an iconic structure like that- maybe not a bridge, but SOMETHING.

Its a neat design, though whoever it was that suggested bike lanes and solar panels was right. And it doesnt seem like those thing would be very difficult to add either.

EDIT: Also, Im a little confused as to where exactly the Science Center is going. Is it going at the base of one of the legs? Or does it extend across the highway? My impression was that the bridge part was just a foot bridge, but maybe some of the exhibits are suspended up there as well?

combusean

Apr 29, 2006, 4:39 AM

^ Ditto. People come from miles around to see the St Louis Gateway Arch and that won't even be half of what Tucson will be getting if $250 million more can be found.

Designs and visions like these are a fantasy for my liberal tax-and-spend ideas at the local level, which really begs the question--if there's many "wonderful things [Tucsonans] could do, and [the bridge] is not it"--then what?

JI5

Apr 29, 2006, 10:15 AM

/\ /\ /\
I wouldn't be too jealous just yet. We're talking about Tucson here, the city that can't even get a freeway approved, never mind something that might be perceived as "art". Furthermore, I cant wait to see how they would attempt to get residents of Tucson, the city that likes to vote "no", to approve this bridge through the desert. I would be amazed if anything came of it. I would say the odds are about the same as Mesa passing a city property tax - it just isn't going to happen.

soleri

Apr 29, 2006, 2:29 PM

^You misunderstand Tucson's NIMBYism. It's not like Mesa's flinty no-taxes position. It's much more grounded in their architecture, environment and disdain for feeding the monsters of sprawl. A crosstown freeway would necessarily devastate a lot of neighborhoods. And for what? So a bunch of lard-ass SUV drivers can drive from their McMansions on the Fringe to a Wildcat game?

We're entering a new era of oil shortfalls, price increases, and a fundamental rethinking of our transportation choices. I'm amazed how many minds are still stuck in the 20th century. Or maybe they think they're on Sprawl.com.

Don B.

Apr 29, 2006, 3:01 PM

^ Incorrect. Having family in Tucson, having talked to a lot of the residents there over the last decade, it is mostly a "flinty no-taxes position." A lot of the people living in the unincorporated foothills of Tucson (400,000 at last count) and incorporated suburbs like Marana - including some of the wealthiest areas of Pima County - are just cheap SOBs who distrust big city governments and revere small taxes above all else. Many are older and feel like they've done their bit for King and Country, and don't want to feel connected to any sort of larger whole.

That's why the transportation ballots and other tax propositions have failed time and time again in Tucson, including some with significant mass transit components. Phoenix used to be the same way, until enough moderate people from other parts of the country (read: younger folk) came in during the last decade and changed the face of Phoenix.

Contrary to the broad brush you utilized to describe drivers, many (especially in a more socially conscious area like Tucson) drive smaller vehicles, hybrids and the like, yet they are stuck in the same horribly congested, shitty infrastructure that Tucsonians think is a city. They don't invest in curbs, sidewalks, fixed traffic signals (those cheapo ones swinging from wires are always classy) and so forth, and the city looks like a dump as a result. Ditches and potholed, narrow one-lane in each direction arterials do not a world-class city make.

--don

somethingfast

Apr 29, 2006, 5:36 PM

^^ Good point, Don. Lest we forget, ancient Rome was admired for its efficient infrastructure. In fact, infrastructure was once a hallmark of America. Now it seems interstates are falling apart, roads are in bad shape, mass transit doesn't work in most cities. As far as I'm concerned, Phoenix just keeps "absorbing" the tax dollars that Tucson ignores for road/freeway improvement. We are idiots down here. There, I said. We allow fools to lead us to our own annhialation.

soleri

Apr 29, 2006, 7:00 PM

^ Contrary to the broad brush you utilized to describe drivers, many (especially in a more socially conscious area like Tucson) drive smaller vehicles, hybrids and the like, yet they are stuck in the same horribly congested, shitty infrastructure that Tucsonians think is a city. They don't invest in curbs, sidewalks, fixed traffic signals (those cheapo ones swinging from wires are always classy) and so forth, and the city looks like a dump as a result. Ditches and potholed, narrow one-lane in each direction arterials do not a world-class city make.

--don

The socially conscious driver in Tucson is much more likely to vote for mass transit than freeways. It's important to remember that Tucson has the example of Phoenix looming above it. They see the Blob and are not amused.

It perplexes me that given the results of sprawl-oriented transportation systems that anyone who claims to be an urbanist could somehow find Phoenix an adequate paradigm. Hyperkinetic suburban sprawl is primarily a function of car-and-driver transportation. It's inescapable and inevitable. Single-family housing serviced by a grid system of surface streets necessarily will give birth to freeways, further fringe development, ad nauseum. There's no escaping the ultimate conclusions here. You buy into one aspect of this system, you buy it all.

Oil is a declining resource, one which will make driving much less attractive, and further erode the economic basis of sprawl. Techno fixes like a hydrogen economy are decades away from implementation. But even if you assume that it could be done, why would you even want it? So we can keep building further and further out? At what point do you Suburban Warriors finally vomit on this excess? When the sprawl edge reaches Quartzsite?

Sprawl is such a bad thing on so many levels it usually doesn't require explanations. You know it when you see it. If you love cities, you hate sprawl. Great cities tear down freeways (like San Francisco or Portland). Other great cities won't devastate themselves for freeways (NYC's Greenwich Village). Still others understand the future lies with transit rather than more roadways (like Denver). But Phoenix and Tucson are still under the sway of easy driving, easy answers, and anachronistic solutions. It's why Tucson and Phoenix have relatively few high rises, little density, and very little urban pulse. Most people, apparently, like it this way, until the ultimate ramifications become so apparent they decide they have to pack up and leave for some newer suburbanist paradise, like Prescott Valley or Benson.

For Tucson, the handwriting is on the wall, in day-glo colors, nice and big: the era of cheap oil is almost over. Don't waste a billion dollars so people can have the dubious pleasure of driving. If you vote for the car instead of people, the city will reward you with strip malls, a dead downtown, and a low-energy community. It will be attractive only to the least creative and least socially conscious among you. At some point, the city may find the courage to say "no more" and risk the consequences. I hope that's where Tucson is today.

JI5

Apr 29, 2006, 7:58 PM

/\ /\ /\

As a native New Yorker, I can assure you that New York City DOES have Freeways, however they go by different names. Yes, even Greenwich Village (which you cited above) has 2 Freeways within a mile - They are the FDR Drive and the West Side Highway. New York City has an ellaborate freeway system - - all those bridges and tunnels lead to freeways that go by names such as the "Long Island Expressway", "Brooklyn-Queens Expressway", "The Cross- Bronx", "the Northern and Southern State Parkways, the list goes on. They dont call them "freeways" in New York only because they are not free - You pay a toll, but the concept is the same. ALL US CITIES need a good freeway system out to the suburbs.. Suburbs are not a BAD thing, they are necessary to have a good downtown in the middle-- So your anti-freeway rhetoric is misdirected. Freeways are not inherently anti-urban, anti-city, or anti-sky scraper. The truth is, getting around in Phoenix - IS - much easier than getting around the NIMBY city of Tucson, because the city is planned so poorly. And what did you get for it? Where's your downtown? The highest structure in Tucson is a street light over a parking lot.

soleri

Apr 30, 2006, 12:15 AM

And where is Phoenix's downtown? It's so abysmal it doesn't even register in people's minds aside from a place to see a game or go to an event at convention center.

It's ironic to read a New Yorker defending freeways the same week as Jane Jacob's death. Whatever you think of Robert Moses, I doubt few people aside from truckers and taxi cab drivers revere his name. His Bruckner Expressway in the Bronx did more to plunge that borough into a death spiral than any other development. The other expressways crawl along at snail pace now, pretty much a testament to the futility of that mode of transportation. Yes, they were probably necessary on some level, but freeways invariably open up countryside to suburban sprawl. Once the system is in place, it's very hard to contain. It generally carries on until it eats up whatever open spaces are within reach of its tentacles.

Great cities have wisely restricted freeways. Vancouver has none inside its city limits and it's probably the premier urban paradise in North America. Boston has the Mass Turnpike and I-95, but they're being expensively retrofitted now with decks in order to restore the urban fabric. As I mentioned above, San Francisco and Portland have actually torn down freeways on their waterfronts. Seattle is facing a similar decision with its Alaskan Viaduct.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but there are some very simple urban rules here:

1) Freeways are, ipso facto, anti-urban. They promote sprawl regardless where they're built, how they're built, or when they're built.

2) Mega-sprawl happens when automotive transportation systems predominate in a metropolitan area. No trains? This results in lots and lots of car-based sprawl. Metroplexes with trains allow for suburban density other suburbs don't. Chicago, for example.

3) Sprawl is unsustainable. The era of cheap oil is rapidly drawing to a close. 20th century transportation solutions - cars, roads, freeways - are inherently wasteful of this resource. The good news is that sprawl has finally met its match. Outside of SF or Portland, the economic forces of sprawl defeated virtually every urbanist outside the redoubtable Ms Jacobs. Higher oil prices will now force growth inward.....and upward. Good news, too, if your love of cities is limited merely to tall buildings.

4. Suburban growth reflects a diminished civic capicity in American life. People become consumers rather than citizens (city and citizen have the same cognate, as most of you know). This results in petro-wars for diminishing resources, an utterly despicable form of NIMBYism in the form of all-white suburbs, and a forlorn fortress mentality where neighbors are often strangers to one another. There are no great suburban civilizations for a reason.

5) Foreign cities that don't subsidize suburbs with cheap gas, mortgage interest deductions, or land-use policies dictated by right-wing vandals exemplify urban excitement most of us in this forum long for. It's remarkable how even 3rd World cities in Latin America can look more vibrant and alluring than American cities. Why is this? Why are there so few American cities with this level of energy? In a word, SUBURBS. Yes, all cities have sprawl. But American cities are much more damaged by this than other cities.

6) Sprawl is like cancer. It metastasizes silently and relentlessly. If you think it's essentially benign, you won't see the damage until it's too late. Los Angeles, e.g., is having an extremely difficult time finding the resources and political consensus to expand its mass transit network. Putting their money into freeways seemed like the smart thing to do in the 50s and 60s. It wasn't.

If you think freeways are cool, you will inevitably perpetuate those policies which keep Phoenix and Tucson as exciting as Mesa. I may as well be blunt: you're not helping here at all. If you're in the forum, you have a pretty good idea who the enemy is, what his strengths are, and why he always seems to win. He wins by making you kids go unconscious, by thinking that freeways are not really that bad , and by looking for accommodating solutions to traffic problems. When you do that, you're co-opted. Instead of fighting for cities, you're settling for extremely minor concessions - a condo tower downtown, and something like Verrado on the periphery.

HooverDam

Apr 30, 2006, 6:45 AM

^^^^^ Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick man. You need to learn to open your mind up a bit to other point of views. A lot of your posts are borderline angry. No reason to say "X is the way it is- thats a fact- it can't be argued- I'm right!" That doesn't lead to healthy conversation.

Don B.

Apr 30, 2006, 7:23 AM

One thing for sure, Arizona could built two and a half Cityscape projects for the price of this one stupid connector. That's ten new skyscrapers for downtown Phoenix, including five 500-foot tall skyscrapers at 40-45 stories each, plus five more 400-foot skyscrapers.

*cries*

--don

JI5

Apr 30, 2006, 9:18 AM

soleri

Apr 30, 2006, 3:10 PM

I never, in any way, suggested that freeways were a wonderful thing-- I just dont think they should take the soul blame for sprawl. There are a number of other factors to be considered (poor city management, immigration problems, ect..) that cause cities to grow outward. people vote with their feet, and blaming freeways or cars or lack of mass transit is not going to help create a downtown... giving people a reason to move down there will. So to be blunt, you're not helping anything either.

I think there are alot of reasons as to why Phoenix sprawls. Most obviously, many people who move here are looking to get away from big cities. But there are some other reasons i've come up with.. Look at the location of Downtown Phoenix. Its not really centrally located at all, its on the South Side of the City, and way too close to Sky Harbor. Why would people pay more to live down near an airport, away from the mountains, to be in a location that gives no clear advantage? I think that if we were to let a downtown Phoenix develop "naturally," without any subsidies or interference, that the free market would put it in the vicinity of 24th St. and Camelback, where it belongs (Centrally located, with beautiful mountain views). Unfortunately, the neighbors don't want it there - so its back to more subsidies while begging developers to come with cash.

Now I am rambling, but here is my bottom line-- I think this forum should focus on what can be done to create a liveable downtown, instead of pointing fingers as to why it isn't already here. Give them a better option, and people will vote with their feet. In the mean time, drivers in Tucson will be waiting at alot of red lights while we cruise the freeways around the grid here in Phoenix, and no - traffic is not that bad.

The ecology of Sprawl has necessary components, one of which is the car. The others include cheap land, single-family housing, and, of course, oil. Now what connects all these together? Roads, and ulitmately, freeways.

Am I angry? Of course. Over the course of my long life I've seen America grow uglier, stupider, and more boring. Instead of the vibrant city I grew up in (Phoenix), there's this huge megalopolis with the soul of a truck stop. Easy driving is the excuse for all this, a subset of the American Dream which is really the American Nightmare. I'm in this forum to rail against this. It's why Phoenix looks like a suburb of Los Angeles instead of a real city. It's why Phoenix will likely never be a decent city again. And you think this is peachy. Sigh.

Earth to J15: there is no way you're going to move downtown to 24th St and Camelback. That intersection is not a city. It's basically some well-to-do people isolating themselves from the rest of us. They planned it that way. Unless you're economically well off, they don't want you.

Individually, there's very little we can do to change this paradigm. It precedes us and has transcended most political debate. It's essentially woven into our national DNA. I have to remind myself of this when you kids start mouthing pleasant platitudes about sprawl and freeways. You can't help yourselves. You grew up in this fishbowl and it's your only experience of America.

Collectively, we could decide to do something. In 2000, we had a growth boundaries initiative on the ballot, where the worst of the oncoming mega-sprawl could have been prevented. It failed by a 70-30 margin at the polls. While there are some nice ideas out there to make downtown better and more people-friendly, all of that eventually crashes against the rocks of this reality: sprawl uses up 98% of the region's economic energy. The little that's left over is heavily subsidized and scattershot. Sprawl is the addiction which feeds on itself to magnify itself. It's like crack cocaine on steroids.

I might as well be the Jeremiah in this forum. I'm not going to win converts but I might cause one or two of you to actually think. If that happens, I've done my best.

JI5

Apr 30, 2006, 5:54 PM

soleri

Apr 30, 2006, 8:14 PM

/\ /\
Now hold up, I grew up in New York City - not this fishbowl you speak of! Anyhow my next question is this: Don't you think there's room for both cars and freeways, AND a vibrant downtown? The point ive been trying to make is this: some people, such as myself, prefer to live centrally located - while others do not. If you give people a viable alternative to the car and sprawl, some people will choose to live downtown rather than on the fringes-- but this alternative has not yet become practical (there's not even a grocery store in downtown phoenix!!) I think that the problem lies not in the sprawl itself, but that sprawl is the natural response to all the things that downtown is lacking. There IS an untapped Phoenix market for urban living, even as the sprawl continues its journey through the desert.

There's an untapped market for a wonderful city but not for a niche neighborhood with a few tall buildings. My argument has less to do with "improving" downtown, which is doable, and more to do with creating a city instead of this donut-shaped sprawl we call metro Phoenix. Freeways have everything to do with taking urban energy and dissipating it to the periphery. You can only do this with cars, freeways, single-family housing, etc.

True, lots of American cities have freeways and downtowns, but few have a balance between suburban and urban growth. Even in urban success stories like Chicago, the lion's share of economic growth is in the suburbs. The consequences of that mean sharper socio-economic segregation, greater environmental damage, and a narrower range of cultural and social forces in the city.

As long as we're in this forum, think no small thoughts. Instead of just a grocery store downtown, dream of a core with lots of retail, tens of thousands of residents, a 24/7 mix of employment, entertainment and culture. Thinking small is one reason downtown Phoenix is small. We self-congratulate prematurely about so-so projects and then wonder why downtown never generates any critical mass. Downtown is our blackboard for imagining a city worth loving. Take a chance here.

oliveurban

May 1, 2006, 4:14 AM

Look at the location of Downtown Phoenix. Its not really centrally located at all, its on the South Side of the City, and way too close to Sky Harbor. Why would people pay more to live down near an airport, away from the mountains, to be in a location that gives no clear advantage? I think that if we were to let a downtown Phoenix develop "naturally," without any subsidies or interference, that the free market would put it in the vicinity of 24th St. and Camelback, where it belongs (Centrally located, with beautiful mountain views). Unfortunately, the neighbors don't want it there - so its back to more subsidies while begging developers to come with cash.

For some clarification, downtown Phoenix existed before everything you listed. It's location wasn't randomly picked out. In fact, if it weren't for flood issues involving the Salt River, downtown Phoenix would have been located even farther south than it is today, on the river's banks. Downtown Phoenix was the 'center' of the city, geographically speaking, back when the city was originally settled in the mid-late 1800's. It's the rest of the city that grew out around it, in all directions (some directions more than others) in a fairly organic fashion, that generally answers the question as to why downtown might seem 'off-center' today on a map.

Also, Sky Harbor obviously didn't exist when Phoenix was incorporated in 1868. And, when the tiny airport that would eventually become 'Sky Harbor' was first built, it was considered very far from the city's core, and was surrounded by fields of agriculture and open land that, at the time, no one in their right minds could have ever envisioned being fully developed.

kaneui

May 1, 2006, 4:52 AM

Back to the Tucson discussion...more encouraging news for Rio Nuevo fans: Humberto Lopez has released plans for Diamond Rock Plaza, a $185M mixed-use redevelopment of his Hotel Arizona (former Radisson City Center) in downtown Tucson, adding 16 and 22-story towers for offices, luxury condos, more hotel rooms and retail.

Diamond Rock Plaza would occupy an entire city block at the grand entrance to Rio Nuevo's main plaza.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/DiamondRockPlaza-rendering.jpg

The current Hotel Arizona and the SE corner of Broadway and Granada, site for the much expanded, redeveloped hotel.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/HotelArizona.jpg

Lopez: He makes deals
By Joseph Barrios
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
4.30.2006

Self-made millionaire and Tucson resident Humberto Lopez has long described himself as a "deal junkie." Now he has a deal for you. Lopez and two partners have prepared a $185 million redevelopment of the Hotel Arizona, formerly the Radisson City Center, at 181 W. Broadway.

Under the plan, Lopez's partnership would act as a developer working for the city to refurbish the existing hotel and build new 16- and 22-story towers that would add 400 new hotel rooms, luxury condominiums and offices. The city would be given the option of taking ownership of the expanded hotel within the next few months, but would also have to sell a strategic piece of land downtown. And if construction costs continue to rise, the developers may ask the city for waivers on fees or property taxes.

The ambitious plan is something of a return to familiar haunts for Lopez, president and co-founder of HSL Properties Inc.. He was deeply involved in Downtown redevelopment for more than a decade but pulled away in 1987, when he moved his company headquarters out of Downtown. He said he was frustrated by city bureaucracy. He eventually settled at the HSL's current headquarters, 3901 E. Broadway.

But he couldn't pull away completely. He owned several hotels Downtown. "It's not like a suitcase where I can pick it up and move it out and leave Downtown," Lopez said. "I would have done that a long time ago if I could have."

Not just a deal
But Lopez doesn't just have a deal. He has a story. Sitting in his office adorned with art collected while traveling, Lopez recalled last week how he became a millionaire — after living on welfare.

Born in 1945 in Nogales, Ariz., Lopez lived with his family in Mexico, where his father, Cipriano, owned and managed farms and ranches. After his father's death, his family moved back to Nogales. Ownership of some ranches was disputed in Mexican courts. That's when things became so bad that Lopez's family had to live on welfare, he recalled. He remembers standing in line with his mother, waiting to receive handouts of food.

The oldest of six siblings, Lopez worked full time while going to Nogales High School. He graduated in 1965, earning grants and taking loans to attend Cochise College and then the University of Arizona. During the summer, he picked lemons and watermelons, and worked a stint as a carpenter. "Boy, that was hard work. I said, 'This is not something I want to do with the rest of my life,' " Lopez said. He resolved to himself that he would become wealthy.

Lopez graduated from the UA in 1969 with a bachelor's degree in business administration with a focus on accounting. He spent almost six years working as a CPA for Deloitte, Haskins & Sells in Los Angeles.

Help from an uncle
Lopez's first private deal in real estate happened in Nogales, he said. An uncle lent him $1,000 as a down payment on a $3,000 lot. Within a few months, he sold the lot for $6,000. But Lopez's wealth would come later, after he and five Army Reserve buddies pooled money for a $27,000 down payment on a $310,000 apartment building in California's San Fernando Valley. Six months later, it sold for a $50,000 net profit.

Thus began Lopez's "syndicating" deals. His method is to obtain funding to buy or construct buildings by bringing together investors who can contribute to a down payment and an operating fund. Additional funding comes from conventional loans. As the properties generate income, investors are paid off first. Then Lopez takes his cut. Dividends are split among investors, depending on the deal. "By the time I was 30, I had made my first million," he said.

Lopez's first purchase in Tucson came in the late 1970s, when he bought the former Clarion Santa Rita Hotel & Suites, 88 E. Broadway. (He's now partnering with Pathway Developments on a $40 million redevelopment of the hotel). After years of buying properties, HSL Properties declared bankruptcy in 1992, an outcome, he said, of the savings and loan industry's collapse.
"Cash was very scarce and it was a lot cheaper to borrow," Lopez said. "We couldn't afford to make all the payments."

In 2001, the fallout was still visible. An Arizona Daily Star analysis showed HSL Properties was Pima County's biggest tax delinquent, owing more than $1.25 million in tax debts. HSL Properties, formed in 1975 by Lopez and Glenn Toyoshima, owns four hotels and 28 apartment complexes in the Tucson area. Dorado C.C. Inc., another company founded by the two men, owns Dorado Country Club Golf Course, 6601 E. Speedway. In 2003, Lopez estimated the properties' worth at about $300 million. Today, that figure is closer to $500 million, he said. And taxes on the company's current properties are paid up.

Diamond Rock Plaza
As part of the proposed city deal, Lopez would hand over some of his empire. After the redevelopment — dubbed Diamond Rock Plaza — is complete, the city would become owner, and the complex would theoretically pay for itself. The proposal also calls for selling the Downtown parking lot west of the Tucson Music Hall for $2.6 million to Lopez's partnership. It would then build and own a new parking garage and tower with office and retail space.

That would leave the city without a long-term revenue source, something that is drawing opposition from some city leaders. "The city had plans to own a number of the parking garages that get built with its money," Councilman Steve Leal said. "We're going to need a revenue stream that doesn't happen through the existing general fund if Rio Nuevo money can't pay for it."

Still, Leal praised Lopez as "thoughtful and concerned" about Downtown and said he is happy Lopez has resumed a visible role in its redevelopment. "I think (Lopez) is sort of an underappreciated guy," he said.

American success story
What many people appreciate about Lopez is his success in business and civic life. Hank Amos, the CEO of Tucson Realty & Trust Co., described Lopez as "a true American success story." Beyond his business, Lopez serves on numerous boards and councils, among them the Tucson Airport Authority and the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. He is chairman of the University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center's advisory board. As current chairman of the University of Arizona Foundation, Lopez organized last year's search for someone to replace Richard Imwalle, who retired recently as president.

Imwalle, who worked through the end of last year as new president James H. Moore Jr. was hired, said there were weeks when Lopez spent more time working for the Foundation at no compensation than he did at his own business. "He made a point of making sure that the process was open and that people had direct access to him," Imwalle said. Finding Imwalle's replacement is typical of Lopez's community involvement, said Michael Hannley, president of the Bank of Tucson. "He brought a high level of integrity to the board, and he maintained a very strategic focus and did not politicize it," Hannley said."He's kind of like the Donald Trump, who can say 'Just give it to me and I'll get it done.' "

Hein wants discussion
City Manager Mike Hein said that although he's not familiar with details of the Downtown hotel proposal, he believes more discussion is needed. "While I don't want to discard any ideas from investors Downtown, I would imagine that the council would like us to provide some other potential ideas," Hein said.

Lopez said his faith in Hein is one of the reason he's enthusiastic about Downtown. "I think he gets the idea. He's very receptive. He's not so concerned about job security as some of the other people over the years," Lopez said. "I think if we keep messing around with it, I think people will lose faith in Downtown and it will be a complete failure."

HooverDam

May 1, 2006, 5:12 AM

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/DiamondRockPlaza-rendering.jpg

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there a name for this type of architecture? Because I really don't like it. It seems very popular right now, lots of exposed steel and...I can't really quantify what I dont like about it actually.

I also dont like the super modern style thats becoming popular (like Wiletta 9). I think it should be referred to as "Stalinist Cubes"

oliveurban

May 1, 2006, 6:16 AM

Very impressive. Let's hope for it all coming to life.

Don B.

May 1, 2006, 6:37 AM

Regards this project, kudos for Tucson if this happens.

Architecturally, that seems to be an updated version of Southwestern Mediocre that Soleri was on about. :D

I'd still take it, though, over nothing.

--don

kaneui

May 5, 2006, 9:35 AM

RTA plan has hefty backing
Those in favor outspend foes by 125 to 1

By Andrea Kelly
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
05.05.2006

Backers of the Regional Transportation plan have raised almost $1 million for their campaign to get people to vote for the $2.1 billion, 20-year plan, outdoing their opposition by a 125-1 margin. Opponents of the plan raised less than $8,000, according to campaign finance reports filed this week.

About 90 percent of the $978,746.45 given to promote the plan came from businesses and individuals in construction-related fields, real estate and the automobile industry, who could benefit from the massive road-building and other transportation plans.More than 43 percent — $423,045.01 — came from contributors outside Pima County, with six contributions totaling $65,500 from companies in California, Florida, Texas and Alabama.

The largest single donation in support of the RTA plan came from the New Car Dealers Association in Phoenix, which kicked in more than $131,000, adding to the $50,000 Tucson car dealer Jim Click contributed previously. The Realtors Issues Mobilization Committee of Phoenix and the Tucson Association of Realtors came up with $75,000 each. Diamond Ventures and the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association logged $50,000 each. Others in real estate and land development also made significant contributions.

These numbers show support for the transportation plan comes from the grass-roots groups that have donated time to the campaign, as well as the businesses that can donate money, said members of the Yes for Regional Transportation campaign. "I think it shows a deep commitment by a lot of very community-minded individuals and businesses," said Larry Hecker, Yes treasurer. "The other thing that isn't reflected in there is any successful campaign depends on hard equity, but it also depends on sweat equity, the volunteer time that gets put into campaign."

Steve Farley, another plan supporter, said, "The money wants this but so does the grass roots; this just shows that there's a huge amount of support." Hecker said he thinks the mix of business and individual contributions mirrors support for other community efforts. "I think if you were to take a look at a typical Tucson charity, you'd probably see a similar mix. The larger dollars are typically given by the business organizations," he said.

Of the 153 contributions to the Yes committee, 30 were at least $10,000 — or more than the total contributions to the Enough campaign against the plan. The money raised by Enough came from 227 Tucson residents, with 178 of those contributors giving $25 or less. The Yes campaign has 47 individual contributors; the rest are businesses.

The largest contributions to Enough came from individuals who donated $300 to $1,000. The group had only 20 contributions of $100 or more. "We have more contributors than they do, and I think we have far more individual contributors," said Ken O'Day, an Enough contributor.

Voters will be asked to approve the RTA's mix of new road construction, road widenings, more buses and bus routes, and other projects, to be paid for with a half-cent sales tax increase, which will also be on the ballot. If either the plan or the tax fails in the May 16 election, the transportation package as a whole fails.

Most of the money the Yes committee raised was used for advertising and public-relations events, as well as photography, artwork and postage for fliers, mailings and signs. The Enough campaign used most of its money on postage, paper, printing and and materials for fliers and signs.

Top contributions to Yes for Regional Transportation:
1) New Car Dealers Association, Phoenix, $131,445.01
2) Realtors Issues Mobilization Committee, Phoenix, $75,000
2T) Tucson Association of Realtors, Tucson, $75,000
4) Jim Click Ford, Tucson, $50,000
4T) Associated General Contractors of America, Phoenix, $50,000
4T) Diamond Ventures, Tucson, $50,000
4T) Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, Tucson, $50,000
8T) Arizona Rock Products, Phoenix, $25,000
8T) The Sundt Companies Inc., Tucson, $25,000
8T) Granite Construction, Watsonville, Calif., $25,000,
8T) Empire Machinery, Phoenix, $25,000

Top contributors to Enough
1) John Kromko, retired, $1,000
1T) Bill Risner, attorney, $1,000
3) Richard Daigh, retired, $300
3T) Jim Brooker, microbiologist, $300
5) Stuart Wolfe, property manager, $250
5T) Ralph and Karen Ellingwood, lawyer, $250
7) Carmine Cardamone, property manager, $200
7T) Andrew Rutter, retired, $200
9) Ken O'Day, researcher, $150
10) Ten tied at $100 each

Vast disparity in funds raised

Here’s a look at the amount of money raised by Yes!! for Regional Transportation vs. Enough!

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS: YES!!

$978,746

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS: ENOUGH!

$7,854

Transportation Election
May 16, 2006

On May 16 Pima County voters will be asked to adopt a regional transportation plan and a half-cent sales tax to pay for it over 20 years. The total price tag is nearly $2 billion. The plan calls for road widening, intersection improvement, expanded bus service and a modern streetcar route.

somethingfast

May 5, 2006, 4:08 PM

Doesn't matter, this plan won't pass. People aren't going to be manipulated into a bad deal. It won't pass, traffic will get worse, the demographics will continue to trend toward youth and, eventually, Tucson will be in exactly the same position Phoenix was in late 70's/early 80's when they finally got their arse in gear and voted yes on freeways. The plan, as is, is terrible.

kaneui

May 17, 2006, 6:07 AM

With most of the ballots counted, it appears that Tucsonans have finally had enough of traffic gridlock, with approximately 60% of voters supporting a new $2.1 billion transportation plan and a half-cent sales tax to pay for it:

Voters greenlight $2.1 billion road plan
Transportation measure passes on fifth trip to polls

By Andrea Kelly and Erica Meltzer
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
05.17.2006

Voters ushered in a "new era" in transportation in Pima County Tuesday by approving the Regional Transportation Plan and half-cent sales tax. With about 75 percent of the precincts reporting last night, the transportation plan was ahead 60 percent to 40 percent, and the sales tax to fund the plan was ahead 58 percent to 42 percent. "Fifth time's a charm," noted County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, in reference to four previous unsuccessful transportation and sales tax elections.

"This is so thrilling, it's just a totally new day for Tucson," Steve Farley, a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that helped draft the RTA plan, said after preliminary results were announced. The passage of the transportation plan means the community is ready to work together to solve problems, he said. "We can start to show the rest of the country we're growing up," Farley said.

He said the transportation issues go hand-in-hand with the psychiatric bonds that voters also approved Tuesday.
He and others were "ecstatic" when they found out the transportation plan and sales tax passed. The mood at La Cocina Restaurant, 201 N. Court Ave. turned from one of nervous discussion to excited celebration after the first results were announced around 8 p.m.

Many said they believe the election signifies the community is ready to work together on other issues too, such as water needs and economic development. "This is a wonderful step to go build on," said Rick Myers, chairman of the Yes!! for Regional Transportation committee, which supported the plan. "A vote like this shows that people are thinking of what they want tomorrow," Myers said.

Opponents gathered at Bobo's Restaurant, 2938 E. Grant Road, to await the news. The mood there deflated after the first round of results was announced. By 8:30 p.m., with almost 70 percent of the votes counted, the Enough! committee against the plan and tax acknowledged defeat. "We do have transportation problems," said Ken O'Day, who campaigned vigorously against the plan. "Maybe people thought we'd reached a point where something was better than nothing." Opponents said they will stay involved and work to hold the governments accountable for carrying out the plan. "They have a real bad history of not delivering," O'Day said.

He said impact fees need to go up so growth pays for itself and he worries that the passage of the plan will take pressure off governments to raise impact fees. Bonnie Poulos said she was disappointed and predicted people will not be happy with the results when the plan is implemented. "This isn't going to make it any easier to get to work," she said. "It's not going to make Grant Road flow any better." Opponents attributed the lopsided vote to the big money and big names backing the RTA plan. "I just go back to my Berkeley days," Poulos said. "This is the best democracy money can buy."

Supporters of the transportation plan and half-cent sales tax raised almost $1 million to reach out to voters with commercials, fliers, mailings and roadside signs. The Yes!! for Regional Transportation committee was backed by individuals and big businesses and many in the construction, real estate, car sales and materials industries.
The Enough! committee against the plan, brought in less than $8,000 in its campaign. Much of that money was donated by individuals and was used for roadside signs and fliers.

But Larry Hecker, treasurer for the Yes!! committee said the special election gave voters a chance to learn about the issues. Still, Hecker was surprised by the margin. A week before the vote, he said the group's tracking poll showed the transportation plan just squeaking by on a narrow margin, well within the poll margin of error, with many undecideds. He said he couldn't hazard a guess as to what pushed so many to the Yes!! side. "Voters took the time to understand what was on the ballot and understand the more regional approach," Hecker said.

The sales tax will go up by half a cent on the dollar across Pima County on July 1 to pay for the road and transit projects in the plan. More buses will hit the streets of Tucson as early as August, said Jim Glock, director of the Tucson Department of Transportation. The first will be used to ease overcrowding on busy routes he said. After that, the funding will be used for expanded weekend and evening service.

Construction on roads and other projects will begin in five-year phases. The first phase starts July 1 of this year, although major construction isn't expected until 2008 The second phase will begin July 2011, the third July 2016 and the final phase will start July 2021. Some projects, like intersection improvements, will be ongoing through all phases, while others, including most of the road projects, will be contained to one or two phases. The plan calls for 35 road projects, some involving widening current roads, others for new roads or projects to improve existing roads.

The sales tax is expected to raise about $2.1 billion during the next 20 years. Some projects have additional funding from local jurisdictions; others, like the Downtown-area streetcar line, will depend on federal funding to cover the expense. Supporters of the plan said it had something for everyone because of the variety of projects included. Opponents said it wasn't enough to rely on transit and road projects to carry the plan, and that it needed money for maintaining the roads too.

What's Next
● On July 1, merchants countywide start collecting an additional half-cent sales tax on everything except groceries, prescriptions and rent.
● In August, expanded bus service, the first RTA improvement, should hit the streets.
● By December, neighbors will be notified they can apply for seats on corridor design committees for the first projects, probably on the Northwest Side.
● In early 2007, the first bonds to pay for the psychiatric urgent care unit should be sold.
● By mid-2008, the first major road construction using RTA funds should start, probably widening either North La Cholla Boulevard or North La Cañada Drive.