Phoenix CityScape Thread

[tempedude]

^^^That sounds like that could be an under ground parking structure with 1 floor above grade for access. Wasn't there supposed to be some underground parking on lot 22 also, below one of the towers? IDk just guessing here.

[HX_Guy]

Wasn't there supposed to be some underground parking on lot 22 also, below one of the towers? IDk just guessing here.

Block 22 is what it is talking about, with 5 stories below grade and 1 story above, 600,000 sq ft total.

[andrewkfromaz]

Also, what is the CMAR (Construction Manager At Risk)? I havn't heard this term before.
C & S Companies' Services page definition: (http://www.cscos.com/services/CMatRisk/index.cfm)

Construction management at risk, or CM-at-risk, has proven to be an extremely beneficial project delivery method. It applies a contractor’s perspective and input to planning and design decisions and has the ability to fast track early components of construction. CM-at-risk allows a client to select a construction manager based on qualifications, making the CM a member of a collaborative project team—thus reducing risk for the client, the A/E firm, the CM, and subcontractors.

By making the CM-at-risk an integral member of the project team, responsibility for construction is centralized under a single contract. This approach produces a more manageable, predictable project that saves time and money.

CM-at-risk is similar in many ways to a design-bid-build approach. The CM acts as general contractor during construction, assuming the risk of subcontracting the work, and guaranteeing completion of the project.

A distinct advantage of CM-at-risk is that the client receives pre-construction services such as schedule, budget, and constructability reviews. We meet as often as necessary to ensure that we have a complete understanding of your goals and expectations. During pre-construction, our specialists review building systems, material selections, and site work to ensure that you are getting the best value.

To ensure a positive relationship, C&S engages in a number of practices to involve and benefit our clients. We are responsible for complete bid documents, pre-bid meetings, and a fair and competitive bid process. We share the results of all bids with the owner for review and final selection.

The at-risk approach gives clients the opportunity to begin construction prior to completion of the design. We can bid and subcontract portions of the work before design of unrelated scope are complete. C&S’s input and construction expertise early in the process can lead to the recommendation of increasing or reducing specifications for the project.

C&S’s clients benefit from our CM-at-risk services because our involvement begins at design. We provide construction advice during design while providing careful oversight of costs and schedule throughout construction.

Yes, I just stole all of that. I didn't see a C anywhere....

[Archdevil]

Does anyone subscribe to AZRE? I just learned of this magazine and it is a great resource. Good articals on several projects. However, on the back cover is a rendering of the Wachovia Tower at Cityscapes. The building looks great but there is no sign at all of the condo tower in the rendering. I tried to convince myself that it was the angle of the rendering but I really don't think so, it looks like the condo tower has been removed from the rendering. Anyone know anything about this? Has RED decided to wait for the market to shift before they build the tall condo tower?

this is the link to the magazine website if anyone is interested
http://www.azbusinessmagazine.com/azre/index.html

[HX_Guy]

Well shit, thats not good. Are you able to scan it in so we can see the angle of the renderings?

Where did you pick it up again? I'll have to check it out myself.

[kevininlb]

Does anyone subscribe to AZRE? I just learned of this magazine and it is a great resource. Good articals on several projects. However, on the back cover is a rendering of the Wachovia Tower at Cityscapes. The building looks great but there is no sign at all of the condo tower in the rendering. I tried to convince myself that it was the angle of the rendering but I really don't think so, it looks like the condo tower has been removed from the rendering. Anyone know anything about this? Has RED decided to wait for the market to shift before they build the tall condo tower?

this is the link to the magazine website if anyone is interested
http://www.azbusinessmagazine.com/azre/index.html

Where's the rendering? Don't see it...

[HX_Guy]

Alright, here's what I was able to find out...

Red Development is only showing the Wachovia tower in some of their ads because the ads are geared toward the commercial office market. They have similar ads out that do show both towers. I'm told that they have had some great meeting on the condo tower recently and everything is moving full steam ahead.

http://nitnelav.com/CityScapeConstruction/WachoviaTower.jpg

[PHX31]

Great info HX_Guy... that Wachovia Tower looks TALL in that picture. I'm surprised they didn't mention light rail in the ad when they were talking about the stuff CityScape has easy access to.

I like CPE better, I think it is a better design, but it will be great to see them both rising at the same time.

When is the Wachovia Tower supposed to be under construction? I can't find that post within this thread where the projected start dates for each phase/tower was given.

[Archdevil]

Glad to hear its moving along. That rendering scared me for a minute.

[gymratmanaz]

Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger,Archdevil.

[andrewkfromaz]

That is a great angle, making for a really attractive promo shot.

I don't think they have a firm schedule for any of the buildings just yet. There's a lot of sitework that needs to be done for the parking garages, clearing the sites, and so on, so I think actual construction schedules are kind of dependent on other things right now.

[tempedude]

omg please quit pushing the panic buttons on cityscape. you all are going to give me a freakin heart attack before i am 24:P :rolleyes:

thanks for getting the scoop about the renderings and the promotional ads HX_Guy.

Whew :cheers to Cityscape

[Hysonk]

The photo looks so much like Colliers Center. The brickwork at the bottom with the retail pavilion behind it. Does anyone else think it does? Not necessarily a bad thing, just wishing a bit more for something unique.

[HooverDam]

^I kind of think that flagstone work is going to continue to be very popular and become part of the 'look' of downtown Phoenix. You see it at Colliers, the Convention Center, and I think the county court building has it as well. It looks nice to me, so I certainly don't mind it.

It has a certain southwest look to it, with out being overly southwesty and corny (like the crappy art you see in galleries in Scottsdale), but it also looks clean and modern, so I give it a thumbs up.

EDIT: I forgot, Summit has a similar type facade around the parking garage and retail area as well, so add that to my list! In a way perhaps this will become Phoenixs equivalent of the extensive brickwork you see in other rust belt/Eastern cities.

[PHXguyinOKC]

^I kind of think that flagstone work is going to continue to be very popular and become part of the 'look' of downtown Phoenix. You see it at Colliers, the Convention Center, and I think the county court building has it as well. It looks nice to me, so I certainly don't mind it.

It has a certain southwest look to it, with out being overly southwesty and corny (like the crappy art you see in galleries in Scottsdale), but it also looks clean and modern, so I give it a thumbs up.

:yes: i agree

[tempedude]

The flagstone work does look nice. Additionally I would like to see artistic designs tastefully done, interspersed at key locations through out Cityscape. Something showcasing regional cultural and geographical influence, past and present. That would look pretty cool I think.

[HX_Guy]

"Reconstruction of Patriots Square park, which is part of the CityScape project, is set to begin. The site will be fenced off Wednesday. The tentative construction timeline calls for the park to be reopened in late 2009."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1220B1-phxroundup1220.html

[HX_Guy]

A big jump in permitting on 12/20...this is a good sign...

FLSR-07004 12/20/07 OPEN CITYSCAPE
Description/Scope of Work: FIRE LIFE SATETY REPORT
THIS FIRE SAFETY REPORT IS FOR: NEW 45 STORY HOTEL, 27 STORY OFFICE, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL

LPRN-0705627 1 E WASHINGTON ST 12/20/07 OPEN PLACE HOLDER FOR PHAS PROJECT

PHAS-0705627-01 12/20/07 OPEN CITYSCAPE
Description/Scope of Work: COMMERCIAL NEW
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: BELOW GRADES PARKING STRUCTURE, PIPING ONLY, BEL.

[PhxPavilion]

Still mentions a 45 story hotel, maybe it won't be scaled back afterall. :cool:

[HX_Guy]

...and yet another permit pops up, I love it! :D

LARGE PLAN REVIEW-REMODEL
Permit# LPRR-0705628 Issue Date 12/20/07 Expires 12/19/08
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

Description/Scope of Work: COMMERCIAL REMODEL

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMO OF EXISTING SURFACE STRUCTURES & INSTALLATION OF NEW VEHICLE RAMP IN EXISTING GARAGE. REMODEL TO AFFECTED M/P/E SYSTEMS.

[AZ KID]

Wow this is incredible news!!!!

Thanks HX Guy for the updates.

[KingLouieLouie76]

...and yet another permit pops up, I love it! :D

LARGE PLAN REVIEW-REMODEL
Permit# LPRR-0705628 Issue Date 12/20/07 Expires 12/19/08
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

Description/Scope of Work: COMMERCIAL REMODEL

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMO OF EXISTING SURFACE STRUCTURES & INSTALLATION OF NEW VEHICLE RAMP IN EXISTING GARAGE. REMODEL TO AFFECTED M/P/E SYSTEMS.


Constant lurker, first time poster.... will this development have any impact on JSED as well since I can recall the parking structure being a key sticking point? Sorry if that is obvious.. just wondering.....

[combusean]

^ Different garage ... the permit is in regards to the one under Patriots Square, JSED's issues are over the Jefferson St garage adjacent to USAC.

[sundevilgrad]

^ Different garage ... the permit is in regards to the one under Patriots Square, JSED's issues are over the Jefferson St garage adjacent to USAC.

Haha, makes me laugh every time I here USAC.

Just like UPIG (University of Phoenix stadium In Glendale)

[PHX_PD]

A good sign (pun intended):

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb56/Phoenixguy/PSPSign.jpg

[andrewkfromaz]

^^^ Also a sign about how bad things are in the housing market - they can afford an aggressive schedule b/c no construction company is working on any major housing projects anywhere at this point, so concrete, steel, labor, and engineering are all a whole ton easier to schedule, not to mention somewhat cheaper than they may have been if the housing market were still in a boom cycle. Still, I'm a bit surprised they're getting at it right after Christmas. I know a several construction and related companies are closed until the third (?) b/c there's so little going on.

[tempedude]

A good sign (pun intended):

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb56/Phoenixguy/PSPSign.jpg

Right on, this is good news about Cityscape... and with OCPE moving right along now too!.....

Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Clause. :yes:

I learned something new about that sentence ('Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Clause') this year. I was of the mind set that the origin of it came along with the making of the movie Miracle on #34th Street. Boy was I ever so wrong. Just out of curiosity I Googled it and came up with a wealth of information. Actually it first appeared under an editorial headline "Is There a Santa Clause?", written by Francis P. Church, in the September 21st, 1897 edition of the New York Sun.

I am sure many of you may have already known this bit of trivia, but I didn't. Amazing how much you can learn with a little effort and willingness to know more about the world around you. Knowledge is power. :tup:

Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_There_is_a_Santa_Claus
and here: http://www.stormfax.com/virginia.htm for my sources. I suggest the second link(which is a transcript of the original editorial) for a less formal version and to enjoy a little Christmas cheer.

Merry Christmas all :cheers:

[gymratmanaz]

Tlked to my buddy , Craig, who owns LGO and all.....continuing to put the bugg in his ear about doing something in Citycape or in the hub of activity. He liked the idea of a Postinos down there....who know, but at least I put the bug in his ear.

[AZ KID]

Now is cityscape still planning to have a memorial on the psp site?

If so does anyone have any information on what it is going to be like?

[PHX_PD]

Finally, we have a fence!

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb56/Phoenixguy/PSPFence1.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb56/Phoenixguy/PSPFence2.jpg

Now if only we could get a little more of this:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb56/Phoenixguy/PSPDestruction-1.jpg

[sundevilgrad]

Nice. They put that up yesterday (it wasn't there on Christmas).

[tempedude]

Yesterday coming home, I was driving on the I-17 south loop around downtown. I could have sworn I saw some type of crane(not a tower crane though) up at the Cityscape site. However, after giving it some thought, it could have been at the convention center site. Its hard to tell though when I am flying down the freeway. Anyone know for sure if there was a crane at Cityscape or were my eyes just deceiving me?

[PHX_PD]

^ I haven't seen one at CityScape, but there is a new boom crane on the West side of the Sheraton to take the tower crane down.

[HX_Guy]

New permits...

Permit# CCPR-0705711 Issue Date 12/26/07 Expires 12/25/09
Permit Description CITYSCAPE - BLOCK 77
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE


Permit# ABND-070120 Issue Date 12/27/07 Expires 12/26/08
Permit Description CITYSCAPE
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

Address 1 E WASHINGTON ST 85004 Zoning
L 15 B 22 ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF PHOENIX QS Q10-28 APN 112-27-007B Dist 08

Description/Scope of Work: MISCELLANEOUS

[AZ KID]

What do those permits mean?

[gymratmanaz]

Why does the fence around PSP not go around all of the brick structures? Are they leaving some or are they leaving some spots for the homeless to huddle?

[Don B.]

What do those permits mean?

They are written in the ancient language of governmentium, known only to a few scribes who maintain dusty arcane tomes in secret dungeons. God forbid if they actually specify what they are for, so that ordinary people may read and understand them, but alas, this is not to be.

Like Prometheus, who brought fire to man, someone someday will bring light to us ignorant masses not worthy of knowledge in governmentium. Not only is it the hardest and slowest substance known to mankind, it is also the most cryptic.

:)

--don

[PHX_PD]

Why does the fence around PSP not go around all of the brick structures? Are they leaving some or are they leaving some spots for the homeless to huddle?

There are no sidewalks around PSP, so they're leaving pedestrians a place to walk.

[AZ KID]

Is there a date set for demo?

[PHX_PD]

^ The only info I’ve been able to find about demolition is from Jahna Berry’s blog.


After the fencing goes up, work will start but it won't be noticeable for a few weeks, said city spokeswoman Sina Matthes. Large-scale construction is expected to start in January or February, Matthes said.


http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/jahnaberry/13185

[sundevilgrad]

They are written in the ancient language of governmentium, known only to a few scribes who maintain dusty arcane tomes in secret dungeons. God forbid if they actually specify what they are for, so that ordinary people may read and understand them, but alas, this is not to be.

Like Prometheus, who brought fire to man, someone someday will bring light to us ignorant masses not worthy of knowledge in governmentium. Not only is it the hardest and slowest substance known to mankind, it is also the most cryptic.

:)

--don

Classic.

[plinko]

New permits...

Permit# CCPR-0705711 Issue Date 12/26/07 Expires 12/25/09
Permit Description CITYSCAPE - BLOCK 77
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE


Permit# ABND-070120 Issue Date 12/27/07 Expires 12/26/08
Permit Description CITYSCAPE
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

Address 1 E WASHINGTON ST 85004 Zoning
L 15 B 22 ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF PHOENIX QS Q10-28 APN 112-27-007B Dist 08

Description/Scope of Work: MISCELLANEOUS

The CCPR is a Commercial Civil Permit, likely for new utility lines (though maybe for grading and drainage?)

The ABND is some type of abandonment permit, likely for some existing utility lines that need to be removed (you have to officially abandon existing utility easements in order to relocate lines).

[Don B.]

^ Ahh, a wizened scribe has come to assist us with interpreting a small portion of governmentium. Thank you, good sir. :)

--don

[Locofresh55]

FAA trying to strike again IRT CityScape. Here is an article from azcentral.com

FAA takes notice of tall buildings near airport
Jahna Berry
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 31, 2007 09:04 AM

When developers plan to build towering projects near the airport, the Federal Aviation Administration takes notice.

Over the years, the federal agency has stepped in when proposed projects could impact aircraft that fly in and out of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

Most recently the FAA has launched a probe into CityScape, a $900 million downtown Phoenix project that includes towers that would rise as tall as 400 feet.





The FAA says the buildings should be no taller than 355 feet.

Here are other projects that have fallen under FAA scrutiny:


• The FAA was concerned that a proposed 39-story W hotel project in downtown Phoenix would be a "presumed hazard" for aircraft. The project was ultimately scuttled for legal and other reasons.


• In 2006, the agency approved a 300-foot University Square proposal in Tempe.

University Square is a "super-block" slated to include a hotel, condos, retail, office space and underground parking off University Drive in between Myrtle and Forest avenues.


• Perhaps the most famous battle was Tempe's proposed Arizona Cardinals stadium site. In July 2001 the FAA warned that the stadium proposal could be a hazard to the airport and made a final ruling nine months later.

Deputy City Manager David Krietor downplayed FAA scrutiny of CityScape, said FAA routines calls tall downtown buildings "presumed hazard," he said.

"We want every project to be thoroughly vetted" by the FAA, Krietor said.

The FAA strongly disagreed. The FAA carefully scrutinizes projects that pose a real potential threat to aircraft, said Ian Gregor, the FAA spokesman.

"We don't slap 'notice of presumed hazard' on just any project just top do it," Gregor said.

[HX_Guy]

That's old news. There is no way they would limit CityScape to 355', especially since the W was approved to 450' and is closer to the line of flight then CityScape would be. I like how the AZ Republic left out that small fact and instead just said the project was scuttled for other reasons.

The CityScape case is still under circularization. Circularized cases are cases where the FAA solicits input from the public. The deadline to submit input was December 27th so I assume a decision should come soon.

[gymratmanaz]

Is it too late to hope for a new tallest or is that dead altogether?

[Locofresh55]

That's old news. There is no way they would limit CityScape to 355', especially since the W was approved to 450' and is closer to the line of flight then CityScape would be. I like how the AZ Republic left out that small fact and instead just said the project was scuttled for other reasons.

The CityScape case is still under circularization. Circularized cases are cases where the FAA solicits input from the public. The deadline to submit input was December 27th so I assume a decision should come soon.

We trust you HX Guy. I'd trust you before I trust the AZ Republic. They ran a story just a month ago about how CityScape is pushing the mixed use tower to be near 500'. The AZ Republic hardly has their facts straight.

[tempedude]

CityScape towers will be taller than 355'....look at the Bank of America Tower..right next to CityScape, its taller than 355'. Hold out hope, I think RED Development still wants to build the new tallest in Phoenix...its just all about working out the details and getting approval. The FAA can be anal...carp if they had their way, we should be leveling everything flat within a 50 mile radius of the airport.

[HX_Guy]

So much for a new tallest, what a disappointment ...



FAA to analyze tower plan
Jahna Berry
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 2, 2008 12:00 AM

PHOENIX - It could take weeks for federal officials to decide if CityScape, a towering $900 million downtown project, may be a hazard to aircraft.

If the Federal Aviation Administration says the project is too tall, RED Development could be denied a city building permit.

"At this point, we provided the information and we are waiting for an opinion," RED spokesman John Bacon said.

The CityScape plan calls for four towers. The development would stretch from First Avenue to Second Street and from Washington to Jefferson streets.

Initial CityScape plans for a 375-foot office building and a 510-foot tower with hotel rooms and condos units would be "presumed to be a hazard to air navigation," an October letter from the FAA says.

The developer had scaled back the 510-foot building to 400 feet before the FAA inquiry, Bacon said.

Even the shorter building is taller than what the federal officials want. The buildings should be capped at 355 feet, the FAA has said.

The public comment period ended Dec. 27. Now an FAA obstruction evaluation specialist must weigh the public's input, consider information from the developer and make a decision.

The FAA analyst, Robert van Haastert, was unavailable for comment.

An FAA ruling could take weeks or longer.

"It depends on caseload and how complex the issue is," FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said. "We want to make sure that we make the right decision."

[Don B.]

I'm not surprised. How much could they actually be "saving" by lopping off 110 feet?

But that's the Arizona way, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap. We should change our motto from Ditat Deus (God Enriches) to Ditat Cheap (Cheap Enriches).

Given how shitty the markets are now, I guess we should be glad it is moving forward at all.

--don

[JAHOPL]

An online English-Latin dictionary comes up with 'vilis' for cheap, so Ditat Vilis as Arizona's new motto?

[PHX31]

That sucks, although i'll still hold out some hope (ie, maybe subsequent buildings/phases will be taller).

Doesn't someone out there on this forum have a contact at RED? Someone that does should try to email or talk to them to get an explanation.

[tempedude]

Man...thats disappointing. I was holding out some hope that the 510' tower wouldn't be scaled back. But look at it this way...Cityscape really isn't about building the new tallest in Phoenix, its about creating density and drawing more people into the downtown core. Admittedly, Cityscape is not single handedly going to do this on its own. Its just one of they key elements among the other projects such as light rail, the Jackson Street Entertainment district, the new ASU campus downtown, the Biomedical district(ie T-Gen and co.), and building affordable living spaces downtown like reasonably priced rental units. And, having 2 new class A office towers surely won't hurt either. ( ie OCPE and Wachovia Tower{yes thats part of Cityscape i know})

Oh and i forgot the new Civic space, controversial art project or not.

So see? There is a lot of positive energy going on downtown.

[JimInCal]

I too am sorely dissappointed to read that the mixed-use tower was scaled back to 400' prior to the FAA inquiry. I suppose nothing is written in stone yet. I still hold out a thread of hope for a taller tower. I've got to think that the powers that be realize the opportunity that presents itself with Cityscape. It could be nothing truly unique and special or it could positively impact the core like no project we've seen to-date. If I were the developer or the mayor, I would do all I could to make Cityscape a unique and special place. I see the new tallest tower as one very compelling way to put Cityscape on the map. A 400 foot tower makes it just like every other building in the core ... nothing really special. Cityscape needs a tower that stands out from the crowd!

[Viperlord]

:previous:
Towers, and scale....

I know that dealing with the FAA is a completely different boat, and Phoenix is different than Downtown Salt Lake City, thought I would share this with you.

Downtown Salt Lake City is currently seeing the redevelopment of 25 acres of Downtown property, the 1.5 Billion dollar City Creek Center project. keep in mind that one city block in Downtown SLC is 660'x660' or 10 acres. The city currently has a zoning law limiting mid-block height buildings at 100'. You can get around this law by doing conditional use permits and working with the city.

The developer of the City Creek Center got zoning changes on six mid-block buildings. That is 6 buildings that would have been under 100', but they are now able to tower over the 100' limit. Salt Lake City has been pushing for a more lively downtown. And residential will add to the liveliness of the city. The developer claimed that in order to get the density and massing to add to the downtown they are needing more height in these mid-block areas. The Salt Lake City council agreed to grant these changes in order to benefit the downtown area by adding much needed density and residential.

Sorry such a lengthy rant.....

But, my point is, I know the FAA kinda has a strangle hold on the area of the CityScape, but you would think that the city would want additional height to add more density and residential.

Well, keep your fingers crossed, I got mine crossed for ya guys.:yes:

[AZ KID]

This blows!!!

Whatever at least at 400 feet it will be the third tallest building. I hope this doesnt affect what cityscape brings to downtown.

[andrewkfromaz]

I think the disappointment with the height being decreased is overblown. We should be glad Cityscape is moving forward, with the residential market the way it is (and the commercial market showing signs of deteriorating as well). Cityscape will still replace a barren park in the heart of downtown with a bustling center of commerce and activity that will attract both Phoenix residents and visitors to our downtown from other cities, most of whom could really care less about the overall height of the tallest building in the project. A real draw to Cityscape wouldn't be a "new tallest" but a unique mix of retail options or a GREAT condo design with truly remarkable amenities. Even well-planned and beautifully designed open space would make much more difference in people's perception of Cityscape than its status as containing Arizona's tallest tower.

[PHX31]

/\True, but you only get one shot at building what's dubbed a signature project in Phoenix, especially at the city's 0,0 block. It is a big disappointment. A new tallest really does make a big difference. A tallest building is the symbol of a city, whether the average joe really cares or not is besides the point. Think of any city (skyline especially), and for the most part, a tallest building is what you think of. The developers have an opportunity to engrain this project into the subconsciousness of everyone that ever thinks about Phoenix. Will a 400 footer ruin the project and doom it to fail? No, but a new tallest would be more likely to cause it to succeed, based on recognition alone.

[PhxPavilion]

Frankly I'm surprised the Chase tower got built at all, especially at that time.

The building boom is dying and this city still failed miserably to capitalize on it when it was at full steam. Oh well.

[AZ KID]

Hey don. In the mountain west poll you stated that cityscapes towers (other than the 400 footer) would be 355, 315, 275'. Where did you find that out. So that would mean the office tower would be shortened to. In the oeaaa it says RED put it in for 375'.

[Don B.]

^ Insider info. :)

--don

[AZ KID]

:worship: :worship: :worship:

[PHX31]

Boooooring... CityScape sucks. I'm putting all my eggs in the OCPE, JSED, and *hopefully* Momentum Tower baskets. I would possibly rather wish that CityScape be left empty for the market to get better, a better site plan and land use design be created, and a new developer that would think big come along. I'm very surprised this is being cheapened, given its location and "press", although maybe I shouldn't be.

[HX_Guy]

Hey don. In the mountain west poll you stated that cityscapes towers (other than the 400 footer) would be 355, 315, 275'. Where did you find that out. So that would mean the office tower would be shortened to. In the oeaaa it says RED put it in for 375'.

How old is this information?

The latest I've been told was that all four towers will be in the 400' range (+/-...as is the case with the 375' Wachovia tower) but I haven't heard of any of the towers being at or below 350'.

[somethingfast]

Phoenix is doomed to be a short-tower city unless they start pushing the development farther north on Central, end of story. The city knows the FAA has a hissy fit about anything that threatens the plans, ludicrous as that concern might be (ever fly into San Diego, motherf**kers!!!). Another "spin" project for DT Phoenix, sigh..........................

[HX_Guy]

We keep blaming the FAA and really that isn't who we should be point the finger at. While the FAA is limiting the height of buildings, they are not limiting them to 400' as in this case. Look at the W Hotel that was planned...that was approved at 450' and it's closer to the runways then Cityscape's tower. So again, it's not the FAA that is fully to blame.

The problem here seems to be the market and the developers willingness to take a risk. Personally, I think they would sell all the condo's at this locaiton even if they built more then they are already planning. Yes, the market is slow...but it will pick back up, though it may take years until it does...these projects won't be available for move in for years anyway.

Aside from how the market is doing, the amenities that will be present here are unmatched anywhere else in downtown and really that will be the draw of this project. While having a new tallest would have made this more visible and therefore helped sales, I don't think it's doomed...far from it actually.
I was just in San Francisco over the last couple days and stayed at a hotel right in the mix of things and really the height of the buildings never really came into my mind. The street level is where it was all at and that is what will make or break Cityscape. We'll see how things play out, but if they can get it done the right way in the way everything is accessed from the streets, then it should turn out ok.

[gymratmanaz]

I am confident it will be done well. Who knows, the money meant for height might be placed for even better street ambiance and amenities. It sure would be great news to hear that JSED would get going sometime this year, so it and Cityscape would really ignite a frenzie for the downtown!!!!

[combusean]

The last FLSR on the 20th specifically mentioned a 45-story hotel tower. I would have thought this implied the condominium part got scuttled and we would have a big hotel instead.

This latest tidbit seems kind of an odd one out. I was under the impression they'd have to amend their plans to shrink the tower down, and I haven't seen any evidence to that effect outside of that blurb in the Republic. Every thing else in that article was a rehash.

[gymratmanaz]

From your lips to God's ears!

[PHX31]

So really, no one really knows what the hell is going on with this thing... supposedly Don has "insider information" that confirms the shortness of the towers, but from all current documented plans, according to Combusean (who seems to always be in the know), it is still going to be fairly tall. Damn city/govt/developer secracy/bueracracy.

[gymratmanaz]

Can this forum make the decision? It would be so much easier that way.

[Downtown_resident]

The street level is where it was all at and that is what will make or break Cityscape. We'll see how things play out, but if they can get it done the right way in the way everything is accessed from the streets, then it should turn out ok.

Yes, exactly. City life is defined by activity on the street level, not the presence of tall buildings (e.g., London, DC, Paris). A lively street scene increases the likelihood that future developers are going to want to add tall condos and offices anyway.

I'm much more concerned with the Collier Center-esque street frontage at CityScape than the height of the buildings (although all else equal I'd vastly prefer a taller building).

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[HX_Guy]

Issued Date: 01/07/2008

Jeff Moloznik
RED Development
6263 N Scottsdale
Scottsdale, AZ85250

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building 45 Story Hotel/ Condo Tower
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Latitude: 33-26-50.76N NAD 83
Longitude: 112-04-24.48W
Heights: 510 feet above ground level (AGL)
1599 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)


** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building / 27 Story Office Tower
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Latitude: 33-26-52.57N NAD 83
Longitude: 112-04-23.02W
Heights: 375 feet above ground level (AGL)
1464 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)


I almost wish the FAA would have denied the height if RED isn't going to build as tall as possible anyway, then at least we could have blamed it on the FAA. But now, they have the go ahead to build to 510', and if they stick to ~400' as they said, it will be a major disappointment.

[Don B.]

Now the question becomes whether, in this shitty housing and economic market, Cityscape can take the ball and run it in for a touchdown, or will they settle for a field goal?

I think in two years, when Phoenix comes back roaring like a lion, we will see towers pierce the 500-foot barrier in Phoenix. But not today. Can Cityscape catch the wave at the right time?

--don

[andrewkfromaz]

Issued Date: 01/07/2008

Jeff Moloznik
RED Development
6263 N Scottsdale
Scottsdale, AZ85250

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building 45 Story Hotel/ Condo Tower
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Latitude: 33-26-50.76N NAD 83
Longitude: 112-04-24.48W
Heights: 510 feet above ground level (AGL)
1599 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)


** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building / 27 Story Office Tower
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Latitude: 33-26-52.57N NAD 83
Longitude: 112-04-23.02W
Heights: 375 feet above ground level (AGL)
1464 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

This is incredible news!!!! We can quit whining about the airport, finally! Even if RED doesn't go all the way to a new tallest, (which we only have the newspaper's word saying they won't, not exactly a guarantee either way...) downtown Phoenix's heart will not be prevented by the FAA from someday building the new tallest building in AZ. We should be celebrating.

[HX_Guy]

I was thinking the same thing. If there is any positive to come out of this (if Cityscape truly doesn't build to 500'+), at least future projects should have no problem doing so.

[admdavid]

I hope the developers have the build-it-and-they-will-come vision and foresight and just go for it. They have a prime opportunity to really differentiate themselves from the other condo towers going up (or not going up, as the case may be).

[tempedude]

That is really good news that the FAA approved 510' for CityScape. I kept thinking it would be if the now scraped W Hotel was approved at 450'. But now I, like most of the rest of you, hope that RED runs with the approval. However, Don B. is probably right, no 500'+ tower is going to get built in the current market, but it sure does pave the way for future towers.

[PHX31]

Well, if we assume it won't be CityScape building a new tallest, then where? Anything further away from the centerpoint (ie. 0,0 block) than the Momentum Tower, and we're starting to have a skewed, aesthetically unpleasing skyline. There aren't many lots left to "someday" have a new tallest in the central core of our downtown skyline. Centerpoint or Momentum is it, it seems. Sure, we could have a new tallest somewhere north of the downtown core, but that wouldn't look as good. Ah well, we'll just have to wait 5 or 10 years to see, i guess.

I would assume the pared-down CityScape still meets the minimum stipulations... were they getting very optimistic with their new tallest plans? I thought even that was still the bare minimum they were required to build.

[HX_Guy]

I forget the minimum that they had to build to get the incentives...does anyone have the info? I have to search through and find them but wasn't it 500 residential? Or only 250?

Edit:

Alright, I found what I was looking for...


The Developer must finance and construct: a 2,500-space underground parking structure under Blocks 22 and 23; repairs and upgrade the Patriot's Square Garage; 220,000 gross leasable square feet of retail/restaurant space on Blocks 22, 23 and 77; a high-rise tower on Block 23 including approximately 500 residential units and a 150-room boutique hotel; the redevelopment of Patriot's Square Park subject to a redevelopment plan approved by the Parks and Recreation Board; plaza and open space on Blocks 22 and 23; and appropriate streetscape improvements.

On completion the City will: purchase the Block 22/23 parking structure for approximately $72.5 million; reimburse up to $13,945,000 for improvements to the Patriot's Square Garage; and reimburse up to $2.475 million for streetscape improvements. The City will purchase approximately 500 above-grade parking spaces for $7.5 million if the parking spaces and approximately 30,000 square feet of retail space are constructed in Phase II on Block 23.


A later stipulation was added to the effect of...


In consideration for the City amending the agreement in order to facilitate the financing of the project, RED CityScape Development, LLC will include an approximate 550,000-square-foot, Class A, high-rise office tower on Block 22 as part of the minimum required development. All other material terms and conditions of the agreements will remain the same and in full force for each developer.


The announcement made by CityScape back in October, the same that still shows on their website, it 200 residential units, 65 apartments, and a 250 room hotel. That seems like quite the shortcoming from what the stipulation was. Have they made new agreements that we don't know about or where will the extra almost 200 residential units come from?

[combusean]

However, Don B. is probably right, no 500'+ tower is going to get built in the current market, but it sure does pave the way for future towers.

No, it doesn't. Phoenix's own ordinances have already paved the way. The FAA bureaucracy just confirms it every time the form goes through the motions. If this were taller than 510', the aviation limit to that site, the decision would be worth at least the paper and photons it takes to deal with it. In that case and only in that case, we would see a relatively taller building in the core of downtown without having to go as far west as 7th Avenue or in some other happy limit in Midtown or otherwise within the new contours Phoenix is brewing for the airport. For downtown, CityScape will be a few feet under the limits vs Chase being 15' below.

The process is always the same: tower is proposed under the MSL ceiling map (subtract 1083' from the figures, as always)

http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/downtownheightzonemap1.jpg

but the FAA immediately declares it as a potential hazard because that's how their bureaucracy is written: Phoenix will get two reasons for this early declaration every single time because 1) we're close to the airport and 2) somebody's building tall. Some paper pusher in the FAA rubber stamps the initial declaration without much brain activity. Yet another bureaucrat looks at the ordinance, whatever public comments they receive, and rubber stamps it as No Hazard. I mean, it took all of a week, a holiday week mind you, for the CityScape decision to be reached after circulation closed. Nothing in the federal government moves that fast.

The only time a hazard was declared that I know of regarding Sky Harbor was over the Cardinals' stadium in Tempe, yet somehow every time we go through this process it's been perpetually ingrained as a story item over and over again--our new fangled skyscrapers might get 86'd. There's some thing in there over what Sky Harbor means. If Tempe is building tall there's always some hypocritical bullshit coming from Phoenix's part probably not based on much investigation. How many times was elements of this process written in various articles in the Republic for CityScape? 5 total, once they publish the next one?

I will praise the two days the FAA crap makes two more specific articles. The first where Tempe and Phoenix have worked out the the ceiling limits and the former city will be held to the same standards as Phoenix is. The second for when the federal government finally gets the fucking point, because they are incompetent and any remotely logical decision they can manage is a reason to be happy.

[Locofresh55]

I was thinking the same thing. If there is any positive to come out of this (if Cityscape truly doesn't build to 500'+), at least future projects should have no problem doing so.

HX Guy,

Have you talked to any of the people from RED to see if they are going to act on this and make the tower 510'???? It is still early enough in development that they could spark a new tallest here in the center of DT and that would be great news for the month. Hell, we should all just send a massive email to RED Development and just say ,"FAA said 510 is ok...HINT HINT."

[JimInCal]

Locofresh55, I started a discussion topic about the height entitled "Make a Statement" on the Cityscape site a while back. Here is the link. I'm not sure anyone of influence is reading the comments, but it is one place to express our hopes for the project.

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

At least the FAA hurdle is down. Let's see if RED has the vision.

[sundevilgrad]

They goddamn better build to 510 ft. One of the major selling points of this development was to make a "signature" development at the 0,0 site. How can more of the same 300-400 ft towers that DT already has plenty of be considered "signature"?

[PHX]

Here is a article stating that the FAA gave cityscape the green light. It looks like the height cut back is not set in stone.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0107faa0108.html

[NorthScottsdale]

does anyone get the drift that this is why cityscape has been dragging their feet? it kinda makes sense that they havent started tearing down psp because if the height wouldnt have gotten approved, they wouldnt have been able to go ahead with the project with the city-provided incentives. maybe now that that is out of the way we will start seeing some real action? fingers crossed....:)

[gymratmanaz]

OMG!!!!! Please someone tell me we will have a new highest!!!!!!!!! Come on Cityscape, change again to a new final tallest height!!!!!!

[FireMedic]

Phoenix needs a new tallest ASAP

If they build it, they will come

[Phxbyrd211]

One of the few ways I can see for them to salvage this project as originally presented is to change the tower configuration. Combine the office tower and the boutique hotel:

RED is scared to death of any condo sales at the moment; fine don't build any. The office tower is a proven economic venture seeing as there is verifiable demand and a long history of similar projects. They chose to only go with 375' of class A space which seems short but is their choice. Why not just put the boutique hotel on top of the current green light project? This will be the first hotel of its kind in DT but I consider it a proven economic risk as well due to the convention center and the needs of the new businesses downtown. This way you can kick off CS with a 485' or so tower that makes everyone happy with little to no risk. We all know that the condo market will be back with a fervor in five or more years so let RED build condos with move in dates that far out. There is a need for Class A space now but the two new towers may fill that need for the near future. After the other condo projects DT are finished the market there will seem much more desirable and proven. Hotel and residential will be the next wave and why not let RED be perfectly positioned for it? In the end all the towers will be taller and the demand will be much greater.


Andrew and others have recently denounced me for questioning the great Cityscape in any way shape or form. I hope they can see that others are starting to have doubts as well and that events seem to be following a disappointing trail. I think RED wants to screw this project up in the worst way but may fear a backlash from the city and public and rightfully so. This is why I've been saying that JSED and the art museum developments hold more potential than CS.

[HooverDam]

A key thing to remember, CityScape is happening in Phoenix, not Dubai or NYC.

[AZRAM]

Here's some great news: FAA gives go-ahead to CityScape project
Jahna Berry
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 7, 2008 06:17 PM

Federal officials have cleared the $900 million CityScape high-rise project for takeoff.

On Monday, the Federal Aviation Administration ruled that the three-square block downtown Phoenix project poses no risk to aircraft that fly in and out of nearby Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport."It's what we expected all along," said John Bacon, spokesman for Scottsdale-based RED Development. "This was within the guidelines that the city established," he said referring to downtown height rules the city adopted in 2006.

The developer scaled back initial plans for four planned CityScape towers, one over 500 feet; they are now slated to be around 400 feet.But those heights could change, Bacon added. Monday's FAA ruling helps clear the way for one building, with hotel rooms and condos, to rise as high as 510 feet.





It was a high stakes issue. If the FAA said the project was too tall, the city would have denied cityscape's building permit.

City leaders have touted CityScape, which broke ground in October, as a crucial downtown development. It's supported by more than $120 million in incentives from Phoenix. The hub of shops, hotels and offices, extends from First Avenue to Second Street, and from Washington to Jefferson streets.Demolition and other site work is underway and the first phase could open as early as 2009.

"We initially issued a Notice of Presumed Hazard because the structure heights exceeded several FAA obstruction standards," said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor.

After further review, the agency concluded that the projects "punches up" into an airspace buffer, but doesn't have a negative effect on flights, he added.

Over the years tall projects in both Phoenix and Tempe projects have fallen under FAA scrutiny. Each development is evaluated on its own merits and by how it would impact the airport, the FAA says.

[sundevilgrad]

Thanks!

In other breaking news:
George W. Bush elected to second term as President of the United States...

[andrewkfromaz]

Andrew and others have recently denounced me for questioning the great Cityscape in any way shape or form. I hope they can see that others are starting to have doubts as well and that events seem to be following a disappointing trail. I think RED wants to screw this project up in the worst way but may fear a backlash from the city and public and rightfully so. This is why I've been saying that JSED and the art museum developments hold more potential than CS.

I think my position is based primarily on moderation. When Cityscape was announced as planning to build a new tallest, everyone was so enamored with the project, you would have thought it was the Sears Tower or something. Now that there's a pretty good chance the project will not include Arizona's next tallest building, everyone believes Cityscape let them down, all of it flaws glare, and we overlook the fact that Cityscape will (regardless of the tallest tower's final height) replace an essentially dead park with thousands of square feet of vibrant retail, offices, hotel rooms, and condos. I say, Cityscape was never the greatest thing ever, even when it promised a new tallest tower, and now, with a little more perspective, it's still a really great project that will add a lot to downtown Phoenix.
I don't mean to devalue anyone's opinion because I disagree with them.

[NIXPHX77]

hi Sean,

just curious...
does the FAA actually use 1083' as mean sea level?
according to the FAA/CS article posted, it seems to be 1089' feet when you do the math.
so, does that mean max bldg heights allowed are actually 6 feet lower than we thought?!

[gymratmanaz]

SUNDEVILGRAD....you cracked me up....I was thinking of a similar response. No offense AZRAM.

[smoothSkySailin]

hi Sean,

just curious...
does the FAA actually use 1083' as mean sea level?
according to the FAA/CS article posted, it seems to be 1089' feet when you do the math.
so, does that mean max bldg heights allowed are actually 6 feet lower than we thought?!

NIX, I am deeply involved in working with the FAA on these issues... The FAA is really only concerned about Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) height and not AGL height even though there are a few obstruction standards which contain AGL language. When a structure's height comes close to a Terminal Instrument Procedure (TERPS) Obstacle Clearance Surface, they will often ask for a certified 1-A accuracy survey. This tells them exactly what the grade elevation will be.
Sometimes if a builder insists on needing a certain AGL height for a project to be economically feasible I often suggest they just grade down, if they only need a few feet more. This allows for a taller AGL building while keeping the AMSL height the same.

[HX_Guy]

Something I ran across on Phoenix.gov. We already knew about Callison and Hunt Construction, but it looks like Weitz is also part of the project now.


No Project Number
Mixed Use Development in Downtown Phoenix: Blocks 22 & 77-Design Services
Callison
No Project Number
CityScape Public Improvements Block 77-CM@Risk
Weitz Company
No Project Number
CityScape Public Improvements Block 22-CM@Risk
Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

[AZRAM]

Thanks!

In other breaking news:
George W. Bush elected to second term as President of the United States...

Sorry, I guess I didn't go back to the previous page to see that someone had already mentioned it.

[sundevilgrad]

Sorry, I guess I didn't go back to the previous page to see that someone had already mentioned it.

Just giving you a hard time. No need to apologize.

Welcome to the forum.

[HooverDam]

Sorry, I guess I didn't go back to the previous page to see that someone had already mentioned it.

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