Tucson Development Thread

[aznate27]

I think it's best to completely disregard the ADS comments altogether. When I was younger, I put a lot of weight into what people said on that site because I incorrectly assumed the comments accurately reflected the sentiments of the community as a whole. As time's gone by, I've seen the same negative comments continue on while the city and voters have worked to make real progress. It's the reaction to these decisions by the majority that keep the trolls going strong.

When you see 38 people (probably way more now) give a thumbs up to one of those mental derelicts implying that the CDC should be called to clean up the LGBT community downtown, you know you're dealing with the lunatic fringe.

I know, I know...it's just annoying to hear people who have never been downtown talk about it like they live there:sly: How does anyone want the city center, of any city, to die??? It effects them just as mush as the people who live there if the heart of a city dies, because the rest of the city dies with it. Normally I'm pretty good about shrugging it off...just not this time:D

[aznate27]

:previous:
I just can't at the ADS comment boards, idk why everyone there is so anti development and progress. I'm fairly certain 99% of the commenters are Right Wing, and in retirement, with very outdated views. Anytime i post on ADS my comments get incredible numbers of thumbs down, its ridiculous. And it doesnt make sense because ADS is quite a liberal newspaper. W/E they all complained and complained for ages about the streetcar, but too bad, its happening. They all still talk about downtown as if its what is was 10 years ago, completely unaware of all the changes that have occured. They're not important anyway, they probably all live out in the suburbs living out the rest of their retirement, they're not the type to enjoy urbanity or downtown anyway, their loss.

btw, i gave you a thumbs up. :]

also, Playground updated their sign, it now says "Tucson" on it.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/419073_314188691951659_248269758543553_765712_1325218537_n.jpg
i like it, it gives the corner identity, this is Tucson

BTW...has anyone been to Playground yet? How is it???

[Anqrew]

i have not been yet, want to though, i'm not sure what i'd do there, im not 21 yet. or do they have other things to offer besides drinks?

[Ted Lyons]

I don't think they've really found their niche yet. My sister-in-law is a cocktail waitress there and says they're dead when they open at noon until pretty late in the afternoon. I see they've been advertising college basketball lately but it's going to be stiff competition getting people in the door to watch sports. For that matter, I'd probably rather watch a game at HUB. My guess is that they'll eventually figure out that four or five is a better opening time.

Other than that, I went opening night and it was alright, although service was understandably slow. The beer was fairly priced. The cocktails, although seemingly well developed, weren't made very well and start at $8 IIRC. I'm sure the execution on those will progress as time goes by but, for now, I'd just go down to Scott & Co. and experience a world class cocktail bar for the same price.

The design was pretty rad. For me, the back patio and the rooftop were the highlights. The rooftop is completely open right now, but it's a good place to have a drink and it offers great views of downtown. The patio is very Miamiesque, yet urban at the same time. The film being projected on opening night was silent but I'd assume they'll play "talkies" as well. Also, even as busy as it was opening night, there were still places to sit, so that's a major plus.

I honestly don't know what there would be to do for the under-21 crowd there as the food menu is pretty minimal. Further, at night, they card at the door, so I'm not sure how they're handling all ages. I'd definitely check before I went.

[Ted Lyons]

I know, I know...it's just annoying to hear people who have never been downtown talk about it like they live there:sly: How does anyone want the city center, of any city, to die??? It effects them just as mush as the people who live there if the heart of a city dies, because the rest of the city dies with it. Normally I'm pretty good about shrugging it off...just not this time:D

At the end of the day, you've just got to figure that this is a city that tore down half of Barrio Viejo, probably the most unique neighborhood in the state by a mile, to build the monstrosity that is the convention center, (at least the CC provides some value to the city, I guess) so we have a history of self-destruction downtown that's going to be hard to overcome.

I mean, we have people participating in this thread that would have the city allow big box construction downtown. It's that sort of corporatized homogenization that would appeal most to the ADS troll crowd, who refuse to accept that that sort of shock-and-awe Dresden bombing version of urban renewal is nonsensical and unsuccessful, and it's tough to alter such a dissonant worldview.

[aznate27]

I don't think they've really found their niche yet. My sister-in-law is a cocktail waitress there and says they're dead when they open at noon until pretty late in the afternoon. I see they've been advertising college basketball lately but it's going to be stiff competition getting people in the door to watch sports. For that matter, I'd probably rather watch a game at HUB. My guess is that they'll eventually figure out that four or five is a better opening time.

Other than that, I went opening night and it was alright, although service was understandably slow. The beer was fairly priced. The cocktails, although seemingly well developed, weren't made very well and start at $8 IIRC. I'm sure the execution on those will progress as time goes by but, for now, I'd just go down to Scott & Co. and experience a world class cocktail bar for the same price.

The design was pretty rad. For me, the back patio and the rooftop were the highlights. The rooftop is completely open right now, but it's a good place to have a drink and it offers great views of downtown. The patio is very Miamiesque, yet urban at the same time. The film being projected on opening night was silent but I'd assume they'll play "talkies" as well. Also, even as busy as it was opening night, there were still places to sit, so that's a major plus.

I honestly don't know what there would be to do for the under-21 crowd there as the food menu is pretty minimal. Further, at night, they card at the door, so I'm not sure how they're handling all ages. I'd definitely check before I went.

I thought Playground was a nightclub?? Like with a dance floor and all? $8 for a drink is pricey I guess for Tucson, coming from 3 years in L.A. where $12 was the norm, I'll take $8!

[Ted Lyons]

I thought Playground was a nightclub?? Like with a dance floor and all?

Well, this is the confusing thing about the place. It feels like a nightclub, it looks like a nightclub, but they're advertising it as a "place for everyone." IDK what that means really. To demonstrate the confusion, my sister-in-law said some guys came in last week and said they thought the place was a gay bar. :koko:

$8 for a drink is pricey I guess for Tucson, coming from 3 years in L.A. where $12 was the norm, I'll take $8!

For a good cocktail, I don't think $8 is that bad. Most of the places I would trust in town to make a good drink charge at least that much. The problem was that, opening night at least, the cocktails weren't that good. Like I said, though, that was hopefully an opening night problem.

[Don B.]

Don't waste your time with comments on newspaper websites. Phoenix's azcentral.com is full of troglodytes with nothing better to do than rant on anything different than their suburban sprawled strip malls, SUVs and Applebees, as long as their taxes are low and their waistlines are large.

--don

[kaneui]

More info. on downtown's third brewery--Peach Properties is planning a facade restoration of a 1940s building that originally housed Arizona's first Safeway for Thunder Canyon Brewery's second Tucson location:


http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/ThunderCanyonBrewery.jpg
(image: Titus Castanza)


More Beer Brewing Downtown
By Eric Swedlund
Zocalo Magazine
January 22, 2012

Thunder Canyon Brewery, with a steady increase in its business at the Foothills Mall since opening in 1997, will expand to a second location in Downtown’s east end by mid-year. “Our production has really spiked up over the last couple of years,” said owner and brewmaster Steve Tracy. “We need more brewing space. I’ve got quite a few recipes, about 65 or so, and it’s hard to get to all of them every year. This will help us do that, but really it will help increase the capacity.”

Tracy said he selected the Downtown location for the new Thunder Canyon after looking into various neighborhoods and buildings across the city for the last couple years. “We looked all over and this is the spot that’s going to work really well for us. We’re really excited to get Downtown,” he said. “I think Downtown has turned the corner finally for numerous reasons and I think we can really contribute to the rejuvenation and do our part to get things going down there.”

Peach Properties purchased the building at 210 E. Broadway Blvd. (the southeast corner of Broadway and Fifth Street) for just under $1.1 million and is selling a portion to Thunder Canyon. The building will include space for two other businesses as well and Peach Properties will handle the facade restoration, said CEO Ron Schwabe. The building was built in the 1940s as the first Safeway in Arizona, said Schwabe, and was the longtime home of Benjamin Plumbing Supply. Most recently, it housed the charter school Tucson Academy of Leadership & Arts. Renovation on the building will take about six months and will focus on bringing back the original look of the high-ceiling brick structure. “We’ll pretty much leave it as is, so it’ll have a different look than here at the mall. It’s a beautiful old building so it really doesn’t need anything else,” Tracy said.


For full article: http://www.thezmag.com/article-890-more-beer-brewing-downtown.html

[aznate27]

Found a cool website called Urbika (http://www.urbika.com/) that is similar to Emporis, but not as expansive. Tucson isn't on it, but it shows projects in the works that showcase the future of urban projects thoughout the globe, including here in the U.S.. Boy would I love to see some of these projects here in Tucson!

[aznate27]

Found a cool website called Urbika (http://www.urbika.com/) that is similar to Emporis, but not as expansive. Tucson isn't on it, but it shows projects in the works that showcase the future of urban projects thoughout the globe, including here in the U.S.. Boy would I love to see some of these projects here in Tucson!

I stand corrected, Tucson is on there, but no projects are listed. Phoenix is on there as well.

[sunbeach]

Found a cool website called Urbika (http://www.urbika.com/) that is similar to Emporis, but not as expansive. Tucson isn't on it, but it shows projects in the works that showcase the future of urban projects thoughout the globe, including here in the U.S.. Boy would I love to see some of these projects here in Tucson!

Tucson can have these projects if the city weren't giving too much preference to local corrupt developers. Have you noticed that most of the building projects in Tucson that are "delayed" came from local developers? Something is wrong in your city! I know folks from the land of high rises, Chicago and New York, that would love to build in your desert oasis!

As for Ted Lyons comment about corporate big box stores, I agree they are damn ugly! But Tucson needs them downtown. You had them 50 years ago. No one in your city is wealthy (and respectful) enough to build something downtown that can bring in enough people to go there. NO ONE. There's still not enough people visiting your downtown to warrant a success. All of the nice projects from that site, Urbika, are financed by big corporations!

btw, I'm a progressive liberal democrat who will be voting for Barack Obama at my tender age of 67! And I'd love to see your light rail extended plus a national high speed railway!! You folks NEED A CROSSTOWN FREEWAY TOO.

[Anqrew]

Tucson can have these projects if the city weren't giving too much preference to local corrupt developers. Have you noticed that most of the building projects in Tucson that are "delayed" came from local developers? Something is wrong in your city! I know folks from the land of high rises, Chicago and New York, that would love to build in your desert oasis!

As for Ted Lyons comment about corporate big box stores, I agree they are damn ugly! But Tucson needs them downtown. You had them 50 years ago. No one in your city is wealthy (and respectful) enough to build something downtown that can bring in enough people to go there. NO ONE. There's still not enough people visiting your downtown to warrant a success. All of the nice projects from that site, Urbika, are financed by big corporations!

btw, I'm a progressive liberal democrat who will be voting for Barack Obama at my tender age of 67! And I'd love to see your light rail extended plus a national high speed railway!! You folks NEED A CROSSTOWN FREEWAY TOO.


Crosstown freeway wont happen, too late in my opinion, anywhere you put it would require massive demolition of existing structures, the only possibility i think for Tucson is making one of the E/W Thoroughfares have many continuous grade separated intersections with a 50 mph speed limit.

Also i think the only person that has (and has the power in the future to) bring new construction and business downtown is Fletcher McCusker (CEO of prov corp). Tucson still doesn't really have the necessity or demand for such high rise buildings, not for another 5-10 years.

[sunbeach]

Crosstown freeway wont happen, too late in my opinion, anywhere you put it would require massive demolition of existing structures, the only possibility i think for Tucson is making one of the E/W Thoroughfares have many continuous grade separated intersections with a 50 mph speed limit.

Also i think the only person that has (and has the power in the future to) bring new construction and business downtown is Fletcher McCusker (CEO of prov corp). Tucson still doesn't really have the necessity or demand for such high rise buildings, not for another 5-10 years.

I disagree. It's not too late to build a crosstown freeway in Tucson. I hear the same excuse the last 40 years : It's too late. We'd have to demolish this , that... It will cost a lot of money blah blah blah. Sick of this Tucson excuse.

There's always a demand for high rise buildings. It's folks in Tucson that keep rejecting it. Especially now, when houses are pretty much out of reach to most folks due to massive foreclosures of homes. The U.S. is now a nation of renters. I don't know where your getting this in 5-10 years there will be a demand.

[sunbeach]

btw, Fletcher alone CAN'T afford to build anything above 4 floors. He had a lot of help from the city. He's not rich enough to build any high rise from scratch. He's a total fraud!! SIGN OFF!!

[aznate27]

I disagree. It's not too late to build a crosstown freeway in Tucson. I hear the same excuse the last 40 years : It's too late. We'd have to demolish this , that... It will cost a lot of money blah blah blah. Sick of this Tucson excuse.

There's always a demand for high rise buildings. It's folks in Tucson that keep rejecting it. Especially now, when houses are pretty much out of reach to most folks due to massive foreclosures of homes. The U.S. is now a nation of renters. I don't know where your getting this in 5-10 years there will be a demand.

Last thing I want for Tucson...is to become Phoenix! :yuck: Andrew is spot on about grade seperated intersections, right down Grant Rd into Kolb Rd.. And where you get the notion that building a crosstown freeway would be doable today is beyond me?? 40 years ago maybe, not today. You would have to not only demolish hundreds of buildings, but you would split whole neighborhoods (some of them very nice ones) in half not to mention the city, and ask a few hundred residents to give up where they live for a concrete slab. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY BAD VISION FOR TUCSON!

Not sure when the last time you were in Tucson, but downtown is coming alive. There are plenty of projects that are either completed, in construction, or on the books. Tucson is coming around, but I agree with Andrew, those projects on the other site are years away from being done here...although I think it will be only about 5 years at most, not ten.

[phxSUNSfan]

Last thing I want for Tucson...is to become Phoenix! :yuck: Andrew is spot on about grade seperated intersections, right down Grant Rd into Kolb Rd.. And where you get the notion that building a crosstown freeway would be doable today is beyond me?? 40 years ago maybe, not today. You would have to not only demolish hundreds of buildings, but you would split whole neighborhoods (some of them very nice ones) in half not to mention the city, and ask a few hundred residents to give up where they live for a concrete slab. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY BAD VISION FOR TUCSON!

Not sure when the last time you were in Tucson, but downtown is coming alive. There are plenty of projects that are either completed, in construction, or on the books. Tucson is coming around, but I agree with Andrew, those projects on the other site are years away from being done here...although I think it will be only about 5 years at most, not ten.

You mean become like Phoenix and actually develop real mass transit like light rail? Or have high rise apartments and condos downtown, increased density, cultural attractions, museums, theaters and shopping in the Central City? No, you wouldn't want that for Tucson. It is already as sprawled out as Phoenix for its size but lacks the density and planned mass transit corridors. A 5 mile streetcar wouldn't cut it in Phoenix.

[Anqrew]

You mean become like Phoenix and actually develop real mass transit like light rail? Or have high rise apartments and condos downtown, increased density, cultural attractions, museums, theaters and shopping in the Central City? No, you wouldn't want that for Tucson. It is already as sprawled out as Phoenix for its size but lacks the density and planned mass transit corridors. A 5 mile streetcar wouldn't cut it in Phoenix.

I think he means not tear up neighborhoods to build miles of freeways like they did up in Maricopa. Tucson and Phoenix both have their pro's and con's. The point is, each needs their own identity, Tucson striving to be Phoenix isn't going to get anything accomplished. Not that tucson doesn't need high density and mass transit, its just that Freeways are no longer a realistic solution for the Tucson Metro. Not enough Support, Money or Reason. I understand your pride of what Phoenix has going for it but there really is no need for your type of comment. Your point was obviously to boast. This conversation and argument of Tucson vs Phoenix has been played out in this thread so many times, its getting old, if you want to do that again go back 50 some pages in this thread and reread those posts. Lets just keep the conversation positive please. thanks!

[Anqrew]

Last thing I want for Tucson...is to become Phoenix! :yuck: Andrew is spot on about grade seperated intersections, right down Grant Rd into Kolb Rd.. And where you get the notion that building a crosstown freeway would be doable today is beyond me?? 40 years ago maybe, not today. You would have to not only demolish hundreds of buildings, but you would split whole neighborhoods (some of them very nice ones) in half not to mention the city, and ask a few hundred residents to give up where they live for a concrete slab. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY BAD VISION FOR TUCSON!

Not sure when the last time you were in Tucson, but downtown is coming alive. There are plenty of projects that are either completed, in construction, or on the books. Tucson is coming around, but I agree with Andrew, those projects on the other site are years away from being done here...although I think it will be only about 5 years at most, not ten.


Yeah imagine if Golf Links/Swan and Golf Links/Craycroft were both GSI's.

That would make about 4-5 miles of no traffic signals whether your going south from Golf Links to Alvernon or west onto Aviation. It probably won;t happen though. Although 22nd/Kino is being converted into a GSI for the 22nd Street Widening, so Kino will go over 22nd and wont have to stop. Then in 5 years they will be widening Broadway, i have a feeling they will convert Kino/Broadway into a GSI as well for that project. we'll see...

[Anqrew]

I disagree. It's not too late to build a crosstown freeway in Tucson. I hear the same excuse the last 40 years : It's too late. We'd have to demolish this , that... It will cost a lot of money blah blah blah. Sick of this Tucson excuse.

There's always a demand for high rise buildings. It's folks in Tucson that keep rejecting it. Especially now, when houses are pretty much out of reach to most folks due to massive foreclosures of homes. The U.S. is now a nation of renters. I don't know where your getting this in 5-10 years there will be a demand.

It's not an excuse, it's reality. Where would the RTA get enough funding to buy 100s of properties have them demolished and then construct a freeway? it's just not feasible at this time. the fact is yes, it should have been done 40 years ago, But it didn't, nothing to do now but focus on other modes of transportation like Bike Avenues and the Streetcar.

Do you live in Tucson? Because it seems like you don't, you don't seem to be aware of the current situation of Downtown. 5-10 years is the best timelime because by then, Streetcar is finished, Student Housing projects are finished. Because of those there will probably be many more restaurants and retail and office space because of this surplus of people. Because of this, the demand will come and people will really desire to live downtown, only then do i think we will get any new highrise construction. Just the way it works, Downtown has come a long way, but its not done yet.

Im very confident in Tucson taking at least 5 more years to really flourish. So in 2017 we will all check back on Downtown and see how right i was. Any sooner just isn't realistic.

[Ted Lyons]

You mean become like Phoenix and actually develop real mass transit like light rail? Or have high rise apartments and condos downtown, increased density, cultural attractions, museums, theaters and shopping in the Central City? No, you wouldn't want that for Tucson. It is already as sprawled out as Phoenix for its size but lacks the density and planned mass transit corridors. A 5 mile streetcar wouldn't cut it in Phoenix.

:haha:

This is a joke, right? You apparently know absolutely nothing about Tucson development. I recommend you read through this thread before you post again.

[phxSUNSfan]

I think he means not tear up neighborhoods to build miles of freeways like they did up in Maricopa. Tucson and Phoenix both have their pro's and con's. The point is, each needs their own identity, Tucson striving to be Phoenix isn't going to get anything accomplished. Not that tucson doesn't need high density and mass transit, its just that Freeways are no longer a realistic solution for the Tucson Metro. Not enough Support, Money or Reason. I understand your pride of what Phoenix has going for it but there really is no need for your type of comment. Your point was obviously to boast. This conversation and argument of Tucson vs Phoenix has been played out in this thread so many times, its getting old, if you want to do that again go back 50 some pages in this thread and reread those posts. Lets just keep the conversation positive please. thanks!

I wasn't making a negative post, just a truthful one. Tucson isn't some urbanist utopia and is similar to Phoenix. I-10 did mangle a once beautiful and historic Central City neighborhood and that scar has taken a long time to heal and isn't completed. Hance Park, built over the I-10 tunnel, has many shortcomings but it is a nice greenfield for the downtown population. If anything, the comment made before mine was negative and unneeded and failed to see how much change has occurred in Central Phoenix (not just downtown).

I also agree that freeways aren't the answer for Tucson! I hope that one that cuts through Tucson is never built. In order to avoid that Tucson (Pima County) residents will need mass transit options; thus, taxes will have to be raised...It will cost Tucson resident more because you have a smaller population base to tax and funds (state and federal) are hard to come by these days.

[phxSUNSfan]

:haha:

This is a joke, right? You apparently know absolutely nothing about Tucson development. I recommend you read through this thread before you post again.

I've been to Tucson and it isn't a joke. Knocking Phoenix is a dumb undertaking for Tucson residents. Last time I was in Tucson, downtown residents (the very few to begin with) had limited shopping destinations, no mass transit options other than buses, and Tuscon is less dense than Phoenix...especially when urban (contiguous development rather than metro/MSA) density is accounted for.

NOTE: I am not saying Tucson is awful. I like the feel of the "Old Pueblo" and the smaller scale of downtown and areas around it. Phoenix's highrises and corporate headquarters require large footprints and that type of retrofit for downtown Tucson would be wrong. Nice, mid-rise, dense developments are needed in both downtown Tucson and the north end of downtown Phoenix.

[Ted Lyons]

Knocking Phoenix is a dumb undertaking for Tucson residents.

You can get pissed off about someone who lives in Tucson saying that they prefer Tucson over Phoenix all you want, but that doesn't legitimize your trolling here. Just as you prefer living in Phoenix, for whatever reason, some people, (a lot, in fact), like Tucson for what it is. That means no Jackson Street Entertainment Districts, no destination Tilted Kilts, etc. You might value that stuff, and that's fine, but let's not act as though Phoenix is the end-all be-all of new urbanism.

Last time I was in Tucson, downtown residents (the very few to begin with) had limited shopping destinations, no mass transit options other than buses, and Tuscon is less dense than Phoenix...especially when urban (contiguous development rather than metro/MSA) density is accounted for.

You're right. Downtown Tucson is not as densely populated as it should be. That's why 7 multi-floor apartment complexes are currently in development (two currently under construction - The District on 5th and New Armory Apartments; at least four set to begin construction in the next few months - 1020 Tyndall, Plaza Centro West, Plaza Centro East, and El Presidio) on the streetcar line. How many such developments have been built in the history of the Valley Metro line? Serious question.

Further, downtown Tucson does lack "shopping destinations." However, Tucson, unlike Phoenix, is not a "shopping destination" city. Downtown Tucson will never have a Barney's or a Louis Vuitton store. Going back to my first paragraph, that's just the nature of the city.

However, almost every project being developed downtown right now contains a retail element and grocery stores (of the local variety, which aren't frowned upon in Tucson) have been discussed as possibilities in at least three projects (the Unisource building, 210 East Broadway, and West Plaza Centro). These are the types of "shopping destinations" that spur further development and Phoenix hasn't exactly gotten that down yet either.

NOTE: I am not saying Tucson is awful. I like the feel of the "Old Pueblo" and the smaller scale of downtown and areas around it. Phoenix's highrises and corporate headquarters require large footprints and that type of retrofit for downtown Tucson would be wrong. Nice, mid-rise, dense developments are needed in both downtown Tucson and the north end of downtown Phoenix.

You're spot on here. I just don't see how you can see this and, at the same time, act as though Tucson is currently getting development wrong.

[phxSUNSfan]

You can get pissed off about someone who lives in Tucson saying that they prefer Tucson over Phoenix all you want, but that doesn't legitimize your trolling here. Just as you prefer living in Phoenix, for whatever reason, some people, (a lot, in fact), like Tucson for what it is. That means no Jackson Street Entertainment Districts, no destination Tilted Kilts, etc. You might value that stuff, and that's fine, but let's not act as though Phoenix is the end-all be-all of new urbanism.

I'm not pissed off, again just bringing to light the hypocrisy from some Tucson posters. Not trolling either; more urban development is something both cities desperately need. Comparing downtown Phoenix and Tucson to say, Seattle, one would see how far both places still need to go. Not sure you guys are getting the premise behind my post; which is Phoenix isn't all bad and Tucson could learn some lessons and takeaway from "lessons learned" through mistakes made in PHX. Furthermore, it isn't about cookie cutter in downtown Phoenix and the Central City; try the Goldspot, Evans-Churchill and Roosevelt Row, Garfield neighborhood markets, new McDowell developments, and what is going on in midtown and the older neighborhoods near North Central.

You're right. Downtown Tucson is not as densely populated as it should be. That's why 7 multi-floor apartment complexes are currently in development (two currently under construction - The District on 5th and New Armory Apartments; at least four set to begin construction in the next few months - 1020 Tyndall, Plaza Centro West, Plaza Centro East, and El Presidio) on the streetcar line. How many such developments have been built in the history of the Valley Metro line? Serious question.

Along the light rail line...that would be a large list, especially in Tempe and Central Ave. in Phoenix. The TOD in Tempe is amazing and West 6th is the newest and biggest example (2 towers, one more than 20 floors the other over 30). Student housing in Phoenix (near ASU Downtown) and Tempe is hitting its stride. New 24, 18, 16, and 14 floor buildings are planned (the two tallest currently under construction across from Sun Devil Stadium) adjacent to a light rail station and a private student housing building (8 and 7 floors, construction to begin this year) with over 600 units in downtown Phoenix's Roosevelt Row. 44 Monroe (a 34 story tower) is nearly 100% leased (197 units) and One Lexington is 100% sold (18 floors and 145 units) and are both across the street from light rail stations. A new apartment tower for CityScape is anticipated (tower crane erected) and this will be a 30+ floor building and is a block from a light rail station. There has been billions of public and private investment near light rail with more to come: too much to list in one post.

However, almost every project being developed downtown right now contains a retail element and grocery stores (of the local variety, which aren't frowned upon in Tucson) have been discussed as possibilities in at least three projects (the Unisource building, 210 East Broadway, and West Plaza Centro). These are the types of "shopping destinations" that spur further development and Phoenix hasn't exactly gotten that down yet either.

Slightly agree, however downtown Phoenix does have a couple of small neighborhood grocers/markets including the Phoenix Public Market. Most of the shops and restaurants in downtown Phoenix are locally owned even in the new highrises like CityScape and One Central Park East.

You're spot on here. I just don't see how you can see this and, at the same time, act as though Tucson is currently getting development wrong.

Never said Tucson was getting development wrong, except that like Phoenix the city is mostly sprawl oriented. My comments had more to do with unnecessary posts made before I had written anything.

[aznate27]

I think he means not tear up neighborhoods to build miles of freeways like they did up in Maricopa. Tucson and Phoenix both have their pro's and con's. The point is, each needs their own identity, Tucson striving to be Phoenix isn't going to get anything accomplished. Not that tucson doesn't need high density and mass transit, its just that Freeways are no longer a realistic solution for the Tucson Metro. Not enough Support, Money or Reason. I understand your pride of what Phoenix has going for it but there really is no need for your type of comment. Your point was obviously to boast. This conversation and argument of Tucson vs Phoenix has been played out in this thread so many times, its getting old, if you want to do that again go back 50 some pages in this thread and reread those posts. Lets just keep the conversation positive please. thanks!

Andrew is right, I was literally speaking of the freeway situation in Phx...I lived in Phx for 3 years ('02-'05) I lived in central Phx and had to commute to Scottsdale for one job, Glendale for another. It was a nightmare to say the least! I don't want that future for Tucson. No one should want their city to be a carbon copy of another, that robs it of it's soul. So I don't want Tucson to become Phoenix!

One thing I will say, yes Phoenix has had a huge revitalization of it's urban core...but only within the last 15 years or so. Downtown Phx was dying until the mid 90's when the city had a metro population of over 2 million. Tucson is doing what Phx should have done 25-30 years ago. We're finally getting it together BEFORE we hit a crazy number like 2 million! By that time, Tucson will have a sprawling streetcar system, a dense urban core, and one kick ass downtown (I kinda think it rocks now):tup: We're learning from the mistakes made up the street in Phx, and putting plans on the table to make our transition into a world class city less painfull.

Phx is a fun place to get away too for sure, just like people in Phx look to Tucson as a place to get away for the weekend where it's more laid back and relaxed. To each his own.

[phxSUNSfan]

Andrew is right, I was literally speaking of the freeway situation in Phx...I lived in Phx for 3 years ('02-'05) I lived in central Phx and had to commute to Scottsdale for one job, Glendale for another. It was a nightmare to say the least! I don't want that future for Tucson. No one should want their city to be a carbon copy of another, that robs it of it's soul. So I don't want Tucson to become Phoenix!

One thing I will say, yes Phoenix has had a huge revitalization of it's urban core...but only within the last 15 years or so. Downtown Phx was dying until the mid 90's when the city had a metro population of over 2 million. Tucson is doing what Phx should have done 25-30 years ago. We're finally getting it together BEFORE we hit a crazy number like 2 million! By that time, Tucson will have a sprawling streetcar system, a dense urban core, and one kick ass downtown (I kinda think it rocks now):tup: We're learning from the mistakes made up the street in Phx, and putting plans on the table to make our transition into a world class city less painfull.

Phx is a fun place to get away too for sure, just like people in Phx look to Tucson as a place to get away for the weekend where it's more laid back and relaxed. To each his own.

Can't say I completely disagree. The only thing is that 25-30 years ago, no one in Central Phoenix was concerned about downtown revitalization with the building of sprawl so widespread. This was true of Tucson as well. Phoenix missed a huge opportunity when in 1989, the ValTrans system was voted down. ValTrans would have been an elevated rail system; huge hit that most likely caused downtown to continue its decline throughout the 1990's.

I'm not sure Tucson will hit 2 million in our lifetimes since migration to the state has slowed considerably. Downtown Tucson will probably not develop employment density like downtown Phoenix, nor housing density because of current trends and make-up of the central areas of both cities. Tucson lacks a large ave like Central that can accommodate huge highrises (downtown and midtown Phoenix). Which is fine and I'm sure most of you will agree that Tucson would do well with a smaller downtown. In the future, downtown Tucson will most likely mirror (but not be exactly like) downtown Tempe. Tucson has a long ways to catch up to Tempe but I expect it will happen down south. Tempe's advantage is the light rail and the future Mill Ave Streetcar and possible streetcar along Rio Salado to Riverview in Mesa.

I feel bad that you (aznate) had to drive from Central Phoenix to Scottsdale for work in the past! What a commute, even if it was a reverse commute, LOL! I would have probably lived in Old Town/ Downtown Scottsdale to avoid rush hour traffic on the freeways.

I want to hit up Playground in Tucson to see what it is like soon; most likely it won't happen until November when I head south to see the ASU/UofA game. :cheers:

[Anqrew]

Tucson lacks a large ave like Central that can accommodate huge highrises (downtown and midtown Phoenix). Which is fine and I'm sure most of you will agree that Tucson would do well with a smaller downtown.

Well Broadway definitely could do this, it already has Williams Center which is a nice little cluster of highrises in Mid-town, and the Broadway Corridor is a part of the planned Rio Nuevo area so i think there could be more highrises here, Williams Center does have more office space than Downtown if i am correct.

*Speaking of Williams Center, has anyone noticed the new Blue Spotlights on 5151 Broadway (The Tallest building there). It's a nice touch, I think it would be awesome if Downtown had some sort of lighting scheme on the buildings.

[phxSUNSfan]

Well Broadway definitely could do this, it already has Williams Center which is a nice little cluster of highrises in Mid-town, and the Broadway Corridor is a part of the planned Rio Nuevo area so i think there could be more highrises here, Williams Center does have more office space than Downtown if i am correct.

*Speaking of Williams Center, has anyone noticed the new Blue Spotlights on 5151 Broadway (The Tallest building there). It's a nice touch, I think it would be awesome if Downtown had some sort of lighting scheme on the buildings.

Not really; Central Ave is nearly 5 miles long and already has the building stock and future planned highrises. There aren't currently any large corporations looking to relocate to Phoenix, much less Tucson, that would necessitate hundreds of million (even a billion dollars) a building into developing. A plethora of new highrise office space isn't in the works. Phoenix will soon have a another skyscraper planned by a Chicago developer near Central and Van Buren (here's hoping); the developer is shopping for a corporation to relocate and be the anchor tenant. It will most likely be another bank, a healthcare company, or a bio-tech company. Williams Center is a lower slung area more (mostly mid-rises) like the Biltmore/Esplanade area on Camelback but not as high-end. I like the area around Hotel Congress in Tucson and think denser development near that area would do well...planned mid-rises near UofA will look nice and go a long way toward urban infill.

[Anqrew]

*On an off topic subject*
I'm making a request for the new Unisource Energy Building on the diagram page. But I need a lot of information for the Request. Any help on the emtpy spots would be appreciated! (Heres what i have so far)

To be Honest the whole Tucson Diagram Page is outdated, i'll probably have to make requests for a lot of the new proposals popping up around Downtown/UA.


------------------------------------------------------
Official sources: http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/projects/project.cfm?cip=5ADA8BE9-0049-903E-AD031811909A46CF

Unofficial sources: http://downtowntucson.kold.com/news/business/68862-unisource-energy-building-officially-opens-business

http://www.downtowntucson.org/2011/10/unisource-will-move-into-its-new-hq-this-weekend/

Building Name: UniSource Energy Building
Native Name:
Other Names:
Street Address: SW corner of Broadway and 6th Avenue
City: Tucson
Postal Code: 85701
State/Province: Arizona
Country: USA
Official Building Website URL: http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/projects/project.cfm?cip=5ADA8BE9-0049-903E-AD031811909A46CF
Wikipedia.org URL:
Skyscrapers.com (Emporis.com) URL:
CTBUH.org URL :
Structurae.de URL:
Architect:
Interesting Facts/Records (in own words): First Highrise built in Downtown Tucson since 1986
Coordinates (with decimal fraction):
Floor-to-floor height:


Heights--
PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES FOR HEIGHTS, OTHERWISE WE WILL ASSUME THEY ARE ESTIMATES AND HEIGHTS NOT BE SHOWN.
- antenna:
- spire:
- roof:
- top floor:
- other heights:


Current Building Status (Built, Proposed, Cancelled, Destroyed, etc...): Built

Construction Dates--
- started: May 2010
- finished: November 2011
- destroyed:


Above ground floors: 9
Below ground floors:
Gross Floor area:
Elevator count:
Unit count:

Structure Type(s):
Building Use(s): Office
Building Style(s):
Building Materials:
------------------------------------------------------

[Anqrew]

the Nimbys are at it again on an article about the Streetcar, so naturally i've been trolling with the old grumps. lol.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/work-begins-for-tucson-modern-streetcar/article_cea2b9b4-4ceb-11e1-b322-001871e3ce6c.html

[aznate27]

Not really; Central Ave is nearly 5 miles long and already has the building stock and future planned highrises. There aren't currently any large corporations looking to relocate to Phoenix, much less Tucson, that would necessitate hundreds of million (even a billion dollars) a building into developing. A plethora of new highrise office space isn't in the works. Phoenix will soon have a another skyscraper planned by a Chicago developer near Central and Van Buren (here's hoping); the developer is shopping for a corporation to relocate and be the anchor tenant. It will most likely be another bank, a healthcare company, or a bio-tech company. Williams Center is a lower slung area more (mostly mid-rises) like the Biltmore/Esplanade area on Camelback but not as high-end. I like the area around Hotel Congress in Tucson and think denser development near that area would do well...planned mid-rises near UofA will look nice and go a long way toward urban infill.

You know, you try and sound cordial in your arguments against Tucson...but what it boils down to is "My city is better than yours" banter. You have an answer for everything anyone on here says about Tucson's future. If you have the crystal ball like you sound you have, then please do share with the rest of us. How can you possibly predict what the future in city development will be for either city 10, 20 or 30 years down the road? Studies show the sunbelt corridor having a population of nearly 10 million by 2050 (some studies say sooner), you think ALL of that will be in Phx?? Of course not. When I was Andrew's age, I never thought Tucson would hit a million, but it did, in my lifetime. There's no reason to believe Andrew won't see Tucson hit two million or close to it in his lifetime. It's way too soon for anyone to predict what Tucson's urban center will be like.

Tucson is barely touching a million people, Phoenix is approching 5 million, yet you keep comparing the two cities..why?? :shrug: Of course Phx has more opportunities than Tucson, it's nearly 5 times bigger! Tucson's ecomomy runs on different fuel than Phx, I suspect it always will. Tucson's future as a leader in military, education, health, hospitality,bioscience, and even space industries is already looking good.

Tucson is just about to take the training wheels off and ride on it's own two wheels...we just have to be patient.;)

[aznate27]

the Nimbys are at it again on an article about the Streetcar, so naturally i've been trolling with the old grumps. lol.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/work-begins-for-tucson-modern-streetcar/article_cea2b9b4-4ceb-11e1-b322-001871e3ce6c.html

ROFL!!!!!! I soooo gave you a thumbs up!! :tup:

[combusean]

You know, you try and sound cordial in your arguments against Tucson...but what it boils down to is "My city is better than yours" banter. You have an answer for everything anyone on here says about Tucson's future. If you have the crystal ball like you sound you have, then please do share with the rest of us. How can you possibly predict what the future in city development will be for either city 10, 20 or 30 years down the road? Studies show the sunbelt corridor having a population of nearly 10 million by 2050 (some studies say sooner), you think ALL of that will be in Phx?? Of course not. When I was Andrew's age, I never thought Tucson would hit a million, but it did, in my lifetime. There's no reason to believe Andrew won't see Tucson hit two million or close to it in his lifetime. It's way too soon for anyone to predict what Tucson's urban center will be like.


The studies that predicted that kind of massive growth of the Sunbelt corridor were done on mid 2000s projections for the area that are now vastly obsolete.

Boom-era fantasies aside, the reality is that Maricopa and Casa Grande mostly sustain themselves as distant suburbs of Chandler, a city that is doing quite well for itself economically.

A future sunbelt corridor of ten million people presumes new or vastly larger cities that will be themselves distant suburbs of Casa Grande and Maricopa, two cities that just haven't been developing the jobs necessary for that sort of outward growth.

If the Class A offices in Westgate are completely vacant with a huge stadium, mall, and arena nearby why would the wasteland surrounding I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson grow into anything different? The businesses for which those exurban office developments were built are instead opting for a Central Phoenix/East Valley location that naturally reigns in distant outward growth.

If areas like Buckeye and Maricopa on the last ring of sprawl now 30 - 40 miles from Downtown Phoenix weren't slammed with foreclosures, overbuilding, lack of economic opportunity, and overall lack of desirability and amenities, things would be different. Not only that, higher and higher fuel costs will continue to be a huge inhibitor of future growth in those outward areas.

In my opinion, the new farthest arc of growth (compared to a full circle) that will occur in anyone's lifetime here will swing further east to the San Tan Valley and peter out before Florence as Williams Gateway slowly matures into a regional, multimodal destination. That kind of growth will bypass the western stretches of Pinal County.

It's not to say entirely that the Sunbelt Corridor and ten million people won't happen, we'll just all be dead by then.

Tucson is barely touching a million people, Phoenix is approching 5 million, yet you keep comparing the two cities..why?? :shrug: Of course Phx has more opportunities than Tucson, it's nearly 5 times bigger! Tucson's ecomomy runs on different fuel than Phx, I suspect it always will. Tucson's future as a leader in military, education, health, hospitality,bioscience, and even space industries is already looking good.

The metro area of Pinal and Maricopa County is about 4.2 million, with the last million or people that moved here in the last decade now so far removed from the city center they don't even appear on my or practically anyone's radar screen.

On the other hand: Tucson has bounds of potential to develop into a dense, medium-sized city built around transit options like the best East Coast cities grew a hundred years ago. The sentiments that have completely eliminated any chance of a loop freeway system in Tucson will in fact be the city's saving grace as it matures into a compact, sustainable destination.

Tucson is just about to take the training wheels off and ride on it's own two wheels...we just have to be patient.;)

:tup:

[Ted Lyons]

You know, you try and sound cordial in your arguments against Tucson...but what it boils down to is "My city is better than yours" banter. You have an answer for everything anyone on here says about Tucson's future.

I was going to post a detailed response to this guy but it really boils down to this. There's no sense discussing a subject like this with a Penelope (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/penelope-wedding/1173628).

[Ted Lyons]

On the other hand: Tucson has bounds of potential to develop into a dense, medium-sized city built around transit options like the best East Coast cities grew a hundred years ago. The sentiments that have completely eliminated any chance of a loop freeway system in Tucson will in fact be the city's saving grace as it matures into a compact, sustainable destination.

Precisely. At a certain point our unsolvable traffic problem - the equivalent of "$10 per gallon gas will enable HSR construction" - will push denser development. It's already happening really, which is what makes phxSUNSfan's criticism of Tucson's current development agenda all the more confusing.

[Ted Lyons]

Slightly agree, however downtown Phoenix does have a couple of small neighborhood grocers/markets including the Phoenix Public Market. Most of the shops and restaurants in downtown Phoenix are locally owned even in the new highrises like CityScape and One Central Park East.

Quick note: Similar businesses already exist in Tucson as well: Mercado San Agustin, Maynard's Market, Food Conspiracy Co-op, Time Market, etc., but that's not what I was talking about.

[phxSUNSfan]

I was going to post a detailed response to this guy but it really boils down to this. There's no sense discussing a subject like this with a Penelope (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/penelope-wedding/1173628).

So when your arguments and lack of facts don't work, resort to an ad hominem. Got it! :koko: Especially after you "seriously" asked me what has been built around light rail in metro Phoenix.

Combusean pretty much summed it up. Predictions for "Sun Belt" growth were done during the last boom and were built with cheap oil; an obsolete model. Likely both Tucson and Phoenix will benefit if urban development is championed. Tucson is a city of 520,000 and Phoenix 1.4 million, still they are both large cities and can be compared to each other and other important cities like Seattle. In that sense, and like I said before, both have a long way to go to reach the upper echelon. Unfortunately I don't see Tucson developing a great transit system. The cost is too high and funds are shrinking from both the state and federal government. Our only hope is that progressives win out in 2012...even if that is the case Tucson will have to compete for money with larger cities like Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles, etc. Get used to being compared with other cities if the training wheels do ever come off.

[Ted Lyons]

lack of facts

This coming from the quy who said Tucson had no museums or theaters downtown. It's this completely farcical basis for all of your arguments that has brought out such a negative attitude toward your posts.

At a certain point, when everyone who regularly participates in this thread thinks you're acting like a tool, you need to accept that the fault lies with you and not us.

still they are both large cities and can be compared to each other and other important cities like Seattle.

No. They can't, at least Tucson can't, at that's why you're so wrong. Phoenix isn't a city of 1.4 million people as much as it's a metropolis of 4.2 million people. Tucson's metropolitan area has but a million people. So, Tucson has as much of a right being compared to Seattle or Phoenix as Tulsa does, and that's to say we're not in the same conversation in terms of our objectives or means whatsoever. It's this disparity and false equivalency that frames your argument.

In that sense, and like I said before, both have a long way to go to reach the upper echelon.

See my previous sentence. That's not the goal of Tucson's city leaders or citizens, it never will be, and that's not a bad thing from our perspective. Tucsonans/Tucsonenses want to live in the best version of Tucson possible, not the biggest metropolis in the world.

Unfortunately I don't see Tucson developing a great transit system.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man. You're wrong, but whatever. The American Public Transportation Association called Sun Tran the best Transit System in America within its ridership level as recently as 2005, and that was just based on bus service.

The cost is too high and funds are shrinking from both the state and federal government.

Going back to your false equivalency problem, Tucson need only build about five more miles of streetcar (not light rail) track down Broadway to unify all of central Tucson. A further line up Campbell and over to Tucson Mall would only be about six more miles and would be about all the streetcar line Tucson would need for years. All of this would still be less than the initial light rail system in Phoenix so, although funds may be shrinking for projects that total $1 billion or more, the same doesn't hold for projects that cost in the $100 million range. What's improbable for Phoenix isn't necessarily improbable for Tucson and we're talking about projects that aren't even on the books for us yet.

Our only hope is that progressives win out in 2012...even if that is the case Tucson will have to compete for money with larger cities like Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles, etc.

I agree with your first statement. Your second goes right back to the false equivalency issue. Tucson's needs cost much less than those of Seattle and Los Angeles. While Seattle is building an extension of their light rail system that will result in only a handful of new stations but cost billions of dollars, Tucson can build miles of streetcar track for a small fraction of that price.

Get used to being compared with other cities if the training wheels do ever come off.

Again, you confuse the goals of our citizenry and leadership.

[phxSUNSfan]

I think you are confused. I never said Tucson lacked museums but was comparing total cultural amenities (theaters, museums, cultural centers, artist's colonies) of both cities. I included not only museums but shopping, high-rise housing, employment density, etc.

Secondly, you speak of Tucson becoming a great urban place but cower when compared to other leading cities (NOTE: a great urban place doesn't have to equate to a huge metropolis). A streetcar will not allow Tucson to compete now or in the future for people and talent that will fill downtown condos. In order to develop a dense downtown Tucson will have to compete with other cities (yes, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake, etc included) to attract high quality jobs that will afford the citizenry that lifestyle. Therefore, your statements are contradictory. You can't argue that Tucson will be ready to take off the training wheels and in the same breath refuse to compare your city to others.

I'm sure you won't agree (we both seem rather intransigent on this issue ;) ). I'll take leave and let you Tucsonians get back to discussing development in your city.

[combusean]

It's *very* difficult and extraordinarily expensive to build rail transit.

A half cent dedicated to multimodal transport (ie, palatable to voters) brings in about $14 billion over 20 years in the Phoenix area--enough for a slew of light rail and bus and freeway improvements that's *on top of* a 4/10 cent transit tax in Phoenix proper that built the initial light rail leg and will construct a few miles of the Northwest Extension.

That same half-cent sales tax in Tucson brings in about a seventh of what it does in Phoenix, yet streetcars are only about half the cost of full-fledged light rail.

Ergo, to complete a transit system or even get it off the ground requires significant federal investment. There is substantial competition amongst other cities to get that money--therefore it's totally reasonable to compare Tucson to other cities because that's exactly what the Federal Transit Administration does.

Further complicating matters is that getting that money also very much depends on having an effective federal representation. Phoenix is lucky to have Pastor in Congress, sitting on the House Transportation Committee, I don't know what weight Tucson's representatives can pull as they flesh out future extensions to the fledgling streetcar.

That all being said, it is now a policy of Obama's FTA to favor the redevelopment potential of routes in the central city as a precursor to increasing density, compared to the Bush FTA policy of favoring routes that simply proposed getting people from Point A downtown to Point B in the suburbs as fast as possible. Eg, freeway-aligned routes that have limited redevelopment opportunities no longer score as high as in-street alignments where the redevelopment opportunity is greater.

Given that Tucson and Phoenix are about 20 years late in the game of using transit to redevelop their downtowns and central areas, there's far more greater gains to be had compared to cities farther along in the downtown/central area revitalization process.

This is a major plus for whatever is proposed in Arizona as far as the FTA is concerned.

I think that's at least part of what phxSUNSfan was getting at.

[phxSUNSfan]

Again, Combusean is correct and yes that is part of what I was saying. Beyond that Tucson will have to compete (I repeat this because it is important) with cities like Seattle in areas where Tucson might have some economic strength. For military, space, and biotech jobs you are directly competing with Seattle (which has a few of the nation's largest military bases nearby), Phoenix (with Luke and the new F-35 program), Boston (which has one of the highest concentrations of bio-tech firms and a larger complement of university research), etc.

[Ted Lyons]

I think you are confused. I never said Tucson lacked museums but was comparing total cultural amenities (theaters, museums, cultural centers, artist's colonies) of both cities. I included not only museums but shopping, high-rise housing, employment density, etc.

As I've said numerous times, you're comparing apples to oranges and, for the size of Tucson, it has a good number of museums, theaters, and "cultural amenities" downtown. Those are really the least of our problems.

As I've noted, Tucson probably won't see "high-rise" housing downtown for a long time, if ever, because that's not the type of city it is and that's not the type of development we need necessarily.

However, the fact that our current downtown development is not "high-rise" in nature does not discount the benefits it provides the city. A six-floor 300+ bed student housing complex in downtown Tucson means a lot more than a similar project in downtown Phoenix and potentially more than something like a 20-floor project in downtown Phoenix. That's the level of nonequivalence I've been talking about.

Secondly, you speak of Tucson becoming a great urban place but cower when compared to other leading cities (NOTE: a great urban place doesn't have to equate to a huge metropolis).

See, again, you express the sentiments we all agree upon but preface them with a statement that flies in their face. Tucson can be a great urban place while be completely incomparable to other leading cities. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. Cities like Asheville are great urban places while simultaneously being completely incomparable to cities like Charlotte.

A streetcar will not allow Tucson to compete now or in the future for people and talent that will fill downtown condos.

See, this is just wrong, and your argument seems to be based on the fact that a similar streetcar in Phoenix would not work. The significant private development occurring along our streetcar line, which, again, has barely begun construction, disproves your point outright.

The other fact that diminishes your argument is that a streetcar, even if travelling at the speed of traffic, need only get a few miles in a reasonable time in Tucson to provide significant value in Tucson. Hotel Congress is only a mile and a half from University and Park. That's a short distance, but perfect for a streetcar ride. The distance between similar destinations in Phoenix (US Airways Center to University and Mill) is almost 9 miles by my estimation, so that would be completely unworkable for a streetcar. Again, what works here wouldn't work in Phoenix and vice versa.

In order to develop a dense downtown Tucson will have to compete with other cities (yes, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake, etc included) to attract high quality jobs that will afford the citizenry that lifestyle. Therefore, your statements are contradictory. You can't argue that Tucson will be ready to take off the training wheels and in the same breath refuse to compare your city to others.

First, I never made the "training wheels" comment. Second, as with everything else I've said, a relatively small number of jobs means more to Tucson than a larger city. A company with 25 employees total could commit to downtown Tucson and make a major difference in the community. The same company would barely make a dent in downtown Phoenix.

[Ted Lyons]

Again, Combusean is correct and yes that is part of what I was saying. Beyond that Tucson will have to compete (I repeat this because it is important) with cities like Seattle in areas where Tucson might have some economic strength. For military, space, and biotech jobs you are directly competing with Seattle (which has a few of the nation's largest military bases nearby), Phoenix (with Luke and the new F-35 program), Boston (which has one of the highest concentrations of bio-tech firms and a larger complement of university research), etc.

I don't know how well you understand the logistics behind the military-industrial complex. Contractors, of all types, generally locate to cities where their services/products are needed the most and in which they can communicate directly with their counterparts within the military. This primarily depends upon the missions attendant to local military installations.

I honestly don't know much about what the Air Force does at DM but, based on my experience being from Sierra Vista, intelligence contractors have a major presence in the community due to the fact that the fort has a major military intelligence presence. Similarly, there are several high tech contractors located in the community due to the presence of the Electronic Proving Ground and other such facilities. Contrarily, the city is not battling it out for naval shipbuilders.

Another factor you're discounting is potential BRAC decisions which have historically been major concerns for Arizona installations. Potential reallignment decisions are sure to impact future contractor investments more than anything and, due to relatively unchecked encroachment, Luke is susceptible to reallignment more than most installations, especially if McCain isn't around when the decisions are made.

As for university-based investments, those again are tied directly to each university's objectives. So, while Tucson may be competing with cities like Seattle for private investment related to activities pursued mutually between UW and UA, we're not necessarily competing with them for investment related to activities pursued solely by UW and vice versa.

In regard to companies that could relocate to Tucson due to the research conducted by UA, it can only be a good thing that the university has recently decided to commit to a presence downtown. Further, the direct link being constructed between the university and downtown and the current development of residential properties along that link play in our favor as well.

[phxSUNSfan]

I don't know how well you understand the logistics behind the military-industrial complex. Contractors, of all types, generally locate to cities where their services/products are needed the most and in which they can communicate directly with their counterparts within the military. This primarily depends upon the missions attendant to local military installations.

I honestly don't know much about what the Air Force does at DM but, based on my experience being from Sierra Vista, intelligence contractors have a major presence in the community due to the fact that the fort has a major military intelligence presence. Similarly, there are several high tech contractors located in the community due to the presence of the Electronic Proving Ground and other such facilities. Contrarily, the city is not battling it out for naval shipbuilders.

Another factor you're discounting is potential BRAC decisions which have historically been major concerns for Arizona installations. Potential reallignment decisions are sure to impact future contractor investments more than anything and, due to relatively unchecked encroachment, Luke is susceptible to reallignment more than most installations, especially if McCain isn't around when the decisions are made.

As for university-based investments, those again are tied directly to each university's objectives. So, while Tucson may be competing with cities like Seattle for private investment related to activities pursued mutually between UW and UA, we're not necessarily competing with them for investment related to activities pursued solely by UW and vice versa.

In regard to companies that could relocate to Tucson due to the research conducted by UA, it can only be a good thing that the university has recently decided to commit to a presence downtown. Further, the direct link being constructed between the university and downtown and the current development of residential properties along that link play in our favor as well.

Of course, I don't agree...but we'll leave it at that.

[Ted Lyons]

Of course, I don't agree...but we'll leave it at that.

Well, your positions thus far have generally been unfounded, so . . .

[Ted Lyons]

It's *very* difficult and extraordinarily expensive to build rail transit.

A half cent dedicated to multimodal transport (ie, palatable to voters) brings in about $14 billion over 20 years in the Phoenix area--enough for a slew of light rail and bus and freeway improvements that's *on top of* a 4/10 cent transit tax in Phoenix proper that built the initial light rail leg and will construct a few miles of the Northwest Extension.

That same half-cent sales tax in Tucson brings in about a seventh of what it does in Phoenix, yet streetcars are only about half the cost of full-fledged light rail.

Ergo, to complete a transit system or even get it off the ground requires significant federal investment. There is substantial competition amongst other cities to get that money--therefore it's totally reasonable to compare Tucson to other cities because that's exactly what the Federal Transit Administration does.

Further complicating matters is that getting that money also very much depends on having an effective federal representation. Phoenix is lucky to have Pastor in Congress, sitting on the House Transportation Committee, I don't know what weight Tucson's representatives can pull as they flesh out future extensions to the fledgling streetcar.

That all being said, it is now a policy of Obama's FTA to favor the redevelopment potential of routes in the central city as a precursor to increasing density, compared to the Bush FTA policy of favoring routes that simply proposed getting people from Point A downtown to Point B in the suburbs as fast as possible. Eg, freeway-aligned routes that have limited redevelopment opportunities no longer score as high as in-street alignments where the redevelopment opportunity is greater.

Given that Tucson and Phoenix are about 20 years late in the game of using transit to redevelop their downtowns and central areas, there's far more greater gains to be had compared to cities farther along in the downtown/central area revitalization process.

This is a major plus for whatever is proposed in Arizona as far as the FTA is concerned.

I think that's at least part of what phxSUNSfan was getting at.

I totally understand how much the federal government is relied upon to fund these projects. The City of Tucson is only paying $84 million for the streetcar even though the total budget is $197 million. The TIGER grant was only for $63 million but I'd assume there's other federal money helping to bridge the final $50 million (technically $37 million as the project is $13 million under budget).

My basic premise, though, was that, if the redevelopment potential of this $200 million project is comparably equivalent or better than the redevelopment potential of a $1.4 billion project in a different city, we're not really competing on the same level. This also goes to my point that, although a $200 million streetcar may seem piddling and ineffective in Phoenix, it means a lot more in a smaller city like Tucson where major points of interest are much closer to each other.

[phxSUNSfan]

Well, your positions thus far have generally been unfounded, so . . .

Funny, I think your positions are vastly unfounded. You manage to dismiss competition and scarcity spectacularly. Meaning you miss all of the economics behind developing urban places and mass transit. It seems you think Tucson exists in some economic bubble. You pick topics to support your point that are far off base.

I mentioned Seattle's military bases competing with older installations like DM, then you mention Naval Stations...failing to understand that one of the largest joint bases in the nation is near Seattle: Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Army and Air Force). This is the future structure of the military. An exception exists if a base is highly specialized, requiring it to remain open or at current troop levels. DM isn't in that category as their mission can be accomplished on a joint base with greater "sister forces" integration and I came to understand that during my time in the military.

You also think that UofA's research dollars are unique. That is hardly true. 25 years ago ASU wasn't even a Top 100 research institution and UofA was a Top 15. Fast forward to today and ASU and UofA are both in the Top 25 for research and development. ASU and other schools like UW are competing directly with UofA for money and it will get even more competitive.

Also, my posts weren't always in reply to you. I tried to kill two or more birds with one stone but that muddled the conversation (e.g. when addressing high-rise development raised by someone else). Funny thing is we probably agree that Tucson will develop a smaller scale urban environment. Tucson will still need mass transit beyond a streetcar to effectively move its residents. That is where competition on a national scale will be a set back for the city (commuter rail from Marana, through town and into the S. Tucson for instance). You'll be competing with larger cities for those type of projects unless you wish downtown Tucson to remain too small for a city of over half a million people.

[Ted Lyons]

You manage to dismiss competition and scarcity spectacularly.

No. What I dismiss is the idea that, if Tucson doesn't try to model itself after Phoenix, it's setting itself up for failure. This is has been your primary motivator in posting here from day one. The issue of Tucson competing for future transportation funding, which it currently is not and was not at issue, is a total tangent to your initial argument, which was essentially, "Tucson's streetcar won't make a difference and won't attract development and investments." I've provided you with hard evidence about how wrong this is, but you persist, which is how we ended up at the discussion of future funding competition.

Meaning you miss all of the economics behind developing urban places and mass transit. It seems you think Tucson exists in some economic bubble. You pick topics to support your point that are far off base.

See above.

I mentioned Seattle's military bases competing with older installations like DM, then you mention Naval Stations...failing to understand that one of the largest joint bases in the nation is near Seattle: Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Army and Air Force).

I just moved back to Tucson from Washington last year, chief, so I have a pretty decent understanding of the massive military presence in the Sound region. Further, my "naval shipbuilding" comment was simply an anecdote about how installations with limited missions aren't attracting investments from contractors who have no connection to those missions.

Seattle has numerous military installations, most of them with disparate missions, so the region is competing for dollars against cities all over the country. The same can't be said of DM and Luke, which are both relatively minor installations with very specific missions.

Further, due to local factors tied to several of the major installations in Arizona (city encroachment at DM And Luke, water usage at Fort Huachuca) none of our bases are ever going to be considered for massive reallignment additions, so this entire discussion is a non-starter and, again, has nothing to do with your initial point.

You also think that UofA's research dollars are unique.

No. That's not what I said at all. I said UA's research dollars were unique in fields in which their research was unique. This is just simple logic.

You seem to either have reading comprehension problems or you're just so argumentative that you want to believe I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you believe even if I'm not. Yet again, this has nothing to do with your initial argument and has only become a topic of conversation because you've so thoroughly twisted your point, which was this:

You mean become like Phoenix and actually develop real mass transit like light rail? Or have high rise apartments and condos downtown, increased density, cultural attractions, museums, theaters and shopping in the Central City? No, you wouldn't want that for Tucson. It is already as sprawled out as Phoenix for its size but lacks the density and planned mass transit corridors. A 5 mile streetcar wouldn't cut it in Phoenix.

That is where competition on a national scale will be a set back for the city (commuter rail from Marana, through town and into the S. Tucson for instance). You'll be competing with larger cities for those type of projects unless you wish downtown Tucson to remain too small for a city of over half a million people.

See, just as I suspected, this is a debate you've picked out of thin air. I've never even considered that we were discussing issues such as this because I know they're ridiculously far-fetched even given our relatively progressive government and increasing dedication to urbanism.

On this note, though, I don't know if you have a good grasp on what makes Tucson's transportation infrastructure so ineffective. The commute from Marana to downtown isn't really a problem at all right now, and won't be for quite awhile given the current expansion of I-10.

The real issue is cross-town traffic congestion, which is why all of us who live here envision shorter, but much more useful, upgrades down Broadway and up Campbell/Oracle. These are the drives that push people away from living in the city, not the relatively easy drives on the highway.

So, while you're arguing one thing, we're arguing something else altogether and I think that goes right back to you framing your plans for Tucson around what has worked for Phoenix even though each city's needs are not the same.

[aznate27]

Anywho...moving on...

The Star did an article on the bioscience industry here in Arizona. The future is looking pretty bright for even further growth in that industry, especially in the Tucson region.

Bioscience bright spot for jobs in Arizona

Arizona's biosciences sector is expanding despite the still-struggling economy - boosted in Southern Arizona by expansion at companies like Oro Valley-based Ventana Medical Systems/Roche.

Employment in Arizona's biosciences sector rose 7.4 percent from 2009 to 2010, according to the latest update of a statewide bioscience plan commissioned by the Phoenix-based Flinn Foundation.

Locally, much of that job growth came at Ventana Medical Systems, which has added more than 300 jobs since being acquired by German drug giant Roche AG in 2008.

And the company is still expanding, the company's chief said Thursday at a biosciences industry update hosted by Flinn at the Marriott University Park.

Ventana, a University of Arizona technology spinoff that makes tissue-diagnostics instruments, now employs about 1,200 people in Arizona and plans to bring in more workers from recently acquired companies, said Mara Aspinall, named president of Ventana Medical Systems last August.

"Ventana is very proud to be here," Aspinall said in one of her first public speeches since taking Ventana's top post. "We doubled our acreage in the Oro Valley area, and we intend to continue to expand there."

Since Arizona's Bioscience Roadmap was launched in 2002, through 2010, private biosciences employment including hospitals has grown 41 percent, compared with 11 percent nationally, according to a road map update.

In the Tucson region, non-hospital employment in research, testing and medical labs rose 33 percent over the same nine-year period, says a study by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice.

But much work remains to be done to adequately fund the state's research universities, boost federal research grants and attract venture capital to nourish bio startups, said Walter Plosila, senior adviser to Battelle and the report's author.

"The numbers for the whole decade are very strong, and more importantly, we continue to make progress," Plosila said.

Private equity investment in Arizona bioscience firms by venture-capital funds and individual "angel" investors fell from more than $40 million in 2002 to about $25 million last year, the report found.

However, the amount of so-called "risk capital" - considered the lifeblood of many biotech startups - rose last year to an estimated $69 million, Plosila said.

Much of that was attributable to Southern Arizona, where Tucson-based HTG Molecular Diagnostics announced a $15.7 million venture-capital deal, he noted.

"The entrepreneurial engine of Arizona is clearly in the Tucson region," Plosila said, though he added that Arizona still lags in locally based investment.

Arizona has outpaced the nation in the growth of funding from the National Institutes of Health, but the state still gets less than its share of funding by population, Plosila said.

The growth of NIH grants to non-university private research institutes has outpaced university grants, with the dollar amount of grants rising nearly 80 percent between 2002 and 2011, compared with 18 percent for the universities, Plosila noted.

While that's a testament to the strength of private research in the state, it also may reflect the impact of cuts to state university funding, Plosila said.

"The cutbacks in higher-ed funding in the state - $428 million in cuts to date - that's going to be a major challenge," he said.

T.J. Johnson, president and CEO of HTG Molecular and co-chair of the Biosciences Leadership Council of Southern Arizona, said the council recently hosted an event with about 40 legislators to stress the importance of university funding as well as K-12 education.

Arizona's low rankings for public schools don't go unnoticed by prospective employees, said Johnson, whose company has more than doubled its staff since 2008 to about 45 now and plans to double again in the next five years.

"No question - people read the statistics," Johnson said.

Ventana's Aspinall said Arizona's biotechnology assets and collaborative efforts make the state well-positioned to prosper as the medical industry moves toward "personalized" health care - essentially using genetics and related technologies to match patients to therapies.

The state needs to get the word out, she said, adding that she was surprised by the relative strength of the state's biotech industry after arriving from the Boston area.

"Arizona is a hidden gem," she said. "One of the key messages, maybe in the next stage of the road map, is ensuring that others know outside of the community - that is a key piece to creating that movement."

To read the most recent progress report on Arizona's Bioscience Roadmap, go to www.flinn.org.

Contact Assistant Business Editor David Wichner at dwichner@azstarnet.com or 573-4181

[phxSUNSfan]

There was a similar article in the Arizona Republic and Phx Buz Journal concerning bio-tech in Arizona. They were a little different in their analysis of the situation: highlighting growing NIH grants and funding to ASU. It seems a Phoenix/Tucson, ASU/UofA rivalry makes its way into nearly every discussion like these.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2012/01/31/20120131arizona-bioscience-industry-prospers.html

Ted, my commuter rail "for instance" was just that; If an East-West route is needed more it would be prudent to start planning for that now. One way Tucson is very much like Phoenix is its lack of planning for the future. Phoenix should have had commuter rail by now; we have a shovel ready MAG plan in case funding from the Feds becomes available. Tucson needs to do the same...as energy and gas prices contiunue to rise, mass transit will be needed and future development will depend on such transportation infrastructure.

[Anqrew]

New Cushing St Bridge Photos.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420330_246590642084237_147598338650135_567435_1534852874_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/432263_246590672084234_147598338650135_567436_286103958_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/407978_246590705417564_147598338650135_567437_437673241_n.jpg

all from https://www.facebook.com/TucsonStreetcar

[Patrick S]

It seems a Phoenix/Tucson, ASU/UofA rivalry makes its way into nearly every discussion like these.
This is where both cities (and their respective residences) are going wrong. We need to stop thinking of ourselves us Tucsonans and Pheoniciens. Phoenix is a great city, but I love living in Tucson - Phoenix is just too big for me (I grew up in a town of 25,000 people - and it was the biggest town for almost 100 miles, until you hit the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis). Just as some people love living in Phoenix, but still like Tucson. To each their own. We need to start thinking of ourselves as Sun Corridor Residents though. Let's face it, we live in a country right now that is just starting to come out of a massive recession and though austerity measures are not the answer right now (they will only hurt the recovery), they will be needed in the future. With more jobs in the recovery comes more tax dollars, but thanks to the mess we were in and the things needed to get us out of it (the stimulus - which I supported and still think was necessary), we are going to be fighting with other areas for resources. Phoenix may have 4.2 million people in its metro area, but that still is only like #14 or 15 in the country (The Inland-Empire is right above it with Riverside, CA - a town of about 300,000 as it's biggest city - talk about sprawl). I grew up 6 hours from Chicago, but used to go there a lot - that's a big place (almost 10 million). I've been to LA (over 12 million - plus w/ the Inland-Empire part of its Combined Statistical Area it's almost 17 million - and NY - metro area over 18 million, and those dwarf even Chi-town, and make Phoenix look small. I know Tucson is 'only' a million, but every bit helps when you're making the pitch for those all important dollars. Together (and with Pinal County too), we've got about 5.5 million people, two very good universities (but think of Boston w/ Harvard, Boston College, MIT, Boston Univ.), one major airport (Sky Harbor) and another one that can be utilized if needed (TIA), closeness to Mexico, availability to rails (Tucson has lines heading east-west), I-10 in both cities -Phoenix for moving things to the west coast (L.A./S.F./Pacific Northwest) - and Tucson for moving things east to Texas (Dallas/Houston/San Antonio) and Florida (Miami/Jacksonville/Tampa-St. Pete) and I-8 in between for moving things to or from San Diego. Both cities would be perfect places for an inland port - and Tucson may be even better since it's closer to Mexico and the much longer eastern sections of I-10. The point is that we would be much better to work together to help both places. Do I want Tucson to become Phoenix - no way, I moved here little more than 3 years ago and I love it here. Do I want it to be bigger and better, yes, just not sprawled as much as Phoenix. Tucson isn't too big and too built in to have missed its shot at still getting it right in terms of in-filling itself and building up rather than out - and it seems like with new and proposed projects, helped by the streetcar, that it is moving in the right direction. Is the streetcar the answer to all of the problems here - is it the end-all-be-all for the city. No, we need a real light-rail to run down Broadway, to the Airport and DMAFB. And, as much as I don't want Tucson to be Phoenix, I don't want Phoenix to be Tucson. I had grandparents in Chandler when I was younger and used to come out there in the mid to late-1990s, when Chandler was exploding. I like Phoenix, I do, I just like it here better. Both cities have their good points and their bad points. We'll never get anywhere if we argue and compete against each other. phxSUNSfan - I actually thought most of your comments were pretty spot on about Tucson. I also think some down here have an inferiority complex - and probably rightfully so. I grew up in a state dominated by one city that was 350 miles away and had 3/4 of the state's population in its metro area, so I understand Tucson's psyche. I simply state that for both cities to get ahead we need to work together to achieve our goals, especially for the limited resources we are already seeing and are sure to be seeing for the foreseeable future.

[kaneui]

In the latest attempt to save the crumbling Marist College, the Downtown Tucson Partnership is soliciting letters of interest from the private sector to restore the 1915 adobe structure, perhaps as a boutique hotel and restaurant:



http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MaristCollege2012.jpg
Concrete stucco plaster applied to the adobe building in the 1960s locked in moisture; add
clogged roof drains that caused water seepage, and the underlying structure was compromised.
(photo: Benjie Sanders/Arizona Daily Star)


As fixer-upper, historic Marist College has upsides
by Rhonda Bodfield
Arizona Daily Star
February 5, 2012

One of Tucson's most endangered and remarkable historic buildings could be plucked from neglect and given new life. It will take some vision - and a hefty bankroll - to resurrect the historic Marist College, which was built in 1915 and has been unoccupied but for flocks of pigeons for more than a decade. You may have heard it all before. Downtown advocates and historic preservationists have been talking about the urgent need for at least eight years. But so far the only thing that's happened is the building has fallen further into disrepair.

Enter Michael Keith, head of the Downtown Tucson Partnership. He sees past the bird droppings and the dated bathrooms and the tarps on the corners protecting the crumpled adobe from further damage. In Keith's vision, the floors are stripped down to the fir underneath the aged carpet and linoleum. The chipped paint is removed from the bannisters and stairways to show gleaming wood underneath. The low ceilings are removed so they can soar 15 feet overhead. Natural lighting pours through lightly tinted stained-glass windows. The former parochial school for boys ideally would come back as a boutique hotel and restaurant, bathed in soft uplighting and serenaded by the bells of the St. Augustine Cathedral next door.

The partnership this week issued a "request for interest," attempting to gauge the interest level from development teams in bringing the building back. Keith, a developer himself before joining the nonprofit partnership, has coveted the property for more than two decades. A restaurant could easily go in the basement, a former gymnasium that still has basketball backboards mounted on the wall. The two stories above that could accommodate about 20 hotel rooms, by his estimates. "It's a significant cultural asset," he said. Given the right mix, he said, its rebirth could be "brilliant."



For full article: http://azstarnet.com/article_9de8ecd2-34c6-519e-a5c7-0df17d443434.html

[Locofresh55]

In the latest attempt to save the crumbling Marist College, the Downtown Tucson Partnership is soliciting letters of interest from the private sector to restore the 1915 adobe structure, perhaps as a boutique hotel and restaurant:



http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MaristCollege2012.jpg
Concrete stucco plaster applied to the adobe building in the 1960s locked in moisture; add
clogged roof drains that caused water seepage, and the underlying structure was compromised.
(photo: Benjie Sanders/Arizona Daily Star)


As fixer-upper, historic Marist College has upsides
by Rhonda Bodfield
Arizona Daily Star
February 5, 2012

One of Tucson's most endangered and remarkable historic buildings could be plucked from neglect and given new life. It will take some vision - and a hefty bankroll - to resurrect the historic Marist College, which was built in 1915 and has been unoccupied but for flocks of pigeons for more than a decade. You may have heard it all before. Downtown advocates and historic preservationists have been talking about the urgent need for at least eight years. But so far the only thing that's happened is the building has fallen further into disrepair.

Enter Michael Keith, head of the Downtown Tucson Partnership. He sees past the bird droppings and the dated bathrooms and the tarps on the corners protecting the crumpled adobe from further damage. In Keith's vision, the floors are stripped down to the fir underneath the aged carpet and linoleum. The chipped paint is removed from the bannisters and stairways to show gleaming wood underneath. The low ceilings are removed so they can soar 15 feet overhead. Natural lighting pours through lightly tinted stained-glass windows. The former parochial school for boys ideally would come back as a boutique hotel and restaurant, bathed in soft uplighting and serenaded by the bells of the St. Augustine Cathedral next door.

The partnership this week issued a "request for interest," attempting to gauge the interest level from development teams in bringing the building back. Keith, a developer himself before joining the nonprofit partnership, has coveted the property for more than two decades. A restaurant could easily go in the basement, a former gymnasium that still has basketball backboards mounted on the wall. The two stories above that could accommodate about 20 hotel rooms, by his estimates. "It's a significant cultural asset," he said. Given the right mix, he said, its rebirth could be "brilliant."



For full article: http://azstarnet.com/article_9de8ecd2-34c6-519e-a5c7-0df17d443434.html

Boutique hotel??? I guess I under estimated how roomy this place was. I could picture like a boys n girls club or something going there or maybe a bed n breakfast but the truth of the matter is that whatever goes there, they have to do it fast....this building is crumbling more and more and the longer it sits there crumbling, the worse it will get for Tucson. I'd hate to see this building go away but if it does, there better be something fantastic replacing it there.

[Anqrew]

The District is getting finished pretty quick, looks good.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/427049_273189572748934_227412623993296_697078_1853345759_n.jpg

[ComplotDesigner]

How the District on 5th looks from RTC.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5136/district.jpg

[bleunick]

Honestly... Im not a huge fan of how 'The District' looks. The facade doesn't complement any of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood, the old buildings along 4th ave, or the warehouses along 6th. It actually kind of looks like that generic looking Hampton Inn on the east side next to Park Place. The least they could have done was design the south side of the building to fit in with the existing structures along 6th street. Maybe by using all brick or by adding some sort of art deco-y pizazz. I just hope this doesn't start any kind of trend in architectural design for the area.

[Anqrew]

New Broadway-Stone building to house RTA's headquarters

Agency, sharing space with PAG, will be near modern-streetcar stop

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/f2/4f24e357-7d4d-51bd-92d3-2b4cfa153992/4f31f7578988f.image.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/b2/ab2b53c5-29b4-5c66-816c-e21cb6bfaeca/4f31f7568d9fc.image.jpg

Robert Caylor Construction Co. is developing a six-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Stone Avenue. Caylor's One East Broadway building will have parking, street-level retail, offices and 39 apartment units.

Caylor, which specializes in urban infill developments, also owns 2 East Congress, the Chase Bank building next door. The design of the new building will complement the look of its historic neighbor but will be more modern, said owner Rob Caylor.

He said he hopes to start construction this fall, for the building to open around the same time as the modern streetcar late next year.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-broadway-stone-building-to-house-rta-s-headquarters/article_d7f28a4e-813d-578c-baee-0d4e732a0f33.html#ixzz1llvhTuP3

[Ted Lyons]

Robert Caylor Construction Co. is developing a six-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Stone Avenue. Caylor's One East Broadway building will have parking, street-level retail, offices and 39 apartment units.

Caylor, which specializes in urban infill developments, also owns 2 East Congress, the Chase Bank building next door. The design of the new building will complement the look of its historic neighbor but will be more modern, said owner Rob Caylor.

He said he hopes to start construction this fall, for the building to open around the same time as the modern streetcar late next year.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-broadway-stone-building-to-house-rta-s-headquarters/article_d7f28a4e-813d-578c-baee-0d4e732a0f33.html#ixzz1llvhTuP3

I just saw this on StarNet. Exciting news. This adds to the pretty lengthy list of midrise projects slated to begin construction downtown this year.

[kaneui]

New Broadway-Stone building to house RTA's headquarters

Agency, sharing space with PAG, will be near modern-streetcar stop

Robert Caylor Construction Co. is developing a six-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Stone Avenue. Caylor's One East Broadway building will have parking, street-level retail, offices and 39 apartment units.

Caylor, which specializes in urban infill developments, also owns 2 East Congress, the Chase Bank building next door. The design of the new building will complement the look of its historic neighbor but will be more modern, said owner Rob Caylor.

He said he hopes to start construction this fall, for the building to open around the same time as the modern streetcar late next year.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-broadway-stone-building-to-house-rta-s-headquarters/article_d7f28a4e-813d-578c-baee-0d4e732a0f33.html#ixzz1llvhTuP3


^Good news all around: TOD/urban infill, one less surface parking lot, another headquarters downtown, market-rate housing...Broadway is really going through a transformation.

[Ted Lyons]

I was bored last night and created a map for projects that are set to begin construction this year. I didn't include transportation projects as I'm not that good with Google Maps, but I might work on adding them in the future. Let me know if I'm missing anything and I'll keep updating as things are announced.

http://g.co/maps/8nyva

[Ted Lyons]

New Broadway-Stone building to house RTA's headquarters

Agency, sharing space with PAG, will be near modern-streetcar stop

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/f2/4f24e357-7d4d-51bd-92d3-2b4cfa153992/4f31f7578988f.image.jpg
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/b2/ab2b53c5-29b4-5c66-816c-e21cb6bfaeca/4f31f7568d9fc.image.jpg

Robert Caylor Construction Co. is developing a six-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Stone Avenue. Caylor's One East Broadway building will have parking, street-level retail, offices and 39 apartment units.

Caylor, which specializes in urban infill developments, also owns 2 East Congress, the Chase Bank building next door. The design of the new building will complement the look of its historic neighbor but will be more modern, said owner Rob Caylor.

He said he hopes to start construction this fall, for the building to open around the same time as the modern streetcar late next year.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-broadway-stone-building-to-house-rta-s-headquarters/article_d7f28a4e-813d-578c-baee-0d4e732a0f33.html#ixzz1llvhTuP3

Warning: Don't read the comments. :rolleyes:

[atbg8654]

I was bored last night and created a map for projects that are set to begin construction this year. I didn't include transportation projects as I'm not that good with Google Maps, but I might work on adding them in the future. Let me know if I'm missing anything and I'll keep updating as things are announced.

http://g.co/maps/8nyva

:tup:

[andrewsaturn]

Warning: Don't read the comments. :rolleyes:

Too late I did already. lol! I wanted to create an account to say something just to make them mad! :P

[Anqrew]

Warning: Don't read the comments. :rolleyes:

i just dont understand where these people are coming from, theyre all so against everything, what do they want, downtown to be a giant parking lot?

[nickw252]

i just dont understand where these people are coming from, theyre all so against everything, what do they want, downtown to be a giant parking lot?

They don't want there to be a downtown. They don't want traffic. They don't want people. Ignore the stupid comments. :cheers:

[Ted Lyons]

i just dont understand where these people are coming from, theyre all so against everything, what do they want, downtown to be a giant parking lot?

I really wish I could explain it, but I think the overarching issue is that many of them associate downtown with government interference in the free market. This likely stems from Rio Nuevo and it frames the anti-RTA sentiment in many of the comments.

Obviously, this viewpoint is flawed on several levels - specifically in that this project, like most others occurring downtown, is being privately funded and developed - but trolls on newspaper websites tend not to adhere to logic. Every privately developed project, in their minds, is born out of collusion with our "corrupted" city government, so there's really no winning them over.

I don't know what their vision is for our city - but the one lady who said our city leaders should go up to the Phoenix suburbs to get a good idea of what Tucson should be give me a good idea - I just know that their myopic goal is to undermine our city government as much as possible in order to effect a change in leadership. The same plan is at work on a federal level as we speak.

[Patrick S]

I really wish I could explain it, but I think the overarching issue is that many of them associate downtown with government interference in the free market. This likely stems from Rio Nuevo and it frames the anti-RTA sentiment in many of the comments.

Obviously, this viewpoint is flawed on several levels - specifically in that this project, like most others occurring downtown, is being privately funded and developed - but trolls on newspaper websites tend not to adhere to logic. Every privately developed project, in their minds, is born out of collusion with our "corrupted" city government, so there's really no winning them over.

I don't know what their vision is for our city - but the one lady who said our city leaders should go up to the Phoenix suburbs to get a good idea of what Tucson should be give me a good idea - I just know that their myopic goal is to undermine our city government as much as possible in order to effect a change in leadership. The same plan is at work on a federal level as we speak.
I think you're right, they have been so brainwashed by the idea that government is so bad, and that it shouldn't involve itself into the economy (though they don't mind regulating morality), forgetting that many great things have been built with government help - canals in the 18th century, the Trans-Continental Railroad in the 19th century, and the interstate system in the 20th century. They also forget that without Roosevelt and the Hoover Dams - partly funded by the government - there would be no one living in Arizona, because we'd have no water or electricity.

I also think these people are afraid of progress. People equate progressiveness with liberalism, and it scares them. As Peter Griffin once said on Family Guy as he rode on top of an elephant, "Look, I'm the two symbols of the Republican Party - and elephant, and a fat white guy afraid of change". These people are the reason we don't have a cross-town freeway (and it takes me 30 minutes to get to the UA campus from Prudence, between Broadway and 22nd St.) in Tucson. They wanted to keep Tucson a sleepy little town, figuring if they didn't build the conveniences big cities have, that people wouldn't come here - but they did (myself being one of those that did). Now they don't want the streetcar and anything to make it look like downtown's succeeding. They'd rather be right than do right. This is from the same crowd that says their #1 priority is to make Obama a one term President, since if they make things better for the country, he might get re-elected.

[Ted Lyons]

I was driving down Toole last night and saw that the land is being (re)cleared for the new courts complex.

[kaneui]

Local preservationists warn that the city's new urban overlay districts to encourage TOD along the modern streetcar route are threatening the character of numerous historic neighborhoods in and around downtown:


Sacrifice Zone
The city may be throwing historic neighborhoods under the bus—or, rather, the modern streetcar

by Tim Vanderpool
Tucson Weekly
February 8, 2012

Relentless traffic clogs Euclid Avenue, passing a church, a bank and a cluster of old houses that survive as refugees from the UA's endless expansion. In Tucson's rush to plant high-density housing near the planned modern streetcar line, and under white-hot pressure from big developers, even those old dwellings may soon feel the ax. The City Council took a big step in that direction Dec. 13, when it voted unanimously to loosen historic-preservation protections in a new urban overlay zone. If that leads to an expected rezoning of this area, demolition of those homes could be a done deal, as they make way for two high-rise student apartment complexes.

Critics might be pardoned for thinking the fix is in, especially since the developer—Chicago-based Campus Acquisitions—has already submitted its paperwork to the city's Planning and Development Services Department, before the rezoning has been granted to allow its projects. Detractors may be rightfully concerned, considering that this rezoning could result in the loss of nearly 30 historic buildings. According to the city's historic preservation officer, that would fuel a trend, potentially threatening the West University Neighborhood's status as a nationally registered historic district.

For a glimpse into the future, one needs to look no further than The District, a 756-bed student housing project rising on West University's southern flank. That project added insult to injury by prompting the demolition of two old homes in its path, including an 1880s adobe. The collegiate behemoth arrived in West University thanks to the infill-incentive district, another city-initiated zone encouraging downtown-area development by reducing or waiving permit fees, and scrapping height and density restrictions. Such sweeping changes, planned for nearly a half-dozen "overlay districts" circling downtown, have put leaders of inner-city neighborhoods on high alert.

Among them is John Burr, president of the Armory Park Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood encompasses a residential area south of downtown that also includes an expansive, federally registered historic area. Burr argues that planned changes where West University brushes against the UA—the so-called "transition zone" near Speedway Boulevard and Euclid Avenue—should raise red flags for everyone. "It's the first time the city has decided to backtrack on one of its federal historic districts," he says. "I find it threatening if this sets a precedent for disregarding historic districts as being important to the overall cohesive character of downtown."

Preservation activist Ken Scoville is blunt. "This has probably been the first time, that I know of, where there's been a major assault against a major historic district," he says. "It's a Trojan horse to see if (the city) can get this through and incentivize the demolition of historic properties by these height overlays." Scoville is referring to a key component of the transition-area overlay zone, which relaxes current height restrictions on area properties. While city officials say the move is meant to encourage adaptation and reuse of historic properties, Scoville calls it a recipe for destruction. "The city can say anything they want about the property owner still having to go through the demolition process" for a historic home, he says. "But that height overlay will ultimately win out, to destroy the property."

Under the proposed overlay, preservation could become voluntary for those owning historic properties. For instance, they might seek demolition approval from the City Council by showing that their old structures couldn't be readapted in any economically sensible way. "I think it would possibly be a tool" to demolish historic properties, concedes Ernie Duarte, director of the city's Planning and Development Services Department. "Still, what we're building into the (urban overlay district) are incentives ... to rehabilitate historic properties for commercial purposes that you can't do right now."

The city's historic preservation officer, Jonathan Mabry, takes a darker view. Because the City Council wasn't interested in granting him an agenda slot, Mabry filled out a speakers' card at its Dec. 13 discussion of the transition zone. He then used his four minutes to describe how 55 structures have already been demolished since West University's historic district was created in 1984. "Clearly, previous councils found rationales compelling (demolition) about 50 times," Mabry said. "Twenty-nine property owners in the transition area now have a significant incentive to apply for demolition applications. Based on the historical trend that I just described, it's not far-fetched to think that 10, 15 years from now, all or a majority of those historic properties will have demolition applications approved for them. ... That type of erosion to the historic district may lead to a loss of the historic district designation over time."

Contacted later by phone, Ward 3 Councilwoman Karin Uhlich described her unsuccessful motion at that meeting to have a historically rich portion of the transition zone reconsidered by the city's Planning Commission. "I didn't feel comfortable with the extent of the process," she says. This breathless approach also sparked concerns from the Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission, which was nearly left out of the discussion altogether, and now opposes the current plans. Indeed, process—or the lack thereof—seems to be the hallmark of this shotgun debate. Critics call it part of a blind rush toward downtown development. But to Duarte, the "goal is to encourage transit and pedestrian-oriented development, as there is a $300 million investment with the city of Tucson in the streetcar, and it will cut right through this area."

But that goal could affect historic areas across the heart of Tucson, from the El Presidio Historic District in Ward 1 to Armory Park in Ward 6. Ward 1 Councilwoman Regina Romero didn't return repeated calls seeking comment. But Councilman Steve Kozachik, representing Ward 6, says that everyone has enjoyed a chance to pipe in. "Neighborhoods aren't locked out. But the fact is that nobody is going to get everything they're after."

Unless, of course, you're a big developer with money to burn. At least that's the experience of Chris Gans, president of the West University Neighborhood Association. Gans watched plans for The District take shape on his doorstep. "The neighborhood expressed concerns about the heights, the zero setbacks, densities, the architectural aspects," he says, "and none of that was responded to. In fact, we got greater density; we got greater heights and no change in setbacks. And architecturally, it is nothing that relates to our neighborhood." This attitude puts the very heart of Tucson at risk, he says. "A longer-term vision is really required here, and I don't see that coming about. They're really just trying to do something that's convenient and quick."


http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/sacrifice-zone/Content?oid=3227409

[Ted Lyons]

At the end of the day, if we're going to conflate the issues of traffic and historic preservation, one of the two issues will inevitably have to be sacrificed. I don't necessarily land on either side of the debate but the point is that we need higher density housing near the university unless we want students and workers clogging up traffic for miles around the university.

As it is, 1020 Tyndall does come at the sacrifice of a somewhat historic motor court, but that property is already surrounded by stripmalls, a Jack in the Box, and a (modern-style) mosque, so the overlay district is hardly the undoing of the neighborhood.

EDIT - The mosque itself is not offensive. The fact that it does not fit in with the neighbhorhood's existing architecture is the point.

[kaneui]

At the end of the day, if we're going to conflate the issues of traffic and historic preservation, one of the two issues will inevitably have to be sacrificed. I don't necessarily land on either side of the debate but the point is that we need higher density housing near the university unless we want students and workers clogging up traffic for miles around the university.

As it is, 1020 Tyndall does come at the sacrifice of a somewhat historic motor court, but that property is already surrounded by stripmalls, a Jack in the Box, and a (modern-style) mosque, so the overlay district is hardly the undoing of the neighborhood.

EDIT - The mosque itself is not offensive. The fact that it does not fit in with the neighbhorhood's existing architecture is the point.


Also, I'm not sure what significant architectural changes you can make to a high-rise apartment building so it fits in with these mostly eclectic, one-story, single-family home neighborhoods. It's urban replacing suburban, no matter how you slice it, and most areas close to the UofA are going to experience some growing pains in the coming years, whether they like it or not.

No doubt, these powerful neighborhood associations--which in the past have been able to delay or deny any number of proposals--are alarmed that the city is approving the TOD projects in a timely fashion. (Maybe they would prefer that nothing change, and thus continue the proliferation of the hated mini-dorms.)

I think the city learned its lesson a few years ago with Williams & Dame, the Portland developer who pulled out of a major downtown development agreement after realizing the difficulties in dealing with the City Hall bureaucracy. And with the streetcar investment at stake, there is pressure to encourage the necessary TOD that will be crucial to meet the projected ridership numbers.

[Locofresh55]

Also, I'm not sure what significant architectural changes you can make to a high-rise apartment building so it fits in with these mostly eclectic, one-story, single-family home neighborhoods. It's urban replacing suburban, no matter how you slice it, and most areas close to the UofA are going to experience some growing pains in the coming years, whether they like it or not.

No doubt, these powerful neighborhood associations--which in the past have been able to delay or deny any number of proposals--are alarmed that the city is approving the TOD projects in a timely fashion. (Maybe they would prefer that nothing change, and thus continue the proliferation of the hated mini-dorms.)

I think the city learned its lesson a few years ago with Williams & Dame, the Portland developer who pulled out of a major downtown development agreement after realizing the difficulties in dealing with the City Hall bureaucracy. And with the streetcar investment at stake, there is pressure to encourage the necessary TOD that will be crucial to meet the projected ridership numbers.

Of course they prefer that nothing change, they would rather keep their neighborhoods intact and hide behind the "historical importance/significance" front when we know that there are many NIMBY's in these neighborhoods and they want to keep Tucson as a "small town" when it is definitely a sprawling metropolis with true potential to be a true hub in the southwest (hub for whatever really). I'm glad that these projects are getting developed and it is not an overkill of megaprojects that may not be completed. Tucson doesn't need to build 30-40 buildings all 30 stories or higher, but adding this crucial infill density at this time with the streetcar getting off the ground will prove to be beneficial for Tucson. The trouble is that so many NIMBYs aren't liking it.

[acatalanb]

Those neighborhood associations no longer have significance in the Old Pueblo. The trend these days at least in America (or even the world) is urbanization. Suburban living is dead or will be dying. Urban living is in. It's just getting more expensive to own a suburban home and a new vehicle with all the bills piling up and saving for a rainy day in case you get laid off, again...the new normal. With still high unemployment and desperation of government revenues, the COT and other gov't institutions especially in one of the emptiest cities in America, Tucson, will be doing everything they can to keep generating jobs and revenues. Of course, if people want to live in an anti-urban pro-suburbia, there's always Maricopa County. :haha:

Expect more high rises in Tucson. Starting with 4-10 stories and eventually 20+ stories.;) The byzantine codes in the city development services should be finalized this summer (it's been in the works for the last 3 years). Permits to build new hotels in the U.S. should also speed up per Obama presidential executive order (just Google it). The new mayor hopefully will fill his promise of his pro-business stance and the motto, 'Finished what you started'. So things should be moving forward.

I'll be looking into that new (and nice looking) Broadway-Stone building to live and work when it gets done (although I'd wished they add more floors above it). Finally, downtown will have an office/apt complex! Yes, that mosque by Tyndall is out of place with all the student parties and bars around. It should be moved someplace downtown or north of the UofA (Jefferson neighborhood?). That expensive hotel by Tyndall is out of place too...it needs to be replaced with a nicer looking hotel cause it's damn ugly!!

I hope they put a permanent playground someplace downtown.;) They had a slide and ferris wheel last weekend's 2nd Saturdays and it was quite popular. And let me guess, those NIMBY idiots would complain it does not complement with their 'historic' neighborhood...so does the UofA and downtown and I-10 freeway and Mexico and the Pacific Ocean and the world....they need to shut up.

btw, thanks for posting that link, urbika.com . It's a nice site. Makes you now think, how poor Tucson or even the rest of America is relative to what you see in this site.

That Rainbow Bridge will eventually be built.;) Appreciate your support for high density, pro-public transport, pro-crosstown freeway, pro-light rail, pro-high speed train and pro-urban living...if you're not supportive of either one of these, you are a prune loving old bag receiving your gov't benefits posting your hate towards progress and your gov't (wha?) at azstarnet all day long. The site of watching a bulldozer bulldozed a cactus is just horrendous! I'd rather see a strip mall get bulldozed.

I'm off the next few months so I'll be back!:cool: Hasta la vista, baby!

Rita Rancher! Where's your Rainbow Bridge cheer? Bear up! not down! :tup::yes:

[Ted Lyons]

(Maybe they would prefer that nothing change, and thus continue the proliferation of the hated mini-dorms.)

I hadn't thought of this issue but these upcoming developments are fractionally less offensive than minidorms. However, the property owners complaining right now would probably like to have it both ways - no minidorms and no large complexes.

[kaneui]

Tucson's newly-elected mayor covered a lot of ground in his first State of the City address, including his goals to: restore confidence in city government, with a big emphasis on customer service; focus on core services, including police, fire, street maintenance, parks, transit, and graffiti; and revisit annexation/incorporation possibilities to reclaim more state-shared revenues.


Rothschild: State of City getting stronger
by Jonathan Rothschild, Mayor of Tucson
Tucson Sentinel
February 14, 2012

(Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild's State of the City address, as prepared for delivery Tuesday: )

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Thank you to the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce for hosting today's luncheon and for donating a part of the proceeds to the Community Food Bank, Casa de los Niños, and the Educational Enrichment Foundation. This is the kind of creative partnership that needs to be applauded.

The state of our city is getting stronger. City revenues are up 4.6 percent this year. That's good news. It tells us we're beginning the slow climb out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. As our economy recovers, it will be tempting to go back to how we've done things in the past. It is imperative that we not fall into that trap. We have an opportunity to remake our city government—to address our long-term concerns, assert our role as the largest city in Southern Arizona, and fulfill our commitments to our citizens. In short, to make Tucson work. This means: putting people back to work, making city government work, and establishing partnerships to find creative solutions to our long-term challenges.

It is appropriate that we are here on February 14, 2012. On this day, 100 years ago, Arizona was admitted to the Union. This past Sunday was the birthday of Abraham Lincoln—perhaps our greatest example of courage and wisdom in government. And today is Valentine's Day—a time to recognize the most important partnerships in our lives. To make Tucson work, we will need to have an honest sense of our history. We will need the courage and the wisdom to make the right decisions, not just the easy ones. And we will need to work together—keeping in mind that each of us loves Tucson, and wants it to be a vibrant city.

For complete address: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/021412_state_of_city/rothschild-state-city-getting-stronger/


**Regarding his argument for annexation and/or incorporation, the mayor correctly notes that Maricopa County, with roughly 60% of Arizona's population, has only 7% of its residents living in unincorporated areas. This is significantly less than all other Arizona counties, whose unincorporated populations range from 30% in Yuma County, up to 86% in Apache County.

Since a portion of all state sales taxes, state income taxes, and highway user revenues are returned to all incorporated cities and towns, it means Maricopa County municipalities receive 70% of all state-shared revenues, while the county has only 60% of the state's population. So if the streets and infrastructure in metro Phoenix look a bit better than in the rest of the state, this could be one of the reasons why.

Using Pima County as an example: with 2009 state-shared revenues of approx. $1.346B, if Pima County was getting a proportional share of those revenues (15% of total state population), versus the 12% of incorporated population it has now, that would translate into roughly $40M in additional revenue each year.

[nickw252]

**Regarding his argument for annexation and/or incorporation, the mayor correctly notes that Maricopa County, with roughly 60% of Arizona's population, has only 7% of its residents living in unincorporated areas. This is significantly less than all other Arizona counties, whose unincorporated populations range from 30% in Yuma County, up to 86% in Apache County.

Since a portion of all state sales taxes, state income taxes, and highway user revenues are returned to all incorporated cities and towns, it means Maricopa County municipalities receive 70% of all state-shared revenues, while the county has only 60% of the state's population. So if the streets and infrastructure in metro Phoenix look a bit better than in the rest of the state, this could be one of the reasons why.

Using Pima County as an example: with 2009 state-shared revenues of approx. $1.346B, if Pima County was getting a proportional share of those revenues (15% of total state population), versus the 12% of incorporated population it has now, that would translate into roughly $40M in additional revenue each year.

You're comparing apples and oranges when it comes to unincorporated areas. First, it is the cities get the money, not the county. The fact that the vast majority of Maricopa County is incorporates is irrelevant in this discussion because the tax revenue is collected and divided proportionately. People in unincorporated Pima County pay lower sales tax than those in incorporated cities. (6.6% compared to anywhere between 8 - 10%). No one is getting a handout here. People in cities pay higher taxes, that city gets more revenue.

Lastly, where did you get the number that Maricopa County municipalities get 70% of shared revenue? I didn't see that number in your link. Regardless of whether the number is accurate, keep in mind that 70% of the shared revenue came from those cities located in Maricopa County.

Lastly, I agree that Tucson should annex outlying areas. Businesses are not on an even playing field when one is only paying 6.6% sales tax while the one in Tucson is paying upwards of 10% sales tax. I recently went to a nursery on the outskirts of Tucson and that is precisely what they were pushing - "come to us, we don't pay Tucson taxes."

[aznate27]

It's not as tall as the original project (you can thank the nimbys for that), but it still gives a little height to the area. Just like the person in the article said, I affectionately refer the four story building in Tucson as "The Tucson Skyscraper"...haha.


Autographed beam completes steel skeleton of 4-story structure
TMC marks milestone in building of addition


Tucson Medical Center held a "topping out" ceremony Wednesday afternoon to mark completion of the strong steel skeleton for a four-story hospital addition that opens in 2013.

"A specially prepared steel beam has been traveling around TMC, accumulating signatures from well-wishers" before it was permanently placed Wednesday on top of the steel structure, the hospital said in a news release.

Independently owned physicians group Tucson Orthopaedic Institute will lease the first floor when the new building opens next year. The second and third floors will house 24 operating rooms, including high-tech surgical suites, and the top floor will hold 40 private patient rooms.

The total building size will be more than 200,000 square feet.

Architects for the project are Michigan-based Hobbs+Black and Tucson's DLR Group.

Program manager is Hill International of New Jersey.

Construction contractors are JE Dunn (Phoenix and nationwide offices) and Barker Morrissey (Tucson), along with multiple local subcontractors and suppliers, TMC said.

DID YOU KNOW?

Tucson Medical Center, which sits on 118 acres, has been the largest single-story hospital in the United States, TMC officials have said. "TMC is known for its single-story profile, so the new building is something of a skyscraper by TMC standards," a hospital spokesman said in a news release.

.Copyright 2012 Arizona Daily Star. All rights reserved

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/10/610292ed-61e8-577f-aca4-bcc27eea4e2c/4f3c5fab471c3.image.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/37/237401c6-0a4d-5d8a-b5e6-ddcfa87fc1fc/4f3c5fac5e001.image.jpg

[Thirsty]

Sorry for jumping back a few weeks;

Interestingly the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a kind of wish-list of future transportation plans to have completed by 2040 (it is independent of the RTA). They propose 3 new lines for the streetcar (or even light-rail). One is east on Broadway from downtown, north on Park, east on 6th, south on Campbell, and east on Broadway to El Con Mall. The other 2 are (1) extending line being built to UMC, north up Campbell, west on Prince, north on Oracle to the Tucson Mall & (2) From downtown, south down 6th Ave./Nogales Hwy. to the Laos Transit Center @ Irvington Road. They envision that the Laos Transit Center as a place where this route, bus routes and BRT routes can all converge.

I'd been kicking a similar plan around in my head for a while but with the southern arm reaching down Campbell/Tucson Blvd to the Airport. Seems like a bigger boost for bringing business/conventions downtown.

Rather than three independent systems, I'm thinking about a loop around downtown and the University. Each branch of the system (N, E and S) stemming from this loop.

This way, suppose the BRT or Light Rail on each branch comes every fifteen minutes, the downtown/UA stops would be serviced every five.

Extending the trolly to El Con sounds fine, but if the RTP's plan includes nothing but trollies sharing lanes with traffic then forget about it. The proposed BRT routes in the Broadway proposal are very encouraging.

[Patrick S]

Sorry for jumping back a few weeks;


I'd been kicking a similar plan around in my head for a while but with the southern arm reaching down Campbell/Tucson Blvd to the Airport. Seems like a bigger boost for bringing business/conventions downtown.

Rather than three independent systems, I'm thinking about a loop around downtown and the University. Each branch of the system (N, E and S) stemming from this loop.

This way, suppose the BRT or Light Rail on each branch comes every fifteen minutes, the downtown/UA stops would be serviced every five.

Extending the trolly to El Con sounds fine, but if the RTP's plan includes nothing but trollies sharing lanes with traffic then forget about it. The proposed BRT routes in the Broadway proposal are very encouraging.
That's funny, I actually came up with my own idea for a bigger streetcar/light-rail line too (I've mapped out lines on a map and written up lines on my computer). I totally agree there should be a line down Campbell to the airport (passing by the future bio-science park) with links down Ajo to UPH and Kino Park (baseball stadium) and possibly out to DMAFB and the Pima Air & Space Museum.

[Patrick S]

**Regarding his argument for annexation and/or incorporation, the mayor correctly notes that Maricopa County, with roughly 60% of Arizona's population, has only 7% of its residents living in unincorporated areas. This is significantly less than all other Arizona counties, whose unincorporated populations range from 30% in Yuma County, up to 86% in Apache County.

Since a portion of all state sales taxes, state income taxes, and highway user revenues are returned to all incorporated cities and towns, it means Maricopa County municipalities receive 70% of all state-shared revenues, while the county has only 60% of the state's population. So if the streets and infrastructure in metro Phoenix look a bit better than in the rest of the state, this could be one of the reasons why.

Using Pima County as an example: with 2009 state-shared revenues of approx. $1.346B, if Pima County was getting a proportional share of those revenues (15% of total state population), versus the 12% of incorporated population it has now, that would translate into roughly $40M in additional revenue each year.

You're right about getting more of the area and its population into towns and cities. Rothschild isn't the first mayor to call for it, but, he seems to be the first one - at least for a while - to say that it doesn't have to be done by annexing these people into the city of Tucson. He says if that doesn't work for people - coming into Tucson - then they should look at incorporating their areas into their own towns and cities, or even being annexed into other towns, such as Marana, Oro Valley or Sahaurita. About 1/3 of the Tucson metro area lives outside of an incorporated area and our area is losing money because of it.

[aznate27]

Has anyone either gone to ITT Tech or has an opinion on them?? I'm thinking of going to their school of drafting and design, but at $44,000 for an assoc degree...that's mvking me have second thoughts. How about Pima or any other schools? Thanks.

[AJphx]

Well I am not generally a fan of the for-profit colleges like ITT Tech (although ITT Tech may be decent since it is an established vocational college, unlike university of phx and devry and all those trying to just be traditional unis) . I personally would never go to one. It just shocks me how much they charge and that people will pay that much to go these schools. I mean you are paying more than it costs to attend Ivy League universities to go to these places. And their business models rely on encouraging people who often times can't or shouldn't be going to these schools to get massive loans to pay for it.

(Now for Full disclosure: I work at a private for-profit university)

I can't really tell you anything specifically about ITT Tech as I haven't gone there. But to be fair and give the flip side of the coin, I imagine that the fact you are paying so much probably means that ITT Tech has a lot more modern technology, tools, and software for you to use than you are going to get at a community college. Also from my experience at the place I work, many/most of the employees and instructors are legitimate, knowledgeable, educated, and supportive of the students. So its not just whatever people they managed to pick up who just show up to push you through and pay.


As for the other schools, I looked at Pima CC's website and they have associate degrees in computer aided drafting and various degrees in design and graphic-design. And at a community college you can get an associates for less than $5000. Just for that huge price difference, I personally would go to the community college, but also in terms of employment afterwards, I can't imagine that an employer would particularly care whether your associates is from IIT Tech or a local Comm College. Of course a degree is not just about employment but learning skills. You would probably learn more technologies at ITT Tech, but maybe thats not a concern for you. Either way I wouldn't consider the price difference to be worth it.

Ultimately I don't really know what they standing of IIT Tech in the drafting and design field is. Maybe its very favorable. But it also depends on what specifically you want to study in design and drafting. If ITT Tech has a very specific field you are interested in, that could be an issue. But if its just for a general drafting or graphic design I would look into Pima. And honestly just for the huge difference in cost I would go for Pima. (really you will just want to find out from companies in the design/drafting field whether an ITT Tech degree gives a huge advantage - but I think it is unlikely)

[aznate27]

Thanks for the info. The only reason why I was thinking of ITT Tech was they have a decent track record of local and state companies recruting there. Raytheon has hired a few students from the school in the past couple years as well as some solar panel companies. My ultimate goal is to get a job in the field of city planning and development, and ITT Tech's School of Drafting and Design seems to have good programs toward that goal, it includes all your books, tutoring, and some equipment. So far everyone I talk to say the same thing...the price seems rediculously high for an assc degree, and only 20 months of school. I would have to get like $15,000 in grants for me to even feel somewhat better about the price, something that would be highly unlikely or hard to do.

I'll check into Pima and anyother options before I decide for sure.

[AJphx]

I am assuming you only want to do a two year degree or don't want to attend UofA since you didn't mention it. You would have to get a 4 year degree of course, but they have specific degrees for urban planning and those sorts of things. And a 4 year degree at UofA is still cheaper than a 2 year degree at ITT Tech.

[Ted Lyons]

I am assuming you only want to do a two year degree or don't want to attend UofA since you didn't mention it. You would have to get a 4 year degree of course, but they have specific degrees for urban planning and those sorts of things. And a 4 year degree at UofA is still cheaper than a 2 year degree at ITT Tech.

I would go this route if it's at all possible, primary reason being that the cost quoted for ITT Tech seems almost unjustifiable. $44k gets you a good way through a bachelors degree at UA and a four year degree will be much more beneficial in the longterm.

[aznate27]

I would go this route if it's at all possible, primary reason being that the cost quoted for ITT Tech seems almost unjustifiable. $44k gets you a good way through a bachelors degree at UA and a four year degree will be much more beneficial in the longterm.

I hear ya...I just really hate the thought of four years as opposed to two years in school. I'm not in my twenties anymore and pushing towards forty. The woman from ITT Tech called me yesterday to do a follow up (even though I told her to call next week) and I asked her point blank: " What makes $44,000 worth it?"...she struggled with the answer. She finally led on that a good portion of the money goes to pay the high teacher salaries there, since they recruit from people already working in the field of study. No one will leave a good paying job to teach at a teacher's normal salary for sure, but it also leads to good quality education for the students.

I have until June to think about it, so plenty of time for research. I appreciate the feedback!:tup:

[aznate27]

Downtown's biggest building still looking to replace main tenant

KVOA-TV
updated 2/25/2012 12:46:07 AM ET 2012-02-25T05:46:07


Tucson Electric Power moved out of One South Church after they built their new headquarters Downtown.

TEP occupied about 15% of the building. They also took the Unisource name off the doors when they left.

Buzz Isaacson is the main real estate agent in charge of leasing the space. He says the building was mostly full before TEP left. He is confident it will fill back up.

But many older buildings Downtown are largely empty.

The Pioneer Building at Stone Avenue and Pennington Street is 60% empty. The US Bank building at Stone Avenue and Congress Street is only about half full.

The buildings are owned by the Holualoa Companies. Michael Kasser is the president.

"It's not just our building," Kasser said. "I think it's all the buildings. It's a lot of vacancy, and this is like standard."

Overall, most people in real estate Downtown say it is going in the right direction, including Kasser.

"There's a good energy that's being developed," Kasser said. "It's going to take time for it to build up again."

When TEP left the former Unisource building, they actually added jobs to the Downtown area. The new resource-efficient headquarters is about 232,000 square feet.

Fewer than 100 TEP employees worked in the Unisource Building. They brought 400 new employees to the new facility.

Many local businesses are thriving off the workers Downtown.

Janos Wilder opened Downtown Kitchen and Cocktails within the past couple years.

"Because this is where the people are," Wilder said. "That's vitally important to us. That's what drives the lunch business."

[Anqrew]

Interesting article about the 'stump" on Broadway and Church and how it will get a makeover. The article also hints at a Tower II for the site, although nothing is planned.

Tucson Oddity: Covered-up building 'stump' soon will get arts makeover

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/16/d169e17d-20ed-5110-a753-99e5355452bc/4f4b00bb23258.image.jpg

A plywood structure that covers a three-story concrete hole in the ground near downtown's tallest building will soon get a face-lift.

"The bump, the hump and the stump" - as it is referred to by many - has been at Stone Avenue and Broadway since 1986, when a 22-story skyscraper opened at 1 S. Church Ave.

That skyscraper - a project of the then-Sundt Corp. now known as Sundt Construction Inc. - remains the tallest building downtown. It was first known as the United Bank Tower, then Citibank Tower, followed by Norwest Tower and then UniSource Energy Tower.

Now it is referred to as "One South Church" or "The Tower," and what should have been its twin tower has not been realized, said Buzz Isaacson, first vice president for CBRE.

Rather, the plywood structure covers the foundation and structural core for "Tower II".

Isaacson has not given up on construction of a Tower II for office space. In the original plans, that tower was expected to have gone up by 1989, but there was overbuilding in the office market.

When Tower II will be built all depends on the market, said Isaacson, who is the leasing agent and represents Massachusetts-based Commonwealth, the building's owners.

But, come April the north-side portion of the structure will be covered in colorful mosaic tiles showing figures of people joining hands - a project by the nonprofit organization Ben's Bells.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/tucson-oddity-covered-up-building-stump-soon-will-get-arts/article_d218dd47-dc9c-539f-89e8-2ff9748a5ebe.html

[Anqrew]

Construction under way on prime Foothills corner
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/d5/dd5ec359-9a34-55b4-a6eb-a01c24c80ff3/4f4d8a4374ff4.image.jpg

A property owner is working to rezone vacant land on the southeast corner of North Craycroft and East River roads for a mixed-use development that will include shopping centers, office space and houses.

Construction on a QuikTrip convenience store and gas station, which has the proper zoning, has already begun there.

Basis Schools also announced plans to build a campus there that will serve grades five through 12.

The convenience store and charter school are part of a 40-acre master-planned community called Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development, said Linda Morales of The Planning Center.

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/construction-under-way-on-prime-foothills-corner/article_c18a8655-3caa-5e17-97cf-af0ebf2568ed.html?mode=story

[aznate27]

OK...I'm getting nervous that the NIMBY's will win again. I just saw on channel 13 news that the neighbors that will be in the shadow of the new high-rises near the university are gaining ground to stop the two projects. and if you do a google search on "new student high-rise Tucson" and refine the search to only in the past month....there are a few articles that have been published recently that are against the two projects. It's frustrating to read. I get the whole "historic" arguement in a way, but a lot of what Tucson considers historic, would be laughed at by people in cities like Chicago, New York, Philly, and D.C.

[aznate27]

OK...I'm getting nervous that the NIMBY's will win again. I just saw on channel 13 news that the neighbors that will be in the shadow of the new high-rises near the university are gaining ground to stop the two projects. and if you do a google search on "new student high-rise Tucson" and refine the search to only in the past month....there are a few articles that have been published recently that are against the two projects. It's frustrating to read. I get the whole "historic" arguement in a way, but a lot of what Tucson considers historic, would be laughed at by people in cities like Chicago, New York, Philly, and D.C.

I may have not heard right (I was washing dishes at the time), it sounds like the City Council approved the rezoning for the Main Gate area of the U of A. With the University supporting the new housing, it looks like the NIMBYS may not get their way. They want to only allow 12 story buildings as oppossed to 14 story. I fail to see how two extra stories make that much of a difference??? The following article was in the Arizona Daily Wildcat today.

Locals protest Main Gate plan, building criteria
By RACHEL GOTTFRIED Published February 29, 2012 at 1:26am

Residents of the West University Neighborhood yelled, “Shame! Shame on you!” when Mayor Jonathan Rothschild and Tucson City Council approved the Main Gate district urban overlay plan on Tuesday.

In a meeting held to discuss the plan, council and community members discussed key issues, including the process, building height and architecture. Many residents were upset that the plan would permit 14-story buildings to be built in Tucson’s Main Gate district. Many of the new buildings would be used for residential student housing, allowing more students to live near campus.

West University residents held up signs at the hearing that said, “Uh-Oh: Your neighborhood is NEXT” and “Don’t sell us out.”

Howard Baldwin, a Tucson resident who lives on East University Boulevard, said the plan is “one of the worst ideas to come along in a long time.”

“This plan will mean a loss of historic properties, more traffic and loss of our beautiful skyline,” Baldwin told the city council. “Don’t fail on us by buying in on this plan.”

Tom Warne, a consultant for the Marshall Foundation, said 60 percent of the land is owned by the Arizona Board of Regents, while only 2 percent is residential. He added that all of these homes are rented except for two houses — one of the homeowners is for the plan, the other is against it. Warne said it was important to understand this so the plan doesn’t “get blown out of proportion.”

“The University of Arizona is growing by more than 650 students a year, and in order for it to keep growing, it needs to have more housing next to or as close to campus as possible,” Warne said.

Janice Cervelli, dean of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, also supported the plan. She said it is a “critical tool in building a sustainable community.” Cervelli said the university is in support of both the modern streetcar and the overlay zone.

Nick Crutchfield, a computer science senior, was the only UA student to speak at the hearing. He said the Main Gate overlay is “badly needed.”

“I know students that were considering going to the U of A but didn’t because of the difficulties of finding a place to stay near campus,” Crutchfield said.

Members of the West University Neighborhood Association wrote their own proposal, which would not allow buildings taller than 12 stories to be built. They asked the city council to consider their proposal before approving the overlay plan.

Vice Mayor Karin Uhlich was the only council member who opposed the plan.

“Seeing the community divided points to bad process,” Uhlich said. “We’re rushing things and not watching important details of how we are going about the plan.”

Uhlich believed that sub-section C of the plan, which discusses land use in the Main Gate district, was a “plan block” and motioned to hold out sub-section C. No other members of the city council seconded her motion.

[aznate27]

I just stumbled on this...has anyone heard of it??? This is the first time I've gotten wind of this project. It says it's going to be build only a mile north of the U of A, but I can't find anything on it as far as plans. There are several articles on it, all from just this month. Two say they have already started construction. The following was posted on MHN Online.

Landmark Properties Bringing Cottage Development for University of Arizona Students
By Keith Loria, Contributing Writer

Athens, Ga.—Over the past three years, Landmark Properties has teamed with Harrison Street Real Estate Capital LLC in constructing nearly $400 million in student housing in eight developments in the Southeast.

Their ninth collaboration will be The Retreat at Tucson, a 774-bed student cottage development for students at the University of Arizona, with work being done by Landmark’s affiliate, Collegiate Construction.

“This is a differentiated, high-end student concept program that we have taken to numerous universities throughout the country,” Landmark Properties CEO Wes Rogers tells MHN. “Every one of our previous projects has had a similar concept of the Retreat Brand and we have won numerous awards, such as the Student Housing Project of the Year [for Alabama’s Retreat at Lake Tamaha in 2010].”

The amenities being constructed for The Retreat at Tucson include a 10,000 square-foot clubhouse, study rooms, a sports-book-style social room with a movie theatre, a poker room, fitness center and an indoor golf simulator.

“It will have spa facilities where girls can get manicures and pedicures, as well as a massage place, tanning beds and a cyber café,” Rogers says. “It will also house the largest swimming pool of any student housing community in not only Arizona, but the country. It’s a 300,000-gallon salt water pool with cabanas that will be a fantastic amenity for these college kids.”

Students can choose from 16 different floor plans and the cottages will feature gourmet kitchens with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, expansive living rooms and large bedrooms with built-in bookshelves, walk-in closets and outdoor decks.

“We look forward to providing the Tucson market with a high-end, cottage-style product close to campus,” says Harrison Street Senior Vice President Brian Thompson, in a press statement. “Our successful track record with Landmark allows us to further expand our platform within the broader student housing sector.”

Obtaining the land for such a large undertaking was no easy feat and took 18 months to complete.

“It was a big challenge. You can’t find a 21-acre parcel anywhere remotely close to the University of Arizona,” Rogers says. “It took a lot of brain damage to make it happen. It was an assemblage of 23 different pieces of land with 16 different landowners. We stated with a five-piece, and then slowly assembled the parcels to get the acres we needed.”

The student housing development will sit a mile due south of the campus, allowing easy access for its residents.

The Retreat at Tucson represents the first of several projects in the work for the Landmark/Harrison Street partnership in 2013.

“We are still in the planning stages, but we have land under contract in Pennsylvania, Florida and Mississippi for projects we hope to announce in the upcoming months,” Rogers says. “With our continued partnership with Harrison Street, we will be able to expand our cottage concept across the nation. We’re very excited about our pipeline.”

The Retreat at Tucson is expected to open its doors to University of Arizona students in the fall of 2013.

[aznate27]

Sorry for all the post, I keep finding more info after I post. Here is a link to the webside for The Retreat at Tucson. I'm assuming this is what the final project will look like when completed.

http://www.retreattucson.com/

[Anqrew]

“This plan will mean a loss of historic properties, more traffic and loss of our beautiful skyline,” Baldwin told the city council. “Don’t fail on us by buying in on this plan.”


These people are so ridiculous. Yeah the views of the Catalinas down by the UA are SO SPECTACULAR... If having a mountain view is so important to them they can move out to the foothills or Vail or something, Why do all these Nimbys live in the most densely populated area of the city?

and Traffic problems.....? The Traffic is already horrible there! This wont make any differences, if anything this will alleviate traffic because more people will walk since they live so close. These Nimbys will do and say anything to convince people to not build something.

[Locofresh55]

These people are so ridiculous. Yeah the views of the Catalinas down by the UA are SO SPECTACULAR... If having a mountain view is so important to them they can move out to the foothills or Vail or something, Why do all these Nimbys live in the most densely populated area of the city?

and Traffic problems.....? The Traffic is already horrible there! This wont make any differences, if anything this will alleviate traffic because more people will walk since they live so close. These Nimbys will do and say anything to convince people to not build something.

I'm sick of the NIMBYs too Anqrew. I don't understand one bit how more and more of these delirious individuals can claim that Tucson is overcrowded and overpopulated and that it appears to be worse than LA. Tucson is a good size city but far from overcrowded. With as many dirt lots that sit vacant....I don't think that is even close to over crowded. Additionally, these are the same individuals who are upset because U of A students are throwing parties in these houses in their neighborhoods. Pick a poison NIMBYs!! If you don't want the students here then you don't want the U of A here. Them and D-M are the main reasons your city is somewhat thriving.

[andrewsaturn]

Sorry for all the post, I keep finding more info after I post. Here is a link to the webside for The Retreat at Tucson. I'm assuming this is what the final project will look like when completed.

http://www.retreattucson.com/

Wow, what an amazing project! Didn't know it was happening and that it's suppose to be done by 2013!

In regards to the "NIMBYs :koko:" :haha:, all they do is whine and whine! They are too comfortable with how things look/are. They don't see that the historic neighborhoods are really not all that great. They remind me of the family I watched on Wifeswap where their house was completely cluttered (literally level 1 hoarding) and they got upset because the woman who had to live there wanted to organize and get rid of unnecessary stuff in their garage:haha:. Seriously, I don't understand how they don't like how these projects will improve the landscape, fix the streets, and promote a vibrant neighborhood. Inner Tucson has had a bad reputation for being dirty, low maintenance, ugly (all is true), and crime induced. These projects will reduce, if not, change how people view the surrounding areas of the Downtown and UA.

I was worried this past week about the NIMBYs gaining ground about the streetcar though. Arizona Daily Star had a couple of articles about the issues with the streetcar. The articles were about the ownership between the city and RTA (http://azstarnet.com/article_473290b6-fc33-5f7c-ad14-ed9f262b1e52.html) and how if the streetcar were to have any sort of problem, there was no money to fix them... I just look at it as the benefits will far outweigh the negatives once it is up and running.

[combusean]

The NIMBYs have one good point--the historic preservation concerns are rather valid. Historic neighborhoods have an integral role to play in any city, especially in Tucson where their character and soul is a welcome respite from auto-oriented, sea of sameness suburban architecture.

Large scale demolitions for student housing complexes that ultimately cater to a narrow market and will be vacant 3 or 4 months out of the year seems like a net loss, especially when considering other opportunities of adaptive reuse and potential commercial transitions.

Phoenix's Roosevelt Row area, a neighborhood of houses just outside the downtown core that have been converted to art galleries, retail shops, bars and restaurants attracts people from all over the metropolitan area, people that wouldn't be there if the area was somehow replaced with a bunch of apartment complexes.

[Ted Lyons]

Sorry for all the post, I keep finding more info after I post. Here is a link to the webside for The Retreat at Tucson. I'm assuming this is what the final project will look like when completed.

http://www.retreattucson.com/

The failure to list the address or specific location on a project that has supposedly begun construction is a bit odd to me. Further, the fact that literally every article on the project is sourced back to, and simply summarizes, the company's press release is also strange. But, whatever, I suppose. If I had to guess where the property was located, it would have to be around Park or Kino and 18th Street. Neither location seems very ideal to me.