Tucson Development Thread [Archive] - Page 7

kaneui

May 29, 2008, 5:00 AM

More Rio Nuevo delays? Well, not surprising. City Manager Mike Hein has now put off construction of the Tucson Origins project to reconfigure the site layout, among other things:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/TucsonOriginsredo.png
(map: Tucson Citizen)

Hein slams brakes on Rio Nuevo mission project
He wants San Agustín, museum to open together

by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
05.28.2008

Tucson Origins likely will not have visitor attractions until 2011. The project west of Interstate 10 and south of Congress Street is back to the drawing board at the instigation of City Manager Mike Hein, who put the imminent reconstruction of Mission San Agustín on hold.

Hein has scrapped the two-year-old vision to build the mission first, followed in subsequent years by the other museums. In that process, Hein also is rethinking where to place museums around the cultural plaza north of the mission. Hein in recent months became frustrated with Rio Nuevo and architectural planning that called for building the mission, an underground garage and an Origins visitor center without having any other museums in place. "They were talking of building a garage with nothing around it" he said.

Hein was full of questions himself when interviewed last week. He attacked the notion to charge $9 to $12 admission to the city's Tucson Origins Heritage Park - the southern portion that would include the mission, gardens and the Origins Center. "What do you mean 'charge?' " he rhetorically asked. Hein will push for free admission to the city heritage park. Neither the joint University of Arizona Science Center/Arizona State Museum nor the Arizona History and Tucson Children's museums would fall under the free admission mandate. "Where's the (history) museum going?" Hein asked after an initial question about mission construction.

Last year, the national design team, headed by the local architecture firm Burns Wald-Hopkins Shambach, presented a cultural plaza with the science center/state museum on the east side, the history museum and children's museum on the west side and the visitor center at the south end with the mission farther to the south. "It's a change from where we were headed," said Dave Burns, a partner at Burns Wald-Hopkins Shambach. "It's been very difficult to figure out where things are going. We have been instructed to go on hold."

Hein has become disenchanted with the notion of people having to pay to go into the Origins Center, which would have served as the gateway to the mission. "We have to bring something free," he said. So Hein proposes scrapping the Origins Center and moving the Arizona History Museum to the plaza's south end. "They have to provide a free outdoor interpretive exhibit and restrooms and room to store equipment for maintaining the (Tucson Origins) facilities," he said.

Hein wants the history museum, Mission San Agustín and underground garage to open at the same time. This will depend on the timeline for the Arizona History Museum, which is anticipated to open in 2011, said Bill Ponder, chief administrative officer at the Arizona Historical Society, which would build the museum. Ponder said the society intends to have a design team in place by August and potentially start construction on the history museum 14 months later - in fall 2009.

The mission is part of the $53.7 million in Rio Nuevo funding that the City Council allocated in November 2006 to build the public facilities at Tucson Origins: the mission and its gardens, the underground parking garage, a new bridge over the Santa Cruz River and a new street that runs through Tucson Origins and links the bridge and Grande Avenue. The council has committed an additional $130 million to build the UA Science Center/Arizona State Museum, and $60 million for additional Origins museums. The city has spent $15.6 million in Rio Nuevo funding on the Origins project, said Sylvia Amparano, deputy finance director. This involved planning, all the mission design work and landfill removal.

City Councilwoman Nina Trasoff, who chairs the council's Rio Nuevo subcommittee, sees merit in moving the Arizona History Museum toward the mission and shares Hein's misgivings about building an underground garage years before the museums are built. "It makes sense to have the history museum closer to the history," she said. "We're still in discussions about a lot of this. There are no hard or fast decisions that have been made." Trasoff wants the council to make some "hard decisions" in the next month or two in setting a schedule for Tucson Origins.

Mayor Bob Walkup has not had detailed conversations with Hein about these changes, but he is comfortable with what Hein is proposing. "First of all, I don't think anything is in jeopardy," Walkup said. "I think what Mike is doing is playing with the schedule a bit. I think it's the right thing to do. He will tell us the right way to sequence things and what makes sense and how to stay within budget." Hein acknowledged community desires to start construction on the West Side. "Could we move ahead with some of this (specifically the Mission San Agustín)?" Hein posed. "Yes, but it would be void of anything supporting it." Hein's pronouncements end two years' worth of mission construction and completion estimates that changed frequently.

Curiously, in June 2006, the mission's completion date was pegged for 2009-10, but rapidly the start and finish dates became much more optimistic. October 2006, Burns Wald-Hopkins Shambach anticipated starting some construction as soon as March 2007 with the mission possibly opening as soon as 2008. Two months later, the thought was mission construction would start in October 2007. Substantial site work was done in 2007 to do archaeological research and dig two massive holes to remove enough 1950s landfill that is would pile 65 feet high on a football field.

In April 2007, Rio Nuevo officials predicted a November start for the 600,000-adobe-brick mission, but in August the $21.5 million mission project was pushed back to December and ultimately to May-June 2008. In the opening months this year, Hein quietly put the brakes on mission work as well as site planning for the other museums. And no public officials have publicly spoken about the halt in work on Rio Nuevo's signature project - Tucson Origins (without the name at that time) was the principal project that voters approved in 1999 to create Rio Nuevo. "The thing that concerns us is the sensitivity of the order things are built out there," architect Burns said. "We have to figure out how things get built without impacting other things."

kaneui

Jun 6, 2008, 7:45 AM

The city won't be buying Bert Lopez' Hotel Arizona to convert into a Hilton, but will move ahead with plans to build the 30-story Sheraton as the main convention center hotel and purchase the adjacent Norville property for the proposed arena:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/HotelArizona-1.jpg
The Hotel Arizona, formerly the Radisson City Center, will not become part of the city's convention center complex,
which is to include a new arena, a new 30-story Sheraton and expansion of the Tucson Convention Center.
(photo: Tucson Citizen)

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

Hilton out, Sheraton in for convention hotel
City scraps plan to buy Hotel Arizona, renovate and rebrand it as main TCC hotel

by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
06.06.2008

The Hotel Arizona is out of the equation for the Tucson Convention Center hotel and arena project. Negotiations to buy the Hotel Arizona fell apart because the city and hotel owner Humberto S. Lopez could not agree on a purchase price, said Jaret Barr, assistant to City Manager Mike Hein. "Their feeling of the value of the property and our feeling of the value of the property is far apart," Barr said. "The appraisal came nowhere close to what they wanted." Barr did not disclose either price, but initial talk was for the city to buy the 300-room, 14-story hotel at 191 W. Broadway for $28 million. Lopez was out of town and not available for comment.

The plan was to renovate the Hotel Arizona as a Hilton for the first phase of a project to bring as many as three hotel towers to the TCC area, build a new arena and expand the convention center. The city now plans to make a Sheraton to be built a few steps northwest of TCC the primary convention center hotel, Barr said.

Development agreements will go to the City Council on Tuesday to have Garfield Traub Development build the 30-story, 500-room Sheraton; to buy the 6.67-acre parking lot that sits behind the Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse from Allan Norville for $17 million; and to have Dev-Con Development serve as the master developer for the entire project. With council approval, Dallas-based Garfield Traub would have 180 days to draw up a preliminary conceptual plan for the $200 million hotel as well as fine-tune construction costs, assemble a financing plan and nail down a construction timeline.

The Norville parking lot, where the GJX gem show is staged each January, likely would be the locale for a new arena. The council expects to know by early August how big a $130 million arena would be. Norville's parking lot would give the city ownership of all the land south of the federal courthouse to Cushing Street and from Interstate 10 to Church Avenue. The agreement with Norville also calls for the city to find a new site for his gem show. The preferred option is building an exhibition hall on top of the convention center, Barr said.

Dev-Con Development would master-plan the project using a 5 percent management fee derived from contracts for urban planning and engineering and for infrastructure and landscaping projects around the convention center. The city would advance $200,000 to Dev-Con that would be reimbursed as contracts are issued, Barr said.

Don B.

Jun 6, 2008, 1:43 PM

$200 million for a 30-story Sheraton? This sounds like Phoenix's hideous 30-story new convention center Sheraton, but at half the money. I shudder at what this will look like.

It might make that 1960s blue-slab-sided building (with no windows) in downtown Tucson look nice by comparison. Be very afraid, Tucsonians.

--don

aznate27

Jun 6, 2008, 7:48 PM

kaneui

Jun 6, 2008, 8:33 PM

^^Please note that the Tucson Sheraton, currently planned for 30 stories and 700* rooms, will not be nearly as large as the Phoenix Sheraton with 1,000 rooms and more than 80,000 s.f. of meeting space. (*The Citizen's article quote of 500 rooms looks like an error, and is at odds with the city's own RFP requirements as well as Garfield Traub's proposal, as both state 700 rooms.)

The oft-quoted $350M cost for the Phoenix Sheraton is the total debt (i.e., bonds) incurred by the city, and includes amounts for FF&E and contingencies--not unusual for municipalities that build their own convention hotels (e.g., Denver's Convention Center Hyatt cost $286M to build, but the city's total debt was $368M http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2008_2nd/Jun08_DallasCCHotel.html).

About a year ago, Southwest Construction pegged the cost to build the Phoenix Sheraton at $197.8M (http://southwest.construction.com/images/AZ_TP.pdf), so the $200M estimate for Tucson's hotel is not unreasonable; although with the spiraling cost of materials, new estimates will be probably be higher.

sad face

Jun 7, 2008, 1:06 AM

http://www.thepepper.com/luxury/rio_nuevo_sheraton.jpg

Here is a rendering of Tucson's proposed Sheraton, it will look better than Phoenix's.:banana:

Rive85

Jun 8, 2008, 12:19 AM

Downtown redevelopment is progressing
Our view: Postponed groundbreaking sensible change; plans need council vetting
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.30.2008

It seems as if Rio Nuevo, the city's ambitious redevelopment plan, takes two steps back for each step forward. But that's not so.
There is steady progress being made, though perhaps not as quickly or as gracefully as we all wish.
The most recent apparent setback is that City Manager Mike Hein has postponed the groundbreaking on the West Side site for a Tucson Origins Heritage Park and decided not to build the Origins Center, a structure that would have served as a entry point where visitors could orient themselves to the park. Visitors also would have been charged admission to the park, which will house a reconstructed Mission San Augustín and Convento and museums, including the University Science Center, the Arizona State Museum and the Arizona Historical Society Museum.
The Origins Center "wasn't needed and I think the City Council has been clear that they didn't want admissions charged," Hein told us on Wednesday. "That's the only thing we've scrapped."
He said the Historical Society Museum will instead likely serve as a "portal" to the park
The projects that were set for groundbreaking were the mission and an underground parking garage. Hein postponed the start of work, he said, because the layout of the site is not resolved and only the University Science Center and the Arizona State Museum, which will be in one building, are in the design process.
"There is no halt to the project. But you do not build a parking garage without knowing how you're going to pay for it. Yes, we will have TIF (tax increment financing) money for sure, but there will also be license agreements with museums for a certain number of spaces. We're looking at retail, a restaurant," Hein said. "You don't want an empty garage with no revenues to pay for it, and you don't want a convento with nothing else there."
Councilmember Steve Leal, a Democrat from Ward 5 and a member of the council's Rio Nuevo/Downtown subcommittee, told us that he heard about the possibility of a halt a week ago but did not know it was imposed until media reports Wednesday.
Leal said it was too significant an issue to be decided privately and that the council should have been consulted. The council voted on the project and the timetable, he said.
Only Mayor Bob Walkup and Vice Mayor Nina Trasoff, a Democrat from Ward 6 and chairwoman of the Rio Nuevo/Downtown subcommittee, knew about the schedule change, he said.
Hein said the postponement "isn't news" and that the council was aware of it.
"We're trying to stage everything appropriately so that one project doesn't get in the way of another," Trasoff said.
"It is like a three-dimensional chess board: One level is planning where things go; another is planning a timetable of what goes in when and how they interact; the third level is how we work out financing," she said. "We know we will have $550 million over the course of the TIF, but not all of that will be in our hands in the first five years."
Leal said the City Council wants to see "cranes in the air." So do we. We have been disappointed by Rio Nuevo's slow start.
If council members feel they need to be updated more often, they should be. And the planning process should be open and transparent.
But we must not overlook progress being made on Downtown redevelopment.
● The Fourth Avenue underpass work is well under way and tracks are going in for a modern streetcar that will link the university area to Downtown.
● On May 11, the council approved the concept of a pedestrian bridge over the Santa Cruz River along Cushing Street; an extension of Cushing would be the northern border of the Origins park.
● A month ago, the council approved $2 million for the Historical Society to begin the design process for its new museum.
● Hotel Congress owner Richard Oseran has received $280,000 in free rent to take over the 4,000-square-foot space that was formerly the Central Bistro restaurant across Toole Avenue from his hotel. He will open a market and restaurant.
● The former Martin Luther King Jr. building is under reconstruction as One North Fifth, an apartment building with retail shops on the ground level.
● The former federal court annex at 44 E. Broadway is under reconstruction as 44 Broadway, with loft residences and retail planned on the first level.
● The Mercado District at Menlo Park, a mixed-use project, is being built by Rio Development Co., south of Congress Street near the park site.
● The archeological work has been done on the park site and so has remediation work.
● The city will be using $530,000 from a Business Development Finance Corp. account to offer matching grants to finance facade improvements for property owners of Downtown buildings constructed before 1948.

Ambitious plan holds promise for Downtown

Our view: Arts agency, charter school, private company are joining forces; pact could benefit students, artists, city's core

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.06.2008
Here's a bit of Downtown redevelopment news that has nothing to do with Rio Nuevo or the city government.
A private citizen, his company, the nonprofit arts group whose board he chairs and a Downtown charter school are teaming up to make something exciting happen on a dingy block of Sixth Avenue between Congress and Pennington streets.
We hope it turns out to be as successful as its creators expect.
The Star's Rhonda Bodfield reported earlier this week that starting in the fall, some 60 students in Grades 6 though 8 will begin taking arts classes at ArtFare the Muse. High school students would follow the next year.
The students will come from the Tucson Academy of Leadership and Arts, a K-8 charter school with 100 students operating at 210 E. Broadway.
"Our story is about combining ArtFare's efforts with this charter school to create the first truly comprehensive arts charter school in Tucson and to revitalize this part of Sixth Avenue," Fletcher McCusker, chairman and CEO of Providence Service Corporation and board chairman of ArtFare, told us.
The school will sublease space at ArtFare, which has struggled in past years to make its rent. Most of the ArtFare classes and programs now go on at night, so they won't conflict with the school's classes, McCusker said.
Qualified artists who are associated with ArtFare will be invited to teach at the charter school, he said.
"In fact, many of them are former educators who became disenchanted with the traditional educational system," McCusker said.
The charter-school relationship will be worth about $100,000 a year to ArtFare, Bodfield reported.
McCusker envisions classes in everything from Big Band music and painting to theater, ballet, film production and photography.
"Of course, the school will have to attend to its core curriculum. Students have to pass the AIMS test," McCusker said. "They can't all be wandering around playing gypsy music."
The charter school has been rated as "underperforming." Its parent company, the Global Education Foundation, is contracting with McCusker's company to provide what he calls "back-office services."
Providence is publicly traded, based in Tucson and offers privatized social services, including mental-health care and juvenile justice, in 36 states.
The charter school will pay Providence a fee of 3 percent to 5 percent of revenue, which comes from state per-student payments, McCusker said. Providence will provide administrative staff, human-resources functions, record keeping, an office receptionist and such, McCusker said.
Providence already has recruited a new principal, Leon Butler, formerly principal of a "performing" Lake Havasu charter school.
Bodfield reported that Butler is already reworking the curriculum and adding teachers.
The plan still needs approval from the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.
The school's per-student "tuition" income "doesn't begin to cover costs," said McCusker, who also sits on the board of St. Gregory College Preparatory School and is a member of the University of Arizona's Eller College Board of Advisors. "It will have to do fund-raising, and we think my name and the Providence name will give it momentum."
Bodfield noted that the Tucson Unified School District runs the Artworks Academy, an arts-based high school Downtown, at the Tucson Museum of Art. City High School, a Downtown charter school, features an arts-enrichment program.
Tig Collins, ArtFare director, pointed out to Bodfield that the Arizona Jazz Academy's middle-school and high-school bands meets at ArtFare after school and on weekends, and children participate in many of its programs, from martial arts to dance.
McCusker is excited about revitalizing the stretch of Sixth Avenue where ArtFare is housed in several buildings across from the Ronstadt Transit Center.
"Sixth Avenue was never in any of the Downtown redevelopment plans, and those are kind of neat buildings," he said.
Along with building improvements, his vision calls for a promenade area for street vendors, a café, some retail presence and wandering musicians, Bodfield reported.
Imagine that: A private effort to symbiotically prop up a struggling nonprofit, help a failing charter school blossom into something remarkable and revitalize a key section of Downtown Tucson.
If it works, it will be something we all should applaud — and an innovation other cities will want to replicate.

Rive85

Jun 8, 2008, 12:37 AM

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/photos/2008/06/07/l87548-1.jpg

City floating idea of $54M exhibition hall on top of the convention center
TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen

The Hotel Arizona could become an assisted-living home, and the GJX gem show could move onto the roof of the Tucson Convention Center.
Those are the latest notions floating about in connection with the city's plan to build a new arena, expand TCC and bring 700 more hotel rooms to serve the convention center.
The convention center and hotel project will be discussed at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday at the City Council's study session in the Council Chambers, 255 W. Alameda St.
That discussion will include a development agreement with Garfield Traub Development to build a 30-story, 707-room Sheraton hotel a few steps northwest of TCC. The tentative start date for construction is May 2010 with a potential opening date in May 2012, Rio Nuevo director Greg Shelko said.
The city's agreement to buy Allan Norville's 6.67-acre parking lot behind the Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse includes building an exhibition hall where he can stage his GJX gem show, which for years has filled a massive tent on Norville's parking lot.
The first idea is a $54 million tensile fiber membrane roof structure on top of the TCC. Tensile roofs were used for the Millennium Dome in London and the Olympic Stadium in Munich, Germany.
"We're not asking for the allocation of money now," said Jaret Barr, assistant to City Manager Mike Hein. "We are introducing the concept. We would only do it if it fits into the overall convention center plan."
If the council approves buying Norville's land for $17 million, he would lease it back from the city to continue staging his gem show there until a replacement hall is built, Barr said.
The city this week lost interest in buying the Hotel Arizona, so owner Humberto S. Lopez is getting a second appraisal and weighing his options for the property at 181 W. Broadway. Lopez wanted $28 million and he said the city offered about $21 million.
"I'm just going to go out and decide what I'm going to do," Lopez said. "If the highest and best use is an assisted-living center, that's what I'll do. If the highest and best use is to sell, that's what I'm going to do."
Lopez said the city's appraisal undervalued the hotel because it assumed the convention center would attract only low-budget conferences.
"Based on those assumptions, you can't justify building a new hotel," Lopez said of the city's plan to move forward with the Sheraton. "I think the city is going to be a loser on the deal."

Don B.

Jun 8, 2008, 11:32 PM

Not sure why you suddenly care Don B. You haven't cared about keeping the Tucson page for the Emporis site up to date in forever, but you sure do LOVE Phoenix don't you. You put the Century Tower on hold, even though it's been DEAD for years now. You have the Diamond Rock Plaza down as proposed, when it's clear that's not going to happen. You don't even mention the proposed 30 story Sheraton. It sounds like your comment is more poking fun than anything. Come back when you actually have an interest.:hell:

Gee, thanks. Maybe it's because I have a life and can't devote more time to something which amounts to a volunteer project. You have to remember that I'm in law school, work part-time as a paralegal (in Prescott, of all places!) during the semesters classes are in session and full time during the summer, and run a photography business year round. I also am very active in charity organizations, including being the staff photographer for the Imperial Court of Arizona, amongst other things. Then there are the things I like to do for myself, such as computer gaming, hiking, playing D&D with friends, movies, etc.

If you don't like "the job" I'm doing, feel free to join Emporis and contribute your efforts for free to a company that profits from your labors, instead of pounding out ill-founded rants from your mommy's keyboard.

Now, if you don't mind, Sins of a Solar Empire is calling my name, and the Vasari need to be eliminated. Good day to you, sir.

--don

atbg8654

Jun 9, 2008, 7:12 AM

the city needs to take a chance and build the hotel ASAP so it will be a stimulator for other projects to get under way and encourage private sectors to invest more downtown. this time is perfect to encourage downtown and urban development while sprawl has slowed with our current market in oil and housing/construction. i just feel downtown tucson has so much potential but the city always finds a way to delay/cancel or underachieve projects. tucson downtown has not developed enough to represent how large and grandiose the city has grown in the last couple of decades.

Rive85

Jun 10, 2008, 4:14 AM

Thats just it though, the city will not take a chance on anything, they rather do nothing than something even something small. and i agree, downtown Tucson has potential. i see it everyday when im at work.

aznate27

Jun 11, 2008, 8:35 AM

Gee, thanks. Maybe it's because I have a life and can't devote more time to something which amounts to a volunteer project. You have to remember that I'm in law school, work part-time as a paralegal (in Prescott, of all places!) during the semesters classes are in session and full time during the summer, and run a photography business year round. I also am very active in charity organizations, including being the staff photographer for the Imperial Court of Arizona, amongst other things. Then there are the things I like to do for myself, such as computer gaming, hiking, playing D&D with friends, movies, etc.

If you don't like "the job" I'm doing, feel free to join Emporis and contribute your efforts for free to a company that profits from your labors, instead of pounding out ill-founded rants from your mommy's keyboard.

Now, if you don't mind, Sins of a Solar Empire is calling my name, and the Vasari need to be eliminated. Good day to you, sir.

--don

Nice try Don, that would be a great comeback if the Phoenix Emporis page was in just as poor a state as the Tucson page...but it isn't, and Tucson's page is 10 times smaller! You took the responsability of taking on the two pages KNOWING it was a volunteer job, so don't give me your cry baby sob story on how busy you are, you've been using the same excuse for months now. Quit then and give it to somebody who can handle it, if you're crying that you can't.

I wouldn't have even cared if you'd stuck to your own Phoenix thread and not come to the Tucson page and take a jab at our skyline. If you can't take the shit don't shovel it buddy.

"mommy's keyboard"..LOL!!! You go boy :haha:

Don B.

Jun 11, 2008, 1:12 PM

Locofresh55

Jun 11, 2008, 1:42 PM

Hell...I was just looking forward for some of the DON's always MARVELOUS images. Way to go Nate.

On a side note, I was thinking of hitting up downtown this weekend and taking pics of what little progress we have going on here. I'll see what I can do but i'm working everyday this week so my best option would be Sunday.

Don,

you've seen the Tucson Sheraton rendering.....you know we're afraid. The Phoenix Sheraton does have a 70's feel to it though.

tempedude

Jun 11, 2008, 4:47 PM

Something that I would like to see is the progress of the streetcar system. At first, its just going to run around the downtown Tucson area right?... and then later, a spur line will be run over to the UofA campus correct?

It would be nice if someone could post some progress pics or renderings again. I would especially like to see what the trains(cars) look like; I have sort of forgotten.

vertex

Jun 11, 2008, 5:27 PM

^Are you referring to the new LRV route, or the newly-expanded historical trolley route?

Sekkle

Jun 11, 2008, 6:17 PM

^ Tucson is considering a modern streetcar route.
See this webpage (http://www.tucsontransitstudy.com/)...
Edit: oh, I guess you were just unclear about tempedude's post... which is a little unclear (re "progress pics"). The modern streetcar line has not opened or even begun construction.

tempedude

Jun 11, 2008, 7:20 PM

uh, see how much I know...

I am referring to the new expanded historical trolley route. (new track laid and some new stations too?)...supposed to be complete sometime early 2009?

And I guess what I am/was thinking is that the proposed modern streetcar route will connect UofA with the trolley system downtown. Do have it right this time around? :haha:

aznate27

Jun 17, 2008, 1:07 AM

^ Because of your nasty comments, I'm going to go one better: I'm going to purposely neglect the Tucson Emporis page from now on. I'm going to let it rot, yet remain an editor, which should really get your goat.

And to think I was about to post up a thread of very cool ground level Tucson pictures I took with my wide angle lens from two weeks ago. Not now or ever again, and don't worry, I won't return to this thread to "jab" at your skyline, as you think my one comment about the proposed downtown Tucson Sheraton was supposed to represent.

"How To Win Friends And Influence People," by aznate27. Not!

:haha:

--don

So, basically you're going to do exactly what you've been doing as the editor for over a year...nothing. What a surprise. Way to stick it to me Don :rolleyes: . Believe me, I won't be missing anything, there hasn't been anything to miss.

And as far as your pics..there are are a few hundred other sites we all can go to with photographers just as good (and I suspect better) with plenty of pics of Tucson. Suggesting that your pics are a wonder to behold and we're missing out just shows your arragance.

Good riddance.

kaneui

Jun 19, 2008, 10:46 PM

The pending relocation of Madden Media's headquarters to the historic MacArthur building is a glimmer of hope for expanding the downtown workforce:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/McArthurBldg.jpg
The MacArthur building was built in 1907 at 345 E. Toole Ave., and was first known as Hotel Heidel. The 22,000-square-foot, three-story building between the Hotel Congress and the Historic Train Depot later became the MacArthur Hotel, and since the 1980s it has housed offices. The city bought it in 2005. It stands ready now for redevelopment. The leading bidder is Madden Media. (photo: Arizona Historical Society)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MacArthurBldg-today.jpg
The MacArthur building--a century later. (photo: Tucson Citizen)

Madden move would be boon to Downtown
Our view: City should strive to ink deal with local publisher for MacArthur building

Arizona Daily Star - Opinion
06.18.2008

Madden Media, for 25 years a Tucson-based national company, is on the verge of moving its headquarters into a historic building in Downtown Tucson. T's must be crossed, and i's dotted with the city, but CEO Kevin Madden told us "I'm hopeful that all of Downtown can be a happening place, and we want to participate in that." Assuming the deal goes through, it's great Downtown economic development news and should lift the spirits of at least a few of the nay-sayers on Downtown revitalization.

Madden bid the full appraised value, $1.7 million, for the historic MacArthur building, a three-story flatiron structure built across from the train depot at 345 E. Toole in 1907. First as the Hotel Heidel and later as the MacArthur Hotel, it served as a hotel for the railroad. It was converted into office space in the 1980s. The city bought the building and an adjacent lot for $2.9 million in 2005. MacArthur houses the city's department of urban planning and design, which Glenn Lyons, chief executive of the Downtown Tucson Partnership, said will move to another city-owned building at 149 N. Stone.

The city is building a parking structure on the adjacent lot. "We want to make it into a signature building — our worldwide headquarters," Madden said. "Ninety percent of our revenue comes from outside of Tucson. We are importing revenue; we do the work here and ship it all around the country."

The proposed deal will go before City Council on July 8, according to Lyons. A backup deal, also for $1.7 million, is on the table from Bourn Partners, who — unlike Madden — would need financing and tenants, Lyons said. Assuming the council signs off, Madden wants to begin demolition and reconstruction — updated air conditioning, sprinklers, et cetera — on Jan. 1, so the company's 80 local employees can move from their East Fort Lowell Road digs to the refurbished headquarters on June 1, 2009.

Madden Media publishes Tucson Home and Tucson Guide magazines as well as the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau's visitors guide. "Our contingencies have to do with being assured we be able to get through permitting, demolition and rebuilding so we can move June 1," Madden said. "Our lease is up at the end of June. ... That's the best time in our business cycle to move. If it gets postponed by much, my cost is enormous, incalculable. ... We are too busy to stop what we're doing and move for two or three weeks."

Lyons said some of the permitting work has already begun. "It's a tight schedule, so it's helpful to council to know that we can solve these issues sooner rather than later, even though council hasn't officially okayed the deal," he said. Madden's other issue is safe parking close to his headquarters. "We have a lot of very creative young people who work nights and weekends." The new parking garage in the adjacent lot south of the MacArthur building is under construction, and Presidio parking is a block or so west.

What made Madden decide to go Downtown? "Just the repeated statements that it's for real and because the (Rio Nuevo) money is there," he said. "We would really like to be a leader of this. "There will eventually be a big impetus for these employees to want to find someplace to live close to the office," Madden said. "The economic impact is going to be much further reaching than getting lunch, buying coffee, having drinks after work Downtown."

Lyons and City Manager Mike Hein appear to be doing all they can to make the deal come to fruition. We hope Tucson City Council is able to sign off on the deal. It's great news that a fine local company is willing to invest in Downtown; we expect many others to follow suit.

kaneui

Jun 25, 2008, 7:16 AM

Continued progress on the trolley/streetcar lines:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Trolleytracks-4thAve.jpg
Gary Warrior (left) and Grecian Ibarra prepare rebar along the trolley tracks on North Fourth Avenue.
(photo: Tucson Citizen)

Tracks for new streetcar loop are nearly done
Route won't operate until 4th Ave. underpass is finished

by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
06.25.2008

Streetcar tracks now make the full loop around Broadway, Fifth Avenue, Congress Street and Toole Avenue, although no streetcar will run on them until the new Fourth Avenue underpass is completed next spring. Sundt Construction is laying tracks on Fourth Avenue on the north side of the underpass between Eighth and Ninth streets, project manager Cade Rowley said. "By the end of July, we should have the track pretty well done," Rowley said.

Every day this week, concrete is being poured between the Fourth Avenue tracks, Rowley said. Sundt installed two sets of tracks and a turnout that merges them into the single set that serves the Old Pueblo Trolley. Once Sundt completes the $26 million underpass, Old Pueblo Trolley will run to the Broadway-Fifth-Congress-Toole loop.

Eventually, tracks are expected to be installed down the length of Congress to Granada Avenue, and then go down Granada and Cushing Street to cross the Santa Cruz River and join up again with Congress on the West Side. The modern streetcar and Old Pueblo Trolley would both serve the entire route, but the modern streetcar depends on at least $75 million in Federal Transit Authority grant money that has been applied for but not allocated, transportation officials said.

Voters in 2006 approved the Regional Transportation Plan, which includes a streetcar system that would run from the University Medical Center area off Campbell Avenue, through the University of Arizona, along University to Fourth, through a completed new underpass, and across downtown to the Santa Cruz River area.

PHX31

Jun 25, 2008, 3:34 PM

/\ Do you have a map of the trolly/streetcar alignment?

kaneui

Jun 26, 2008, 7:17 AM

^There's a map of the proposed 3.6-mile streetcar/trolley route and 19 stations on page 6 of this January, 2008 draft Environmental Assessment from the city's website:
http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/hottopics/pdfs/Tucson%20Draft%20EA%201.18.08.pdf

The streetcar's eastern terminus will be at the University Medical Center near Campbell Ave. north of Speedway, with the western terminus in the Mercado District at Avenida del Convento and Congress St., west of I-10.

PHX31

Jun 26, 2008, 3:58 PM

Looks like a nice alignment through downtown, 4th Ave, and near the campus.

They say "by july the track should be done"... does that mean the entire length of track will be laid from the eastern terminus to the western terminus? I was in Tucson not more than a year ago and I drove up 4th Ave and University and I don't remember any construction at all. They must be moving fast. Or, are they only installing a section of it right now?

kaneui

Jun 26, 2008, 9:51 PM

^It's a bit confusing, but the Broadway-Fifth-Congress-Toole loop section mentioned in the Citizen article, and scheduled for the July completion, is shown on this map:

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

The completion of the route, including the western section, is still waiting for $75M in federal grants. If that comes through, the complete streetcar line is projected to open in October, 2011.

PHX31

Jun 26, 2008, 10:24 PM

Oh, I kind of see, thanks for the additional info.

Another question(s)... the completion of the route (waiting for federal grants) includes the western section, but also the northeastern section, right?

Are they just putting down new track to extend the historic trolley route? It's surprising they'd extend the existing old rail with new rail, then run brand new streetcars on the entire length of the route (on old rail too). Or are they just going to be running the old historic trolleys up and down the route? I'm confused.

kaneui

Jun 28, 2008, 2:48 AM

^Yes, I expect the federal grant monies will be used to extend both the western and eastern portions of the existing route, since the eastern terminus is now near Park Ave., as shown on the previous map.

According to the city's documents and other news articles, the trolley and streetcar will be using the same rail lines. (The city is only planning to buy seven streetcars, so maybe it won't be too congested.) If there are any additional improvements to be made to the existing trolley line, they will need to be finished before the streetcar starts up in 2011.

For more trolley info: http://www.oldpueblotrolley.org/index.htm

kaneui

Jul 1, 2008, 6:28 PM

A new public underground parking garage has begun at Depot Plaza, with low-income and market-rate apartment buildings to be built on top:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/DepotPlazaGarage.jpg
Crews from Magnum Paving Inc. remove dirt to make room for a new underground parking lot at Plaza Depot Monday.
The plaza will be just east of the Ronstadt Transit Center downtown. (photo: Tucson Citizen)

Work starts on underground garage downtown
by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
07.01.2008

Ground was broken Monday for the first underground public parking garage downtown in 18 years. The 25- to 30-foot-deep garage will provide 281 parking spaces on two levels for the three-structure Depot Plaza project between the Ronstadt Transit Center and Toole Avenue, said Bill O'Malley, Rio Nuevo construction manager. The last public underground garage built downtown was for the Joel D. Valdez Main Library in 1990.

The Rio Nuevo-funded $13 million garage will serve a new, six-story, 68-unit public housing structure; a new market-rate, private-sector apartment building that will be built atop the garage, and the former Martin Luther King Jr. Apartments, which are being renovated as market-rate apartments known as One North Fifth. "This is a major project for Rio Nuevo," said City Councilwoman Nina Trasoff, who chairs the council's Rio Nuevo subcommittee. "It literally is the foundation for three large housing projects." The garage will also serve the nearby Hotel Congress, Rialto Theatre, MacArthur Building and Historic Depot.

The projected time for Lloyd Construction to excavate the garage space and shore the walls of the 242-by-246-foot hole is 40 days. It will involve 15 to 20 trucks hauling off about 100 loads of dirt a day, O'Malley said. That will be followed by two months of drilling 70 caissons 70 to 80 feet into the ground to serve as the foundation. The steel-reinforced concrete caissons will be 6 to 8 feet in diameter, O'Malley said.

As soon as the garage is finished, expected to be in June 2009, the city Community Services Department plans to start building the Martin Luther King Jr. Apartments at Depot Plaza. The 68-unit public housing tower just west of the garage will be for low-income elderly and the disabled, O'Malley said. Also, Williams & Dame/Peach Properties intends to build a five-story, 60- to 80-unit apartment structure atop the garage as soon as the parking structure is done, said Ron Schwabe, owner of Peach Properties.

additional information

UNDERGROUND PARKING DOWNTOWN
Downtown has nine underground parking garages, but only two are public:
• El Presidio (city/county): 575 public spaces
• Joel D. Valdez Main Library (city): 259 public spaces
• UniSource Tower (private): 545 spaces
• Bank of America building (county, previously private): 30 spaces, not public
• Tucson Water (city): 90 spaces, not public
• Pima County complex: 360 spaces, not public
• Internal Revenue Service: 178 spaces, not public
• Evo A. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse: 79 spaces, not public
• State of Arizona: 205 spaces, not public
Source: ParkWise, the city's parking division

kaneui

Jul 4, 2008, 10:18 AM

With the Rio Nuevo downtown redevelopment project still moving at a glacial pace after nearly 10 years, local developers have some harsh words for both elected officials and city employees, but also offer their solutions to turn things around:

Why it's so hard to fix Tucson's downtown
By Roger Yohem
Vice President, Southern Arizona Home Builders Association
Inside Tucson Business
July 3, 2008

Editor’s note: This is a special report prepared for the July issue of the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association publication. It expresses the personal opinions of various executives in the development industry and related businesses. They were granted anonymity since most have active business ventures in the City of Tucson. Based on past experiences, they were concerned there could be repercussions for speaking out publicly about city operations. Despite the anonymity, some will be recognizable to other players. We are publishing the article to show examples of the exasperation that has developed with the city.

There’s a bandwagon slowly rolling through the streets of downtown Tucson. Depending on who’s on it and who’s watching, it’s either a Parade of Progress or a Funeral Procession. Those who see progress see revitalization. They can’t wait for Rio Nuevo, a comprehensive, billion-dollar rebirth that promises new commercial development, housing, and renovation/razing of the Tucson Convention Center (TCC).

The colossal revival has been stirring for almost 10 years. The funeral marchers say downtown died long ago. The city can’t care for the bare essentials, let alone a massive renaissance.

Take the TCC for example. There is no hot water in public restrooms. Freight access doors are blocked by newly installed planters. At "A" Mountain, the city publicly begged for someone else to repaint it after it was painted green as a St. Patrick’s Day prank. Blaming the budget, the city didn’t want to pay the $4,000 bill. Two members of the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) stepped up: Tofel Construction and Dunn-Edwards Paints.

Decades of indecision, upside-down priorities, bad policies, personal agendas, missed economic opportunities, and a deep-seated bureaucracy have knocked the city to its economic, social and political knees. As one downtown business owner said: "The mayor and council have a legacy of a lack of leadership. It’s embarrassing."

Urban decay under way

Abandoned buildings. Street people. Disrepair. Depopulation. Graffiti, blight, crime. These are the signs of urban decay. At the downtown public library, street people gather in the periodicals section on the third floor. During a recent morning walk-through, about 15 homeless people were there. "They can no longer come in and use this place as a washroom; the police have to come in and clear them out," a security guard told us.

On the streets, buildings are abandoned. Along Congress Street, sidewalks and closed storefronts feature trash and bird droppings instead of merchandise and shoppers. Going east on Broadway, at least 20 signs advertise business buildings that are either for sale or for lease between downtown and El Con Mall, itself a largely empty shell of commerce.

Economists says urban decay arises in cities that lack affordable new homes. Deteriorating neighborhoods become magnets for the poor, attracted by cheap housing. This low-income influx reinforces a downward spiral by driving up social service expenditures. Per the U.S. Census Bureau, Tucson’s 2006 poverty rate was 15 percent.

The shortage of workforce housing has negative impacts. Essential workers — police, nurses, teachers — often cannot find affordable housing near their jobs. Their choice is to either commute or live in the less-desirable neighborhoods that are closer to their work. When employees leave at the end of their shifts, it rips apart the city’s social fabric. These people take their valuable skills and civic involvement to other areas.

As the bandwagon rolls away from downtown, deferred repairs could become a liability. Streets suffer from meager maintenance. But the decision to de-prioritize public safety is a poor one. For example, copper wiring along Kino Parkway has been stolen, turning streetlights dark. The city decided not to put the lights back into service. By neglecting needed repairs, it is taking the risk that a citizen might be injured and sue.

Graffiti and crime challenges flourish. West of Interstate 10, "some neighborhoods are on the edge of blight," said one builder. At Pueblo Gardens off Kino Parkway and 36th Street, public utility crews sometimes need police escorts. "For after-hours work, we’ll call the police to meet us there to protect the safety of our employees," said a utility executive. "There are several downtown areas where it is tough to work after dark." News reports tell us police can’t control the "tidal wave" of drug crimes. As was revealed during this year’s dispute between the police union and City Hall, the City Council’s goal of having 2.4 officers per 1,000 residents is still short.

Anti-business genesis

From a development perspective, a complex maze of reluctant leaders, ingrained employees and citizen resistance are the roots of the anti-business policies coming out of Tucson City Hall. City leaders "have to direct staff to develop standards and the process for encouraging development," said a builder. Instead, the "entrenched bureaucracy" won’t allow progress to happen. "Staffers have their own personal agenda, which I believe, is no growth," he added. "The result is anarchy."

A former member of the City Council spoke of the process. If an assignment conflicted with a staff member’s agenda, it was stonewalled. The official confronted employees and a typical response was: "I’ve been here almost 20 years, you’ll be gone in four and I’ll still be here." There is no pressure to perform. And many employees are protected by a union. "They can’t be fired, so many feel bullet-proof. They don’t have to answer to anybody," said a director of SAHBA.

The city’s anti-business movement "got legs" during the terms of Democratic mayors Tom Volgy (1987-91) and George Miller (1991-99). Both had won council seats in 1977. "As no-growthers, they started to empower extremists and staff to follow their lead," the SAHBA director said. "The people they hired decades ago are killing today’s redevelopment efforts. Many have moved up into policy-making positions with their negative attitudes toward progress."

Regarding the conflicts of business versus neighborhoods, Volgy once said, "It’s hard for business groups to understand what the neighborhoods want, and vice versa. It’s very hard to put themselves in each other’s shoes." Yet Volgy’s "Kumbaya" thesis never developed into a serious collaboration. The narrow-minded NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), and NOTE (Not Over There Either) protesters trumped progress. As the city’s finance director told the council this spring, income from sales taxes will be flat in 2008 for the first time in 30 years because, "There’s no growth."

No political cover

City leaders lack the political grit to confront the no-growth crusaders. Proposed projects fade away despite the widespread benefits. "A radical minority dictates city policy," says a SAHBA director. "There’s a handful of people who claim to represent neighborhoods but they really don’t. It’s always the same two or three people, who have become the city’s de facto planning department."

One way to restore balance is to give politicians political cover. Development dissenters should get 60 days to prove their claims about traffic, property values, and other concerns. "Make neighborhoods do what developers are required to do. Pass a mandate that they prepare and pay for their own study," he said.

Bye-bye business, baseball, builders

Poor policies push away private enterprise. Tucson’s anti-big-box ordinance has made it almost impossible to build a mega-retail store within the city limits. Unions fearing the competition from a giant Wal-Mart forced issue to become law. The Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce said the regulation’s "anti-competitive measures" drive away much-needed jobs and goods for lower-income workers. As a result, the giant retailers skip to the outskirts, draining workforce jobs from inside the city. Labor demands fall for the blue-collar people who stay behind. "Yes, we’ve benefitted," said a Marana official. "Businesses come our way because the ordinance scares them off."

In the entertainment business, the TCC is outdated. Issues include parking, traffic control, and panhandlers who harass patrons. Hence, booking agents opt for alternative venues at the casinos, the University of Arizona or resort hotels.

Major League Baseball’s spring training is in jeopardy with the Chicago White Sox planning to move to Glendale. If the Colorado Rockies stay in the region, they could move to Marana, vacating the city’s Hi Corbett Field. And the minor league Tucson Sidewinders are headed to Reno next year.

"Despite our hospitality, we don’t have national-quality facilities. We have nothing to sell," said a member of the Pima County Sports & Tourism Authority. If Tucson Electric Park had gone downtown as was originally suggested, "private developers would have taken the initiative to revitalize everything around it," said a builder. "That inability to make a decision will forever haunt City Hall."

For builders, the City Council caves in too often to minor opposition. One developer offered this example: Working with city staff, his company proposed what he called "a perfect infill project" on the eastside. The $4.5 million subdivision "was a compatible, quality project." But while awaiting a final vote of the City Council, two neighbors told council members they didn’t want it and it was stopped. "We had already invested $500,000 in it," he said. "That’s why I now refuse to do any business in the city."

The city "begs us to do public-private partnerships. But there is no public sector support when the final decision is made," added another builder. "They strangle us with red tape. They make us jump through hoops for a year, then kill a good project in one day." Another builder views city offers to "possibly waive" infill fees as "bait and switch." "They want to do it, but the factors in place, the staff, will not let it happen. There is desire to see infill but no desire to deal with the bureaucracy," he explained. "The problem is the process."

Public-private partnerships fizzle

Since the public sector cannot deliver two key items to the private sector, joint ventures often struggle. A former chairman of SAHBA spoke candidly: "City officials have an incredible problem. They can’t get over the idea that a developer would come in as a partner and want to make a profit. They feel if the partnership is successful, they will be criticized for giving away too much."

Certainty is the second missing component. The city cannot ensure results, that a specific project it wants at a specific site will proceed in a timely manner. There are "too many false starts on fantasy," i.e., the UA’s Rainbow Bridge. The selection process "is arbitrary, based on what might succeed," he said. "They study it, design it, then scrap it. So much has been spent on so little. The council needs to identify employees who are committed to achievable development, then set a framework in place to create an environment of some relative certainty."

For example, there are no statutory time limits on zoning requests. For permits, the tendency is to squeeze existing policies. "Their goal is to amend and add requirements, not to approve projects. Nothing gets built because they just create more rules for staff to manage," he said.

Shared risk and control are two other disconnects. And last, developers have been burned by the city. A case in point is an existing eastside subdivision. As an "implied" condition for approval, the developer "voluntarily" paid more than $30,000 for street improvements by his houses. When his model homes were about to open, the city canceled the road project and kept his money. He considered suing, but faced legal fees and possible repercussions for his next development. Besides, he said, he was told that even after spending the money the city could "escape" a court case by issuing his refund just before going to trial. That conduct, he said, "sends a very disturbing message" to private business.

Some reasonable, common-sense solutions
By Roger Yohem
Inside Tucson Business
July 3, 2008

There are some reasonable, common sense solutions to the meltdown of relations between the business community and Tucson City Hall.

• Attitude adjustment: Throughout government, the attitude toward business must improve.

"If downtown is to succeed, something has to happen to change the mentality that business is evil," said a SAHBA member. "Financial risk equals profit, it’s pretty simple." To become more business-friendly, start the paradigm shift in Development Services. Appoint account executives to help private enterprise navigate the system. As the single point of contact for clients, their charge is to complete projects.

Likewise, citizens must change their attitude toward elected officials. Although voters approved "livable wages" for unskilled workers in 2006, the Mayor and Council haven’t had a pay raise since 1999. Their pay is about 65 percent of the average Tucsonan’s salary. "Residents must take responsibility. They fail to elect people of vision because they themselves have no vision. You get what you pay for," said a builder who believes higher salaries would attract quality candidates.

• Political willingness: City leaders are reluctant to take on opposition leaders who fight progress.

"Someone in authority has to confront staff and lay down the law, then restore balance with activists. Letting staff and citizens micromanage the process is not the best way to revitalize downtown," said a past president of SAHBA. Staff and NIMBYs have over-reached their stakeholder status. If staff resistance continues, reassign employees. "If Council truly believes revitalization is the goal, opposition can be overcome," he said. "Handle resistance in a practical way to benefit all citizens."

• Form a URA: If city officials continue to capitulate to naysayers, form an independent Urban Renewal Authority (URA).

"Something like the (Regional Transportation Authority), Tucson Airport Authority or Chicago Transit Authority would give elected officials political cover to actually do something," said a SAHBA director. "Give the private sector legally binding authority and get the politics out of urban renewal."

The URA would manage programs of revitalization and preservation. It would shield the council and make the tough decisions about sites to be razed. "Some say knock it all down. I don’t believe that," said a builder. "As old buildings come down, individual property owners will want to emulate success and redevelopment will happen by itself."

• Traffic and parking: Downtown is plagued with traffic-related woes.

Big-picture solutions include a new interchange to tie Aviation Parkway into I-10 or letting private enterprise build a series of multi-level parking garages in exchange for a 25-year revenue-sharing agreement.

• Set real priorities: Even when he was mayor Tom Volgy said transportation, jobs and growth were Tucson’s perennial issues.

For transportation, the Regional Transportation Authority should help. Yet 20 years later, the city’s main economic drivers are still university and government jobs. Hopes for immediate growth, new jobs and tax revenue are tied to Rio Nuevo. "The ultimate priority is getting private business to come in and risk their time and money," said a SAHBA builder. "When they succeed, that encourages other businesspeople to step up behind them. Jobs and growth follow."

• Development incentives: Provide a menu of incentives including reduced or waived fees, density bonuses, tax abatements, or even free land.

Once the City targets a site for infill, and the type of project, give developers a higher level of certainty. In the extreme, the city installs infrastructure downtown to make infill more attractive. Once in place, business is more likely to undertake improvements. One builder mused about the "wasted dollars" to study proposals "that had no potential of happening." Instead, that money could have been invested in infrastructure to make parcels "shovel-ready. So far, it has cost much to do nothing." "If they have to waive all the short-term fees to achieve their long-term vision, then do so," said a SAHBA director.

• Streamline the process: A good first step would be to set reasonable statutory time limits for permits, plan reviews and decisions on development actions.

Put accountability into the process: If the city misses a deadline, the service is free. If a builder wants to accelerate paperwork, he pays a rush charge. "If the City can get people together who have a vested, mutual interest, let them be creative and step aside. Getting bureaucracy out of the way has to be a priority."

• Start over: Regulations overlap in the Building Code and the decade-old Land Use Code. Some have no relevance today.

The "one size fits all" method is flawed, and realistic applications for mixed use, high densities and revitalization were never contemplated. Some codes of little benefit only add to housing costs for workforce residents. According to Forbes Magazine, Tucson is the nation’s seventh-most-unaffordable city.

For many, the complex matrix of antiquated ordinances is a deterrent. "The city’s shotgun approach to fixing regulations with band-aids doesn’t work. There are pieces here and there, but nothing is connected," said a member of SAHBA’s Technical Committee. Many say scrap the Land Use Code. Through an open public process, make a new code with developers at the table before a single word is written. "It needs a comprehensive overhaul, especially for downtown. It should have a specific development plan based on the specific circumstances on the ground. What is the parcel? What can be done on it?" said a SAHBA director. "Handling development in different wards needs flexible considerations."

Others see traps in the rush to reform. Because city leaders don’t enforce their goals in an organization that resists change, a new code could become more onerous. "Knowing how the city works, don’t be surprised when they roll out a new Land Use Code that was drafted in some back room without any input from developers and SAHBA," said a board member.

City Council’s conundrum

Although the mayor, council and city manager drive the bandwagon in public, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes prep work. That’s where the core problem is. "This is an anti-business council and staff, absolutely and unequivocally," said a former SAHBA board chairman. "The business community and everyday citizens know how hard it is to do business with the city staff. It’s nefarious. There is at least one no-growther on the current council."

Another past chairman of SAHBA also questioned government’s true motives, saying, "I do believe there are city employees who don’t want any new development to move in, period, despite what they say in public." The city needs an in-house revival to inspire the entrenched bureaucracy. Then, reset the bandwagon’s route and roll ahead one block at a time.

As one SAHBA director summarized, for Rio Nuevo and redevelopment to succeed, every city employee "has to see themselves living there. The first question is, what would it take to get me to move downtown?" Those needs "become their priorities," he said. "The clear answers are commercial development and housing that fits their lifestyle." When people feel safe downtown and have easy access to services like groceries, retailers, pharmacies and health care, attitudes will begin to change. Entertainment, transportation, parks, and restaurants are all "quality of life issues" in play. "Only when the bureaucrats see themselves living downtown will downtown be successful," he said.

soleri

Jul 4, 2008, 2:16 PM

PHX NATIVE 929

Jul 4, 2008, 9:41 PM

I read the pleading above with a sinking heart. If what ails Tucson is a lack of suburban amenities in its downtown core, the place is probably not worth saving. You can build big box stores and parking garages all day long and it won't save Tucson. Rather, it would destroy the one area with an urban pulse, however faint, and make it indistinguishable from the rest of that suburban blob.

What's killing Tucson along with most other average American cities is the exclusive transportation franchise given to the car. There's no way to make a functional city where virtually everyone drives. Those of who live in Phoenix know this conundrum by heart. If you want a city that works, scale it to actual human beings and their needs. Put retail on the bottom, housing above. Cut out big setbacks. Make people wish they didn't drive.

Tucson has some things Phoenix doesn't. It already has a major university close to downtown. It's version of Mill Avenue - 4th Avenue - is adjacent to downtown and is funkier and more charming. The streets downtown are relatively narrow and interesting. The raw ingredients are there. The worst aspects of downtown Tucson are the some of the government buildings, which areutterly banal and anti-urban, and the Phoenix-scaled convention center that took out a major part of the old barrio.

Developers scream NIMBY when they don't get their way. Well, tough. NIMBYs are a popular hobgoblin because most wingnuts hate democracy and would prefer some kind of pro-business oligarchy run things (with Bush, these people should be in heaven). People want different things for often good reasons. Tucson's NIMBYs have managed to keep the barbarian hordes from completely gutting downtown. They're often reactive and unreflective. But given the alternatives, who else do you root for?

Are you defending the "leadership" emanating from Tucson City Hall?

The author was not claiming that the Big Box Ordinance was the root of all of Tucson's troubles. It was merely one small example given to demonstrate the anti-development/anti-progress stance of these achieve-nothing, government-working morons.

You claim that what is really killing Tucson is the "exclusive transportation franchise given to the car." Really? We're talking about a metro area of roughly 1 million people that doesn't have an east-west freeway!... When I read your posts, I always get the impression that you long for early 20th century village-type cities that are no larger than five square miles because SPRAWL IS ALWAYS BAD. Problem is, over time, outward growth is essentially inevitable and unavoidable. Rather than an endless series of complaints (which anyone can provide), I challenge you to offer up PRACTICAL solutions. How do you suggest Tucson turn away from its car-culture?

You've offered up: "If you want a city that works, scale it to actual human beings and their needs. Put retail on the bottom, housing above. Cut out big setbacks. Make people wish they didn't drive."

Aside from the obvious fact that we aren't building a city from scratch, your ideas seems awfully pie-in-the-sky. What is your personal experience with development? Can I assume the same amount that Mr. Talton has? Like it or not, developers go with projects that MAKE MONEY. If it's not profitable, forget it. If you want to be a good samaritan and put up your own money on a project with no legs and take a loss, go for it. Labeling those that take action (rather than just sit on the sidelines and talk) "wingnuts", Bushies, or "barbarian hordes" amounts to nothing more than sad cheap shots.

soleri

Jul 4, 2008, 11:35 PM

Are you defending the "leadership" emanating from Tucson City Hall?

The author was not claiming that the Big Box Ordinance was the root of all of Tucson's troubles. It was merely one small example given to demonstrate the anti-development/anti-progress stance of these achieve-nothing, government-working morons.

You claim that what is really killing Tucson is the "exclusive transportation franchise given to the car." Really? We're talking about a metro area of roughly 1 million people that doesn't have an east-west freeway!... When I read your posts, I always get the impression that you long for early 20th century village-type cities that are no larger than five square miles because SPRAWL IS ALWAYS BAD. Problem is, over time, outward growth is essentially inevitable and unavoidable. Rather than an endless series of complaints (which anyone can provide), I challenge you to offer up PRACTICAL solutions. How do you suggest Tucson turn away from its car-culture?

You've offered up: "If you want a city that works, scale it to actual human beings and their needs. Put retail on the bottom, housing above. Cut out big setbacks. Make people wish they didn't drive."

Aside from the obvious fact that we aren't building a city from scratch, your ideas seems awfully pie-in-the-sky. What is your personal experience with development? Can I assume the same amount that Mr. Talton has? Like it or not, developers go with projects that MAKE MONEY. If it's not profitable, forget it. If you want to be a good samaritan and put up your own money on a project with no legs and take a loss, go for it. Labeling those that take action (rather than just sit on the sidelines and talk) "wingnuts", Bushies, or "barbarian hordes" amounts to nothing more than sad cheap shots.

What do you want? Everything to look like north Scottsdale? Fine. But if you really interested in things called "cities", you become maybe a bit more particular. You don't simply give suburban-template development the right of way. You decide in favor of some things, like walkable neighborhoods over other things, like big-box store construction. It works in Portland, which is a model of urban form and preservation.

Of course it doesn't appear in Phoenix or Tucson because we decided differently. Those lessons ought to teach us something. Like, when the default mode of transportation is the car, you lock yourself in an unsustainable pattern of growth. With gas at $4/gallon, it's unlikely we'll be building more master-planned communities 50 miles outside the metro core. We simply can't afford to. The ones we have built, like Verrado, are looking, more and more, like bad investments.

Our lack of competitiveness vis a vis those cities that do have genuine urban cores and amenities, like Seattle, Portland, Boston, NYC, San Francisco, is a major economic drag. Phoenix put its eggs into one basket - housing - and now that this sector has gone south, there's not much left except call centers. The belated efforts of Crow, Gordon and Napolitano will not change this reality anytime soon, but if you want a city that really functions like a city, you'll bite the bullet, decide, and see what develops.

I get that right-wingers and libertarians don't want us to decide this very basic political question. Rather, they'd prefer some oligarchy of low-end developers do that for us. And having done that because Arizona believes in tooth fairies and Ayn Rand, we're left to survey the damage. Somehow, the elixir of the free market feels more like the aftereffects of a major bender.

Well, you folks won. You turned Arizona into this mostly horizontal suburan nowheresville. Congratulations. You don't take criticism well, or at all for that matter, so you'll simply carry on as if it's only a matter of time before our postage-stamp downtown really takes off. You'll cheerlead bottom-feeder economic development and lack of investment in things like education and mass transit. And you'll wonder why Phoenix isn't really on anyone's map of major economic hotspots.

Talton predicted all of this. He left Phoenix because we didn't want to hear it. We prefer fairy tales. And those fairy tales have consequences. The most obvious one is that despite our huge population growth, we have fewer high rises than a city like Nashville. We decided not to decide and that's one area where the damage really shows up.

You can say it's our newness that's the reason for our low profile. I'll even agree with you to a certain extent. But at some point, we might want to decide because if you want a real city, you're going to grow old waiting for Phoenix to magically manifest as one. I've been waiting for forty years and it's an ever-receding mirage. It won't happen until we decide. If one of the few urban forums catering to Arizona isn't interested, it's rather unlikely many other people are either. We're probably the proof it's never going to happen.

PHX NATIVE 929

Jul 5, 2008, 7:33 AM

Azstar

Jul 5, 2008, 1:57 PM

I actually read a letter to the editor of the Arizona Daily Star a few years ago, written by a board member of a historic neighborhood bordering downtown. One sentence said "downtown has sold out to commercial interests." Helloooooooo.. isn't that what downtown is supposed to be??? Commercial!!

HooverDam

Jul 5, 2008, 2:13 PM

I get that right-wingers and libertarians don't want us to decide this very basic political question. Rather, they'd prefer some oligarchy of low-end developers do that for us. And having done that because Arizona believes in tooth fairies and Ayn Rand, we're left to survey the damage. Somehow, the elixir of the free market feels more like the aftereffects of a major bender.

Yes, it is certainly the Free Market that leads to suburban zoning codes. Its the free market that makes it law for buildings to have far too much surface parking. Its the free market and capitalism that says "you must be set WAY back from the sidewalk or you're going to be fined!". Its certainly the free market that we have single use zones, housing in one space, retail in the other, and never the twain shall meet. Its certainly the free market that goes to war over oil, not to mention uses Federal dollars to subsidize the auto industry and roads.

Oh wait- the free market does none of those things! Thats what your favorite solution- government- does! If you want to bitch about cities, thats fine, but you've completely misdiagnosed the culprit. In the era of heavy government subsidization, laws and restrictions of every type, and zoning, we've had almost nothing but suburban sprawl. In the era of the 'robber barons', of (relatively) free markets, of decisions being locally with out some idiot in Washington DC interfering we grew cities like New York and Chicago.

But please, keep blaming the market, it makes perfect sense.

soleri

Jul 5, 2008, 9:22 PM

Yes, it is certainly the Free Market that leads to suburban zoning codes. Its the free market that makes it law for buildings to have far too much surface parking. Its the free market and capitalism that says "you must be set WAY back from the sidewalk or you're going to be fined!". Its certainly the free market that we have single use zones, housing in one space, retail in the other, and never the twain shall meet. Its certainly the free market that goes to war over oil, not to mention uses Federal dollars to subsidize the auto industry and roads.

Oh wait- the free market does none of those things! Thats what your favorite solution- government- does! If you want to bitch about cities, thats fine, but you've completely misdiagnosed the culprit. In the era of heavy government subsidization, laws and restrictions of every type, and zoning, we've had almost nothing but suburban sprawl. In the era of the 'robber barons', of (relatively) free markets, of decisions being locally with out some idiot in Washington DC interfering we grew cities like New York and Chicago.

But please, keep blaming the market, it makes perfect sense.

You mean if we didn't have zoning, Phoenix would be Paris?

"Some idiot" in Washington, I'll assume, isn't right-wing icon George Bush.

soleri

Jul 5, 2008, 10:32 PM

Ah yes, Portland. A lovely city. One I've spent a fair amount of time in. With the good comes the bad though. You've failed to mention that along with Urban Growth Boundaries comes an increased cost of housing. A substantial increase. With increased housing costs comes increased exclusivity, with increased exclusivity comes less diversity. With less diversity comes less culture, etc. You follow?....

As far as its more diversified economy, dig a little deeper. I won't even discuss it's 50 year head start on Phoenix or the fact that it isn't a two-hour drive from Mexico which brings Phoenix a whole new host of issues... The aluminum industry is big business in Portland. This is primarily due to the relatively low cost of electricity in the region, courtesy of the many dams on local rivers (something Arizona lacks and can't change). Also, pollution associated with aluminum production remains an irritant to the city. Next we have shipping. Shipping is also big business in Portland, courtesy of the marine terminals (again, something Arizona lacks and can't change). The Port of Portland is the third largest port on the west coast. Next, we can discuss all of Portland's Fortune 500 companies... wait, they only have one!... Nike. I'll call this one flat-out luck that Phil Knight is an Oregon native and University of Oregon alumnus. Factor in that it's illegal to pump your own gas in Portland and that it's the strip-club capital of our country, and Arizona is looking up!

Next topic. Jon Talton. An insufferable blowhard with zero business experience to call his own. He left town. Get over it.

Final topic. Admit it, you're a socialist. I sense the typical Democrat's mindset of: He has more than I do, so he should have to share it with me. Just waiting for big government to ride in and waive that magic wand and solve everything!

Scottsdale is pricier than Phoenix because they've restricted through zoning (Hoover Dam alert!) the kinds of housing you can build there. They've also zoned out things like billboards, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, industrial usages, etc. Why would the nicest place in the Valley do that? It's full of Republicans who must believe in the Free Market and Ayn Rand. But let a major city like Portland take ownership of its future, and you "conservatives" go crazy. Wonder why. And you're right. It is a lovely city. That's what compact, densely built places often are: lovely. The citizens rather than right-wing oligarchs decided their destiny. It happened in 1970. The Republican governor, Tom McCall led the way because they didn't want to become like California. And they succeeded to the point where Portland has major hotels downtown catering not to the convention trade but to actual tourists who want to see a "lovely city". Think that's going to happen in cheap Phoenix anytime soon? Let's call up Grace Communities for a progress report.

Jon Talton was a real downtown person. You Phoenix Forumers prefer Bob Robb, a libertarian pro-suburban sprawl kinda guy. And who am I to second-guess your choice of blowhards? Talton wanted Phoenix to grow up rather than out. He wanted downtown to develop into the galvanizing core of the city. He wrote incessantly about economic development, investment, and enculturating a real business roundtable that would take charge of downtown. He analyzed our attitudes, our denial, our neurotic belief that things would always improve because they always did. But you didn't want anyone questioning our Dominant Paradigm. You know what works: sprawl, cars, houses from Gold Canyon to Tonopah, freeways, big box shopping. Libertarian heaven, as it were. Well, your side won. Still, I can't help but note a slight tinge of bitterness in your remarks. Are you, by chance, a sore winner?

Okay, am I a "socialist"? Now, when arguments get tedious, the namecalling usually takes over. It's the magic in talk radio. "You know what you are? You're a fag!" I suppose I could return the volley by calling you a fascist or something equally idiotic. But it still points out an issue about our discourse where we can't simply argue things out because real differences are threatening to some people, particularly people who use words like "socialist" as if it were some gob of spit. For what it's worth, I invest in stocks, I'm happy to have consumer choices, and I don't want the government restricting those choices as it does in Iraq when it gives Halliburton no-bid contracts (sorry about that, but you righties deserve it).

What I want is balance between the private and public sectors. I think universal health care is a good idea. Our hybrid system is the most expensive in the world and our health-care outcomes are some of the worst among advanced nations. Why is that? France's system is "socialist" and is widely considered the world's best, yet it costs half of ours on a per capita basis. I want mass transit and passenger rail to be publicly funded. I even think it ought to be free to encourage greater usage. I think the government needs to provide a modest safety net and to provide a baseline level of income for those unable to provide for themselves. I'm kinda Scandanavian in that way. BTW, did you see that study where Finland is ranked as the world's best place to do business? And Sweden is number three? Oh, and the happiest place in the world? Denmark.

Now, I'll plead guilty to being a social democrat. My hero is Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I believe in great public spaces. I want social spending increased and military spending decreased. I want excellent mass transit. And most of all, I want American cities to reflect our greatness and not our fears and greed.

If this country is truly great, we'll manifest it where we live. We're not doing that now because we bought this right-wing snake oil that it's every man for himself. We no longer do great things because people are isolated in their Great Rooms watching Bill O'Reilly on the Big Screen. In 1950, virtually every American city was a wonderful place, including sweet little Phoenix. Over the next several decades, we virtually destroyed these places - not with bombs but with cars. And outside of a half-dozen still decent cities, America is impoverished of places that show how good we really are.

New York City is great. Phoenix is merely large. If you don't make that distinction at the outset, you'll never get to the point of even wanting Phoenix to be great. You folks on the right have given up the fight in order to defend a status quo that should be mocked and scorned. We need to really decide what we want to be. And if this sad Forum is any indication, that decision is to keep doing what we've always done.

HooverDam

Jul 5, 2008, 10:35 PM

You mean if we didn't have zoning, Phoenix would be Paris?

"Some idiot" in Washington, I'll assume, isn't right-wing icon George Bush.

Yah, thats exactly what I said, if we didn't have zoning, we'd be Paris. Tremendous rebuttal. I'm saying its ILLEGAL in Phoenix (and most every American city) to build walkable urban buildings/neighborhoods.

You sit and blame "the free market" when in reality, anyone with more than a passing knowledge about cities knows that developers are completely hamstrung. If I were a developer and I wanted to build walkable urban developments, it would be extremely difficult. Developers have to build what the zoning tells them to build, if that means a strip center behind a one hundred yards of parking, then thats what gets built.

If things like roads, parking, and oil weren't subsidized by the government, do you really think we'd have as much sprawl? If home developers had to pay the entire cost of roads and utilities leading to their developments do you really think we'd see as much leapfrog development? Or do you think instead we'd see more trains/Light rail? Call me crazy, but when you tell a businessman "You can have transit option A: Highways. They cost more and move less people. Additionally no one will want to live near them and they devalue property. Or you can have Option B: Light Rail. It moves more people at a lesser cost, and improves land values near it," wouldn't you think a large percentage would choose B?

I don't know why you'd assume I like George W Bush, I hate him. But acting like the Democrats are any better is idiotic. Choosing between the Democrats and Republicans is like being offered a choice of contracting AIDS or cancer, I'd rather have neither.

Scottsdale is pricier than Phoenix because they've restricted through zoning (Hoover Dam alert!)

Yes, because I said that all zoning should be done away with and is evil. Oh wait, I didn't.

You know what works: sprawl, cars, houses from Gold Canyon to Tonopah, freeways, big box shopping. Libertarian heaven, as it were. Well, your side won. Still, I can't help but note a slight tinge of bitterness in your remarks. Are you, by chance, a sore winner?

Do you have any clue how stupid this sentence is? How is that method of development "libertarian"? Being libertarian doesn't infer that one is pro sprawl or pro urbanity. Most libertarians, like most Democrats and Republicans, in fact, most people, probably don't think much about city development. Its not a topic of much interest to most people. All a libertarian would argue is to reduce the role of the (particularly federal) government in development to a reasonable level. You certainly have a twisted (and quite silly) view of free marketeers if you think that they love things like subsidized oil, wars to protect said oil (which cost billions in tax payer money), a subsidized auto industry, tariffs to protect said industries, government pro sprawl zoning, government built highways (which help spread sprawl), etc.

Remember, just because some idiot comes on Fox News and says "Im for the free market", doesn't mean he is. In fact, he's probably not, he's just an idiot on TV, everything on TV isn't accurate. Anyone who in one breath says "I'm for the free market" and in the next says that they're OK with sprawl because its what the free market offered, doesn't know anything about cities. Sprawl would be impossible without your friendly neighborhood government and fun things like the National Highway Act of 1956.

PHX NATIVE 929

Jul 6, 2008, 12:56 AM

Scottsdale is pricier than Phoenix because they've restricted through zoning (Hoover Dam alert!) the kinds of housing you can build there. They've also zoned out things like billboards, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, industrial usages, etc. Why would the nicest place in the Valley do that? It's full of Republicans who must believe in the Free Market and Ayn Rand. But let a major city like Portland take ownership of its future, and you "conservatives" go crazy. Wonder why. And you're right. It is a lovely city. That's what compact, densely built places often are: lovely. The citizens rather than right-wing oligarchs decided their destiny. It happened in 1970. The Republican governor, Tom McCall led the way because they didn't want to become like California. And they succeeded to the point where Portland has major hotels downtown catering not to the convention trade but to actual tourists who want to see a "lovely city". Think that's going to happen in cheap Phoenix anytime soon? Let's call up Grace Communities for a progress report.

Jon Talton was a real downtown person. You Phoenix Forumers prefer Bob Robb, a libertarian pro-suburban sprawl kinda guy. And who am I to second-guess your choice of blowhards? Talton wanted Phoenix to grow up rather than out. He wanted downtown to develop into the galvanizing core of the city. He wrote incessantly about economic development, investment, and enculturating a real business roundtable that would take charge of downtown. He analyzed our attitudes, our denial, our neurotic belief that things would always improve because they always did. But you didn't want anyone questioning our Dominant Paradigm. You know what works: sprawl, cars, houses from Gold Canyon to Tonopah, freeways, big box shopping. Libertarian heaven, as it were. Well, your side won. Still, I can't help but note a slight tinge of bitterness in your remarks. Are you, by chance, a sore winner?

Okay, am I a "socialist"? Now, when arguments get tedious, the namecalling usually takes over. It's the magic in talk radio. "You know what you are? You're a fag!" I suppose I could return the volley by calling you a fascist or something equally idiotic. But it still points out an issue about our discourse where we can't simply argue things out because real differences are threatening to some people, particularly people who use words like "socialist" as if it were some gob of spit. For what it's worth, I invest in stocks, I'm happy to have consumer choices, and I don't want the government restricting those choices as it does in Iraq when it gives Halliburton no-bid contracts (sorry about that, but you righties deserve it).

What I want is balance between the private and public sectors. I think universal health care is a good idea. Our hybrid system is the most expensive in the world and our health-care outcomes are some of the worst among advanced nations. Why is that? France's system is "socialist" and is widely considered the world's best, yet it costs half of ours on a per capita basis. I want mass transit and passenger rail to be publicly funded. I even think it ought to be free to encourage greater usage. I think the government needs to provide a modest safety net and to provide a baseline level of income for those unable to provide for themselves. I'm kinda Scandanavian in that way. BTW, did you see that study where Finland is ranked as the world's best place to do business? And Sweden is number three? Oh, and the happiest place in the world? Denmark.

Now, I'll plead guilty to being a social democrat. My hero is Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I believe in great public spaces. I want social spending increased and military spending decreased. I want excellent mass transit. And most of all, I want American cities to reflect our greatness and not our fears and greed.

If this country is truly great, we'll manifest it where we live. We're not doing that now because we bought this right-wing snake oil that it's every man for himself. We no longer do great things because people are isolated in their Great Rooms watching Bill O'Reilly on the Big Screen. In 1950, virtually every American city was a wonderful place, including sweet little Phoenix. Over the next several decades, we virtually destroyed these places - not with bombs but with cars. And outside of a half-dozen still decent cities, America is impoverished of places that show how good we really are.

New York City is great. Phoenix is merely large. If you don't make that distinction at the outset, you'll never get to the point of even wanting Phoenix to be great. You folks on the right have given up the fight in order to defend a status quo that should be mocked and scorned. We need to really decide what we want to be. And if this sad Forum is any indication, that decision is to keep doing what we've always done.

Oh Soleri, you master wordsmith. I've never seen someone say so much yet say so little. I'm even confused as to whether you like or dislike north Scottsdale. As a matter of fact, my home is located in north Scottsdale. Does that make me good or evil, Soleri?

I didn't realize that asking if you were a socialist was classified as "name-calling." It was a legitimate question because I believe you are one. Rather, an example of name-calling would be to call someone a "wingnut" or a "tooth fairy believer". Someone that loosely lobs out such insults must have "an issue about our discourse where we can't simply argue things out because real differences are threatening to some people."

About these studies you've pointed out. I would take great interest in knowing who they were conducted by. You don't suppose that could sway the voting, do you? Please provide me with more details. P.S. France wouldn't even exist if we didn't save their sissy asses.

Onto one of your best lines: "We no longer do great things because people are isolated in their Great Rooms watching Bill O'Reilly on the Big Screen." That one's a doozy, Soleri! O'Reilly, you bastard, stop holding Americans back! We should all turn the dial to CNN/Keith Olberman and we'll be back to doing great things!

Rather than you continuing to tell me what I believe as a "conservative" (it's so cute when you put it in quotes), I'll personally tell you what I believe in:

Individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society, national security, school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the War on Terrorism. I also embrace the U.S. Constitution, which along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

Capitalism works. Granted, there may be more peaks and valleys, but in the long run, it can't be beat. No intelligent economist should disagree.... As for $4 gas, we certainly need to be finding alternative solutions besides oil. In the meantime, however, I know of a few locales where we could be drilling be it not for some over-the-top environmentalists.

As for your assertions that Phoenix is "Nowheresville" and that our country only has "a half-dozen decent cities", well that's just utter nonsense. Try telling that to a refugee. Try telling that to the Mexican walking through the desert. Try telling that to the children in Africa without running water. I take it you haven't traveled many places besides your beloved Europe? Your ungratefulness and your negativity need some growth boundaries.

Good day,

soleri

Jul 6, 2008, 12:59 AM

Yah, thats exactly what I said, if we didn't have zoning, we'd be Paris. Tremendous rebuttal. I'm saying its ILLEGAL in Phoenix (and most every American city) to build walkable urban buildings/neighborhoods.

You sit and blame "the free market" when in reality, anyone with more than a passing knowledge about cities knows that developers are completely hamstrung. If I were a developer and I wanted to build walkable urban developments, it would be extremely difficult. Developers have to build what the zoning tells them to build, if that means a strip center behind a one hundred yards of parking, then thats what gets built.

If things like roads, parking, and oil weren't subsidized by the government, do you really think we'd have as much sprawl? If home developers had to pay the entire cost of roads and utilities leading to their developments do you really think we'd see as much leapfrog development? Or do you think instead we'd see more trains/Light rail? Call me crazy, but when you tell a businessman "You can have transit option A: Highways. They cost more and move less people. Additionally no one will want to live near them and they devalue property. Or you can have Option B: Light Rail. It moves more people at a lesser cost, and improves land values near it," wouldn't you think a large percentage would choose B?

I don't know why you'd assume I like George W Bush, I hate him. But acting like the Democrats are any better is idiotic. Choosing between the Democrats and Republicans is like being offered a choice of contracting AIDS or cancer, I'd rather have neither.

Yes, because I said that all zoning should be done away with and is evil. Oh wait, I didn't.

Do you have any clue how stupid this sentence is? How is that method of development "libertarian"? Being libertarian doesn't infer that one is pro sprawl or pro urbanity. Most libertarians, like most Democrats and Republicans, in fact, most people, probably don't think much about city development. Its not a topic of much interest to most people. All a libertarian would argue is to reduce the role of the (particularly federal) government in development to a reasonable level. You certainly have a twisted (and quite silly) view of free marketeers if you think that they love things like subsidized oil, wars to protect said oil (which cost billions in tax payer money), a subsidized auto industry, tariffs to protect said industries, government pro sprawl zoning, government built highways (which help spread sprawl), etc.

Remember, just because some idiot comes on Fox News and says "Im for the free market", doesn't mean he is. In fact, he's probably not, he's just an idiot on TV, everything on TV isn't accurate. Anyone who in one breath says "I'm for the free market" and in the next says that they're OK with sprawl because its what the free market offered, doesn't know anything about cities. Sprawl would be impossible without your friendly neighborhood government and fun things like the National Highway Act of 1956.

Please point out where I blame the "Free Market". You folks on the right use that term as a rhetorical lance to buttress the idea that government is the problem. I use it in that sense: your ideological way. If the "free market" solves all problems, why is Phoenix stuck building cheap houses as its main industry? If lowering taxes and deregulating commerce makes things better, why is Phoenix an also ran in the global market? Why do we have a downtown fit for someplace like Shreveport?

Blaming the zoning code is something WE ALL DO. Everyone who loves cities, even pro-suburban sprawl libertarians, acknowledge the problem with making zoning more flexible and adaptable. But we demand zoning mostly as a human response to protect our investments. If you live in conservative Paradise Valley, you're restricted to five acre lot residential construction. The citizens demanded that. And it's their right!

The real issue in Phoenix is not zoning. Yeah, it sucks, but changing it would not change our city. The market is king, here, as you sore winners clearly prefer. People want single family houses, freeways, big box stores, etc. No argument from moi. The zoning code reflects both consumer preference and industry preference on the whole. Ad hoc changes are already in the works, but thanks to LIBERTARIAN anti-takings legislation (Prop 207 in 2006) that process will be much more difficult.

The Federal Highway Act, the invention of the car, the single-family house with the white-picket fence, warehouse shopping, etc. I AGREE are all terrible things. We live and learn. Democrats and Republicans alike were on board for this huge devolution of our civilization into drive-by crapola. I didn't become interested in any of this until the1970s when I first visited Europe and was amazed by real cities. I read Lewis Mumford, Jane Jacobs, Peter Calthorpe, James Kunstler. And I began to see Phoenix differently.

Today, the loudest and stupidest opponents of cities are people on your side of the ideological spectrum. You can't open the Wall St Journal without reading something hysterical about how liberals are plotting to take away our cars, or how liberals all want us to live in little boxes in the sky, or how liberals want us live in extremely expensive places like Portland (it's not that expensive, btw). Conservatives oppose AMTRAK, mass-transit funding, urban grants (just like John McCain), while liberals beg on their behalf. Our political wars are predicated less by actual ideology than simple geography. It's blue cities (and inner-ring suburbs) against the red rural/exurban/outer-ring suburban complex. You see this most pointedly in places like Oregon and Washinton were lopsidedly liberal cities battle lopsidedly conservative rural areas almost to a draw. Fortunately, the liberals have the edge.

I won't argue your notion that changing the zoning code would change the physical reality of America. It would certainly help but I see the market as much more powerful here. And my debate with your side is meant to encourage some insight about how using terms like the Free Market doesn't really mean what you think. It didn't and wasn't going to build light rail in Phoenix. It hasn't and won't underwrite the expansion going on in downtown Phoenix since government subsidies, tax abatements, and other various private/public vehicles are behind every significant project. But most importantly, it disguises the necessary reality that big undertakings require big muscle. And collectively, that muscle is government.

Tweaking zoning laws might theoretically allow a greater spectrum of choices. But the reality is that consumer choices are more reactive than propulsive. The Phoenix urban form is a cast die: autocentric, low-density and unwalkable. In 1965, we didn't even have a housing code in Phoenix. Zoning laws were based entirely on defensive postures toward undesirable elements. This city grew up with the idea that government was going to protect our individual interests, not promote our common interests.

Today, it's significantly worse. At least in 1965 there were some strong currents of civic consciousness among the citizenry. We undertook the mountain preserve project, saved Camelback Mountain, built the art museum and beautified much of the city with tree plantings. The idea that this city is something requiring our common commitment, effort and love seems quaint today. The love that's there sometimes surfaces unexpectedly as when the Diamondbacks won the Series. But what we really need is to re-examine this profound cynicism that WE THE PEOPLE are not empowered to change things.

The core difference between us is this idea. I think the Free Market is a trojan horse for something significantly different. Rightists use rhetoric here that disguises the real issue. It's not freedom versus coercion. It's a reasoned choice versus a consumer choice. We're not going to "choose" to eat spinach when a bag of potato chips is close by. By the same token, we're not going to take a bus when we have lots of gas, nice cars and lots of pavement. And we're not going to urbanize Phoenix if it's still cheaper to buy a house than a high-rise condo.

Portland faced this question without flinching. They mandated urban-growth boundaries because without them the market would simply respond to our individual desires, not our reasoned judgment. It's as if they looked in the mirror back in 1970 and understood themselves. We're not perfect but we don't want this city to become like Los Angeles. They chose with clarity and reason instead of that part of the brain screaming IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!

For what it's worth, it's still cheaper to buy a house in Portland than LA. And every First World city has zoning regulations. Every last one of them, including Paris.

HooverDam

Jul 6, 2008, 5:23 AM

I think you're entirely missing my point.

First off, please stop comparing me to George W Bush, John McCain, the GOP or anyone else on the powerful political right. I'm as far away from them as you are. If you'd like to compare the positions I'm taking to those of Barry Goldwater (minus his pro war attitudes), Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman or Ludwig Von Mises, you'd be more accurate.

Again, being a libertarian (or any political affiliation) doesn't say anything about ones preferred pattern of city growth. Like I said, the vast majority of people don't know who Jane Jacobs is, much less have an opinion on her ideas. Cities just aren't things most people think about (sadly). Its a hugely complex issue that I think overwhelms most people, additionally the assume they are powerless to do anything about it because of huge amounts of bureaucracy.

To answer your question about why deregulating and lowering taxes in a city/state/any given area often doesn't have the hoped for effects, the answer is, businesses are smart. Where would you rather run a company? In the wild jungles of freedom, where you've got to make it 100% on your own or in an environment where you know you can be subsidized, where the government gives you a safety net, and where you may even be granted monopoly powers by the government (as is the case in the power and transit industries quite often).

Most businessmen talk a good talk about being pro freedom, but when a government handout is available for their industry, they certainly take it. Those are the people who I'd classify as the modern GOP. They talk about freedom, limited government, etc. but are big proponents of tarrifs, protectionism, subsidization of preferred industries, etc.

Why is this the choice: the federal government subsidizes either more and more highways, or AMTRAK? I chose neither! I want the federal government not to subsidize transit at all! Imagine how much more careful states and cities would be about building excessive highways if they knew they'd have to pay for it themselves. Don't you think they'd make the logical decision to build things like Light Rail? Building rail would mean condemning far less land (look how much land was destroyed for the I-10 through downtown, or the SR51 vs the very small amount thats been condemned to make LRT possible), move more people, pollute less, and oh yah, it costs less too! But when the government subsidizes one form of transit (they almost always choose auto oriented transit, due to big business interests/donors), the society becomes dependent and used to it. Its impossible to say that auto transit is the consumers choice. In a free(er) market, where the consumer had to pay the actual costs of driving versus say Light Rail, its logical to assume rail ridership would be much higher.

Honestly, this is a huge subject, and probably worthy of an Urban Planning Majors thesis. The main point I'm trying to make is, in a society in which people have to pay the actual cost of things at a localized level, we see better urban cities. Examples of this in the US would be Chicago, Boston and New York. In the Post WW2 world where the federal government grew by leaps and bounds, subsidized nearly every industry, especially the auto industry, we have cities like LA and Phoenix. Obviously there were downsides to each, New York used to be overrun with slums. Phoenix's growth pattern is unsustainable. There's some ideal level of local zoning, government supplied transit, etc. but I think all cities would be better off if the Federal Government stayed out of it.

soleri

Jul 6, 2008, 2:15 PM

If anyone from Tucson or anyone interested in Tucson development is following this thread, my apologies. Occasionally these flame wars erupt in unlikely places and this time it's "Tucson". Still, Tucson shows most of the worst aspects of Anything Goes Autocentric Growth. And if you think right-wing bromides will fix Tucson, you're delusional.

Hoover Dam, you ignored my previous post's core argument. I'm not really interested in theoretical discussions about what would happen in some libertarian utopia where if we were all on the same page we'd find something better. In my opinion, these kind of discussions are the political equivalent of science fiction. I live in the real world where a mix of private and public forces always apply. So, where in the world do your precepts apply? Name one place I can look at.

::::::tapping fingers:::::::

You can't name ANYplace because none exist. I get into these discussions constantly with people who having read some work by a (usually) right-wing writer make grandiose pronouncements on subjects that may as well be from Mars. If it doesn't exist in this world, chances are there are good reasons why.

People on the Left did this, too. It gave us Communism and all sorts of unpleasantness. Idealism makes for great yarn-spinning but its applications can be murderous. Today, this reality-bending idealism is coming from the right where a couple of generations, having imbibed Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Frederick Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc. know that their idealism is - finally - the correct one.

As with Communism, utopian Libertarianism almost always starts adjusting itself to reality once it gets close to power. I watched Ron Paul doing this dance with some amusement. He would put earmarks in Congessional appropriations' bills for his Houston district, vote against the final bill, and then take credit anyway for having done the insertions after the bill was passed by his tainted colleagues.

In the real world, your ideology is used by people like you (say Phx Native 929) to justify all sorts of things. It screams loudest at "giveaways" to AMTRAK while somehow overlooking airline subsidies. And there's a good reason why. Ideology is often a fig leaf for some bare-knuckled political calculation. Anti-statist Grover Norquist shows how it operates inside the Bush administration. His sweeping denunciations of all taxes seems to apply mostly to those that the right-wing dislikes most. Say, estate taxes, corporate income taxes, or those on capital gains. Actual power trumps everything, even pure idealism.

So, when we encounter ideologues from the right decreeing that mass transit is bad, they do so with lots of high-flown rhetoric about how evil it is to take private property, or how transportation is not a state function, blah blah blah. Aside from you and maybe Ted Kacynski, none of them can be heard when the same thing applies to highway funding. Funny that.

Or maybe not so funny. Decentralizing society is a major boon for right-wing ideologues. Once people are disconnected from the customary ties that bind, why should they "pay" for anything? In Arizona, this surfaced 40 years ago when Sun City decided they didn't want to pay property taxes for the local school district. They voted to exclude themselves although the families with kids weren't able to exclude themselves from paying the FICA that bankrolled Sun City seniors. There are any number of ways that the right plays on resentments about taxes to further erode our idea of the commons.

Cities are the physical manifestation of this abstraction, the Commons. We come together to live and decide we have common interests. Don't pee upstream, say. Or don't overgraze the pasture with your cattle. Cities grow and evolve and the common interest manifests as a library, a trolley, parks, and police security. Cities become great when they include public art, noble architecture, emblematic temples and shrines. Today, our temples are skyscrapers.

None of this is possible without paying homage to this core principle. Libertarians will deny this principle by playing a shell game where this core political principle is reduced to an individual's autonomy. It's as if radical libertarianism decreed we all live on desert islands within shouting distance of one another. Sounds a lot like suburbia.

I'd recommend studying cities without putting them on the Procrustean bed of ideology. Travel and take notes. Maybe cities shouldn't be too big. Maybe people are happiest in five-story apartment blocks rather than tall condo towers. Who knows? But you know when you're actually there. That's why this subject is so wonderful. It's multi-disciplinary and it includes you.

HooverDam

Jul 6, 2008, 2:51 PM

My perfect world doesn't exist, neither does yours I'm sure. How is that an argument though?

Again, my point is I think cities that grew up in the era of less Federal regulation, taxation, subsidization, tarriffization (not a word- I know, but I had an -ion theme going), like NYC, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago turned out better than those cities like LA & Phoenix that grew up in the era of Federally funded highways, federal housing projects, etc. Certainly, those older cities had problems (over crowding, lack of parks, etc), but I'm not arguing for anarchy. I have no problem with a locality using sensible, not overly broad (which is obviously up to your own definition/preference) zoning, holding certain areas back for park space, etc. In your mind you seem to think that anyone even slightly to the right of you is simultaneously
an anarchist and a corporatist/soft fascist. I'll I'm arguing for is Federalism, that crazy idea that this country was founded on.

Lets play a little hypothetical, perhaps it will help you understand the importance of people paying their own way, and why it leads to better cities. Which scenario would produce a more desirable city for you and I and other urbanists:

Scenario A.: When a developer wants to build something along the lines of Anthem, they must pay 100% the cost of all utilities and transportation out to their new development. Also the federal government stops propping up the oil industry. It stops fighting wars to protect resources like oil, and those billions flood back into the pockets of individuals. The Federal government no longer pays for highways (or rail, or any transit), and local governments and business interests must pay for it themselves. A fairer property tax system that taxes land, not buildings, and doesn't inherently discourage tear downs.

Scenario B.: The Federal government floods local governments with money almost exclusively to be used for highways and not rail. Zoning forbids any development from being mixed use with out a tremendous amount of hassle. Retail is in one pod, housing in another and so on. The local government happily taxes those living in the inner city to build roads and utilities out to future (potential) residents on the periphery who haven't paid for anything yet. A tax system that encourages people to rip down old buildings, and participate in land banking.

Isn't it blatantly obvious that under Scenario A we get a more fair, just, and indeed, more urban city? If developers had to help pay the cost for roads (in a more direct way) they'd be far less likely to sprawl out into nowhereseville. There would be reasons for them to build mixed use (which the government wouldn't forbid). Suddenly when you're paying for things like transit, you make damn sure that you've got a multi modal transit system, that can easily, and cheaply get people to your store of neighborhood development.

If silly, over-broad zoning laws are tamed, and one developer begins building TND style developments (which are illegal currently), there will be copycat developments if it succeeds. With land, utilities and transit having to be paid for on a more local level, land becomes more expensive (and reflects its real market price), and is less likely to be squandered. If you're Eddie Basha, are you going to build a thousand space parking lot for a grocery store thats only going to need that many spaces maybe 7 days out of the year? Almost certainly not, it would be a huge cost, and a waste. You'd be wise to either not buy such a large parcel, or you'd develop a much larger section of the parcel.

Would this mean there would be no sprawl whatsoever? Certainly not. Some developers with extremely deep pockets may think thats the way to go, and that it fills a market (and it most certainly does), and they'd build that way. But on the whole, we'd see a shift away from Phoenix's current development pattern of 99% sprawl, 1% urban.

You seem to be saying that someone needs to burry their head in the sand in regards to Economic theory in order to discuss cities, I couldn't disagree more. Economics is the study of people to a large degree. After all, von Mises did call his seminal work on Economics, "Human Action." Cities and architecture too are a study of human action.

EDIT: And PS, thanks for comparing me to the Unabomber, a classy move if ever there was one. :tup:

PHX NATIVE 929

Jul 6, 2008, 4:10 PM

Oh Soleri, you master wordsmith. I've never seen someone say so much yet say so little. I'm even confused as to whether you like or dislike north Scottsdale. As a matter of fact, my home is located in north Scottsdale. Does that make me good or evil, Soleri?

I didn't realize that asking if you were a socialist was classified as "name-calling." It was a legitimate question because I believe you are one. Rather, an example of name-calling would be to call someone a "wingnut" or a "tooth fairy believer". Someone that loosely lobs out such insults must have "an issue about our discourse where we can't simply argue things out because real differences are threatening to some people."

About these studies you've pointed out. I would take great interest in knowing who they were conducted by. You don't suppose that could sway the voting, do you? Please provide me with more details. P.S. France wouldn't even exist if we didn't save their sissy asses.

Onto one of your best lines: "We no longer do great things because people are isolated in their Great Rooms watching Bill O'Reilly on the Big Screen." That one's a doozy, Soleri! O'Reilly, you bastard, stop holding Americans back! We should all turn the dial to CNN/Keith Olberman and we'll be back to doing great things!

Rather than you continuing to tell me what I believe as a "conservative" (it's so cute when you put it in quotes), I'll personally tell you what I believe in:

Individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society, national security, school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the War on Terrorism. I also embrace the U.S. Constitution, which along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

Capitalism works. Granted, there may be more peaks and valleys, but in the long run, it can't be beat. No intelligent economist should disagree.... As for $4 gas, we certainly need to be finding alternative solutions besides oil. In the meantime, however, I know of a few locales where we could be drilling be it not for some over-the-top environmentalists.

As for your assertions that Phoenix is "Nowheresville" and that our country only has "a half-dozen decent cities", well that's just utter nonsense. Try telling that to a refugee. Try telling that to the Mexican walking through the desert. Try telling that to the children in Africa without running water. I take it you haven't traveled many places besides your beloved Europe? Your ungratefulness and your negativity need some growth boundaries.

Good day,

Soleri,

Perhaps you missed my last post where I requested further details on the study that shows Finland's greatness.... I'm still waiting.

::::::tapping fingers::::::

soleri

Jul 6, 2008, 4:29 PM

soleri

Jul 6, 2008, 5:38 PM

My perfect world doesn't exist, neither does yours I'm sure. How is that an argument though?
.

EDIT: And PS, thanks for comparing me to the Unabomber, a classy move if ever there was one. :tup:

Uh, I didn't "compare" you to the unabomber. I associated your name with his because he's consistently anti-statist, just as you are. Granted, he's a walking scandal but that's one of the pleasures in arguments. We get to make them at the other guy's expense.

Now, economic theory is a great thing but you need to show ME where your theory applies. If it's only in the laboratory of your mind, that doesn't help. I'm sure you're persuaded but I require a real-world example to see how it actually works. And this is where you come up short. There are no examples. None. I can only conclude that the real world is hostile to your ideology.

Your zoning argument is something I don't disagree with per se. I do disagree with the importance you attach to it. Having lived in Phoenix my entire life, I can tell you that zoning attorneys usually get what they want. Rarely, they have to signifcantly alter a project because of opposition. The Camelback Corridor is one place you see this. The Esplanade project was originally planned as six 20-story buildings. Neighbors complained, and in a pitched battle the city brokered a deal cutting the height to 11 stories. Usually, however, the variances are granted because developers and their attorneys know the system better than the NIMBYs do. When housing was originally built in the east Camelback Rd area, it was in the developer's interest to make it single-family housing. They increased sales because confident buyers knew it was zoned in that way. As the city grew and developers began putting office buildings on Camelback Rd, they also managed to change the zoning to fit their needs. Most homeowners were unconcerned in the beginning because the office buildings were small. When the sizes exploded, so did the homeowners.

Zoning attorneys work the system mostly through campaign donations and often with backroom deals involving the power elite. They succeeded in overzoning Phoenix for high-rise buildings outside the downtown core. This resulted in the Central Corridor draining away development from downtown. And the Village Planning core gradients later drained development from Central Avenue. In all these cases, zoning attorneys were intimately involved in the policy details that impacted their clients. It's almost like Exxon writing this country's energy policy, if you catch my drift.

Developers complain about zoning all the time but most of them want a system with rules because it makes their job easier. Imagine someplace where rules didn't apply. Soon, you'd end up with helter-skelter development, where massage parlors and strip joints stood next to churches and schools. Think of Apache Junction and you get the idea.

When the feds flood us with highway dollars, we (and I mean by that EVERYONE except a few environmentalists) didn't complain. We didn't complain about the $3.5 billion federal grant to build CAP. We didn't complain about the original reclamation projects that built Arizona. This state has consistently been a net importer of federal tax dollars. And it's consistently propagated a myth that "rugged individualists" built this state.

Your issue here is with human nature itself. It's not like National Review or Barry Goldwater or Milton Friedman was complaining about federal highway money. Something talks and something walks. If federalism had really prevailed, this country would look radically different than it does today. I was a kid when it started so don't blame me. But if I knew then what I know now, I'd be screaming my head off. Today, the battle is to get federal money for mass transit if only to balance out the damage down by highways. Federalism after the fact is not going to fix the mess we're in. We ain't going back to Mayberry. They canceled that series.

We can look back in hindsight and wonder "what if". But life is not a game of counterfactuals where but for the flapping of a butterfly's wings history is altered. It is what it is. Today, America is so stitched together nationally that federalism is virtually meaningless. You see this even with the hard-core Right where the executive branch is clearly seen as superior to the courts and Congress. You have a president who claims all sorts of power, and the ghost of James Madison will not save you.

Let me state that I'm impressed with your idea that something is wrong. We agree! Unlike Phx Native 929 who really likes this shit, you see the problem. I disagree with aspects of your analysis because they're too dependent on ideology. What we see "out there" can be touched, measured, compared and analyzed. We can see what works and what doesn't. Who needs theory?

I don't have a solution for Phoenix and I do think it's too late to significantly alter its course. But I would suggest these things:

a) stop building freeways now.

b) use existing rail lines to establish commuter rail as a transportation alternative.

c) immediately put growth boundaries around the metroplexes and cities with more than 25,000 people. We might need to revisit Prop 207, in order to do that.

d) invest in education because that's the future.

I'll read your response but I'll stop posting in this thread. We've taken up too much of it already. I've enjoyed this, for what it's worth. Again, I like that you understand that there is a problem with autocentric growth. Most Forumers aren't that advanced. Thanks.

combusean

Jul 6, 2008, 5:39 PM

Reading the articles that have been posted around here especially regarding Rio Nuevo I can't help but wonder about Tucson's brokenness. But this article's slant is something else:

The city’s anti-business movement "got legs" during the terms of Democratic mayors Tom Volgy (1987-91) and George Miller (1991-99). Both had won council seats in 1977. "As no-growthers, they started to empower extremists and staff to follow their lead," the SAHBA director said. "The people they hired decades ago are killing today’s redevelopment efforts. Many have moved up into policy-making positions with their negative attitudes toward progress."

How does "anti-business" directly dovetail into "no-growth"?

You can be against the agenda of the SAHBA and be very pro-business. In fact, I would go as far to say that anti-SAHBA is pro-business. The SAHBA is the leech--the lowest common denominator of the economy. It's something you default to, more houses, instead of pursuing a real economic agenda--more corporate headquarters and jobs.

There's something vaguely 1991 Phoenix about the article--they think some huge chunk of downtown's revival will come from mass-market facilities like major league sports venues. Certainly some aspect of that helps, but to make the lack of culture warehouses a salient point of downtown's problem is a bit over-done. Downtown Tucson can survive building upon its existing assets--when there is demand for center-city venues and the existing venues are stocked--then it makes sense to start tearing certain things down for things like a new arena or whatever. At this point it's premature.

I will totally agree with the author in other points--the arbitrary nature of what has been killed and nixed and what proceeds has been a schizoid circular maze of frustration. Just @#$! build it--hell anything at this point--and shut-up already!

Rio Nuevo, unfortunately, is a complicated beast. I think the fact that it's a broken city on one hand and greedy, incompetent developers pursuing cash incentives for projects on another adds to the complications. The lessons with TIF in Tucson suggest a new approach--rather than cash incentives, below market-rate loans to developers backed by the TIF accounts seem warranted.

The other points in the article suggest another mantra that has failed in Phoenix--that is, ignore the NIMBY's, if Staff complains, reassign them, and just build it. While "just building it" might be warranted I think there is more to be said for addressing the NIMBY concerns through sensible, well-timed public process instead of randomly taking one side's opinion over another .

The URA would manage programs of revitalization and preservation. It would shield the council and make the tough decisions about sites to be razed. "Some say knock it all down. I don’t believe that," said a builder. "As old buildings come down, individual property owners will want to emulate success and redevelopment will happen by itself."

No :no: It won't. Dumbasses. The existing building stock is the best chance they have at revitalization.

Developers scream NIMBY when they don't get their way. Well, tough. NIMBYs are a popular hobgoblin because most wingnuts hate democracy and would prefer some kind of pro-business oligarchy run things (with Bush, these people ....

Sure ... but why do we always have to pigeonhole these things? NIMBY vs. Developer, Good vs. Evil, Republican vs ... ?

The unending problem in city battles that I've seen has always, always been the adverserial approach to development wherein the sides duke it out in the public board or commission du jour. Sides don't talk to either and get more and more pissed off at each other in their own continuing pow-wows--at the final public hearing it's a tumultuous disappointing nightmare for virtually everybody involved.

I really wish developers would start seeing NIMBY's and the like as valuable public input for a successful project, similarly, I would like to see the NIMBY's to not see developers as the harbingers of strife in every last overblown Chicken Little-type situation.

Thus, the biggest annoyance in the above article is how it thinks Staff and residents are over-entitled as stakeholders. HTF is that even possible when Rio Nuevo is from a public source of funds? The NIMBY's have a right to see the money spent well, even if they take it to an extreme. People are entitled to their 2 or 3 minutes or however they --if the developers didn't want the fight, he shouldn't have asked for incentives.

The biggest thing the article suggests that is an improvement is the appointment of an Urban Renewal Authority. City Council can approve the agreements and leave the URA to do the dirty work in hashing out the details. Eg, see Phoenix and Cityscape. Phoenix frontloaded the Parks Department decision with the approval at Council--buried in the approved agreement was some impossible-to-conceive square footage of retail that all parties were forced to abide to--some more happier than others.

929... settle down. What have you built? I haven't built anything either but that doesn't stop me from commenting. This is a public forum and even if you do have development experience that's not required to post.

... With gas at $4/gallon, it's unlikely we'll be building more master-planned communities 50 miles outside the metro core. We simply can't afford to. The ones we have built, like Verrado, are looking, more and more, like bad investments.

This is kind of an ironic statement, given that some aspect of Verrado attempts to function as its own city with its own quasi-downtown with the same aspects you talk about earlier--ground floor retail, etc. Verrado is awful where it is as an isolate, but it's better than what could be built given the LCD of still more houses. If we are going to sprawl, I would seriously rather we sprawl with Verrados rather than "The Fucktards at Morningwood Ranch" or whatever bullshit they've been building lately. But I again digress..

Its certainly the free market that goes to war over oil, not to mention uses Federal dollars to subsidize the auto industry and roads....

Jon Talton was a real downtown person. You Phoenix Forumers prefer Bob Robb, a libertarian pro-suburban sprawl kinda guy. And who am I to second-guess your choice of blowhards? Talton wanted Phoenix to grow up rather than out. He wanted downtown to develop into the galvanizing core of the city. He wrote incessantly about economic development, investment, and enculturating a real business roundtable that would take charge of downtown. He analyzed our attitudes, our denial, our neurotic belief that things would always improve because they always did. But you didn't want anyone questioning our Dominant Paradigm. You know what works: sprawl, cars, houses from Gold Canyon to Tonopah, freeways, big box shopping. Libertarian heaven, as it were. Well, your side won. Still, I can't help but note a slight tinge of bitterness in your remarks. Are you, by chance, a sore winner?

I have been a registered Libertarian for years (who knew), but never voted for one at the local level, hell the last one that got my vote was just one that cycle for Corporation Commission who along with Kris Meyes seemed to have a clue.... I don't think there's a true Libertarian organization at the state or City-level that is actually campaigning for anything as the Libertarian philosophy directly implies--true Libertarians eschew anything public including the ROW for roads.

Most of the "libertarian" organizations are really just coyotes in wolves' clothing--peppering a somewhat logical Conservative agenda with the maddening inanity of a piecemeal Libertarian flair. The Libertarian approach to municipal development and zoning is NOT one that can be approached piecemeal in accordance with "Principle" (as the "Party of Principle") nor would it truly work as I understand the nitty-gritty of its applied philosophies in Phoenix's critical areas. If Phoenix were a truly [Ll]ibertarian city, it would have sprawled 5x its size and dried out to a vacant shell of its former self 20 years ago....but it would still have had one hell of a downtown.

It's why I find the ostensibly "libertarian" organizations like the Goldwater Institute extremely frustrating--they are neither Libertarian, libertarian, Goldwater Republican, Republican, nor republican. They're annoying hypocrites that need to be stopped. Until I see them adding to the public discourse by campaigning for no public financing of anything they will remain the metropolitan area's significant stumbling blocks.

On the other hand, Hoover very accurately sums up the hypocrisies of blaming Libertarians for our current woes:
If things like roads, parking, and oil weren't subsidized by the government, do you really think we'd have as much sprawl? If home developers had to pay the entire cost of roads and utilities leading to their developments do you really think we'd see as much leapfrog development? Or do you think instead we'd see more trains/Light rail? Call me crazy, but when you tell a businessman "You can have transit option A: Highways. They cost more and move less people. Additionally no one will want to live near them and they devalue property. Or you can have Option B: Light Rail. It moves more people at a lesser cost, and improves land values near it," wouldn't you think a large percentage would choose B?

I'm saying its ILLEGAL in Phoenix (and most every American city) to build walkable urban buildings/neighborhoods.

No, it's not straight-out ILLEGAL ... it's just a level of development that is beyond the passing fancy of most sprawl developers. It takes significant effort in the public process through variances, essentially zoning-by-variance; tho for what its worth at least Phoenix understands this issue and is adapting existing zoning districts like Urban Residential to come up with logical solutions to the problem. I don't know if Tucson has a Planned Area/Unit Development district, but that has built virtually all of the 2nd ring suburbs of the Phoenix area and PUD/PAD can be applied to build urban stuff too.

Of course what most sprawl developers don't get is that once they have the land entitled for urban stuff, their profits are made and they can go to the next city with probably less work and more money in the pocket. Unfortunately, the flipside of the entitlements process means that the unending extraction of more value out of the land than it can feasibly support has made many people rich from Central Phoenix and probably cities like Tucson without actually developing anything.

soleri and 929, I really wish you guys would actually talk about the issues as they effect everybody rather than having to sit there and defend the grand areas which you cherish. Even if soleri was a "socalist" or 929 was a "wingnut" it doesn't matter one iota--you can deduce somebody's thoughts and counter those individually without their own confirmation of your (loaded) term for them.

If lowering taxes and deregulating commerce makes things better, why is Phoenix an also ran in the global market?

Because companies like Google, or anybody we could attempt to sway to move their headquarters here, don't care so much about that for their own local operations and quality of life for their home-based employees.

Low taxes is what companies look for when they expand their drudgery operations--the backoffices, the warehouses, the serial-numbered-human intensive bullshit that has until now made Arizona a great place to do business...for call-centers and distribution. The feeding frenzy in this arena combined with a disconnected Statehouse means that Arizona can't compete here anymore--we can't incentivize and subsidize fast enough, and even if we could that race to the bottom will get us nowhere. We were *lucky* to get Intel, which required authoring state-level legislation at the last minute on our taxes. The subsidy battle for California-based Tesla Motors' new plant between cities like Albuquerque and Flagstaff was interesting--Albuquerque had a better incentive package so they got it, but it was all ultimately for something that I find increasingly passe--high tech/automobile manufacturing in the United States. Meanwhile, the suits--those expanding--will keep their comfy home digs in the (very expensive) Real Cities as they always have.

The real issue in Phoenix is not zoning. Yeah, it sucks, but changing it would not change our city. The market is king, here, as you sore winners clearly prefer. People want single family houses, freeways, big box stores, etc. No argument from moi. The zoning code reflects both consumer preference and industry preference on the whole. Ad hoc changes are already in the works, but thanks to LIBERTARIAN anti-takings legislation (Prop 207 in 2006) that process will be much more difficult.

The ammunition for the extreme cases that supported Prop-207 were the exceptions to the process. However, what the legislation enacts is simple--adequate compensation. I'm sure it will be up to the courts to decide what exactly is adequate compensation. What one bowling alley owner did after he made a mistake in operating his business after he was informed Tempe wanted to buy some chunk of it for light rail was his problem, not the city's.

There are two things Prop 207 discourages that I am fine with: the arbitrary and forced designation of historic preservation overlays on properties to suit some noisy nimby, or really any change in use that could devalue the invidual's land or restrict their use. Really, if Phoenix wanted HP that much, it could keep raising the ante for a conservation easement for stubborn property owners. Really, it just forces us to put our money where our mouths are rather than just dicking people and making it nigh-impossible to want to run a business.

For things like the Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District in Phoenix, Phoenix believes that since the ACOD increases the value of ones land and its associated uses rather than decreases it.

I have been through both the zoning codes of Phoenix and New York City. I can sort of grok the Phoenix ones and know where to look for random questions--for New York's I could never hope to be so much as an armchair expert. Phoenix puts suburban *everywhere*--even in High-Rise districts (there are bonuses for inwardly-focused retail and wasn't until 2000 when some zoning attorney for Post Roosevelt got us the Urban Residential district. The "zoning toolbox" that includes PAD/PUD descibed above, a retooled UR and one other thing make urban development in Phoenix *vastly* easier.

The more I am finding about comparative city histories is that we really get into anything 20 years late--from rotten "urban renewal" projects like Rio Nuevo may turn out to be and the ones Phoenix has gone through from 1969 - 1994 in its supposed long revitalization. Similarly, the urban boom and the associated mechanics (better zoning) are hitting us late as well.

Thank you soleri for the 1965 view on things. Overall, minus the left/right pigeonholing which only brews hostilities (funny how it exists with Libertarians as the bastard 3rd stepson ... have you guys not heard of the Nolan Chart :tup:) the conversation on this board remains as it always has: fascinating and off-topic. :)

Thank you for the comments on the dichotomy between the stolen right-wing says and does that dominates the modern political discourse--you cannot stand by the "War on Terrorism" as its being played out and stand for freedom as its being played out.

I don't blame Paul for doing what he did. The system is bloated and broken and to the victor go its spoils. In his batshit craziness, McCain exhibits an odd consistency--screwing Arizona twice by actually sticking to his word and not doing a damn thing for us. Boston can afford insane $15-billion road projects leaving an oversized wasteland of a greenbelt through the city. Chicago has the most awesome transit system I've ever been on--they milk this bloated federal teet for all its worth and we just don't.

So it's not that the Libertarian system is final and "correct," it's that all others have failed us repeatedly for either being unfair or wasteful. True Libertarians remove the disorganization and selected misery of the collective and renew the value on the individual's merit. I don't see what's wrong with that. People are born equal, but don't ultimately end up deserving it. Socialized medicine: take an auto metaphor: The government promises a BMW, but it's a lemon--so we all end up getting Yugos instead. I just wanted, and could easily have afforded myself, a used Toyota.

Our problems in health insurance are due to serious capacity issues caused by huge amounts of bureaucracy from everything to hospital codes and how much schooling you have to have to be a nurse, all of which are legislated by government.

It takes at least a month to get an appointment with any specialist (in the UK and Canada it's six), and that presumes, what, half of everybody doesn't have insurance? I'm assuming that most of the people who would be taking the vast amounts of my specialist's time would be in that half that currently doesn't have health insurance, so I'm guessing that if we had public health insurance my wait would go from about one month to six, just like in the other countries.

It goes down to who makes a better utopia. Democrats think universal health care is the option, making everyone pay for this insane system rather than getting its actual costs down. But I will say this on that...If you want to see what universal health care would be like, go to the Post Office or DMV. I'll be goddamned if some sappy hack is going to do that to my doctor.

Republicans just don't give a rat's ass--they'll always be able to afford it. I guess my again ends up on the Libertarian side, the fruits of an efficient government system would likely emerge--you want to see an unlicensed dentist for $10 cash that should be your right but it's not. Imagine if the real dentists and health insurance companies had to compete with the true price of what simple procedures should really cost.

Soleri, no government system is perfect. You're just as bad as the statists you decry by saying that if it worked we'd be doing it. If that faulty logic was applied to Phoenix we wouldn't have a hope at urban revival or ASU downtown or even as much meager light rail rations as we've got them.

I'd recommend studying cities without putting them on the Procrustean bed of ideology. Travel and take notes. Maybe cities shouldn't be too big. Maybe people are happiest in five-story apartment blocks rather than tall condo towers. Who knows? But you know when you're actually there. That's why this subject is so wonderful. It's multi-disciplinary and it includes you.

:tup:

Well, in a way, Phoenix is our Rorschach test. You see this 50 mile by 50 mile metroplex and see something good. I see something terrible, unsustainable, and unloveable.

I see three parts to it ...

One is my adopted bastard-stepchild that nobody wanted, a love for something that only grows from something so supposedly unlovable. It is my conflict of place that is my source of strength or however the moral of the "Orange County" movie of the late 90's went...If I lived in a "done" city like Chicago, I might be less neurotic, have more friends, sleep normally, smoke less pot and cigarettes and take fewer medications, but I wouldn't have any ideas about the challenges of a city, especially one so new and growing, especially one on so many tightropes such as Phoenix on an impressive gamut of issues. I couldn't have made the Neighborhoods Map because Chicago has 77 Community Areas that already work. I couldn't propose a $45 billion maglev because Chicago wouldn't depend on one like Phoenix could. There'd be no sense in pondering the local economy because Chicago's is in competent hands.

Stable economies, stable water, stable this, stable that--that bores me. We will find the answers to problems in cities across the world the more we study Phoenix and the more we care; it is my research lab, a brick and mortar Sim City game but a hell of a lot more fun. Phoenix is like a Jackson Pollack painting--a fractal-like complexity and mathematical elegance hidden underneath a thick patina of vomit and mud. The issue is not cleaning that mess up and revealing our realized potential--it's simply growing up from its throws, leaving it there as part of our history.

The other part is that I have a vague feeling that for all the stupid development and neighborhood cliques and as much as I've been stepped on and ignored, I've also been welcomed. I don't know if I could do what I do in Chicago even if I had an idea of what that would be. If the brighter side holds up, then I'm probably not so insane on the third part of what I see...

I love not so much of what it looks like today in reality, but what it will look like when I am finally done with it. At this rate, that point will probably be my funeral.

HooverDam

Jul 6, 2008, 6:08 PM

a) stop building freeways now.

b) use existing rail lines to establish commuter rail as a transportation alternative.

c) immediately put growth boundaries around the metroplexes and cities with more than 25,000 people. We might need to revisit Prop 207, in order to do that.

d) invest in education because that's the future.

I'd be for all of those except C.

By the by, I've read Jacobs, Mumford, Kunstler and the rest as well. I know suburban growth sucks, I wish Phoenix was more walkable. I just don't feel comfortable forcing people

And I do think New York, Chicago, et al, especially their pre 1950s areas are good examples of a free(er) market creating a more urban environment. Obviously, some of that was because they were pre-car. However, it wasn't destiny that the car took over, street cars were huge, until the auto industry lobbied to get rid of them.

I guess to WAY over simplify what I'm saying is:

If no cars, and pro density regulation (i.e. subsidizing the rail industry) gave us this:
http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/martin_awl/medialib/images/div0065.jpeg

And tons of cars, and pro suburban regulation gave us this:
http://www.carsareevil.com/images/sprawl%201.jpg

Maybe cars, being paid for in their full, real cost, and reduced regulation would give us this:
http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/brooklyn_brownstones.jpg

But you're right, there is no example of it today,and there probably won't be. That frustrates me. I wish the Federal Government would stick to the constitution and not turn the entire country into one size fits all crappiness. The founders had a GREAT idea that each state would be like its own mini country, we could all vote with our feet. Each state would be a test tube for Democracy. California could try quasi socialism, Montana could try near anarchy, and that would be allowed. What a great country that would be.

I love not so much of what it looks like today in reality, but what it will look like when I am finally done with it. At this rate, that point will probably be my funeral.

Seconded.

soleri

Jul 6, 2008, 7:06 PM

It goes down to who makes a better utopia. Democrats think universal health care is the option, making everyone pay for this insane system rather than getting its actual costs down. But I will say this on that...If you want to see what universal health care would be like, go to the Post Office or DMV. I'll be goddamned if some sappy hack is going to do that to my doctor

Sorry, I broke my promise but Sean's comment is a nightmare. America spends TWICE as much as any other country on Earth for health care on a per capita basis. We have some of the most mediocre health care outcomes to show for it (ranking 43rd in infant mortality, something like 35th in longevity). We have 47,000,000 million uncovered, 18,000 of whom die yearly from a lack of affordable access to medical care. Sean, this system as constituted is the DMV. We can't afford it, it doesn't treat us well, and its inflation rate means we'll be spending close to 50% of our GDP on health care by 2050. We're bankrupting ourselves for the sake of some libertarian canards.

Every other advanced country on Earth has universal health care save ours. They pay less, get better care, and enjoy the simple security that ought to be the birthright of someone born into the "world's richest nation". So why do we get such a sucky system? Well, health care insureres think 30% of our expenditures should go directly to them. Why? Well, so they can raise our premiums, deny us coverage, and scream "socialism" anytime someone suggests health care is a public, not a private issue.

That's your system, Sean. It's immoral, it's economically unfeasible, and it's unsustainable. Aside from that, the insurance company CEOs really like it.

PHX NATIVE 929

Jul 6, 2008, 7:21 PM

Phx Native, there's a difference between using colorful language and using it in an ad hominem fashion. You use the word "socialist" about me. It doesn't happen to be true, but for you the insult is more important than factual reality. Now, if you had simply railed against socialists to describe your discontent with anyone to the right of you, that's your color commentary.

The other guy's rhetoric is always a sore point. But we found this level all by ourselves, so it's probably not a great thing to get upset about. I love to have discussions with people who really understand their subject. The less we understand, the more generalized the discussion becomes until we might as well be analyzing ink spots instead of the actual policy details.

Well, in a way, Phoenix is our Rorschach test. You see this 50 mile by 50 mile metroplex and see something good. I see something terrible, unsustainable, and unloveable. You see Portland as this little bastion of socialism and I see one of America's great cities. We've pretty much explained ourselves in this discussion. I've even called you the "winner" because Phoenix does reflect your values and is highly unlikely to ever reflect mine. Some people hate Paris. Some people love Houston. That's where we stand.

Here's another generality...losers put words in other people's mouths rather than stick to the facts. You've perfected this technique. I do not think Portland is a "bastion of socialism." I've only pointed out that it is not perfect. And for the record, I like Paris much more than Houston, but for the love of God, please stop comparing European cities with American cities as if you're comparing apples to apples. You think all of Paris' narrower/more walkable streets are due to some fantastic urban vision?! You don't think it simply just made more sense at the TIME it was built?! Really????

Our country has flaws. Don't think that because I'm conservative that I agree with everything Bush does. Far from the case. What I take issue with are people (like you Soleri) that sit on the sidelines and bitch. Constantly. Whining. Bitching. Complaining. Repeat steps. Oddly enough, these folks are often the same folks that HATE right-wing ideology.... Again, the shoe fits.

Combusean- Why are you telling me to settle down? Am I out of control? Am I discussing things any more passionately than Soleri or Hoover Dam? If I was defending a Libertarian stance, would you have told me to calm down? Unlikely.... To answer your question, I have not developed anything. Aside from the poker table, risk scares me a bit. Rather, I've BROKERED sale and lease transactions for developers easily in excess of $100,000,000 total value. I've seen multi-multi-million dollar deals put together from the inside out time and again. I know the hassles they have to work through. So yes, you are right that anyone can have an opinion, but some people's opinions just have more merit. Businessman's opinion=Noteworthy. Talton's columns= Less noteworthy. I liken it to a guy from the chess club coming up to the varsity basketball team and instructing them on how they need to beat a full court press despite the fact that he's never stepped foot on the court and felt the swarm firsthand. Great, he's got an opinion. He might even be right from time to time. The respect factor isn't quite the same, however.

Vicelord John

Jul 6, 2008, 7:29 PM

Tucson + development = lolerskates

http://www.absolutedestiny.org/pics/albums/userpics/ljicons/thumb_lollerskates.gif

http://www.pouet.net/screenshots/24920.gif

kaneui

Jul 8, 2008, 3:33 AM

Flame wars aside, the obvious challenges of remaking Arizona's desert "cities" into true urban centers remain. Even though I no longer live in Arizona, I suppose the state's growth and evolution will always be of interest to me.

Tucson, of course, has been nothing short of dysfunctional for many years, with its myopic government officials, inexperienced developers and cynical NIMBYs constantly battling each other, resulting in only the most meager of urban accomplishments for a metro area of over one million. However, the city still has an odd attraction for me, as it precariously hangs on to remnants of its historical and cultural past, something that Phoenix managed to scrape away, for the most part, years ago.

Whether or not we will see anything remotely resembling a truly urban Arizona city in our lifetimes is a big question mark. Great cities are never built in a day--and usually not even in a few decades--so maybe our hopes for a quick turnaround are a bit premature. Yes, we are busy building light rail and trolley lines, and high-rises are slowly sprouting up from the desert floor. Nevertheless, the low-density suburban template is firmly in place, and will not be easily dismantled by an overlay of mass transit lines and building hip TOD for a select few.

So why bother, you ask? With the looming issues of sustainability staring us in the face--vision, leadership, education, and water, as some obvious examples--the future might look very bleak indeed. However, I suppose it is the feeling of being part of a big experiment that makes it so endlessly interesting and fascinating, all the while not having any certainty as to how it will eventually turn out. And if the speed of change in this century is anything like the last one, we are certainly in for a wild and unpredictable ride.

Azndragon837

Jul 8, 2008, 6:53 AM

Kaneui, I did not know you live outside of Arizona. Where do you live? I appreciate your continued passion with the Old Pueblo, and thank you for the updates and news.

As for the off-topic discussion between Soleri, HooverDam, Phoenix Native 929 and Combusean...it was quite a learning experience, especially for a planner that works for the City of Scottsdale. Never in my professional and educational career have I encountered a zoning ordinance more strict and separated than Scottsdale's 40-plus year old zoning ordinance. That blue book hasn't gone through a comprehensive update yet. It has been stiched together with a shit-load of amendments, and it gets more confusing as it ages. For example: a massage therapist is a "turkish bath," and what the hell is a "variety store?" (based upon allowed uses in a typical commercial district). LOL!

Nice discussion & debate, but I think we need to go back talking about Tucson.

-Andrew

kaneui

Jul 11, 2008, 7:19 AM

^Thanks, Andrew. I hesitate mentioning I live in Hawaii, lest forumers get the idea I live some sort of tourist life, sipping mai tais at the beach all day. Yes, Honolulu also has its fair share of challenges--e.g., we're contemplating a starter 20-mile light rail line at approximately 4X the cost of what Phoenix is paying. (With only 900k people in the metro area and declining tourist revenues, I'm wondering how we're going to pay that bill.)

Anyway, back to news from Tucson--the city is sending out a new RFQ to replace Presidio Terrace, the failed downtown condo project proposed by local developer Peggy Noonan, and has scaled back the height to three or four stories to keep the neighborhood NIMBYs happy:

Developers will pitch ideas for revived condo project
by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
07.10.2008

The downtown Presidio Terrace condo project will reopen for new developer proposals with a new name: 301 West Paseo Redondo. The city and the Downtown Tucson Partnerships in October expect to put out a request for qualifications from developers interested in building up to 80 condos in three- to four-story buildings just west of the Tucson Museum of Art, 140 N. Main Ave.

It's the latest attempt for an ill-fated project that had its prior development agreement terminated in November when developer Peggy Noonan did not live up to Rio Nuevo expectations with financing, marketing and design issues. Noonan is not entirely out of the picture. "We'll be filing a lawsuit," she said. Glenn Lyons, the partnership's executive director, and city downtown housing planner Ann Vargas will press ahead.

The prior attempt to develop the L-shaped, 1.3-acre Presidio Terrace lot in 2005 involved local developers. This time the search is for a developer experienced in downtown developments of this nature, Lyons said. "It will be a national search," Lyons said. After Lyons and Vargas look through the submitted qualifications, a request for proposals will be issued in December to developers that meet the qualifications standards, Lyons said. Lyons expects to have proposals by early February. "We're not seeking designs," Lyons said. "We want prose rather than pictures."

The idea is to have the chosen developer work with the city and community to design the project, he said. Lyons worked closely with the Tucson Museum of Art and the El Presidio Neighborhood to establish the basic parameters for 301 West Paseo Redondo. Vargas described it as "more sophisticated conversations" than earlier efforts to develop the lot, which is presently a parking lot for the museum.

Lyons figures the property should have three- to four-story townhomes with 30 to 40 larger condos or 80 smaller condos - whatever the developer decides. The downscaled vision rests well with the El Presidio Neighborhood, which fought with Noonan as her proposal grew to seven stories and 101 units.

tempedude

Jul 11, 2008, 4:06 PM

Yes, Honolulu also has its fair share of challenges--e.g., we're contemplating a starter 20-mile light rail line at approximately 4X the cost of what Phoenix is paying. (With only 900k people in the metro area and declining tourist revenues, I'm wondering how we're going to pay that bill.)

Why the reason for the 20 mile starter line costing 4 times more than Phoenix? Is it the terrain, or maybe the cost of getting the needed materials shipped there? A combination of both? Something else? Just curious.

BTW...can I come visit and sip on mai tais, hang out on the beautiful beaches, and flirt with the native women with you all day? :D

kaneui

Jul 11, 2008, 8:30 PM

Why the reason for the 20 mile starter line costing 4 times more than Phoenix? Is it the terrain, or maybe the cost of getting the needed materials shipped there? A combination of both? Something else? Just curious.

^A combination of factors: high labor costs to build anything in HI (especially w/national contractors having to import lots of workers), skyrocketing materials costs over the past several years, and an elevated rail system for a good part of the route, all adding up to an insane cost per mile.

Oh, and while we're off-topic--my avatar is a photo of 13,800-ft. Mauna Kea (Big Island) after an unusual winter storm several years ago, with snow down to 8,000-ft. elevation. (Most of it melted after a few days, however.) A hui hou!

kaneui

Jul 13, 2008, 9:26 AM

Although 2007 started out as a record year for travel at TIA, Tucson is poised to lose over 40% of its direct flights by November, as airlines move to slash less profitable routes nationwide:

Flight losses at TIA will hurt Tucson, experts say
By Jack Gillum and Tim Steller
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
07.13.2008

Just when Tucson travelers were enjoying a record bounty of non-stop flights, the cutting began. JetBlue to New York. Cut. Southwest to Oakland. Cut. And so on until last week's cruelest cut: ExpressJet Airlines slashed its last four flights from Tucson as part of the company's nationwide shutdown.

Suddenly, the total of 29 non-stop destinations available from Tucson International Airport in March is set to be reduced to 17 in November, a decrease of 41 percent in about six months. That could rise back to 18 if United Airlines resumes its seasonal flight to Washington, D.C., this winter. The reduced flights at Tucson International Airport bode poorly for Southern Arizona, economic development and tourism officials said. "We don't know yet, but it's definitely going to hurt," said Jonathan Walker, CEO of the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau. "There's no way we can suffer these kinds of route losses and not feel it in some way."

But the cuts are not reserved to Tucson. Many other midsized cities are also feeling the squeeze, including Albuquerque and Reno, Nev., as carriers grapple with rising crude oil costs. "It does make an impact; any loss of flights is a loss of economic-development opportunities," said Laura Shaw, a senior vice president for Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Inc. "Those flights are appealing for business executives because they want to get there fast."

Last week's decision by ExpressJet was the coup de grâce for the airline's service, which had 11 daily non-stop flights to nine cities when the year began. But the ExpressJet cuts came amid others by JetBlue Airways, US Airways, Continental Airlines and Delta Air Lines this year. In May, JetBlue pulled its non-stop red-eye to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, a flight widely seen as a boon for travelers going to the East Coast. "We've been here before, but not to the same extent," said John Nance, an aviation analyst with ABC News.

"When people are no longer able to fly in and out of Tucson, the companies that might have wanted to relocate or take advantage of climate or real-estate costs are now going to have to look at their overall infrastructure," he said, and re-evaluate their priorities.

Vulnerable to lost flights

It may be little solace to Tucson air travelers, but other airports are suffering similar losses. Small to midsized airports across the country are vulnerable to lost flights in a time of record-high oil prices, said Debby McElroy, executive vice president for policy and external affairs at the Airports Council International-North America in Washington, D.C. That's because many of the flights at those airports are on smaller, regional jets, McElroy said. Expensive fuel means there aren't enough seats on some of those regional jets to cover the cost of the flights.

At Albuquerque International Sunport, the number of nonstop flights peaked at 41 earlier this year, but since then the airport has lost flights to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and Newark, N.J. It also will lose six non-stops when ExpressJet stops flying in September, said Daniel Jiron, the airport's spokesman. That will leave the airport with 33 non-stop destinations. Albuquerque's Sunport is trying to show other airlines that some of ExpressJet's routes were well-traveled and could be profitable for someone else, he said. But he acknowledged that could be a tough sell. "In these times, it's going to be tough to get any new nonstops," he said.

Reno-Tahoe International Airport now has the highest number of non-stop destinations it has ever had — 23 — but that is about to change, said Tom Medland, director of air service business development. The airport is losing Continental service to Houston, as well as four ExpressJet flights, including one to Tucson. "Our opinion is that the No. 1 goal right now is to be aggressive with the carriers, rather than hunker down," Medland said. But the hope is not so much to add flights, he said, as to maintain existing ones.

The airport in Omaha, Neb., had just about the same number of passengers Tucson had last year, but it's not losing flights as fast. Continental Airlines recently added non-stop flights to Cleveland, and Southwest added nonstop service to Denver, becoming the third airline to fly that route, said Don Smithey, executive director of the Omaha Airport Authority, which operates Eppley Airfield. That helped offset the effect of losing ExpressJet flights to Tucson, San Diego and Ontario, Calif. "Last year was a record year, and year-to-date through June our traffic has increased 2.3 percent," Smithey said. But, he add-ed: "Anything could change that. We could see changes tomorrow."

Growing passengers, revenue

The cuts in air service in Tucson come at a time when TIA has been building record passenger growth. After a relatively steady stream of passengers between 1995 and 2003, the number gradually increased by about 250,000 travelers each year, including a record 4.4 million for 2007. TIA spokeswoman Paula Winn said that while availability of non-stop destinations is important, so, too, is the number of airline seats available out of the city. "The more seats available, the more choices we have for our customers," Winn said, adding that ExpressJet served smaller cities with fewer passengers, as opposed to larger markets like Los Angeles and Denver.

In fact, amid all the cuts, US Airways added a daily nonstop flight to Charlotte, N.C., in June. Still, Tucson-area industry is expecting to feel the effect. "It is going to have a dramatic impact on tourism for Tucson," said Brian Johnson, president of the Southern Arizona Lodging and Resort Association and managing director of Loews Ventana Canyon Resort. While he credits the airport and tourism officials for getting flights to Tucson, "the cuts are being driven by economies" and airlines may continue to scale back service to places like the Old Pueblo. Shaw, of the local economic-development agency, said businesses may have different priorities, but non-stop air service is often listed as a top concern when firms relocate or expand to other cities. "It's too early to tell" what the impact will be, she said, "but we are concerned."

kaneui

Jul 13, 2008, 9:43 AM

The City Council unanimously approves the final mile connecting Barraza-Aviation Parkway and I-10, ending a 20-year long debate:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Barraza-Aviationroute.png
(map courtesy of Tucson Citizen)

Last (twisted) mile OK'd linking Aviation, I-10
Dunbar/Spring residents, business owners upset by plan

by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
07.09.2008

It may have more turns than a Formula One racetrack, but the final mile connecting Barraza-Aviation to Interstate 10 via a rerouted Sixth Street will be built. The City Council approved the route Tuesday night unanimously despite an impassioned plea Tuesday by Dunbar/Spring Neighborhood residents to throw out the plan, called Downtown Links.

City Transportation Department Director Jim Glock already has new assignments ready for the Downtown Links Citizen Advisory Committee to identify which sections to build first of the so-called "final mile" to link Broadway to I-10 via the railroad tracks and Sixth Street. The City Council on Tuesday approved this alignment after more than 30 street alignments were considered in the past two years to find a way to take the $86 million Downtown Links road through the historic warehouse and residential neighborhoods with the least disruption during construction and the least impact on occupied buildings. This comes 20 years after the city rejected an Arizona Department of Transportation proposal to tear down all the warehouses along Toole Avenue and have the road link Broadway and I-10 with a single sweeping left turn at Sixth Street. Instead, the alignment approved Tuesday snakes around to satisfy as many neighborhood and engineering concerns as possible.

As approved, Downtown Links would start at Broadway and run along the east side of the railroad tracks, which preserves the warehouses on Toole. Then it goes up Seventh Avenue to reach Sixth Street. Sixth Street would move a half block north between Seventh and 10th avenues, which would preserve the century-old Steinfeld and Citizens Transfer and Storage warehouses.

But the council decision still rankled dozens of Dunbar/Spring residents, seven of whom addressed the council for 30 minutes before the vote. Some 200 Dunbar/Spring residents signed a petition in recent months opposing the Downtown Links alignment because of the demolition of six warehouses and how the realigned Sixth Street would cut Bicycle Inter-Community Action & Salvage (BICAS), 44 W. Sixth St., off from Dunbar/Spring and would use vacant land the neighborhood wants to turn into a park. The route would also make Sixth Street less bike-friendly. "I feel this is a huge mistake," said Natasha Winnik, whose Originate Natural Building Materials Showroom, 526 N. Ninth Ave., is one of the warehouses slated for demolition.

Councilwoman Regina Romero, who represents Dunbar/Spring, said that all the neighborhoods bordering on Links had representatives on the Downtown Links Citizen Advisory Committee, which recommended this alignment to the council in June. Winnik served on the committee until earlier this year. "It's hard for me to believe that we passed an alignment in December/January 2006/07 and it took until November 2007 for them to know it wasn't going to work," Winnik said. "I think there is an underlying reason they are not telling us."

The approved alignment was sprung on the committee as a surprise in January and, essentially, canceled the committee's late 2006 recommendation, an alignment described as "threading the needle" between the historic Steinfeld and Citizens Transfer and Storage warehouses on the present Sixth Street alignment. Winnik and the Dunbar/Spring crowd had grudgingly accepted this alignment. "There was consensus on 'thread the needle' but it was overturned," said Barbara Bixby, a member of a Dunbar/Spring ad-hoc committee opposing the alignment officially called 3.d. "I'm concerned the 3.d alternative is being rushed through as the only viable option."

Glock said that during engineering work through 2007 it became apparent that digging an underpass beneath the railroad just feet from the Steinfeld warehouse endangered that building, and the Union Pacific Railroad objected to that route because it did not allow for an adequate rail detour. Glock said in June rebuilding St. Mary's Road from I-10 to Main Avenue could start within a year but principal work on Downtown Links likely won't start until 2011.

oliveurban

Jul 13, 2008, 12:25 PM

Do we know exactly how the parkway's interchange with I-10 will be like?

I'm looking forward to Aviation finally being extended, or finished. I feel it - or something similar to it - should have just been completed when originally built in the first place.

It's always been sort of a "road to nowhere," much like (in my opinion) Phoenix's seemingly useless highway 153 (as it exists right now). If the powers that be feel the expressways need to be built to begin with, construct it in it's entirety, or wait until able to.

Anyway, maybe the road's original purpose may finally be felt.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/metro_phx/Tucson/2345.jpg

Ted Lyons

Jul 13, 2008, 6:58 PM

Not down downtown news but pretty exciting for Tucson Mall.

Cheesecake Factory, REI here? Signs point to 'yes'

Tucson Mall has applied for building permits for two sought-after retailers: restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory and outdoor-equipment retailer REI.
It also seeks permits for new buildings for existing mall retailers Forever 21 and Victoria's Secret, said Tucson Development Services Director Ernie Duarte.

http://www.azstarnet.com/business/248019

Speaking of that area, has the developer of the shopping center across from the mall where Circuit City and BJ's are leased any of the smaller buildings yet? I thought it was odd to contruct buildings on the outparcels without having any tenants to occupy them.

Azndragon837

Jul 14, 2008, 1:16 AM

Azndragon837

Jul 14, 2008, 1:37 AM

Ted Lyons

Jul 14, 2008, 4:36 AM

Wow....this is a long time coming. I had no idea that Tucson wanted to complete this parkway so soon - the story above came as a surprise to me. So I am assuming this parkway will have no traffic lights, thus a continuous flow of traffic from I-10 to the Air Force Base?

-Andrew

I believe there are already a few lights on the parkway and, per that map, it appears there will be a few more. The speed limit is quite high, though, so the lights aren't much of a nuisance.

aznate27

Jul 17, 2008, 1:15 AM

I believe there are already a few lights on the parkway and, per that map, it appears there will be a few more. The speed limit is quite high, though, so the lights aren't much of a nuisance.

I travel Aviation everyday on my way to work. There are three lights and the speed limit is set to 55. The lights aren't so bad, I can catch them 80% of the time and when they do turn red, it's a short light.

The thing that really chaps my hide about the last link is that they are no longer going to build a bridge over Broadway Blvd for through traffic! Instead they are going to have all traffic stop at the current interesction with the stop lights and go through that way. I think is another shortfall to the design of this parkway. It makes more sense to build a bridge over Broadway with off/on ramps to Aviation. That would give nearly 3 miles of continuous traffic without any lights coming to and from downtown or I-10. :shrug:

Ted Lyons

Jul 17, 2008, 7:21 PM

I travel Aviation everyday on my way to work. There are three lights and the speed limit is set to 55. The lights aren't so bad, I can catch them 80% of the time and when they do turn red, it's a short light.

The thing that really chaps my hide about the last link is that they are no longer going to build a bridge over Broadway Blvd for through traffic! Instead they are going to have all traffic stop at the current interesction with the stop lights and go through that way. I think is another shortfall to the design of this parkway. It makes more sense to build a bridge over Broadway with off/on ramps to Aviation. That would give nearly 3 miles of continuous traffic without any lights coming to and from downtown or I-10. :shrug:

That will cause some gridlock. That intersection is busy already.

ScottsdaleDevil

Jul 21, 2008, 6:18 AM

Any word on the new arena going in downtown?

kaneui

Jul 21, 2008, 9:32 PM

ScottsdaleDevil

Jul 25, 2008, 3:10 AM

^Last word was that in May, City Council had given city staff 90 days to come up with a new design for the arena that kept project costs at $130M, since the "tortoise shell" design estimate had ballooned to over $196M. So we should expect to see a new design proposal sometime in August.

It has been assumed that any new design with the $130M cost ceiling will mean an arena no bigger than what already exists at TCC (approx. 9,300 seats). However, the projections for the "tortoise shell" design were about $537/s.f., over $200/s.f. more than the most expensive arena of that size ever built to date. One reason would have been the significant excavation costs to lower the arena's total height, lessening the impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

Keeping the cost ceiling is fine, but I say build the arena above ground and with 12,500 seats or more--anything less doesn't seem to make sense for Tucson's future growth and needs.

----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the feedback. The hockey stadium in Glendale was around $180 mill and seats 18,000 with suites and everything else you could want. $130 mill should allow for 12-15k. IMO, I think an arena football team would do well in Tucson. Heck, maybe Tucson will steal the Rattlers since they are not profitable in Phoenix. It would be poetic justice for what is happening with Spring Training. A new arena and a top notch spring training faciltiy (steal a couple teams from FLA) in downtown Tucson would do wonders for that area.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2008/07/16/20080716biz-springtraining0717-ON-CP.html

Locofresh55

Jul 25, 2008, 3:41 AM

If Tucson wants to steal a team they need a downtown stadium...TEP is nice but there is absolutely nothing to do around that area....what...go get your car fixed and go to court...that's all you can do around the ballpark....I say...let the white sox play in Glendale....we get the rockies to move to TEP and eventually we can get a team like Cincinatti (SP?) or Houston to come down and join the D-Backs in the new downtown stadium. A new centralized location for a baseball might entice an independent league to provide a team for tucson....I will certainly miss AAA ball.

kaneui

Jul 25, 2008, 4:44 AM

Tucson had the chance to build a ballpark downtown, but instead chose to build the white elephant that is TEP. And now that most of the larger vacant parcels near downtown are spoken for, I'm not sure where they would build it anyway, much less find the funds to pay for it, now that the legislature has denied the Sports & Tourism Authority the ability to raise taxes. So with government revenues on the scarce side, Tucson is stuck with an expensive ballpark in nowhere-land, and few immediate financial options to remedy the spring training dilemma.

Also, it's rather odd that for a fairly large metro area, historically Tucson doesn't have the best track record of supporting minor league sports teams, the Toros notwithstanding. And that fact is one of main arguments from the detractors of the new arena--that even with a new and larger facility, the city won't earn enough money from another hockey team, concerts and other bookings to make the new arena financially self-sustaining.

kaneui

Jul 25, 2008, 6:43 PM

The 850-acre, $500M Ritz-Carlton resort and residences project in Marana is now over 50% complete:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Ritz-Carltonconstr7-08.jpg
Construction continues on the new Ritz-Carlton in Dove Mountain. The 250-room resort hotel
is slated to open in the fall of 2009. It will also feature 25 detached casitas.
(photo: Arizona Daily Star)

Ritz-Carlton is rising
Resort developer makes lemonade from economy's 'lemon'

By Brian J. Pedersen
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
July 25, 2008

Though the struggling U.S. economy has affected quite a few big-name developments locally, the slowdown doesn't seem to be hurting one of the Northwest Side's most ambitious projects. In fact, those affiliated with construction of the Ritz-Carlton resort in Dove Mountain say, other projects' losses are their gains. "As other projects don't go forward, it creates more resources for us as we do go forward," project manager Richard Frazee said, just before slapping on a hard hat to wander through a bustling construction area. "We have over 500 workers in here on a daily basis."

The $500 million, 850-acre project, which was officially announced as being a Ritz-Carlton last October, is more than half done, officials say. The four-story, 250-room Ritz-Carlton hotel is about 50 percent complete, Frazee said, while the clubhouse attached to the 36-hole golf club is 70 percent done. The first 27 golf holes are complete, said Casey Bolinger of co-developer Greenbrier Southwest Corp., although revegetation continues along the edges of holes to help blend the grass into the natural desert landscape that surrounds them. Eighteen of those holes, all of which were designed by legendary golfer Jack Nicklaus, will be the site of the World Golf Championships-Accenture Match Play Championship in February.

The clubhouse is expected to open in mid-January, said Tim Bolinger of Scottsdale-based Greenbrier Southwest, which is developing the 850-acre project along with Tucson-based Cottonwood Properties. "If we weren't doing the hotel, the clubhouse itself would be considered a major project," Tim Bolinger said. The hotel itself is expected to open in October 2009, though reservations for group outings are already being taken. "The hotel is coming into the Ritz-Carlton system as we speak," Tim Bolinger said.

The project also calls for a 324-house residential development, called The Residences at the Ritz-Carlton. Casey Bolinger said two of three model homes are finished, and a third — near the golf clubhouse — will be ready when the Ritz-Carlton begins actively marketing the houses this fall.

About the Ritz-Carlton
• Developers: Cottonwood Properties of Tucson and Greenbrier Southwest Corp. of Scottsdale
• Project area: 850 acres
• Cost: $500 million (estimated)
• Number of people working daily on construction: About 500

The Ritz-Carlton, Dove Mountain Hotel and Spa
• Description: Four-story hotel, 335,000 square feet; 250 rooms including 25 detached casitas
• Projected opening: October 2009.

The Ritz-Carlton, Dove Mountain Golf Club
• Description: 36 holes (27 are complete)
• Projected opening: January

The Residences at The Ritz-Carlton, Dove Mountain
• Description: 324 houses, priced from $1.5 million and $3.5 million; land for custom-home sites is between $750,000 and $1.8 million.
• Projected opening: To be announced

PHX31

Jul 26, 2008, 11:10 PM

NorthScottsdale,
How do you know the Rattlers are not profitable? They're one of the longest running AFL franchises, which is saying a lot given the turnover in the AFL, plus they have a very loyal fanbase, and I thought they had pretty decent attendance.

Ted Lyons

Jul 27, 2008, 4:01 AM

Wow, The Ritz Carlton is really moving along. It didn't look anything like that when I was up there for the golf tournament.

kaneui

Jul 27, 2008, 8:55 PM

After nine years, $77M spent and little to show for it, Rio Nuevo may find its future TIF monies pulled by the state legislature for lack of tangible progress:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MissionGardenssite.jpg
Symbolic of Rio Nuevo's glacial pace, a sign marks the site for the Mission Gardens
section of Tucson Origins Heritage Park, a unbuilt project west of I-10.
(photo: Arizona Daily Star)

$77 million spent on Rio Nuevo, and here is what we have so far…
By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
07.27.2008

Fox theatre: $11,599,954 - The theater is one of the few projects completed with Rio Nuevo money, but it's not open often enough for some critics.

Presidio Wall: $5,028,696 - Includes $750,000 land purchase and construction cost for re-creating a portion of the Presidio wall.

West side mission: $21,677,834 - Includes landfill remediation, infrastrutcture, design and planning, and purchase of Citizens Auto property.

In the nine years since voters approved the Rio Nuevo Downtown redevelopment district, the city has taken in — and spent — more than $77 million in taxpayer money. That almost matches the $80 million voters were told to expect the city to put toward an array of museums, a re-creation of Tucson's birthplace and a Downtown hotel. But with that much money spent — and just $28,000 in the bank as of June 1 — none of those jewels of the Rio Nuevo plan is even close to starting construction. Instead, the money has gone to restore two old movie theaters, re-create a small piece of the adobe Presidio Wall, build infrastructure for a new Downtown subdivision and plan how to spend even more money.

Fortunately for Rio Nuevo, in 2006 City Manager Mike Hein was able to get the Legislature to extend the life of the tax increment financing district from 10 to 22 years and up its anticipated haul to $600 million. Over the years, as Rio Nuevo's slow progress came under fire from frustrated citizens, city officials were careful to avoid saying specifically how much money the special taxing district had brought in, and where it went. But in the first public audit of Rio Nuevo, a series of Arizona Daily Star public-records requests was able to pin down those financial details — although it was not information the city gave up easily, as many of the records were incomplete, unorganized and lacking in detail.

The city's lack of progress hasn't gone unnoticed in the Legislature, which is poised to pull the redevelopment district's funding next session to fill expected holes in the state's budget. "That's definitely possible," said Tucson Republican Rep. Jonathan Paton, who said efforts this year were blocked by Senate President Tim Bee of Tucson, now running for Congress. "I heard it mentioned this session, but they couldn't do it because of Tim Bee. They hate these special taxing districts."

The news that Rio Nuevo has spent $77 million caught even those who have watched the project closely by surprise. "I'm flabbergasted," said Republican businessman and Downtown landowner Bruce Ash. "It's incredible they have blown through this money and there's nothing to show for it. Usually I'm not at a loss for words, and I am at a loss for words. It's shocking." Commercial real estate broker Mike Ebert said disbelief was his first reaction when hearing Rio Nuevo's price tag. "Where is it, what did (the city) do?" he said. "I have no idea what they spent that money on."

But Mayor Bob Walkup, the city official whose legacy is most closely linked with the project as voters elected him mayor the same year they approved the district, said the money has been wisely spent. "A lot is going on, and it's all positive," Walkup said. "Everybody is waiting on the arena and convention center hotel. The private sector really wants to see these under way. They are right around the corner."

The $77 million has accomplished some things. More than $11.5 million went to refurbish the Fox Theatre, which is open and hosting shows and movies. Nearly $4.3 million went to re-create a portion of the 18th-century Presidio Wall, which encircled and protected the Spanish fort of Tucson. Several public/private partnerships have also been done, or appear to be on track. The Rialto Theatre, a former movie house transformed into one of the area's most active concert venues, got $2.3 million. Another $5.5 million went to the Mercado commercial and housing project going up on the West Side, and $735,000 went to refurbish the Martin Luther King Jr. housing project.

But Eric Abrams, a local developer and active Democrat, said that's not much to show for 10 years. "A movie theater that's not open much, a fake wall and a bunch of plans that are never going to happen is not much for $77 million," Abrams said.

Sunny rhetoric amid dark clouds
Walkup is not alone in his optimism. Many city officials, including Hein, Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko and some City Council members still say progress is right around the corner. That case gets harder to make, however, when several of Rio Nuevo's highest profile projects still have no construction timetable after undergoing years of public planning and evolution.

● The arena, proposed as an $80 million public/private partnership by Walkup five years ago, grew into a $200 million city undertaking before shrinking back to the $100 million range. And depending on how the re-creation of Tucson's birthplace and the convention hotel are financed, there may not be enough money to build it.

● The science center started out as a modest replacement for the Flandrau Planetarium, ballooned into a $350 million Rainbow Bridge, then shrank back down to a $130 million project. But even at that price it's still in doubt because the city and UA can't agree on how to split the funding, even after spending a combined $15.5 million on planning.

Getting the records
Financial records for Rio Nuevo can be difficult to get, and to decipher. The city's response to the Star's first request was to lump Rio Nuevo revenue and spending in with debt service and revenue from the nearly 40-year-old Tucson Convention Center, with little way to tell which was which. A subsequent request identified spending on each project, but not specifically what the money went for.

A series of additional requests produced illegible and incomplete documents and money accounted for in illogical categories that made it hard to track. For example:

● A $1.4 million repayment by the Fox Theatre was put under the miscellaneous category, and no one in the city's Rio Nuevo, budget or accounting offices could say what the miscellaneous revenues were until pushed by the Star to figure it out.

● The price tag of a new Downtown arena was listed at $52,000, even though the city had already spent $1.5 million on planning, consultants and minimal infrastructure work for the arena and adjacent civic plaza.

● Much of the $10.47 million the city spent on contractual services since 2000 cannot be broken down by project, a problem Interim Finance Director David Cormier said the city is working to fix. He said the data should have been listed by project from the start, but wasn't.

● Because of the way files are kept, details about spending before 2005 are available only if you already know what you're looking for. Backup receipts for spending since then are on microfiche, and copies provided to the Star were nearly illegible.

Deputy City Manager Mike Letcher said the city followed all proper accounting practices and got the required signatures for each expenditure. "We can get the information folks need," Letcher said. "The question is putting it in a format that's easily understandable." Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko said whenever an expense occurred, someone at the city always knew what it was for. It's just that someone from the outside — like the Star — has a hard time comprehending the data and getting detailed information. He said the receipts are there even if they aren't easy to find.

Ash, the Republican businessman, said he has been requesting an accounting for Rio Nuevo for years and has heard nothing. "Who was watching this; how does this happen?" Ash said. "It's someone else's money. It's an open checkbook, and they don't want the public to see because there's nothing to show for it."

Progress hype
Criticism of Rio Nuevo's snail's pace is nothing new. The district originally had a 10-year limit on its ability to claim an extra share of state sales taxes. To maximize revenues by waiting for the economy to improve, and buy time to replan what should be built, the city didn't start collecting the tax until 2003. By then, with impatient citizens clamoring, Walkup called for approval of a $100 million University of Arizona science center as "the cornerstone project for Rio Nuevo; this is where we really get things going." Over the next three years, the project morphed into a $350 million "Rainbow Bridge" across Interstate 10 that Tucson architect and activist Jody Gibbs called "one of the dumbest projects or suggestions in the history of the city." Gibbs said the project came to symbolize what a "gigantic boondoggle" Rio Nuevo had become.

Despite the false starts, city officials said they hope the public hasn't given up hope. "We need to get the public to share our belief that yes, it is happening," Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said. "We built the foundation for Rio Nuevo. Not literally, but figuratively we have established the footings for Rio Nuevo with that $77 million."

But City Hall watcher Gerald Juliani said Rio Nuevo has been about "lots of ambitious talk and no action on almost anything." He says the city has spent "like a drunken sailor" to the tune of more than $7 million a year, and "they don't have much to show for it." "It's always just around the corner," Juliani said. "Rio Nuevo has been a bonanza for consultants. There's no bricks and mortar for people to see."

Hein said he understands the public anger, adding the city has consistently "overpromised and underdelivered" by giving overly ambitious timelines and hyping projects that were never going to happen. But he contends that Rio Nuevo didn't really start in 1999, because there wasn't enough money to build all the projects. Progress should be judged from June 2006, when the Legislature approved the $600 million, he said.

Although the city has spent the money as it came in thus far, officials are now moving to quickly to sell bonds that would be repaid with future Rio Nuevo taxes, obligating the money before the Legislature can take it back. Paton said any progress is helpful, but warned the die may have already been cast as far as losing the money is concerned. "It could help," Paton said. "But it's getting to the point where it's a day late and a dollar short."

STATUS OF RIO NUEVO PROJECTS

Don Bourn's The Post

Project type: Private, with public help
Original concept: The city bought the Downtown block that included a more than 100-year-old storefront built by pioneer rancher George Pusch from the federal government for $1 in 2003, planning to demolish the Pusch building and other structures on the block. Developer Don Bourn won a competitive process to buy the site for $100 and develop it.
What happened: After originally saying it would try to save the Pusch building, the city quickly tore it down in August 2004 over protests from community members, who unsuccessfully sought an injunction to stop the demolition. Bourn changed his plans numerous times over the next three years, proposing a 14-story tower, then changing his project back to his original five-story design, then proposing "condotel" units and then quickly killing that proposal. Bourn said construction would start in April 2007 and then later said July 2007. He told the City Council in March that he would begin construction by May 2008.
Status: Failed unless Bourn can start construction soon. He said he will start any day now, but has said that for years.
Taxpayer bill: $690,836. More than $500,000 went toward tearing down the Pusch building and cleaning up the debris.

Downtown Arena

Project type: Public
Original concept: The original plan submitted to voters in 1999 for Rio Nuevo didn't include an arena. It was added in 2003 at the behest of Mayor Bob Walkup. The City Council voted 4-3 in early 2004 to solicit developers to submit proposals to build an arena on the southeast corner of West Congress Street at Interstate 10.
What happened: The City Council selected a Texas-based developer who proposed an arena shaped like the shell of a desert tortoise. While discussing a separate Downtown project in the area, the council unexpectedly voted unanimously to back a $130 million, 12,500-seat arena shaped like a tortoise in April 2007. In April 2008, the Arizona Daily Star uncovered new cost estimates that pushed the price tag to nearly $200 million. The council quickly abandoned that plan and is seeking to build a smaller 10,000- or 11,000-seat arena.
Status: In flux. Could still go either way. The city will solicit proposals from at least four arena developers in the coming months.
Taxpayer bill: $1.45 million for studies and concept plans, including studies on whether to just upgrade the Tucson Convention Center.

UA Science Center

Project type: Public
Original concept: A nearly $100 million science center to replace the current Flandrau Center on the University of Arizona campus was approved by the Arizona Board of Regents and the City Council in 2003. The council committed $20 million, and the university was to pay much of the estimated $73 million construction cost.
What happened: The idea somehow ballooned into a $350 million "Rainbow Bridge" that would span Interstate 10 and the Santa Cruz River and hold exhibit space on the bridge. UA officials hired a highly touted New York architect known for cost overruns and were adamant the city pay the entire cost, which didn't sit well with taxpayers. The city finally said no to the Rainbow Bridge. A $100 million science center combined with a $30 million Arizona State Museum is now planned.
Status: In flux and could go either way. The UA wants the city to pay the full cost upfront. The city is willing to cover the full cost, but not in advance. It wants staggered payments.
Taxpayer bill: $15.56 million. Includes $4.86 million from Rio Nuevo and $10.7 million from the University of Arizona.

Santa Rita Hotel

Project type: Private
Original concept: A $40 million complex proposed in 2004 consisted of a high-end, 66-room boutique hotel, 148 condos, 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, and elevated parking.
What happened: Developers Michael Teufel of Pathway Developments and Humberto S. Lopez of HSL Properties decided to quickly move the highly regarded Downtown restaurant Cafe Poca Cosa to make way for the revitalization of the hotel. Cafe Poca Cosa was given a city subsidy in order to keep the business Downtown. The Santa Rita got bogged down with negotiations with the city because developers didn't want to take responsibility for a public alleyway on the site, but wanted to build over the top of it.
Status: Failed. Teufel walked away from the project in mid-2007 and defaulted on about $6.5 million in loans and is facing the possibility of losing control of his businesses. Lopez said he now wants to build a 160-room, first-class hotel with a spa, a bar and a music venue. The hotel is vacant and unused except for parking.
Taxpayer bill: $556,000, including $500,000 in improvements at Cafe Poca Cosa's new location, and $56,000 in free rent. Paid out of budget for Pennington Street parking garage.

West Side Convento and Museums

Project Type: Public
Original concept: The re-creation of the San Agustín Mission on the West Side was the signature project approved by voters in 1999. Along with several museums, the project would rebuild the cultural birthplace of Tucson, which had been made into a landfill. It would include pit houses from an ancestral Hohokam village, the Carrillo House and features of the mission, which had the first buildings in modern Tucson. The Arizona Historical Society and Tucson Children's Museum are also planned nearby.
What happened: The city has spent millions in environmental remediation for cleaning up the landfill site in order to get the West Side project ready for development. The City Council voted unanimously to spend nearly $54 million to re-create the convento and mission gardens along with roads, landfill remediation, a bridge over the Santa Cruz River, and design and construction management.
Status: Likely to happen, but unpredictable when or exactly what. Plans for a parking garage, cultural plaza and convento are nearly done, and construction could start in months if the council votes to move forward.
Taxpayer bill: $21.68 million. Money went to cleaning up the landfill, buying property, and infrastructure and design work.

MLK Revitalization

Project Type: Public-private partnership
Original concept: The city wanted to sell the 39-year-old public housing project, but then developed a public-private partnership for retail and housing in the MLK building, along with a new public housing project nearby.
What happened: The city's Community Services Department changed course in mid-2006 and was pushing to demolish the building and replace it with a four-story public housing project, preventing any retail or market-rate housing there. After a Star story about the change and the fact that the city was misusing nearly $1 million in Rio Nuevo funding that was supposed to go to a public plaza on the site, the city switched back to the public-private partnership idea and sold the property to Portland, Ore., developer Williams & Dame Development.
Status: Making good progress. Williams & Dame Development is turning the housing project into rentals and building retail along Congress Street for the project called One North Fifth.
Taxpayer bill: $735,327 in Rio Nuevo funds. Plans also call for Rio Nuevo to spend $1 million for a public plaza there, $1 million for street improvements and $5 million for a parking garage beneath the site.

For more details of this special report: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/250090

Rive85

Jul 28, 2008, 5:19 AM

its sad, so sad to read this. 77 million dollars...

kaneui

Jul 29, 2008, 6:41 AM

The local Catholic diocese is still trying to convince the city to buy and repair the historic Marist College building downtown, perhaps the only surviving three-story adobe structure in Arizona. (Would be a real shame if this building isn't saved.)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MaristCollegebldg2008.jpg
The three-story one-time Catholic school next to St. Augustine Cathedral was damaged in the 2005 summer rains.
(photo: Arizona Daily Star)

City urged anew to take over, repair old Marist adobe
By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
07.26.2008

Racing against a ticking clock, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson is again trying to give the crumbling adobe Marist College building to the city, in hopes it will save the 93-year-old Downtown building from collapse. The diocese and the city have for years had informal negotiations over the three-story building on the northwest corner of the St. Augustine Cathedral square, but neither party wants to pay the $1 million minimum cost to stabilize the building.

Now the diocese has offered to raise about $250,000 toward making the building structurally sound, although the city still hasn't jumped on the deal because of the price tag and the uncertainty of what the building would be used for once it is stabilized. The diocese is also offering to include a portion of the St. Augustine parking lot across from the Tucson Convention Center, according to an e-mail from City Historic Preservation Officer Jonathan Mabry. John Shaheen, diocese property and insurance director, said the church does not have the money to stabilize the Marist building, which housed a Catholic school from 1915 to 1968. The building is the only three-story adobe in Southern Arizona, and maybe in Arizona, Shaheen said.

Mabry said that if the building is going to be saved, the long-term stabilization work needs to be done soon because "the building's situation is clearly urgent." The adobe walls are beginning to crumble, and the western corners of the building, one of which fell off during the 2005 monsoon, remain covered with tarps to keep out moisture from the summer rains. The $1 million would make the building whole by repairing the holes, building a steel skeleton inside for stabilization and removing the current outer shell and replacing it with a more compatible plaster that would better repel water, according to a "Final Historic Structure Report" by the city. Renovating the interior to make it usable would be another $1 million to $2 million. Shaheen said it could be offices, a charter school, a visitor center or even a Latino cultural center.

But the city has no idea what the use of the building would be if it took it over, creating a barrier toward spending the money to save it, said Albert Elias, the city's director of urban planning and design. Mayor Bob Walkup said everyone wants to save the building, including him, but these are difficult times for governments to find extra money, and the city needs to focus on Rio Nuevo before taking on more tasks. "We must honor our current commitments before we agree to take on new ones," he said.

Elias said the two parties have talked for years, but serious negotiations on who would pay what to fix the building have never come about. "We've never gotten past preliminary discussions," Elias said. "What would it be used for? I don't thinking any of those questions have been answered." If the city owned the building, it might have to bring it into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, potentially compromising some of the building's historical character, Elias said.

Elias said he believes Marist College is a significant building, both because it's on the National Register of Historic Places and because the entire St. Augustine block is fully intact, adding to the area's historic character. The building may not last as long as the negotiations, however. Elias said the building is clearly in tenuous condition, having been covered with tarps for several years. Minimal stabilization work done few years back along with the tarps has potentially given it a couple more years, he said. "We (hope to) get a few more years," Elias said. "You can see it's clearly a building in danger. Hopefully, the situation can be resolved."

City Councilwoman Regina Romero said the city and Pima County need to determine how they can help save the building. It's possible a Pima County bond package in the coming years could include money for Marist, Romero said. "I don't want to see that building crumbling down," Romero said. "If there's any way Pima County or the city can help, we need to look into that. It is an asset to the community."

DID YOU KNOW
The three-story, 93-year-old Marist College, which anchors the northwest corner of the St. Augustine Cathedral square in Downtown Tucson, is probably the only three-story adobe building in Arizona.

Marist housed a Catholic school from 1915 to 1968. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson had its administrative offices in the building from 1983 to 2002. The building has been vacant since.

In 2005, during an August storm, a pelting rain ripped open a corner of the building. The diocese, using an emergency state grant and local contributions, covered the rupture with heavy plastic sheets and placed braces.

jvbahn

Jul 29, 2008, 2:15 PM

Ted Lyons

Jul 31, 2008, 6:45 AM

:previous: Has anyone come up with the brilliant idea of making it part of the Rio Nuevo project? I mean, the last article talks about money just disappearing into a black hole, and here is a gem just sitting in wait for money that could revitalize the block.

Tucson's government isn't worth the name. What a bunch of morons.

I don't know if it's possible to expand the boundaries of the funding district. Some on here may know more than I do but I feel like the boundaries had to be somewhat set in stone to obtain the joint funding.

kaneui

Aug 1, 2008, 8:55 AM

I don't know if it's possible to expand the boundaries of the funding district. Some on here may know more than I do but I feel like the boundaries had to be somewhat set in stone to obtain the joint funding.

The Marist College building is definitely within the Rio Nuevo district boundaries, according to their website (http://www.tucsonaz.gov/rionuevo/maps_and_plans/rnboundries.html), but it sounds like the city hasn't figured out what to do with the structure if they did buy it and rehab it. (A lack of imagination?)

It's such a headscratcher that Rio Nuevo is so focused on recreating, at enormous expense, old structures that no longer exist, but can't be bothered to save existing historical and architectural gems like the Marist College building, currently a crumbling eyesore clearly visible to visitors right across the street from TCC. Go figure.

retrorv

Aug 1, 2008, 5:14 PM

Kaneui-You are so correct. This is a prime example of what's wrong with downtown redevelopment. The City spent millions on the recreation of a corner of the old Presidio wall at a street corner with no parking and sandwiched in between a 45 year old 12 story building and the YMCA. The huge trash compactor right next to it really sets off the historical context. I'm convinced that the City is so wrapped up in process-studies, negotiations, meetings, task forces, plans, etc.-that it can't actually build anything.

kaneui

Aug 4, 2008, 9:59 AM

The City Council is feeling the heat this summer--especially from the AZ legislature--and may actually make some decisions on Wednesday to speed up Rio Nuevo and hold onto their TIF dollars:

Tucson rushes to jump-start Rio Nuevo
Legislative threats to yank funding spur costly action

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
08.03.08

Tucson is hurriedly assembling plans to construct several of Rio Nuevo's centerpiece projects — but at a previously unexpected cost of as much as $300 million in debt and $180 million in interest. The extra cost means the city would have to postpone one of the signature Downtown projects for at least several years. The new plans to bond against future Rio Nuevo sales-tax funding came just days after the Arizona Daily Star revealed the city has already spent $77 million on Rio Nuevo, had nearly zero in the bank for it as of June 1, and state lawmakers are threatening to pull the project's funding.

Although one council member said the change in course is unrelated, several Downtown leaders said the Legislature's threat is behind city officials' sudden urgency. Tucson must move quickly to show the Legislature it is making progress so the state doesn't consider yanking the money, said Steve Lynn, board member of the Downtown Tucson Partnership. "The clock is ticking," Lynn said. "The threat of losing the funding mechanism is a real threat."

Before the Star's audit of the Rio Nuevo spending, the city had been considering a smaller bond package of $72 million that would have been backed by the city's general fund budget. Instead the city began pushing plans last week to incur debt against the future revenues of the project's tax-increment financing, or TIF, district, which is funded by sales taxes diverted from the state budget. The maximum bonding plans could pay for several — but not all — of Rio Nuevo's major projects, giving the City Council a difficult political decision to determine which projects will move forward now and which will have to wait.

The major Rio Nuevo projects planned are:

● $102 million for a new arena, hotel and convention center.
● $130 million for a University of Arizona science center and state museum.
● $100 million for infrastructure and streetscape.
● $45 million for an Arizona Historical Society museum.
● $70 million for parking.
● $27.5 million to re-create the Mission San Agustín, built here by Spaniards in the late 1700s.

Several financing options will be presented to the council on Wednesday. It's also possible the city could do a smaller bond now and a larger one in 2009, several city officials said. If the council opts against bonding, it would fund projects as the sales tax money comes in from the state. But the Star's audit revealed the city only had $29,000 left in the bank on June 1, meaning it would be waiting for years to fund major construction.

The Rio Nuevo district is expected to generate a total of $800 million in sales taxes before it expires in 2025. Inflation will eat up a chunk, however, making the district actually worth $575 million in today's dollars. That means the maximum bonding package would take up the lion's share of Rio Nuevo money available for the next 10 years — unless the city makes smart investments that dramatically increase sales taxes over that time.

As financing costs run about $60 million per $100 million bonded, City Manager Mike Hein said "the more you bond upfront the less you have for the future." The key is to bond for projects ready for construction right now and wait for others, Hein said. It is unclear whether he plans to give recommendations on specific projects Wednesday. Because it is a special taxing district, voters do not have to approve the bonds, which are likely to run for 15 years, or until the district expires in 2025, said Jaret Barr, Hein's assistant.

Reversing course

Tucson Republican state Rep. Jonathan Paton said two recent events have momentum going against the city: the failed push by some council members in late June to fire Hein and the Star's audit of Rio Nuevo. "Those are two huge issues," Paton said. He warned that legislators "keep saying we could have used that $77 million to balance the (state) budget," which could face another deficit next year. "It's not a joke."

Paton said Hein was a large factor in persuading the Legislature to expand Rio Nuevo funding in 2006. "A lot of people in Phoenix signed onto this because they believed in him," Paton said. "He's very credible. The attitude about some of the council members is not the same." But Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said the council has planned to get options from its staff for two months. "It's not in response to anything," Trasoff said, referring to the state's threats and the Star's audit.

Broad support

There's broad support on the council and among Downtown boosters to bond against the district's revenues to start paying for major projects. The questions are how much and for which projects. Trasoff has said for months that August's council meeting would show voters Rio Nuevo "is real and is actually happening." She said she won't make any decisions until Wednesday. Larry Hecker, a Downtown Partnership board member, said bonding "makes good financial sense and good community sense." "By bonding you can accelerate the availability of the benefits," Hecker said of Downtown progress. "You'll have money available sooner." The decision to go with revenue bonds was a "last-minute reversal," said Councilwoman Regina Romero, who said she supported it. "We should definitely go out for as much money as we can," Romero added.

Councilman Rodney Glassman, though, contends a plan to bond $300 million as soon as possible is tantamount to a "Ready, Fire, Aim" plan to revitalize Downtown. He said he's not against bonding per se, but wants a clear plan for what the money would accomplish. "I want to see a complete picture of what we're planning to do Downtown," Glassman said. "I'm not prepared to check out of the grocery store before we finish packing the cart."

East vs. west

The fact that some projects will be pushed back could lead to a revival of a long-standing Rio Nuevo debate: Should the city spend more money on the east side arena, hotel and refurbished convention center Downtown, or on a museum and cultural district on the west side? Glassman said he favors such projects as the arena and the hotel. "We have to put a greater focus on revenue-generating projects. That has been noticeably absent so far," he said.

The city should try to build the projects that are ready now, said Glenn Lyons, chief executive officer of the Downtown Partnership. He said that could include the arena, the UA Science Center and the Mission San Agustín. "That's $300 million right there," he said. The projects that will generate the most sales tax for the district are the arena, the hotel and the convention center, Lyons said, adding, "That package is the real economic driver." Romero agreed the city should fund "what's ready to go," and said that includes the UA Science Center on the West Side. Construction could start next year if the city gives the UA $130 million, she said, adding the city needs to be equitable between Downtown and the West Side. "We need to be shovel-ready," Romero said.

Rio Nuevo-area project is up for vote
City to weigh development plan for 400 homes, hotel, businesses

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MercadoDistrict7-08.jpg
This view from Sentinel Peak shows the 15-acre parcel (the beige-colored vacant area)
in the Mercado District proposed for a mixed-use development by the Gadsden Co.
(photo: Tucson Artisan Builders)

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
08.04.2008

An agreement for a Tucson developer to build 400 housing units, retail space and a boutique hotel on the West Side could be approved by the City Council on Wednesday. The agreement would be with the Tucson-based Gadsden Co. to develop 15 acres bounded by the Santa Cruz River, Congress Street and two new roads: the north-south Avenida del Convento and the east-west extension of Cushing Street. The property is just north of the planned Tucson Origins Heritage Park and several museums proposed for the West Side. It is directly east of the Mercado at Menlo Park, a mixed-use project now being built by Rio Development Co., which is run by Justin Dixon, the son of Jerry Dixon, of the Gadsden Co.

The Mercado at Menlo Park is hoping to finish construction of a shopping area at the corner of Avenida del Convento and Congress Street, and to have a full slate of tenants by the time the Tucson Gem, Mineral & Fossil Showcase comes to town in February, the elder Dixon said. For the new development, Dixon said the company is hiring an engineering firm to do the infrastructure work and hopes to submit its plans to the city by January for permits.

Gadsden's proposal includes 400 homes — 17.5 percent of which will be affordable housing and 17.5 percent "work force housing" — and a 125-room boutique hotel, along with commercial development, including restaurants, stores, office space and medical office space. "Affordable housing" is housing available to those making up to 80 percent of the area's median income, and "work force housing" is available to those making up to 125 percent of the area's median income.

In addition, the westernmost station of a planned streetcar connecting the University of Arizona with the west side of Rio Nuevo, the city's Downtown revitalization project, will be located on the site. The elder Dixon said the streetcar is key to making the site a place for affordable living. In addition, Gadsden will build some of the streetcar line on its property and be reimbursed for the work, which Dixon said will help sell the streetcar plan to the Federal Transit Administration as a public-private partnership, a key component of getting federal funding for the streetcar.

The city put out a request for bids in early 2007 for developers interested in building there. Three developers submitted proposals in late June 2007, with the Gadsden Co. and Portland, Ore.-based Williams and Dame chosen as finalists in August. Williams and Dame withdrew.

City Councilwoman Regina Romero, who represents the area, said the Gadsden development would be a welcome addition to the area, especially given the low-income and work force housing proposed there. In addition, Romero said the developer agreed to have a 1 percent deed-restricted transfer fee on most units, which is expected to generate $1.3 million for the city's affordable-housing trust fund after the initial round of sales. That is on top of the $250,000 the developer has already pledged to the trust fund, which Romero said was "amazing."

ljbuild

Aug 7, 2008, 12:14 AM

The institute of " Biological Diversity" should be called The institute of

Biological "' STUPIDITY " :uhh: :uhh: :uhh:

Just in case you missed it. This Whack-job institute is trying to step on the already downward spiraled real estate market, by

suggesting that a particular "SNAKE" be listed as an endangered species. This however will require hundreds of square miles of land between

Tucson & Phoenix and also in and around the cities to be off limits to development, which is where they claim the snake to have its habitat.

This story also came out recently in the Tucson citizen paper. & To add to this, ARIZONA TITLE LOANS HAS SHUT ITS DOORS, and now

at least 100 or so people are out of a job. And now this brainless institute want to add more insult by trying to list a particular snake as an

endangered species. Keep in mind, this is the same group that had delayed construction of a high school ( IRONWOOD RIDGE) all for the sake

a bird (Pygmy owl). Was this bird going to bring people AN EDUCATION OR JOBS,

Likewise, is this snake going to REVIVE THE ARIZONA ECONOMY.

Its no wonder why this whack job institute has SHIT FOR BRAINS:

They dont even value education for crying out loud.:koko: :koko: :koko:

Now Im all for some kind of open space ( kind of like the way development in the Catalina foothills has turned out to be which consists of large

patches of Desert between strips of homes), or the protection of mountain ranges from a rich guy buying the land that immediately surrounds

them. But to shut off just about everypiece of open space in what called "THE GOLDEN CORRIDOR" is absurd. The economy of Arizona is mostly

based on "new growth". We cant become stagnant (no growth) and expect more jobs to come on the market or expect the local economy

to improve soon. I believe in Growing Smarter but not SHUTTING OFF GROWTH COMPLETELY, which is what this STUPID ASS biological institue

is trying to do. What a bunch of recluse, wack-job, foul smelling, gap toothed idiots, who would rather see people

get" SNAKE-BITTEN" than to see the local ecomomy improve. The economy is fueled partly by "new growth", which requires " LAND".

kaneui

Aug 7, 2008, 9:42 AM

Facing the potential loss of state-approved TIF money, Wednesday was a day of action for the City Council, as they decided to fund all the major Rio Nuevo projects (at least partially) by selling over $453M in bonds over the next several years. However, nearly 40% of that amount won't be available until 2014. (Of course, the big question is whether this significant long-term commitment by the city will stimulate substantial private development downtown in the near future to complement these civic improvements.)

Rio Nuevo to receive $453.5M in bonds
City Council vote aimed at pleasing state, public

By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
08.07.2008

Pushing to make Rio Nuevo Downtown redevelopment a reality, the City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved nearly $454 million in bonds — to be sold over the next six years. It is anticipated the money would fund all of Rio Nuevo's planned major projects. Almost $277 million would be funded in two or three bonds sales between now and 2010. The remainder of the bonds, which would be repaid from Rio Nuevo's special sales tax receipts, would be sold in 2014. City financial planners estimate interest on the bonds will be about $302 million. Even with the interest payments, they calculate Rio Nuevo will have $190 million left over after the bonds are sold.

Although it has long been estimated Rio Nuevo's special taxing district would bring in about $600 million, the financial advisers said that figure is based on current dollar values. With inflation through 2025, when the taxing district expires, they say the actual take will be closer to $961 million. Rio Nuevo Director Greg Shelko said the bond approval should show the Legislature the city has "made serious progress" with Rio Nuevo, and it is doing everything it can to make Downtown redevelopment happen. There have been rumblings from members of the Legislature about taking back the money diverted from the state budget for Rio Nuevo because of the city's lack of progress.

The mood was celebratory in the council chambers after the vote. Calling the council's approval to go out for the bonds "magical," Councilman Steve Leal said the council should meet with Pima County legislators soon so "clouds are displaced permanently" over Rio Nuevo's future. During the two-hour discussion, several officials defended the city's expenditure of more than $77 million on Rio Nuevo since 1999, which critics contend is a high price for a small amount of progress. "It's clear to all of us the city has and can account for every penny of Rio Nuevo money spent to date," Shelko said. "The money is accounted for, and the money is going to good things." He noted, "We all feel urgency," but said people have to realize it takes decades and not years to revitalize a Downtown. Despite growing community pessimism toward Rio Nuevo, Shelko said the city can start to change the public mind-set if it delivers a more positive message from Wednesday's action.

Councilwoman Regina Romero said much of the money went to remediate a former landfill on the West Side. Others, including Mayor Bob Walkup, said the city's $77 million has drawn private investment Downtown. "One of the things this doesn't reflect is private investment," Walkup said. "That would leave you to believe this ($77 million) is the whole thing, when it's not."

The city's bonding plan allows for construction of all the major Rio Nuevo projects — a new arena, a University of Arizona Science Center, the Arizona Historical Society Museum and the re-creation of Tucson's birthplace, the Mission San Agustín — by staggering the funding over several years for each project. The science center would get $65 million in 2009 and $60 million in 2014, and the arena would get $10 million in 2009, $50 million in 2010 and $40 million in 2014. The mission is to receive payments of $3 million in 2008, $11 million in 2009 and $11 million in 2010, and the Historical Society would get $3 million in 2008, $2 million in 2009 and $40 million in 2014. Other major projects, including a publicly financed convention center hotel and refurbishing the Tucson Convention Center, would get $10 million each. Shelko said the convention hotel would also be funded with separate bonds based just on revenues from the proposed 700-room hostelry.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said partners in the non-city projects must find a way to create a "bridge" between the city's subsidies to make the financing for their projects work. "Bridging allows us to do virtually everything we want to do," Trasoff said. "I'm really pleased with how it is being sequenced." Shelko said spreading the payments over time "allows us to do everything. We don't have to say no to anyone."

A Tucson Citizen article notes that TIF district revenues will need to increase fourfold by 2025 to cover costs for the Rio Nuevo projects approved for funding by the City Council:

Rio Nuevo work banks on big revenue hike
by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
08.07.2008

The Rio Nuevo plan to bond for $453 million to revitalize downtown depends on sales tax revenue quadrupling by 2025 in downtown, along Broadway and at Park Place and El Con malls. Financial adviser Shawn Dralle projects that Rio Nuevo tax increment financing, which is based on sales taxes, will grow from $16 million this year to $64 million in 2025, which would raise a projected $650 million for Rio Nuevo in the next 17 years.

Dralle also estimates $128 million in Rio Nuevo construction sales taxes through 2025 and $183 million in new TIF revenue from Rio Nuevo projects.
These revenues allow for issuing six bonds in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2014 to fund $453 million in downtown projects. They would incur $303 million in interest payments. "(These projections) are meant to show what are the possibilities in the district," Dralle said. The largest bond amount, $125 million, would go to the University of Arizona Science Center/Arizona State Museum, with another $100 million dedicated to the city's new arena.

The big caveat is that half the funding for the science center and much of the bond money earmarked for the Arizona History Museum and the Tucson Children's Museum won't be available until 2014. If those entities can find their own money, they can start building whenever they want and will be reimbursed in 2014, said Jaret Barr, assistant to City Manager Mike Hein. Rio Nuevo director Greg Shelko said the partial funding was a "way of not saying no to anyone." "We have to find a way to carry our debt (for the arena) to 2014," Shelko said. "We're all going to work hard to get some bridge funding."

Council members were relieved to see a funding plan, but they were frustrated that the community doesn't understand how $77 million has been spent with no grand monuments to show for it. Councilwoman Regina Romero pointed out that nearly $20 million was spent on landfill removal and archaeological work at the Tucson Origins site on the West Side.

BOND PLANS
The city is looking to issue six Rio Nuevo bonds between now and 2014 for a combined $453 million

Series 2008 bond for $73.175 million
• $10 million for the Cushing Street Bridge to Tucson Origins
• $9 million for the Clark Street freeway underpass
• $5.4 million for Tucson Origins archaeology, landfill removal and flood control
• $3 million for Mission Gardens
• $17.3 million for Tucson Origins garage
• $3 million for construction drawings for Arizona History Museum
• $1.2 million for construction drawings for Tucson Children's Museum
• $7 million for downtown infrastructure
• $13.6 million for Depot Plaza garage
• $3.635 million to refund the Fox Theatre bond

Series 2009 bond for $112.5 million
• $65 million for half the cost of the University of Arizona Science Center/Arizona State Museum
• $2 million for construction drawing for Arizona History Museum
• $2 million for infrastructure work in Barrio Sin Nombre neighborhood along Grande Avenue
• $11 million for Mission San Agustín
• $500,000 for a West Side library inside the Arizona History Museum
• $10 million for construction drawings for the Tucson Arena
• $10 million for construction drawings for Tucson Convention Center renovations and hotel
• $2 million for Barrio Viejo flood mitigation.
• $10 million for downtown infrastructure

Series 2010A bond for $80 million
• $10 million for TCC renovation and hotel work
• $50 million for Tucson Arena construction
• $10 million for parking and infrastructure improvements at TCC
• $10 million for downtown infrastructure

Series 2010B for $11 million
• $11 million for Mission San Agustín

Series 2014A bond for $64 million
• $40 million for Tucson Arena construction
• $10 million for parking garage
• $12 million for downtown infrastructure
• $2 million for Tucson Museum of Art parking

Series 2014B bond for $113.3 million
• $60 million for UA Science Center/Arizona State Museum construction
• $40 million for Arizona History Museum construction
• $8.8 million for Tucson Children's Museum construction
• $4.5 million for a West Side library

Source: City of Tucson

kaneui

Aug 7, 2008, 10:03 AM

As expected, the City Council green-lighted a $3.3M sale of 14.3 acres in the Mercado District west of I-10 to the Gadsden Co. for a $300M mixed-use development, along with specific performance requirements:

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

Downtown land sale OK'd for hotel, offices, 400 homes
Fourteen acres to be sold for $3.3 million to build $300 million eight-block community

by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
08.07.2008

The City Council on Wednesday agreed to sell 14.3 acres of prime vacant West Side land to The Gadsden Co. for $3.3 million to build a $300 million eight-block community with 400 homes, a hotel, retail and offices. The plot is the final city-owned property on a 62-acre rough landscape just south of Congress Street and west of Interstate 10. The area includes the proposed Tucson Origins museum complex and the 99-home Mercado District of Menlo Park, which is being developed by the same Tucson-area family behind The Gadsden Co.

The development agreement between Gadsden and the city calls for the developer to build about 400 homes with 70 priced as affordable housing (for people earning less than 80 percent of median income) and 70 priced as work force housing (for people earning between 80 and 125 percent of median income). Affordable housing applies to people making 80 percent or less of the city's median income, which is $29,000 for one person and $45,000 for a family of four.

Gadsden, headed by Jerry Dixon, may acquire the land in four phases over about five years with a March 31, 2009, deadline to buy the first of eight parcels. Each phase also comes with required progress with construction. City Manager Mike Hein late last year insisted on adding precise financial penalties if development milestones are not met by defined dates. The Town West development agreement for the El Mirador condo-hotel proposal near Sixth Street and Stone Avenue was the first to include rigid deadlines. Gadsden is required to pay for a $250,000 performance bond when buying the first phase of the 14.3 acres and an additional $250,000 bond for the second phase purchase, which must close by March 31, 2011. "This bond will be at risk until the last block of real estate is conveyed," Hein wrote in his memo to the City Council. "These deposits are to ensure the project is built out in conformance with the approved plans . . . and that it is done in a timely manner."

Along with the 400 homes, Gadsden plans to build a 125-room boutique hotel, a specialty grocery store and a public market that would include a six-screen theater, said Adam Weinstein, a Gadsden partner. The plan is to build the entire project in five to six years, though economic conditions could hamper the project, Weinstein said.

kaneui

Aug 7, 2008, 10:20 AM

Although approved for a one-year extension, the city is imposing additional costs on Town West for delaying the site purchase for their El Mirador condo/hotel project on downtown's north side:

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

Developer gets 1-year extension on condos
City could get $200K; parking garage is part El Mirador hotel deal

by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
08.07.2008

Town West Design Development may pay as much as $200,000 for an extra 12 months to close on the purchase of city-owned land to build its three-tower El Mirador condo-hotel complex at the north edge of downtown. A development agreement with the city called for Town West to buy 3.6 acres near Sixth Street and Stone Avenue for $700,000 by June 2009, but the developer asked for 12 additional months because of "current unfavorable market conditions."

The City Council on Wednesday agreed to the delay in exchange for Town West adding $100,000 to the $1.6 million it had pledged toward Steinfeld Warehouse renovations and adding $100,000 to the $250,000 Town West would have to pay if Steinfeld renovations are not completed within four years. Steinfeld is across Ninth Avenue from the proposed El Mirador. "We wanted to make sure, them asking for 12 months, we get something in return," said Councilwoman Regina Romero, whose ward includes the El Mirador site. Town West plans to build three joined towers rising seven, 11 and 15 stories between Ninth Avenue and Stone, and a separate building west of Ninth that steps up from two to three to five stories. The developers propose about 220 hotel rooms, 150 condos and a brewpub operated by Nimbus Brewing Co.

Romero primarily brought the development agreement to the City Council to nail down a parking garage agreement with Town West. The city would build a parking garage with about 625 spaces and Town West would lease 220 spaces for hotel employees and guests for $30,000 a year. The council approved charging condo residents $58 per month for one space and $80 per month for a second space. "They wanted the city to subsidize two parking spaces (with condo tenants paying) $58 each," Romero said.

The development agreement calls for El Mirador to be finished by November 2012 - or November 2013 if two permitted six-month extensions are used. This 12-month extension is separate from the six-month extensions spelled out in the development agreement, City Attorney Mike Rankin said. The agreement spells out a series of design and construction deadlines, each requiring a $15,000 bond from Town West. The developer will have to make bond payments for as much as $390,000 to guarantee completion of El Mirador. The first $15,000 deadline comes Aug. 27 when conceptual architectural and development plans are due.

kaneui

Aug 7, 2008, 12:07 PM

While Tucson twiddles its thumbs, its northwest suburbs are aggressively courting its cultural attractions--Marana is contemplating a new MLB spring training complex, while Oro Valley could snag a Tucson Museum of Art satellite:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Maranaspringtrainingsite.png http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Maranagravelpitsite.jpg
A 600-acre parcel now dominated by two gravel pits is the proposed site for a mixed-use development that would include a new baseball complex for spring training.
(photo: Jim Davis / Arizona Daily Star)

Site of 2 gravel pits in Marana area proposed for spring-training complex
Development could have 2-team stadium, 16-field practice facility, hotel, golf course

By Brian J. Pedersen
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
08.07.2008

The impending departure of the Chicago White Sox has left spring training baseball in Tucson in a hole. But a local developer is proposing to use an actual hole in the ground to stop the major-league migration out of town by building a new baseball complex on the Northwest Side. A 600-acre parcel west of Interstate 10, between Orange Grove and Sunset roads — now dominated by two gravel pits — could be the perfect spot for a mixed-use development that would include a two-team baseball stadium and a 16-field practice facility, developer David Graham said he believes. The development would also include a resort hotel and an 18-hole golf course built into a pit that is still being mined by property owner CPC Southwest Materials Inc.

Local officials and community leaders would like to recruit more teams to Tucson, but their efforts have been hampered by the lack of facilities. "I'm a great believer in turning something ugly into something beautiful," said Graham, who is operating under the name of Orange Sunset Management LLC. "Both of those pits are not the nicest things to look at. The owners would like to do something with those two holes in the ground. " Graham, who was the creative force behind converting a former gravel pit at Continental Ranch into what is now the Pines Golf Club at Marana, said building baseball fields in a 20-foot-deep pit will allow the slopes of the pit to be incorporated into the design as natural viewing areas for spectators.

The site is on land currently within Marana, unincorporated Pima County and Tucson, going from north to south respectively. Graham said he believes this is a plus for the project because it would require all three entities to be involved in the planning. "This is a regional problem that requires a regional solution," said Graham, noting he has had informal discussions with officials from each government. "All three jurisdictions are aware of this project at varying levels," he said.

A regional effort to keep spring-training baseball alive in Southern Arizona has been under way since November 2006, when the White Sox announced they were breaking their lease at Tucson Electric Park to move into a new two-team complex in Glendale in 2009 or 2010. In April, the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved the formation of the Pima County Sports and Tourism Authority. The group, made up of local business and community leaders, has been looking for ways to keep the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies from following the White Sox out of town, in addition to seeking additional major-league teams to train here. That group is trying to get the state Legislature to pass a bill authorizing a county election on a sales tax to fund renovations to TEP and Hi Corbett Field and for the construction of new facilities.

A bill was introduced late in the last legislative session but was not brought up for a vote. The gravel pit location is the second potential stadium site proposed by private developers. The first, identified in March, was suggested for northwest of the I-10/Tangerine Road interchange on land owned by Colorado-based MSP Properties, though owner Marcus Palkowitsch said no formal plans for a stadium exist. "We haven't put any pen to paper," Palkowitsch said. Although both proposed sites fall either partially or entirely within Marana, that doesn't mean Marana is the only place with options for a new stadium, Sports and Tourism Authority Chairman Tom Tracy said. It just means private landowners in that area have been the first to come forward with ideas.

"At some point, after our funding is in place, we're going to reach out to any and all people who would like to make a proposal," said Tracy, who spoke to the Marana Town Council Tuesday night during a special meeting to discuss spring training. "We are excited that Marana wants to be a part of the solution." Marana's extensive freeway frontage, much of which is still undeveloped, makes the town an ideal spot for a baseball complex, Marana Mayor Ed Honea said. "It's really about location," Honea said. "Spring training teams like the idea of being on I-10. You can drive from Tempe to Tangerine Road in an hour and 15 minutes." The Orange Grove/Sunset project could be done as early as 2011, Graham said, assuming all agreements needed for the development were in place by the end of this year or early in 2009. That includes getting the Regional Transportation Authority to move up its timetable for extending Sunset west from I-10 to Silverbell Road and building a bridge over the Santa Cruz River. That project is currently slated to begin no earlier than 2017.

Graham's development would also likely require bank protection work to be done on parts of the Santa Cruz and Rillito rivers and the Cañada del Oro Wash, all of which run through the property. Graham said no formal talks have occurred on that subject. "That's one of the items on the list," he said. The county is aware of the gravel pit idea, but no formal presentation has been made to county officials, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said. Huckelberry said he doesn't know whether the project is a viable option. "Anything is possible," Huckelberry said. "I just view it as another development proposal right now." City of Tucson officials did not return calls made by the Star for comment.

Oro Valley courts Tucson Museum of Art
By Lourdes Medrano
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
08.07.2008

Oro Valley officials are working on an incentive package that might entice the Tucson Museum of Art to expand to the town. "We've identified six sites, some public, some private," said Town Manager David Andrews, who declined to divulge the locations. "We just need to look at the feasibility of those and determine what the museum of art's level of interest might be." On Friday, Mayor Paul Loomis, Andrews, other town officials and area business leaders met with Robert Knight, the museum's executive director. Knight plans to make a formal presentation to the Town Council at its Sept. 3 regular meeting, said Oro Valley spokeswoman Mary Davis.

Museum officials also have visited Marana, but the town does not have a proposal in the works, said spokesman Rodney Campbell. Although it's premature to talk about specific plans to attract the museum, Andrews said, one option may be for the town to provide land to the museum while the private sector makes its own contribution. "It could be that the private sector might want to put together some funding and then buy a private parcel," he said. The museum would be a great community entity and a boost to preservation arts projects such as Steam Pump Ranch, he said. The private sector would benefit, he said, because the more amenities a community has, the greater its chances of recruiting and retaining employees.

Knight was traveling and could not be reached to comment. But museum spokeswoman Meredith Hayes said Oro Valley is one of several sites museum officials are considering. The museum has outgrown its Downtown location, where parking and directional signs have been long-standing concerns, Hayes said. "What we've been doing is looking at expansion opportunities," she said. "We've got opportunities with a number of major collections that could be given to the museum, and we need space to display those."

Hayes said that in May the museum's board of trustees directed Knight to continue working with the city to resolve some of the issues affecting the Downtown location, as well as look toward long-term expansion. "There could be even a satellite location out there," she said of expanding to the Northwest Side. No immediate decisions are expected in September, when Knight reports his findings to the board, she said. "We've got so many options on the table that it behooves us to really look at each one of those options and find out what is best for the museum and for the community as a whole," Hayes said.

oliveurban

Aug 8, 2008, 10:18 AM

kaneui

Aug 8, 2008, 12:03 PM

^ It should be an absolute no-brainer, keeping the art museum Downtown. Or, at least somewhere in central Tucson. Considering places like Oro Valley or Marana is simply ridiculous and stupid to me, especially for a facility/ institution like that.

Does anyone truly advocate for downtown Tucson down there? You know, people with some teeth? Instead of trying to construct $300 million skybridge museums, spanning the interstates, why not start with something a little more realistic in the meantime?

I think the article inferred that TMA plans to keep the main museum downtown and look to add a satellite location elsewhere, as they have no room to expand at their downtown site. However, this is happening only because they couldn't work out a deal to use part of the nearby Pima County Courthouse.

As far as other downtown development, I think the bond measures passed by the City Council on Wednesday should get some major civic projects jump-started; however, given Rio Nuevo's history, don't hold your breath until actual construction begins.

retrorv

Aug 8, 2008, 8:06 PM

"Facing the potential loss of state-approved TIF money, Wednesday was a day of action for the City Council, as they decided to fund all the major Rio Nuevo projects (at least partially) by selling over $453M in bonds over the next several years. However, nearly 40% of that amount won't be available until 2014."
Keep in mind that this is a plan to sell bonds-not the actual issuance thereof. Back in May 2007, the Mayor and Council approved a plan to fund the various downtown projects and obligate all the Rio Nuevo TIF money. That was essentially a pay as you go plan. Now that has been junked and they want to use revenue bonds instead. One has to wonder why last year's plan wasn't any good anymore and whether this one will last any longer. Its also interesting to note in the article how the UofA, which has 2 big projects on the drawing board, wasn't notified of this change. Makes one wonder.

kaneui

Aug 9, 2008, 1:40 AM

The potential of the emerging Mercado District of Menlo Park west of I-10 is certainly intriguing: compact walkable neighborhoods with market-rate and affordable housing, lofts over retail space, a mercado featuring local merchants, significant commercial space, streetcar transportation to downtown and UofA, numerous upcoming cultural attractions within walking distance, etc.

That said, the Gadsden Co. has their work cut out for them to build 1.3M sq. ft. of the district. (Yes, they are adding significant private investment to downtown, but their most recent purchase of 14.3 city-owned acres for $230k per acre wasn't such a bad deal either.)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MercadoDistrictphoto8-08.jpg
First residences in the Mercado District as of August 1
(photo: Tucson Artisan Builders)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/MonierBrickyardsrender.jpg
Rendering of proposed Monier Brickyard building to be finished by 2011.
(render: The Gadsden Co.)
http://www.gadsdencompany.com/index_pro_2a.html

Gadsden Rio Nuevo contract signals shift to private development funding
By Ed Egger
Inside Tucson Business
August 8, 2008

To date, the Rio Nuevo downtown redevelopment project has had primarily a public funding emphasis. The focus is on the brink of shifting into a private investment mode as well with last week’s decision by the Tucson City Council to award a development contract to the Gadsden Company for 14 acres west of downtown. The agreement, which includes performance stipulations, was awarded after input from the Menlo Park Neighborhood Association, whose members said they wanted to see the 14-acre tract include affordable housing, a public market, and a mixed-use development.

Council woman Regina Romero said the Gadsden development plan "has really hit the points the neighborhood wanted to see." This is the first time the city has put such a large piece of land within the Rio Nuevo area into the hands of a private company for development. Council woman Shirley Scott acknowledged the extensive public debate about the money spent to date in tax increment finance district monies for the Rio Nuevo project, but said it all was needed to build the groundwork so that private developers can step in. "The number of dollars being invested by private developers far outweighs what the city has put in," she said.

The Gadsden Company espouses a "smart growth" style of development known as "new urbanism," which incorporates walkability, connectivity, mixed use and diversity, mixed housing, quality architecture and urban design, traditional neighborhood structure, increased density, smart transportation, sustainability and quality of life. Adam Weinstein and his wife, Kira Dixon-Weinstein, are partners at Gadsden along with Kira’s father, Gerald Dixon. Weinstein said his company plans to invest over $300 million developing the 14-acre tract in a multi-phase construction approach. Components of the tract are as follows:

The lead-in project will be a mixed use development with 125 residential units — 17.5 percent affordable housing below Tucson market rates, another 17.5 percent for the downtown workforce and the remainder at market rates. This will include underground parking. Another component will feature 120,000 square feet of ground retail space. The next phase will feature a 125-room boutique hotel to be developed by Mexican hotel chain Quinta Real, which has 11 upscale hotels in several Mexican cities. This will be the company’s first hotel venture in the United States. It will have a Mexican look and feel that should draw tourists in its own right, but also will be just one streetcar stop away from the Tucson Convention Center. Weinstein said once the company begins work, the hotel should be finished in about 18 months.

Another phase of the Gadsden Company’s project will offer 170,000 square feet of office space. Weinstein said it is hoped this space can attract a major corporate headquarters to the downtown area. A parking garage will be built in the center of the tract to serve the development. Weinstein said the hope is to capture solar energy on the garage roof and harvest rainwater within the project.

Final steps will include a mixed-use 400-unit residential development with units available primarily at market rates. Around the housing, in the tract’s northwest corner, will be an enhanced Santa Cruz River promenade that will serve as a meeting and recreation point for residents there. "We’ll start with elements that are a little more independent of the marketplace," Weinstein said, pointing out that a great deal of private infrastructure work must be completed before actual building construction can begin. Greg Shelko, director of Rio Nuevo, said it will take a year to approve the planned area development, which must be done before any buildings can be constructed. The Gadsden Company already has two projects in the Mercado district, west of the 14-acre tract.

Work has begun on the Mercado San Agustín on the south side of West Congress Street. The Mercado is unusual in that the Mercado San Agustin Philanthropic Funds, in partnership with the United Way of Tucson and Southern Arizona and the Microbusiness Advancement Center, are helping potential small business owners gain the skills and resources needed to succeed as merchants in the Mercado.

Dixon-Weinstein created the Mercado concept after touring mercados in the United States, Europe and Mexico. She said Tucson’s Mercado will open in January, but before that will have a holiday market under a big tent with a series of events prior to the Mercado’s opening. Already lined up as tenants at the Mercado are Casa Marita Restaurante Argentino, Sonora Snow Cones, Floral Art, Urban Convenience Store, Coffee Shop, El Tutu Taqueria, Farmers’ COOP and Commercial Kitchen, a place for food vendors to prepare their food in a safe, clean, legal environment. In addition, the Mercado will have vendor stalls including Marisol’s Mexican Imports, El Salvadorian Cuisine and Dolce Pastello.

A second, larger project directly south of the Mercado will be the Monier Brickyard Building, which Weinstein said is scheduled to be open by 2011, when the new downtown streetcar system is expected to open. He said the 250,000-square-foot mixed-use building will feature underground parking, office space on the second level and residential rentals on the top level.

When adding up all development planned in the 14 acres east of the Mercado district, plus the Mercado San Agustín and the Monier Brickyard Building, Weinstein said the company will be creating 1.3 million square feet of new development. In response to recent issues over how the city has spent its Rio Nuevo tax increment finance money, Weinstein said much of the money is being spent to create public infrastructure that is essential before companies like his can move into private development.

While past downtown development efforts may have faltered, Weinstein said he sees "some intelligence now being put back into the equation" and that city officials are working hard to make things happen. "Things are just starting to happen at the next level," he said. "We cannot afford a failure. We have to stay steady at it until we get to the finish line."

For more info.: http://www.mercadodistrict.com/, http://www.mercadosanagustin.com/

kaneui

Aug 12, 2008, 8:43 PM

Updates on a few local projects:

Halfway to the Home Stretch
Tucson’s Interstate 10 Widening Accelerates Forward

By Alan M. Petrillo
Southwest Contractor
August, 2008

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/I-10-Widening-18-08.jpg
The I-10 widening project is on track for a spring 2010 completion.
(Photo courtesy Kiewit/ADOT)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/I-10-Widening-28-08.jpg
Seven new bridges are being built as part of the I-10 widening project in Tucson.
Each bridge is being built to allow for future expansion.
(Photo courtesy Kiewit/ADOT)

Just as Tucson's residents are acclimating to detours, the $200 million I-10 widening project reached the halfway milestone. The Interstate 10 widening project, a $200 million, 3.5-year reconstruction and renovation of the freeway flowing through the heart of Tucson, has passed the halfway point and continues on schedule and on budget. Linda Ritter, public information officer for the Arizona Department of Transportation, says the widening is the largest single highway transportation project in the state's history and will expand the highway from six to eight lanes between Prince Road and 29th Street. In the process, the project will build seven new bridges and underpasses at Grant Road, Speedway Blvd., St. Mary’s Road, Congress Street, Clark Street, 18th Street and 22nd Street.

Rod Lane, senior resident engineer for ADOT, says part of the design concept meant raising the roadway because the new bridges are higher - 17 ft compared to 14 ft, plus or minus a few inches. And because the new bridges have been built at maximum span to allow for future expansion, they require a deeper beam. “Typically, the freeway is now raised about 5 ft higher along the southern end of the construction, but not so much on the northern end because the bridges are farther apart,” Lane says. Lane says that the Miracle Mile bridge north of Prince Road didn’t have to be touched because it had previously been constructed with the ultimate design of the roadway in mind.

The I-10 project is so large an undertaking that massive amounts of material must be moved and replaced, Lane says. For example, a total of 68,000 cu ft of Portland cement concrete pavement will be going down on the roadways. Underneath that will be 42,000 tons of base asphalt. The roadway excavation was a major undertaking, with 231,000 cu yds of material being moved, Lane says. “That’s a big hill,” he adds. Another 588,000 cu yds. of material, using fill coming from the roadway excavation, is going into the embankments.

A major hurdle faced by crews was allowing the major cross-streets a freer flow of traffic during the construction period, says Jody Schott, project manager for Kiewit-Sundt joint venture, the general contractor. Kiewit-Sundt was formed by the Phoenix office of Kiewit, which has the majority stake in the venture, and the Tempe, Ariz. office of Sundt Construction. “The cross-street traffic was a big deal and originally we were going to go to one lane in each direction,” Schott says. “But we found that plan wouldn’t allow the traffic capacity we wanted, so instead of a static traffic control setup we’ve done a lot more work by moving traffic through during the day and doing night and weekend closures of some of those streets. That’s been a big challenge and we’ve been successful with it.”

Besides traffic capacity, Tucson has a lot going on during the year, especially in the winter months, Schott adds. “We got caught a little off-guard with the Gem and Mineral Show and also the PGA golf tournament,” he says. “We had no idea how big the Gem and Mineral Show was, but we were able to work around the traffic and not interfere with the show by shifting some work from days to nights.” During the golf tournament, “pretty much everything stopped,” Schott says. “We had to remove some concrete barriers and barricades and shut the project down, but everyone on the job handled it well.”

Schott says the project has a lot of architectural work in the concrete - on cast-in-place walls, bridge columns and abutment walls - making it challenging to have all the artwork blend perfectly. “A lot of time and effort is going into that artwork,” he says. “Originally, we were doing fabrication for the artwork in the field, but changed to a central location, which helped us be more successful. We have rubber form liner shapes made off-site and shipped here, where we pour a sample of each form and provide it to the architect. There have only been a couple of modifications that way.”

Bob Brittain, vice president of HDR Engineering in Tucson, says his firm designed two of the three sections of the project - the northern section from Prince Road to Grant Road and the southern one from Congress Street to 29th Street. Parsons Brinkerhoff of Tucson designed the middle section. “Our biggest challenge was how to maintain the traffic while providing space to build the new part of the road,” Brittain says. “We were completely trashing the old highway and building a new one.” Complicating the design was the necessity to rebuild all the bridges on a longer span, making them deeper and raising the roadway. “The bridge reconstruction has gone very well,” Brittain says. “Contractors have asked us to design a couple of detours to allow them more space on the project, especially in the Interstate 19 area.”

Brittain says the traffic switchover was completed in May, putting two westbound and two eastbound lanes between Prince Road and St. Mary’s Road on the new concrete pavement. “That was originally scheduled to be done in September and the crew was able to accomplish it in May,” he adds. Brittain says the construction team is happy with how smoothly the traffic has been moving on the frontage roads, which were reconfigured to three lanes in each direction. “The fears were that the business driveways would be gridlocked, but many of the businesses have told us the traffic moves well and they like the drop-in business from the higher volume,” he adds.

Key Players
Owner: Arizona Dept. of Transportation
Design: HDR Engineering; PB
General Contractor: Kiewit-Sundt joint venture
Subcontractors/Suppliers: A-Core; Bob's Barricades; Case Foundation; Cemex; Rinker Materials; RMI; Combs Construction; Consolidated Rebar; Contractors West; E.R. Hawkins; Tpac; Schnabel Foundation

Useful Sources
For more project information, visit the ADOT website at www.i10tucsondistrict.com/29toP.html

With Fire Dept.'s parking structure addition, cost of new headquarters jumps to $38.5M
By Rob O'Dell
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
08.10.2008

The price tag for Downtown's new Fire Headquarters has ballooned more than 48 percent to $38.5 million since early 2006. The headquarters, now under construction on the south side of Cushing Street near Granada Avenue, was estimated to cost $26 million when the City Council approved the project in March 2006. City officials said the $26 million figure was based simply on conceptual drawings and the scope of the project has changed since it was first approved, in large measure because of an underground parking structure added to the project that will cost nearly $3.2 million.

The other cost increases result from a $4 million contingency fund for cost overruns, $500,000 for flood control work to prevent flooding in Barrio Viejo, $600,000 to run chilled water lines from the Tucson Convention Center to cool the building, and $800,000 for soil stabilization around the fire station and a nearby sewer line, Deputy Fire Chief Joe Gulotta said. Gulotta said the 176-space underground parking garage was needed because surface parking for firefighters and the public would be insufficient on the site. Given that a new hotel and city arena could be constructed nearby, the Fire Department can't plan to park at the TCC, and it doesn't want to park in the surrounding neighborhoods, he said. Although running the chilled water from the TCC will cost the Fire Department upfront, it will save the department money each month on energy bills, Gulotta said. The new headquarters should be finished by July 2010, he said.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said the station will be a "modern, state-of-the-art fire central" that is "sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods." The budget had reached $38 million "before we broke ground," she said. At the time the council approved the fire headquarters, City Manager Mike Hein said $26 million was just a rough estimate because there was no blueprint yet for the building.

Councilwoman Regina Romero said she didn't know the cost of the fire station had risen to that level, adding that she would like to see a report on the reasons. But she said the fire headquarters is a good project. The current fire headquarters is next to the Downtown Police Headquarters at 270 S. Stone Ave. Police officials said they would either move some of their functions into the old fire headquarters or knock down the building to expand current police headquarters into that space. The new fire headquarters will house fire administration, Fire Station No. 1 and the department's fire prevention bureau.

The construction cost will be paid for with certificates of participation — which are similar to bonds but don't require voter approval — that will be repaid over 15 years from the money saved from the city's turning its half of the regional library system over to Pima County. Deputy City Manager Mike Letcher said the council approved $26 million in certificate of participation bonds in May 2006 and another $7.5 million in such bonds in January 2007. The city still has to sell more bonds to finish construction, he said.

aznate27

Aug 14, 2008, 11:53 PM

:previous:

Does anyone know what the new fire headquarters will look like? Is there anywhere online to see the plans?

kaneui

Aug 15, 2008, 8:00 AM

Although developer Garfield Traub was selected in a 2007 RFP process to build a new 700-room Sheraton convention center hotel, the project is anything but a done deal, as the city awaits a financial feasibility study which isn't expected until December. (Additionally, the city council's recently approved bond sale did not include any amounts for the hotel, which apparently would be funded later with a separate bond measure.)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/Sheratonhotelrender.jpg
The City Council may throw $200 million toward the construction of a
downtown Sheraton Hotel despite opinions that it's just not viable.
(rendering: Garfield Traub)

Rooms Not Yet Available
Competition and uncertainty surround the proposed downtown convention-center hotel

By DAVE DEVINE
Tucson Weekly
July 10, 2008

The City Council may throw $200 million toward the construction of a downtown Sheraton Hotel despite opinions that it's just not viable. Tourists seeking a room downtown shouldn't plan on staying at a brand-new convention-center hotel just yet. At this point, the Tucson city manager's office isn't even certain the project makes monetary sense.

The City Council has approved the construction of a $200 million, 707-room, municipally owned Sheraton Hotel to be partially paid for with funds from the Rio Nuevo redevelopment district. The new hotel would serve a renovated convention center and potentially produce significant revenue to help finance a new arena to be built nearby.

Some downtown investors, however, have serious doubts about the financial viability of the proposed hotel project. "I became convinced four years ago that 300 to 400 new rooms could be absorbed downtown. ... That's a substantial number, and trying to absorb more rooms could be a real potential problem," says Tom Tracy. Based on that philosophy, Tracy, of the Tucson-based The Lodging Company, joined forces with developer Roger Karber and Humberto Lopez, owner of downtown's Hotel Arizona. They proposed renovating the 307-room existing facility, located next to the convention center, and constructing an additional 400 rooms close by.

The city, however, later decided to pursue a competitive process for a new convention-center hotel and eventually selected the Sheraton proposal. While the council at one point investigated purchasing the Hotel Arizona as part of the Sheraton deal, because of disputes between the parties, that prospect now appears to be on life support. Because of that, Tracy says of a rehabilitated Hotel Arizona: "We're moving on and will either redevelop or sell (the hotel). I think it can kick their ass in a competitive market, and there's nothing they can do to mitigate that." Believing the 35-year-old Hotel Arizona can be renovated to first-class standards much more cheaply than a new hotel can be built, Tracy and Karber think a refurbished Hotel Arizona would have a substantial competitive advantage in room-rate charges.

Two years ago--before their recent flare-up with the city--Karber and Tracy hired the C.H. Johnson consulting company of Chicago to look at their 707-room proposal. That report found it to be economically feasible. The city then employed Johnson to review a generic 700-room concept, and the firm similarly concluded it would be practical. (See "The Risks of Revitalization," Jan. 10.) In his June 2007 report to the city, Johnson also states: "At this juncture of analysis, it is assumed that the existing 307-room Hotel Arizona will be part of the solution." This latter report is the only financial-feasibility study on the convention-center hotel that's been publicly released, and it doesn't address the Sheraton proposal specifically.

Jaret Barr, assistant to City Manager Mike Hein, reports that a financial study on the Sheraton by the Chicago office of the HVS International consulting group won't be completed until December. "It absolutely may say (the hotel) won't work," Barr says of this pending study. "It will determine if the project makes sense." Both Tracy and Karber say they are dumbfounded by the city's hotel-development process to date. "I find it amazing that one year after the city issued a request for proposals for development of a convention-center hotel, they are just now trying to analyze its feasibility. The process should have been reversed," Tracy says.

For his part, Barr believes the city's report from Johnson fulfills that requirement. He adds that the upcoming study by HVS will include a look at a range of options for the size of the Sheraton hotel. This study, Barr continues, will recommend a room number for the new hotel which makes the most sense. "I'm not an, 'If you build it, they will come,' kind of person," Barr says. "I want to see all the data." So far, the working assumption at City Hall has been that the convention-center hotel would turn a substantial profit. That conclusion is based on Johnson's earlier work, which shows the new hotel having an occupancy rate in its first year of 65 percent at an average room rate of almost $145. Whether such rates are feasible remains to be seen.

Locofresh55

Aug 16, 2008, 5:19 AM

Not so much development news but good stuff about Tucson.

News article from TucsonCitizen.com

Lots of new adventures found around Old Pueblo
Tucson Citizen
bodyplus@tucsoncitizen.com
National Geographic Adventure magazine has named Tucson one of the 50 "next great adventure towns" in which to live and play.
The magazine lists the Old Pueblo as Best for Cycling and notes that, "Thanks to an aggressive transportation program, this Sonoran Desert oasis is quickly becoming the Amsterdam of Arizona, with more than 500 miles of pedal-pusher routes linking 128 city parks." The magazine also highlights the Coronado National Forest (Santa Catalina Mountains) on the Northeast edge of town, Mount Lemmon not only as a great winter ski destination but also a rock climbing-hiking-mountain biking magnet in the summer.
The complete list is featured in the September issue that hit newsstands Aug. 12. For the complete online feature, visit [url]www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure .
SANDRA VALDEZ GERDES

So Tucson can start claiming to be a cycling haven for the Southwest...maybe even the nation.

kaneui

Aug 18, 2008, 9:10 PM

A redesigned luxury loft complex and an affordable condo conversion project should inject some life into a dreary stretch of Broadway downtown:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/44broadway-new.jpg http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/44Broadway-constr.jpg
A new look for the 44 Broadway lofts, and the former federal courthouse annex under construction
(rendering: 44broadway.com, photo: Tucson Citizen)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/kaneui/JulianDrewFlats-5thAveView.jpg
The Flats condo conversion on the Julian Drew block
(rendering: Rob Paulus)

New housing to give downtown a boost
by TEYA VITU
Tucson Citizen
08.18.2008

Broadway east of Stone Avenue downtown resembles pre-1989 East Berlin with a dispirited jumble of eight surface parking lots, a closed hotel, a few isolated and generally vacant business buildings scattered about, not a single retail shop and a dearth of foot traffic. Downtown's busiest street serves little purpose except for eastbound motorists bound for suburbia. The East Berlin exclamation point is the former federal courthouse annex at 44 E. Broadway, its entire front and back walls stripped away, evoking a postwar ruin more than 21st-century chic.

Yet that very building is on the verge of bringing more modernity than downtown housing has ever seen. At 44 Broadway Lofts, owner James LeBeau and business partner John Dunn are transforming a former courthouse into a $14.1 million luxury lofts complex with a four-story glass wall facing Broadway. A few blocks to the east, Ross Rulney is working with the 1917 western neoclassical revival Julian-Drew Building, 178-188 E. Broadway, and behind it a carriage house and the Tiburon Apartments, to reshape the block as The Flats at Julian Drew Block with condos selling in the low- to mid-$100,000s.

Both projects are represented by Long Realty. Both are opening sales offices Aug. 22. Both developers believe they can bring a diverse socioeconomic crowd to live downtown for as little as $100,000 at the Flats to as much as $1.35 million for a penthouse atop 44 Broadway. Both are bringing European and Asian influences to their designs that could rile some locals but Dunn says Southwest design is "just overdone here." "If we do it right, we'll get a modern street," said Glenn Lyons, chief executive of the Downtown Tucson Partnership. "East of Scott, there's nothing to speak of (now on Broadway). You walk down there and it looks like we tore something down."

Each of those surface parking lots needs a building. Broadway should be a string of buildings on both sides of the street. Lyons himself is working to convert one of the surface parking lots - the county-owned lot behind Chicago Store - into an office building, market or maybe student housing. Rulney does not resort to words of bleakness in describing Broadway, even the surface parking lot across from his Julian-Drew Building. "It's a very unique opportunity," Rulney said. "Today it just screams opportunity."

LeBeau grabbed the opportunity at 44 E. Broadway 3 1/2 years ago and survived a series of partnerships to reconstruct the vacant courthouse building that accomplished nothing. Earlier this year, LeBeau partnered with Dunn, president of Jobax, a Phoenix general contractor now focusing more on Tucson. Dunn pulled LeBeau out of his funk and quickly assembled a new vision for the 44 Broadway project. By March, Dunn was tearing down the north and south walls, exposing all five floors to the elements. "When we took over, it was a nondescript building," Dunn said. "There's gotta be so much more that this building can be."

Dunn will make a former fortresslike structure hospitable by giving the 30 condos 18-foot floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall windows on one side. The split-level lofts will have living rooms with an 18-foot ceiling and a bedroom above the kitchen, a dining area and, in some units, a study. Dunn brought in Phoenix architectural designer Ed Keeney to add a penthouse level on the roof with a modern Asian curvilinear clamshell roofline that curves upward and downward. "This is not a look you've had before," Dunn said. "This is a totally new look. It's to bring a lifestyle that hasn't been here before. I call it a cosmopolitan lifestyle. The concept is to be able to see out of the building. You are in an environment that is part of the outside world." At street level, Craig Finfrock, leasing agent at Commercial Retail Advisors, is working with 3,800 square feet that could be a 120- to 150-seat all-day restaurant or a nighttime restaurant "like Barrio Grill or Cafe Poca Cosa" with a separate coffee shop for the daytime hours. There will be an outdoor deck with a swimming pool and outdoor dining area above the restaurant as well as sidewalk dining.

Melissa Black, associate broker at Long Realty, cites economic theory to back her confidence to sell $350,000 to $1.35 million condos in downtown Tucson during a major housing and overall economic slump. "It's based on supply and demand," Black says "There has been little to no supply of this type of offering. We've had interest from people in Boston, New York, the foothills. I've even had a call from a person in Dubai. The skeptics say downtown is a lost cause. It's really not. It's the new frontier."

Rulney had no grand vision when he bought the Tiburon Apartments, 128 S. Fifth Ave., eight years ago. He added the neighboring carriage house and Julian-Drew Building in March 2006 to create an 1-acre plot for what has become a $10 million vision. "It wasn't until I got really interested in revitalizing downtown that motivated me to look at these other properties," Rulney said. "I think the public will be pleasantly surprised sooner rather than later. I think certain projects such as this one have a very high probability for success because it leans toward redevelopment as opposed to projects that cost hundreds of millions of dollars that downtown is not ready to support."

Rulney and downtown architect Rob Paulus plan to spruce up a 1960s apartment complex into a modern condominium for young professionals or college students or empty nesters looking to downscale. They also plan to put a cafe into the carriage house that faces onto the alley that is Arizona Avenue. Paulus will strip out the apartments and give the new condo units wood flooring, much larger windows and modern wiring. "It's definitely a modern refiguring to be more functional and playful," Paulus said. Upper-level walkways will be detached from walls to allow more daylight to reach lower levels. These walkways will look onto the enclosed courtyard, which will have a swimming pool, desert landscaping and sun and shade areas.

Paulus was inspired by a trip to Zurich, Switzerland, for the exterior designs. The outer wall facing Fifth Avenue will have shadow boxes framing the windows and projecting outward 2 to 4 feet. The Arizona Avenue wall will have louvered panels at the edge of the balconies that can slide from side to side to block the late afternoon sun. They expect construction to start in early to mid-2009, based on a successful sales campaign, with condos potentially ready for residents by the end of 2009, Rulney said. "There's nothing like this in this price range downtown," Rulney said.

Two developers are committed to Broadway. Any more willing to make Broadway a signature street downtown rather than the remnant of East Berlin that it is? Glenn Lyons has a 90-space parking between Scott and Sixth avenues awaiting a developer.

For more info.: http://44broadway.com/home/, http://www.juliandrew.com/index.html