Phoenix Development News (3)

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

The area being crime ridden in the 70s explains the buildings awful urban design. Sunk in a moat, behind a block wall. Its literally a fortress.




You may have seen, but I Tweeted Mayor Stanton about this. Specifically about all the big companies in the PHX area (Cold Stone, Taser, PetSmart, Waste Management, Go Daddy, etc etc) that are HQ'd in the PHX area, but with zero downtown presence. He said he's in the process of meeting with CEOs of all/most of the major AZ corporations and trying to sell them on center city locations and letting them know the city will do what they can to help them come Downtown if they ever decide to.....so thats good.

A major loss was the University of Phoenix and the Apollo Group not building their corporate high rise downtown. At least they did stay in Phoenix but downtown would have been huge. I do hope the mayor can coax some of these local companies to head downtown.

[phxSUNSfan]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Wow this is the first I've ever heard of the D'backs wanting to reduce capacity, that would be great. They over built BOB/Chase by about 10K seats for this market and it always feels empty. Reducing capacity would raise ticket prices, but the D'backs prices are so insanely low that even if prices went up a bit, it would be OK.

A 10,000 seat reduction is too much but a few thousand would be wise. Expanded seats to include larger, luxury seats like in Dodger and Yankee Stadiums would be a good thing for higher priced seats behind home plate; that would require reducing capacity. I'm sure this is what the Dbacks have in mind.

[RedFury1881]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Matt's Big Breakfast moving to larger location in Phoenix
23 comments by Howard Seftel - Jul. 21, 2012 09:48 AM
Republic restaurant critic

Since 2004, Matt's Big Breakfast has been shoehorning hungry breakfast and lunch crowds into its cramped downtown Phoenix space. Now the restaurant is on the move to larger quarters.
But it's not moving far, just a few doors north, into the spot last occupied by short-lived Verde. Renovations are almost complete; the transition is scheduled for the end of August.
Chef/owner Matt Pool says the new digs will seat 50 people, about twice as many as the old spot could handle. Another plus: customers in need of a restroom will no longer be directed to the next-door Coronado Hotel, a place that no one has ever confused with the Ritz. The new Matt's has its own facilities.

Pool is not going to fiddle with success. Except for the addition of staff, everything about the new Matt's Big Breakfast should remain the same, including the menu, phone number and hours.
Pool is also hanging on to his old location. Once the new place is running smoothly - Pool anticipates three or four months -- he plans to convert the original Matt's into a take-out shop, where folks in a hurry can grab a breakfast sandwich or burger from a limited menu.
Details: (New) Matt's Big Breakfast, 825 N. First St., Phoenix, 602-254-1074. Hours: Breakfast and lunch, 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., daily. mattsbigbreakfast.com


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/dini...nix-restaurant-moving.html#ixzz21IsIyDOq

Awesome news. Love Matt's. Glad they are staying at pretty much the exact same area, just a few steps north of the original/current spot.

Verde had some good food, just couldn't generate enough hype.

A good move for Matt's, especially like that they're turning the current building into a takeout place.

Pool is a guy who knows what he's doing ... Matt's, the Roosevelt Tavern and Giant Coffee. All gold.

Was just at Matt's last week and spoke to his wife, Erenia, who said they have some big news coming, guess this is it.

[Vicelord John]

Love Matt's places except giant, the coffee is a big let down for me. I prefer lgo or lux.

[HX_Guy]

More downtown residents sought

Area population must triple to attract more amenities, group says

13 comments by Eugene Scott - Jul. 21, 2012 04:15 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

Misconceptions about downtown Phoenix keep Valley residents from moving to the area, thus slowing economic development in the city center, community leaders said.

The Downtown Phoenix Partnership Inc. board of directors reviewed the group's economic-development report last week at its quarterly meeting. Attracting new residents was among topics the non-profit group discussed as part of its mission to promote economic development in the area.

"We need more people downtown living here, working here," David Roderique, president and CEO of the partnership, said. "The more people you have living there, the more you can support them."

Roderique said exaggerated safety concerns, partially because of the presence of the homeless, have kept some people from moving to the area.

"Downtown has become one of the safest places in the Valley," he said. "Crime has dropped 70 to 80 percent in the last decade."

Between 12,000 and 14,000 people live in downtown Phoenix, Roderique said, but that number needs to triple to attract the type of projects, such as a grocery store, the DPP would like to see in the community.

"We've made huge strides, but we're not there yet," he said.

The area also needs small-scale development projects to fill open space between the larger buildings.

"There aren't that many sites where you could do a mega-project if you wanted to," Roderique said. "We really don't have a lot of land."

Newer projects such as CityScape have made downtown more attractive to those in other parts of the Valley, but Terry Madeksza, DPP vice president, said the group is looking for ways to make the area more pedestrian-friendly by adding shade, outdoor seating and public art.

"People are coming downtown. Downtown is becoming a destination. I want them to feel comfortable walking, to lengthen their stay," she said.

Apartment projects that will attract the middle class are badly needed, said Dan Klocke, DPP vice president of development. Smaller projects with 60 to 70 units that charge about $1,200 a month for a two- or three-bedroom apartment would be ideal but are tough to make a reality, he said.

"These are more challenging than anything from a construction standpoint," he said. "New construction from the ground up is really hard. It takes time."

It also will take time to attract more intimate dining and entertainment venues to complement the Phoenix Convention Center, CityScape and larger hotels, Madeksza said.

"We're focused on giving someone a memorable experience so that when they choose to go out, they go downtown," she said.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articl...town-residents-sought.html#ixzz21PpjwhYu

[nickw252]

I found the title of the article peculiar as there is a strong demand for housing and every downtown housing development is at or near capacity. It seems that it would be more accurate to say "more downtown housing sought."

The Concord Eastridge development will help and hopefully the Cityscape apartments begin construction soon.

[PHX31]

"we don't really have a lot of land". He must be blind. Past city leaders and policies effed downtown Phoenix in the a. It'll be hard to ever recover and fill in space with "small projects" due to the inflated speculative prices. Although that's exactly what's needed.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by PHX31

"we don't really have a lot of land". He must be blind. Past city leaders and policies effed downtown Phoenix in the a. It'll be hard to ever recover and fill in space with "small projects" due to the inflated speculative prices. Although that's exactly what's needed.

Yah, I'd hazard to guess there's more undeveloped land in Downtown than developed when you considered all the dirt lots, surface parking lots, empty buildings, and overly wide streets.

But isn't Roderique the same one who got all excited about the stupid "Legends Entertainment District" and brought us the horrible "X marks the spot"/neon green mess ad campaign for Downtown? The guy seems wholly out of touch.

[phxSUNSfan]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Yah, I'd hazard to guess there's more undeveloped land in Downtown than developed when you considered all the dirt lots, surface parking lots, empty buildings, and overly wide streets.

But isn't Roderique the same one who got all excited about the stupid "Legends Entertainment District" and brought us the horrible "X marks the spot"/neon green mess ad campaign for Downtown? The guy seems wholly out of touch.

Technically, parking lots aren't undeveloped, LOL! But I would wager that most of downtown lots are developed. With the new buildings around the biomed campus, even more so. However, I think Roderique understates the amount of available land that is prime for development, even large scale like highrise condos and more office towers. In relative terms, downtown does have limited space when compared to other employment zones.

As for overly wide streets in downtown, there are only two I would consider too wide: Washington and Jefferson. If we consider the 7's then those too.

[doppelbanger]

I wouldn't even consider Washington, Jefferson, and the 7's to be too wide. Most major cities have large thoroughfares running through their city centers. New York has streets that are as wide as 7th street that are one way streets. Los Angeles has a freeway running through downtown. I think it's the big and small combined that make a downtown seem great.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

As for overly wide streets in downtown, there are only two I would consider too wide: Washington and Jefferson. If we consider the 7's then those too.

Almost every street downtown is too wide. The ones you mentioned I worry less about, especially the 7's. They'll probably always be mini highways leading people in and out of Downtown.

The city is narrowing Roosevelt for a reason. They narrowed 1st St for a reason, we need to see more and more of that in coming years. More bike lanes, more planted medians, more on street (and less surface/off street) parallel parking, etc. will go a long way to making Downtown better.

The vast majority of Downtowns streets are empty or near empty at almost every hour of the day and are so wide that they encourage people to speed, endangering what few pedestrians and cyclists are about.

[phxSUNSfan]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Almost every street downtown is too wide. The ones you mentioned I worry less about, especially the 7's. They'll probably always be mini highways leading people in and out of Downtown.

The city is narrowing Roosevelt for a reason. They narrowed 1st St for a reason, we need to see more and more of that in coming years. More bike lanes, more planted medians, more on street (and less surface/off street) parallel parking, etc. will go a long way to making Downtown better.

The vast majority of Downtowns streets are empty or near empty at almost every hour of the day and are so wide that they encourage people to speed, endangering what few pedestrians and cyclists are about.

I don't agree. Roosevelt only has one lane for each direction. Of course adding a bike lane is the right thing to do but they aren't really making the street smaller, just making the space for cars less invasive. Most downtown streets are pretty small and I really only notice speeding on 1st Ave between Roosevelt and Van Buren; adding a painted bike lane by removing a lane for cars would slow things down and provide a larger buffer for pedestrians. Until you get to the Y and Civic Space Park, 1st is devoid of anything that attracts pedestrians and thus, feels empty.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

Roosevelt only has one lane for each direction.

Which is all it needs.

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

Of course adding a bike lane is the right thing to do but they aren't really making the street smaller, just making the space for cars less invasive.

From what I've seen they are going to actually make the street a bit smaller by adding planters and such. Most care lanes in Phoenix are 12'+ which is much bigger than most Cities.

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

Most downtown streets are pretty small

They're only small compared to silly mega highway streets that litter Phoenix, like Bell Road. Go to any other City, especially a City thats good at the little urban things, the streets are much narrower and the blocks are shorter.

Its not just Downtown streets that are too wide, its most Phoenix streets. In my neighborhood, Willo, 3rd and 5th Avenues are hilariously wide and people speed like maniacs. First off the streets shouldn't be one ways- that should only be used in the densest of areas. 1st Ave/Central and Wash/Jeff are about the only ones that should exist. Then there's parallel parking along both 3rd and 5th for not really any reason-- if you're visiting someone who lives on say Coronado Rd, why not just park in front of their house? There's always room. Even with a bike lane 3rd and 5th has tons of excess room, the lanes themselves are pretty wide and even though the City added traffic circles and speed bumps, people are still enticed to speed by wide lanes and straight streets with endless vistas. Turning 3rd and 5th into two-way streets, removing most/all of the unneeded parallel parking, adding an additional bike lane going the other way and enlarging the planter strips needs to happen.

You can see the same thing in historic neighborhoods all over PHX. Look at Oak or 12th St in Coronado. They're crazy wide, there's parts of Oak where you could parallel park cars on both sides and still have 3 cars drive down the road between them! Instead of these streets being higher auto speed neighborhood cut-throughs, they ought to be the main 'complete streets' through their neighborhoods. They should be focused on by the City to have bike improvements, more shade, wider sidewalks where necessary, etc. I drive or ride my bike on 12th St every day, and my schedule is very random so I've seen it at all times a day and its always a ghost town...streets like it ought to be narrowed/improved.

And I'm not saying do this sort of thing all over PHX. Just make a certain "Central PHX" boundary (say I-17 to SR51, to I-10 (the south part) to Bethany) and say "inside this boundary, we're going to do the right urban thing. If you want suburbia, there's 300+ square miles for you, enjoy.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Its not just Downtown streets that are too wide, its most Phoenix streets. In my neighborhood, Willo, 3rd and 5th Avenues are hilariously wide and people speed like maniacs. First off the streets shouldn't be one ways- that should only be used in the densest of areas. 1st Ave/Central and Wash/Jeff are about the only ones that should exist. Then there's parallel parking along both 3rd and 5th for not really any reason-- if you're visiting someone who lives on say Coronado Rd, why not just park in front of their house? There's always room. Even with a bike lane 3rd and 5th has tons of excess room, the lanes themselves are pretty wide and even though the City added traffic circles and speed bumps, people are still enticed to speed by wide lanes and straight streets with endless vistas. Turning 3rd and 5th into two-way streets, removing most/all of the unneeded parallel parking, adding an additional bike lane going the other way and enlarging the planter strips needs to happen.

While this fix is being applied, there are no sidewalks on 5th between Thomas and Encanto. That needs to be dealt with as well. You have to walk in the bike lane.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

But isn't Roderique the same one who got all excited about the stupid "Legends Entertainment District" and brought us the horrible "X marks the spot"/neon green mess ad campaign for Downtown? The guy seems wholly out of touch.

I don't know his specific level of involvement, but the organization he heads, the Downtown Phoenix Partnership, has made those mistakes and many more over the past two decades. Perhaps they've been stung by criticism because I've seen more emphasis on small business lately, but it's still hard to forgive DPP's support to the demolition of the Sahara Hotel and its replacement with a parking lot.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

From what I've seen they are going to actually make the street a bit smaller by adding planters and such. Most care lanes in Phoenix are 12'+ which is much bigger than most Cities.



They're only small compared to silly mega highway streets that litter Phoenix, like Bell Road. Go to any other City, especially a City thats good at the little urban things, the streets are much narrower and the blocks are shorter.

Its not just Downtown streets that are too wide, its most Phoenix streets.

Many of our streets not only have more lanes than needed, but also excessively wide lanes built according to a one-size-fits-all template more appropriate for suburban neighborhoods than urban centers. Both factors induce excessive traffic and speed. A related issue is parallel parking. Having cars parked along the street uses space more efficiently and provides a buffer between pedestrians and cars. That's part of the solution, along with bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and landscaping.

[phxSUNSfan]

And I'm not saying do this sort of thing all over PHX. Just make a certain "Central PHX" boundary (say I-17 to SR51, to I-10 (the south part) to Bethany) and say "inside this boundary, we're going to do the right urban thing. If you want suburbia, there's 300+ square miles for you, enjoy.

You don't have to be an —; we are well aware of available suburbia in Phoenix. But some of us chose to live in downtown to avoid that.

Hoover, I think we have the same positions only are approaching them differently. I don't think it is likely that the Cty will go on a mission to reduce street widths no matter how narrowed the scope; to think otherwise is quixotic given that even in Europe where large boulevards exist, all they have done is reduced space for cars. Best bet for Phoenix is that the streets are repainted to dedicate lanes for bikes and buses.

In European cities there are lanes for city buses in which cars aren't allowed to travel; that makes the most sense for Phoenix because ripping out lanes all over the Central City to plant trees is prohibitively expensive; just doing this on a small strip of Roosevelt proves that. Bus lanes and bike lanes like those on N. Central would do wonders to reduce traffic speed and to get people to ride their bikes more often. Example:

http://thirdwavecyclingblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/madridhugebuslanes.jpg

There are even bus lanes like these in Europe seperated by a small, blue railings or small concrete dividers or painted lanes:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Greater-B...in-city/story-15306163-detail/story.html

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

You don't have to be an —; we are well aware of available suburbia in Phoenix. But some of us chose to live in downtown to avoid that.

I don't see how I'm "being an —" here. The City needs to set aside some part of itself for urbanity. A nice area defined as Central PHX plus maybe half a mile radius from all future LRT stops should be zoned to be urban. The rest can be suburban. I don't think thats asking a lot.

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

I don't think it is likely that the Cty will go on a mission to reduce street widths no matter how narrowed the scope; to think otherwise is quixotic given that even in Europe where large boulevards exist,

I'm not against wide boulevards, but does EVERY street need to be one? Leave Central, the 7s, Washington and Jefferson at their current widths, thats fine.

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

ripping out lanes all over the Central City to plant trees is prohibitively expensive; just doing this on a small strip of Roosevelt proves that.

It is expensive, and time consuming, thats why you do it over a long period of time. Narrow streets and short blocks are the basic building blocks for good urbanism, without them, no matter how much density we have, it'll be tough to have great urban areas.

In my opinion some of Phoenix's biggest problems are 1. lack of shade, 2. urban heat island, 3. auto-oriented City design.

Narrowing lane widths, removing some lanes, and increasing bike lanes and the size of planter strips solves ALL of those 3 key issues. I don't see why anyone who's pro-urbanism would be against the idea of more trees, shady sidewalks, etc. Calling it 'quixotic' is silly, as the City has already shown a willingness to engage in these sorts of projects (Roosevelt, 1st St, parts of 12th St in Coronado, etc)

[nickw252]

Google updated its satellite view on maps so I decided to take a few screenshots and post them here. These images are from between May 25 and June 11 of this year.

Hotel Palomar at Cityscape:



Is anyone here familiar enough with construction to where you can glean any information about the footprint of the apartments above the hotel?

Concord Eastridge north building:



Concord Eastridge south building:



U of A building:

[PHX31]

They are from June 9th (it says June 8th on the aerials, but I know it is sat June 9th).