Phoenix Development News (3)

[Jjs5056]

This post on Blooming Rock ( http://bloomingrock.com/2012/09/26/conce...ed-circle-k-on-roosevelt-and-7th-street/ )and the comments beneath concern me. It seems like people are really missing the big picture when it comes to the Circle K development on 7th/Roosevelt. Their focus seems to be on the fact that the K will be selling alcohol and the impact that could have on the neighborhood. Sure, the potential for increased crime should be discussed and addressed, but this development is going to impact the intersection, neighborhood and downtown as a whole in ways that go well beyond giving people easier access to booze.

It's no wonder Central Phoenix is the victim of so many bad decisions when even sites/blogs that are dedicated to urban planning and urban problems focus on short-term issues, while ignoring the long-term implications. I've posted by response below:

"Seems like everyone is missing the big picture here. There is a lot more to this story and the new Circe K will impact the neighborhood beyond just the sale of alcohol.

The new mega gas station will demolish several older buildings, while leaving the existing K to the north abandoned indefinitely. Roosevelt and 7th street, described in this post and within several comments as a gateway to our downtown and urban core, will be marked by gas stations (existing and abandoned) on 3 of its 4 corners.

Sure, 7th street will never be a pedestrian mall and the buildings being demolished are certainly nothing too special. But, look south at some other buildings that were restored and put to use. They have strong bones, are built right up to the street and most importantly, would be more affordable than any new construction retail spaces, allowing the creative class to move in and continue building and transforming the neighborhood.

Those are the kind of buildings that should be greeting visitors to our downtown, not 16 gas pumps. And, by constantly knocking down buildings that have potential for new uses (drawing in visitors and engaging them in our community, instead of having them fill up their SUV and heading straight back to the burbs), we are destroying any chance we have our downtown being revitalized or growing organically.

Unfortunately, what’s done is done. A shiny new Circle K across the street from a deteriorating former store- hello, progress."

[Vicelord John]

7th and roosevelt is a major arterial intersection next to a freeway. It will never, and should never, be a dense urban housing hub. Every big city has these big major intersections set aside for things like gas stations, drive through food places, etc. Even in downtown Chicago, LA, Houston, etc. you'll find these intersections.

I think this forum is so hell bent on there being more urban development, it's losing sight of the fact that there are better places where urban things should happen, and are happening.

I know what your arguments are, it's a big surface lot, it makes our gateway to downtown look surburban and chinsy, well you know what, that's how it works! Those buildings they are going to demolish are garbage, I've bought tires there, there's nothing remotely interesting about either of them. There are several "historic" buildings a few blocks south with retail that can't seem to find tenants to stay longer than a couple of months either, and it won't happen anytime soon either because 7th street is a 'get to where you're going, or come from where you were' kind of street.

I live downtown, and I want to see Phoenix become a world-class dense downtown as just as much as anyone here, but I think this is just what should be happening at that intersection. Now, if Circle Jerk were wanting to build a gas station, at say 2nd Street and Pierce, I'd have quite an issue with that, but c'mon folks.... IT'S A FREEWAY ACCESS INTERSECTION, IT'S HOW IT FRIGGIN' WORKS!

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

This post on Blooming Rock ( http://bloomingrock.com/2012/09/26/conce...ed-circle-k-on-roosevelt-and-7th-street/ )and the comments beneath concern me. It seems like people are really missing the big picture when it comes to the Circle K development on 7th/Roosevelt. Their focus seems to be on the fact that the K will be selling alcohol and the impact that could have on the neighborhood. Sure, the potential for increased crime should be discussed and addressed, but this development is going to impact the intersection, neighborhood and downtown as a whole in ways that go well beyond giving people easier access to booze.

It's no wonder Central Phoenix is the victim of so many bad decisions when even sites/blogs that are dedicated to urban planning and urban problems focus on short-term issues, while ignoring the long-term implications. I've posted by response below:

"Seems like everyone is missing the big picture here. There is a lot more to this story and the new Circe K will impact the neighborhood beyond just the sale of alcohol.

The new mega gas station will demolish several older buildings, while leaving the existing K to the north abandoned indefinitely. Roosevelt and 7th street, described in this post and within several comments as a gateway to our downtown and urban core, will be marked by gas stations (existing and abandoned) on 3 of its 4 corners.

Sure, 7th street will never be a pedestrian mall and the buildings being demolished are certainly nothing too special. But, look south at some other buildings that were restored and put to use. They have strong bones, are built right up to the street and most importantly, would be more affordable than any new construction retail spaces, allowing the creative class to move in and continue building and transforming the neighborhood.

Those are the kind of buildings that should be greeting visitors to our downtown, not 16 gas pumps. And, by constantly knocking down buildings that have potential for new uses (drawing in visitors and engaging them in our community, instead of having them fill up their SUV and heading straight back to the burbs), we are destroying any chance we have our downtown being revitalized or growing organically.

Unfortunately, what’s done is done. A shiny new Circle K across the street from a deteriorating former store- hello, progress."

I think those concerned about Circle K see the big picture more than you realize. The use permit, however, is the immediate issue being decided on, so it's where a lot of attention is now focused.

[Jjs5056]

exit- Good to hear! I just think there is a lot more to the conversation, so glad to know people aren't getting caught in some of the micro issues that make up the bigger story.

John- I don't necessarily disagree.

Of course, this would be much more of a travesty if it were taking place further to the southwest; however, our downtown is small enough as it is. If there is a chance to lend some kind of connectivity to the official downtown and Roosevelt Row with the neighborhoods to the East by creating retail destinations along 7th St., why not take advantage of that? Just because 7th is a busy street, I don't think we should just knock down anything that is remotely usable for uses other than gas stations and drive-throughs.

I agree that the corner would never be used for high-density residential or anything like that. I'm not asking for that- I'm just asking that the existing buildings (which are nothing special- I think everyone can attest to that) remain to provide affordable alternatives for the organic, creative uses that we would want to see within proximity of Roosevelt Row.

Additionally, there are some cool residential properties in Garfield, and the rest of that neighborhood could really use some revitalization efforts. Retail on 7th would bring some of the activity over to the East side and maybe help spur some of that in a way that a gas station never will. There is the Children's museum, the previously-renovated structures near Filmore, and IIRC, the owners of the complex of 7th and McDowell are planning to redevelop a few of the other buildings nearby. So, again, why would we not want to continue that inertia and leverage the assets we have, as unremarkable as they might be?

If the existing gas station was being renovated, I would have much less of a problem- it would still suck that 2 of the 4 corners would be dedicated to auto uses, but it's closer to the freeway, wouldn't be knocking down any structures in its way, and would be solving a need (if there is indeed a need for this kind of mega gas station to serve that area).

Unfortunately, though, that isn't the case and the existing K will be left abandoned. I'm just sure how anyone can think that is an efficient or sustainable way of developing our downtown?

I enjoy hearing opposing thoughts- I'm not educated in urban planning by any means; I just want to see our downtown reach its potential, and to me, leaving an existing gas station abandoned to move across the street and destroy building stock that is in decent enough shape to be used just doesn't seem like the kind of thing we should be in support of.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

exit- Good to hear! I just think there is a lot more to the conversation, so glad to know people aren't getting caught in some of the micro issues that make up the bigger story.

This is indeed the case. Honestly I don't care too much one way or the other about the liquor license if its looked at in a vacuum. Unfortunately the buildings aren't on any kind of Historic Register and there's no way to keep a giant 16 pump Circle K off that corner other than fighting the use permit.

I wrote an article on the situation here:

http://downtowndevil.com/2012/09/28/31326/circle-k-will-novak/

John, I couldn't disagree more. The fact that you used the word "arterial" street in reference to an urban context is horrible. There don't need to be "arterial","collector" and "neighborhood" streets, that a suburban model and poor one at that. We need complete streets, the tiered street system by its nature causes traffic congestion.

You piss away the whole benefit of a gridded street system if you try to turn it into this arterial/collector/neighborhood nonsense. Each street should carry a relatively equally burden. We shouldn't be funneling cars off of streets like 3rd, McKinley, etc and onto 7th and turning it into a mini highway. Thats nonsense.

Further, even if 7th St is a lost caused and will always be an overly wide, anti urban mess, that doesn't mean Roosevelt should be sacrificed. Roosevelt St has the potential to one day be walkable and nice from 16th St to Grand Ave and huge 16 pump gas stations don't really allow that to happen.

[Vicelord John]

It's not an urban intersection and it never will be, so arterial is completely appropriate.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

It's not an urban intersection and it never will be, so arterial is completely appropriate.

Well then we have different definitions of urban. Roosevelt, even if it has to cross the giant 7, is far and away PHXs best chance for an urban street in the near future.

[Vicelord John]

Yup, and at 7av and 7st it crosses mini-highways that will never change. Every city has a street or many streets like this, you just probably notice it more here because we don't have a big city to mask it.

Trust me, it'll be just fine.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

Yup, and at 7av and 7st it crosses mini-highways that will never change. Every city has a street or many streets like this, you just probably notice it more here because we don't have a big city to mask it.

Trust me, it'll be just fine.

You seem focused on the 7s. Im focused on Roosevelt. Additionally you continually point out that many Cities have gas stations as their entryways to downtown, which is true. But how many of them are 16 pumpers? 16 pump stations are monsters, go look at the one on Indian School/12th St. They're total urbanity killers.

Walkability can survive with littler stations like the existing Shell, Sinclair and small Circle K, but these bigs ones make things a lot tougher.

[Vicelord John]

We aren't a big city like a lot of places where the real estate is too expensive for a 16 pumper.

I'm focused on the 7's because this is where that gas station is being built. Yes, it is also on the corner of Roosevelt, but many very urban walking streets cross major non-walking boulevards and mini-highways. This is nothing new or exclusive to Phoenix. Roosevelt will still become an urban neighborhood, but in a car centric city like Phoenix, this is how the huge arterial streets will always be.

You have to think down the road when/if downtown becomes really truly bulit up, you'll have an urban center of housing all around the area between Hance Park and Van Buren and between 7th street and about 3rd avenue (likely based in Roosevelt) which is where the single family stuff starts. I'd imagine once this happens, you'll be either glad the gas stations are there as they will be needed with that many people going in and out of the city, or you'll become indifferent because even though you don't like them, you'll understand their purpose.

Either way, this is the best possible place a gas station could be built downtown (I wouldn't want one any nearer the core or inside the 7's) and we should all be thankful they did not tear down another significant structure for it. Basically what I am saying is you can't kill urbinity when the location is never going to be urban to begin with... this corner will never be urban. Both sides of it will be urban, headed east and west, and people walking or cycling will have to go past gas stations *gasp* but this is not something that is going to stifle the positive direction of development on Roosevelt Street. What will happen is there will be a definite dividing line between two separate neighborhoods, so you're upset that two separate neighborhoods will, um, remain separate?

Below is the same intersection that I have previously referenced. Ontario and LaSalle in downtown Chicago. Ontario stems from the Kennedy Expressway and is a major entrance into the River North neighborhood of downtown. It's probably the most similar to 7th Street, and lo and behold, here is a 20 pump station and still all four directions from this intersection are urban apartments and street front retail/restaurants. Obviously phoenix is not Chicago, but the point here is that obviously a huge gas station and urban walkability can coexist quite well, but you have to open your brain to imagining Phoenix actually being an urban place in the future and the station existing at the same time. It can/will happen.

[PHX31]

/\ I would say that's a mistake Chicago made and we shouldn't be Ok settling for the same thing. One thing: ok, so Chicago has a big gas station in that location, but how many other gas stations are across the street, or how many are within a couple miles? In Phoenix at roosevelt7th there are already 2 across the street and probably 6 within a couple miles.
I'm in Paris right now and I've walked all over this city the past couple of days, I can't remember seeing a single gas station, and I've only seen 2 (that I can remember) in the 4 weeks of travels through Europe. In Phoenix they are everywhere. Yes, totally different comparison, but they sure didn't tear down their 17-19th century buildings for gas stations, which is what we've done to the intersection of Roosevelt/7th.

[Vicelord John]

Phoenix is a post WW2 car centric city, it's natural for there to be many more gas stations than a city like Paris where millions have no car.

You can't let go of that shitty building, can you? It's GARBAGE. It barely stands up on its own.

[PHX31]

The area we are talking about is a pre-WWII part of town. Anything is better than another GAS STATION.

There are still tons of cars everywhere here in Paris. This discussion is actually making me wonder where the hell these people fill up their cars.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by PHX31

The area we are talking about is a pre-WWII part of town. Anything is better than another GAS STATION.

There are still tons of cars everywhere here in Paris. This discussion is actually making me wonder where the hell these people fill up their cars.

I think in preserving buildings you have to use a little common sense.
Example. The James Hotel if it is unique it should be saved from Sarver leveling it.
On the other hand that red brick building that Sarver wanted to nuke to build and "W" Hotel between the Suns Arena and the Parking Garage to the east should have been nuked. There are several dozen red brick wharehouses just like that building in South Phoenix. As I recall some grandson of the Chinese guy who originally owned a laundry in that building came forward and cryed up a storm about tearing it down. Sarver tryed to appease this guy by leaving part of the building in the proposed lobby of the hotel. Not good enough for junior. Number one; If the building was so valuable to your family why did gramps sell it in the first place? Number two; From what I have observed and have been told there are numerous buildings just like it in the area. It cost Phoenix a nice downtown hotel just so this guy could take a walk down memory lane with gramps or the memory of gramps.

[Jjs5056]

I'm not going to touch the W and what happened there- I think the consensus is that if the market could have supported the hotel, it would have happened regardless of the warehouse lawsuit.

Either way, not really relevant to the matter of 7th/Roosevelt as nobody here is arguing that the existing structures are historic in any way. If the developer was proposing a hotel or mixed use project, there would be much mre support. While that would still be destroying buildings that could possibly be converted into affordable space, the neighborhood and downtown would still be benefitting through the increase in bodies in the area that could contribute to the scene and support local services, etc. A 16-pump gas station that leaves an existing gas station abandoned on the opposite corner will provide NONE of these benefits to the neighborhood.

These are two very, very different situations.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

I'm not going to touch the W and what happened there- I think the consensus is that if the market could have supported the hotel, it would have happened regardless of the warehouse lawsuit.

Either way, not really relevant to the matter of 7th/Roosevelt as nobody here is arguing that the existing structures are historic in any way. If the developer was proposing a hotel or mixed use project, there would be much mre support. While that would still be destroying buildings that could possibly be converted into affordable space, the neighborhood and downtown would still be benefitting through the increase in bodies in the area that could contribute to the scene and support local services, etc. A 16-pump gas station that leaves an existing gas station abandoned on the opposite corner will provide NONE of these benefits to the neighborhood.

These are two very, very different situations.

Agree. It's not so much a binary question of preserve or demolish, but instead a careful weighing of the value of existing buildings vs. what would replace them. A gas station doesn't add much value to an urban neighborhood.

[Arquitect]

The argument that we shouldn't think about city in a different way because that is not what Phoenix is really bothers me. I am not under this illusion that Phoenix will be the next Paris, but it also doesn't have to keep being built as the epitome of car culture. This is an argument that is used by almost everyone in the construction industry. There is a feeling that Phoenix will never be better than what it already is.
I agree that one project will not change the entire city, but a combination of better thoughout projects can. Phoenix can become the city that many of us want in this forum, and it starts by rejecting crappy projects like the circle K and encouraging 7th street to move away from being a highway, and instead just a large street in downtown (not all large streets are high speed thouroughfares). I'm sorry if that sucks for all the commuters that want to get to downtown in 15 minutes from their suburban neighborhoods, but their interests should not be greater than the improvement of downtown.

[doppelbanger]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

The argument that we shouldn't think about city in a different way because that is not what Phoenix is really bothers me. I am not under this illusion that Phoenix will be the next Paris, but it also doesn't have to keep being built as the epitome of car culture. This is an argument that is used by almost everyone in the construction industry. There is a feeling that Phoenix will never be better than what it already is.
I agree that one project will not change the entire city, but a combination of better thoughout projects can. Phoenix can become the city that many of us want in this forum, and it starts by rejecting crappy projects like the circle K and encouraging 7th street to move away from being a highway, and instead just a large street in downtown (not all large streets are high speed thouroughfares). I'm sorry if that sucks for all the commuters that want to get to downtown in 15 minutes from their suburban neighborhoods, but their interests should not be greater than the improvement of downtown.

Rejecting projects will guarantee that Phoenix stays the same as it is now. Ultimately, need is what determines what a street is used for. Right now and likely for a long time seventh street will be used as a street to get into downtown/midtown. Someone mentioned Paris which is a place I visited recently. Paris has streets with as many lanes as 7th st along with way more cars traveling down them and it doesn't stop those areas from feeling incredibly dense and urban. I mean it was hilarious to see people jaywalking across 6 lanes of crazy European drivers. I guess my point is that a gas station isn't going to make or break 7th st.

[AnthonyA]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

It's not an urban intersection and it never will be, so arterial is completely appropriate.

I'm a new contributor, so forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere. Using the phrase "it never will be" absolutely kills constructive conversation. In a forum that emphasizes the difference between what was, what is, what is planned to be, and what could be, "it never will be" can not be defended. It's stated as a fact, but you can never claim to know the future with absolute certainty. "It never should be," "I don't see it becoming," and "It would better serve the region as a whole in its current state" would all be statements that you could defend and use to promote the conversation.

The primary response I have to the Circle K moving to this location is centered around the existing land uses. The construction of a third gas station on that corner is just as absurd as having coffee shops or grocery stores on three corners of a significant intersection - there's no diversity and no mix of complimentary uses. Personally, I wouldn't have too big of an issue with a gas station (even of this size) in this location with the caveat that Circle K scraped their existing site and performed a comprehensive environmental cleanup as well as a re-zone to exclude future gas stations (which would be a win-win for Circle K and the community). I'd prefer no gas station, but considering personal property rights and the existing presence of two gas stations at that intersection, the most prudent compromise I can conclude at this time is to hold Circle K responsible for environmental cleanup of the existing site so it can be used again immediately (theoretically) and extensive environmental safeguards (double-walled tanks, concrete tank-housing substructure, etc) on the new site to protect the long-term ability for Roosevelt Street and the Garfield Neighborhood to continue to reinvent itself.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by AnthonyA

I'm a new contributor, so forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere. Using the phrase "it never will be" absolutely kills constructive conversation. In a forum that emphasizes the difference between what was, what is, what is planned to be, and what could be, "it never will be" can not be defended. It's stated as a fact, but you can never claim to know the future with absolute certainty. "It never should be," "I don't see it becoming," and "It would better serve the region as a whole in its current state" would all be statements that you could defend and use to promote the conversation.

The primary response I have to the Circle K moving to this location is centered around the existing land uses. The construction of a third gas station on that corner is just as absurd as having coffee shops or grocery stores on three corners of a significant intersection - there's no diversity and no mix of complimentary uses. Personally, I wouldn't have too big of an issue with a gas station (even of this size) in this location with the caveat that Circle K scraped their existing site and performed a comprehensive environmental cleanup as well as a re-zone to exclude future gas stations (which would be a win-win for Circle K and the community). I'd prefer no gas station, but considering personal property rights and the existing presence of two gas stations at that intersection, the most prudent compromise I can conclude at this time is to hold Circle K responsible for environmental cleanup of the existing site so it can be used again immediately (theoretically) and extensive environmental safeguards (double-walled tanks, concrete tank-housing substructure, etc) on the new site to protect the long-term ability for Roosevelt Street and the Garfield Neighborhood to continue to reinvent itself.

Upon further review, now that I see a partial photo of the Hotel St. James. If the entire building looks like the photo I saw, nuke that puppy now. It looks like it has as much character as a front yard in west phoenix with a car up on blocks. I say if a building looks like several hundred others and has no character nuke it for the good of all. Why are they jerking Sarvers' chain over that piece of s---?