Phoenix Development News (3)

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

The reason I am aggressively arguing this is because we have to change this everything-is-a-failure mentality. As my name might indicate, I am an architect, and part of my job includes going to city meetings. At those meetings, I and fellow architects tend to get a lot of opposition. The NIMBYers are always a given, I don't let myself be affected by them. I could be putting a money tree that blew $100 bills onto their front porch every time the wind blew, and they would still oppose it. But the ones that do disappoint me are the fellow urbanists, those who want to make a better city. Why? Because they argue fervently against everything if it doesn't match their extremely high expectations, often with little understanding of what it takes to bring such a project to life. They complain about lack of retail, about not enough height, and if you have parking prepare yourself for the worst. My clients are not the big guys, they don't have extremely deep pockets. They are trying to improve their city in the best way they can. They can't afford for retail spots to sit empty for years, they can't afford to build a high-rise, and they know that it is impossible to actually rent out an apartment building in Phoenix without having parking. Yet their projects would be a huge improvement for the city, taking over vacant land or empty parking lots. It is people like us in this forum that should be cheering for them, encouraging them, allowing them to succeed so the next time they take an even bigger risk. Instead, we end up being just a poisonous as the NIMBYers! If we keep shutting down the people who are trying to make a difference, we are going to keep getting the Barron Colliers and other land-bankers who couldn't care less about the city even if they tried. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, but there are a lot of local and outside people trying to do really interesting things in the valley right now, and we have to take advantage of this momentum, not shut them down before they even get started.

I think this assessment, and the one previous, of the people on this board are exaggerated and unfair. I have very rarely seen comparisons to New York or San Francisco and even the references to Denver are minimal and only to give a real life example of a city that was revitalized and is on the level of Phoenix.

The reality is that the group here is a mixed audience and not everyone is going to be an architect, designer, or city planner. And, while everyone here has a similar interest in making our urban areas greater, my stake and perspective as a user of these projects and resident of this city is much different than that of a developer from out of state who is most interested in making the most profit possible, so at the end of the day, "great" becomes relative.

Revitalizing our urban centers also takes a lot more work because of the mistakes made in our past. The frustration on this forum come when those same mistakes continue to plague our city's progress. Do I understand that CityScape turns it back on Jefferson because of the public space requirements it was dealt? Sure. But, as a user of CityScape and of downtown, I think it's fair to criticize the end result and wish a more creative solution was found, because of the dead zone it creates, and because the past has shown us that these inward facing mega projects hinder our street life instead of enhancing it.

Typically, it's the smaller projects led by local stewards that are most acclaimed- warehouse renovations, the De Soto project, many of the smaller infill projects in Roosevelt and Garfield, etc. But, as for the bigger projects, this is always going to be a forum for discussion, debate and brainstorming. There has to be a way to change the threats you mentioned and approach them as challenges, or else we'll continue to have a city of garages and without a soul.

If retail isn't viable in the area, we need to think of other ways to enhance the ground level from the pedestrian POV. If mass amounts of parking are needed to attract residents, we need to come up with an alternative to a massive garage adjacent to the project. And, as far as height, I think most of us are realistic and while we all went land in the heart of downtown to be used smartly and promote density, we know 500' aren't coming anytime soon.

I think regardless of our roles within the city, everyone here is coming from a good place and just wanting a great place to call home and be proud of. I think Phoenix just needs to get momentum building and the projects and attitudes will improve as a result- look at Tempe.

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

Our mountain parks are part of our park system! They are a successful typology in which Phoenix has exploited one of its greatest strengths. You can't dismiss them as "non-city-parks just because they don't look like your typical park.

As for people running in summer. I often run in our parks in summer, and I am not the only one out there. People do brave the heat, just like people in colder climates go out in winter.

The excuse that Phoenix is too hot is used too much as a cop-out. Yes it does get really hot here, but it is not like the city seizes to exist once the thermometer goes above 100.

The reason I am aggressively arguing this is because we have to change this everything-is-a-failure mentality. As my name might indicate, I am an architect, and part of my job includes going to city meetings. At those meetings, I and fellow architects tend to get a lot of opposition. The NIMBYers are always a given, I don't let myself be affected by them. I could be putting a money tree that blew $100 bills onto their front porch every time the wind blew, and they would still oppose it. But the ones that do disappoint me are the fellow urbanists, those who want to make a better city. Why? Because they argue fervently against everything if it doesn't match their extremely high expectations, often with little understanding of what it takes to bring such a project to life. They complain about lack of retail, about not enough height, and if you have parking prepare yourself for the worst. My clients are not the big guys, they don't have extremely deep pockets. They are trying to improve their city in the best way they can. They can't afford for retail spots to sit empty for years, they can't afford to build a high-rise, and they know that it is impossible to actually rent out an apartment building in Phoenix without having parking. Yet their projects would be a huge improvement for the city, taking over vacant land or empty parking lots. It is people like us in this forum that should be cheering for them, encouraging them, allowing them to succeed so the next time they take an even bigger risk. Instead, we end up being just a poisonous as the NIMBYers! If we keep shutting down the people who are trying to make a difference, we are going to keep getting the Barron Colliers and other land-bankers who couldn't care less about the city even if they tried. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, but there are a lot of local and outside people trying to do really interesting things in the valley right now, and we have to take advantage of this momentum, not shut them down before they even get started.

Hmm, I thought we were talking about city parks, specifically Hance? I didn't know that we were lumping neighborhood parks in with the likes of South Mountain, Camelback, and Piestewa. We'll just have to agree to disagree. You want me to blindly give support to what I know are crap proposals in order to show support to the people doing "interesting" things. I say that I have supported projects in the past that I have had strong issues with in the name of believing the developer's vision. At this point, I can no longer be optimistic and supportive of each and every proposal from McDowell to Buckeye and in between the 7's just to avoid being like a NIMBY and patting people on the back for doing their supposed best. Doing so shows such desperation for investment that I am willing to accept just about anything. That's not happening. Everything that gets built downtown isn't an improvement over what was there previously I do not see this park becoming anything more than it is now in terms of pedestrian activity and visitors. I hope I am wrong, but I have no doubt that I am right. Developers need to be held to a standard. Right now that threshold seems to barely be hovering above the ground. I have no choice but to sit back and hope for the best with this proposal.

[poconoboy61]

I stumbled upon a rezoning request that has been submitted to city council in connection with a proposed TOD apartment complex on the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Camelback. It looks like the developer and city has run into extreme opposition from neighbors who have cited a decrease in privacy, increased noise, parking, plummeting property values, trash, crime, accessibility of emergency vehicles, the neighborhood's historic designation, and, of course, height as reasons to fight this four story complex. To appease the concern of neighbors, the developer has reduced the number of floors backing to the neighborhood from four to three. There will be no adjacent parking garage or surface lot, which I am very pleased to hear. Also, the building entrance will actually directly face Camelback, which is good to hear.

The link below provides very detailed information with current site plans, public comments, and even a neat matrix which classifies each transit stop along current and future light rail lines in the city into categories of appropriate TOD intensity. The categories define the type of housing (townhome, low rise, mid rise, high rise) that are acceptable in each category, appropriate commercial development intensity (low rise office, hotel, mid rise office, high rise office), and general floor counts that are acceptable for each category and what floor count will trigger additional TOD incentives from the city around every transit station. From that, it looks like the city has deemed 2-5 stories to be appropriate for TOD in the Central/Camelback vicinity.

http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/interne...uments/meeting_packet/current_packet.pdf (starts on 171)

City Council will decide whether or not to grant the zoning request to TOD tomorrow. It looks like there is also a Plan Site Review for another proposed TOD development near the SW corner of 15th Avenue and Camelback. It's nice to see things moving up there.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

I stumbled upon a rezoning request that has been submitted to city council in connection with a proposed TOD apartment complex on the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Camelback. It looks like the developer and city has run into extreme opposition from neighbors who have cited a decrease in privacy, increased noise, parking, plummeting property values, trash, crime, accessibility of emergency vehicles, the neighborhood's historic designation, and, of course, height as reasons to fight this four story complex. To appease the concern of neighbors, the developer has reduced the number of floors backing to the neighborhood from four to three. There will be no adjacent parking garage or surface lot, which I am very pleased to hear. Also, the building entrance will actually directly face Camelback, which is good to hear.

The link below provides very detailed information with current site plans, public comments, and even a neat matrix which classifies each transit stop along current and future light rail lines in the city into categories of appropriate TOD intensity. The categories define the type of housing (townhome, low rise, mid rise, high rise) that are acceptable in each category, appropriate commercial development intensity (low rise office, hotel, mid rise office, high rise office), and general floor counts that are acceptable for each category and what floor count will trigger additional TOD incentives from the city around every transit station. From that, it looks like the city has deemed 2-5 stories to be appropriate for TOD in the Central/Camelback vicinity.

http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/interne...uments/meeting_packet/current_packet.pdf (starts on 171)

City Council will decide whether or not to grant the zoning request to TOD tomorrow. It looks like there is also a Plan Site Review for another proposed TOD development near the SW corner of 15th Avenue and Camelback. It's nice to see things moving up there.

Isn't the SW corner of 15th and Camelback where the Clean Freak car wash is? Residential would be a nice upgrade along the light-rail line. Hopefully it won't be subsidized or low income housing (aren't the apartments on the west side of 15th low-income?).

The development at 3rd and Camelback also sounds good. That area could use some development (Beefeaters appears to be coming along).

Also, I noticed some work was taking place on a small lot on the west side of 19th just south of Target. Any ideas what that may be?

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by nickw252

Isn't the SW corner of 15th and Camelback where the Clean Freak car wash is? Residential would be a nice upgrade along the light-rail line. Hopefully it won't be subsidized or low income housing (aren't the apartments on the west side of 15th low-income?).

The development at 3rd and Camelback also sounds good. That area could use some development (Beefeaters appears to be coming along).

Also, I noticed some work was taking place on a small lot on the west side of 19th just south of Target. Any ideas what that may be?

It's just west of the southwest corner. The car wash will probably be spared, but the lots next to them will likely be developed. I personally can't envision living in an TOD apartment building next to a car wash, but Phoenix is a unique city where that sort of thing happens. Haven't heard anything about the 19th Avenue lot. Does it look big enough to be another apartment complex?

[exit2lef]

Suggestion: We've got a lot of intense, detailed discussion about Hance Park going on here. How about splitting it off into its own thread?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

But the ones that do disappoint me are the fellow urbanists, those who want to make a better city. Why? Because they argue fervently against everything if it doesn't match their extremely high expectations, often with little understanding of what it takes to bring such a project to life. They complain about lack of retail, about not enough height, and if you have parking prepare yourself for the worst. My clients are not the big guys, they don't have extremely deep pockets. They are trying to improve their city in the best way they can. They can't afford for retail spots to sit empty for years, they can't afford to build a high-rise, and they know that it is impossible to actually rent out an apartment building in Phoenix without having parking. Yet their projects would be a huge improvement for the city, taking over vacant land or empty parking lots. It is people like us in this forum that should be cheering for them, encouraging them, allowing them to succeed so the next time they take an even bigger risk. Instead, we end up being just a poisonous as the NIMBYers! If we keep shutting down the people who are trying to make a difference, we are going to keep getting the Barron Colliers and other land-bankers who couldn't care less about the city even if they tried. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, but there are a lot of local and outside people trying to do really interesting things in the valley right now, and we have to take advantage of this momentum, not shut them down before they even get started.

Good points. I've sometimes found myself aligned with the forces you describe but then try to bring myself back to a moderate position open to compromise. One thing to think about: Sometimes people will take a hard-line position on an issue in order to bracket negotiations. A strategy might be to start with a position in favor of zero parking and infinite density with the idea that all parties would eventually give a little ground and move toward a mutually agreeable position. The trick is knowing when to stand firm and when to agree to the middle ground. Not everyone has figured that out yet.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

I stumbled upon a rezoning request that has been submitted to city council in connection with a proposed TOD apartment complex on the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Camelback. It looks like the developer and city has run into extreme opposition from neighbors who have cited a decrease in privacy, increased noise, parking, plummeting property values, trash, crime, accessibility of emergency vehicles, the neighborhood's historic designation, and, of course, height as reasons to fight this four story complex. To appease the concern of neighbors, the developer has reduced the number of floors backing to the neighborhood from four to three. There will be no adjacent parking garage or surface lot, which I am very pleased to hear. Also, the building entrance will actually directly face Camelback, which is good to hear.

The link below provides very detailed information with current site plans, public comments, and even a neat matrix which classifies each transit stop along current and future light rail lines in the city into categories of appropriate TOD intensity. The categories define the type of housing (townhome, low rise, mid rise, high rise) that are acceptable in each category, appropriate commercial development intensity (low rise office, hotel, mid rise office, high rise office), and general floor counts that are acceptable for each category and what floor count will trigger additional TOD incentives from the city around every transit station. From that, it looks like the city has deemed 2-5 stories to be appropriate for TOD in the Central/Camelback vicinity.

http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/interne...uments/meeting_packet/current_packet.pdf (starts on 171)

City Council will decide whether or not to grant the zoning request to TOD tomorrow. It looks like there is also a Plan Site Review for another proposed TOD development near the SW corner of 15th Avenue and Camelback. It's nice to see things moving up there.

This is what is needed along the light rail, especially in place of run-down land. The opposition is insane. I can't believe they would fight something like this and would rather have blighted surface parking and abandoned houses that are likely crack dens behind them.

[PHX31]

Can anyone access this article?

http://www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2014/JB14BA22.pdf

It is an article from the Institute of Transportation Engineers that details the positive growth Charlotte is experiencing, mostly related to TOD and the improvements to their streets. Seems very poignant to the discussions we're having about Phoenix. They don't seem to be having any problem getting market rate development near their new light rail.

If no one can access it (due to it being members only), I can save it as a PDF... but from there I don't know how to make it available. Ideas?

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by PHX31

This is what is needed along the light rail, especially in place of run-down land. The opposition is insane. I can't believe they would fight something like this and would rather have blighted surface parking and abandoned houses that are likely crack dens behind them.

I think their arguments are veiled complaints about it being subsidized housing. Personally, I'm getting a little fed up with so many new developments being subsidized housing. That being said, there are definitely plenty of NIMBYs out there that will fight everything.

I particularly liked this rational response which isn't an overreaction at all:

Ms. Tracy Tepper said she saw lots of good projects in the past in Downtown Phoenix,
however, felt this was the worst project and would devastate the neighbors and small
businesses. She felt there was not enough parking for the tenants and guests. She
stated owners might have multiple vehicles. She added that the small commercial area
nearby signed petitions against this project, because they felt they would lose business
due to the parking overflow and the significant increase in traffic.

I'm sure all those small businesses will hate having new people (potential customers) living in the area.

Ms. Carol Kawell stated she would have a direct view of the 4-story structure and added
that her home was built in 1928 and on the national historic register.

And a view of a dilapidated and deserted parking lot is better?

Mr. Steve Caniglia ... felt that the 4-story building would have an immediate loss of property
value from 30 - 50% in the most extreme cases.

This seems a bit sensationalized.

He had concerns with people looking down at the property
owners back yards.

This is really the only legitimate concern I saw.

[Sepstein]

This project on 3rd and Camelback is like the 20th mid rise apartment project ive seen on this thread in last two months is there one of these that are actually being built as we speak? Elevation on central the Blue on Wash...Ect?

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by nickw252

Personally, I'm getting a little fed up with so many new developments being subsidized housing.

It is definitely a concern that market rate is having a hard time out there. This is one of the reasons I posted that article about Charlotte. It seems their market rate housing is exploding along their light rail line in certain areas.

And yeah, the residents can't believe some of that stuff they are saying, can they? They can't be that stupid. And they can't be that stupid that they'd think anyone else would believe what they are saying.

[HooverDam]

I hate to admit it, but many of the residents of Central Phoenix and quite often the Historic Neighborhoods are crazy obsessed with parking. Even many people involved in the small group I head (PHNC) are the same way. I knew I wouldn't be able to convince them that its not going to be a car-pocolypse, so luckily I kept it off the radar/agenda, so there's not one more group of people complaining about it.

From what I know it seems like a good project. People need to get over the ridiculous notion that in the center of a huge metropolis you're going to be able to drive up to the front of where you're going and park for free. If you want that lifestyle, Phoenix offers 400 other square miles, or move to Peoria, Buckeye, Queen Creek, etc.

[poconoboy61]

There is some movement on the now vacant Phoenix Motor Company complex on the SE corner of 3rd Avenue and Indian School. A developer is moving forward with a 4 story TOD apartment complex that will take up the entire property. The current vacant building on the corner will be included into the design of the complex and will serve as a gym and rooftop lounge.

More information can be found here: http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/interne...ts/web_content/z-37-04-4_sp-7-04-4ph.pdf

This proposal will go before city council tomorrow along with the TOD proposal on 3rd Avenue and Camelback.

It's good to see all these proposals. Even though it would be nice to have some more height, density is very important along the rail line.

[poconoboy61]

Well it looks like our suspicions about The Pin are true.

Observation-tower plan falls through
By Eugene Scott
The Republic | azcentral.com
Tue Feb 4, 2014 10:48 PM

One Phoenix developer had hoped to break ground on the city’s own Space Needle-type structure and open it before the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale.

But those plans have hit the skids. Novawest had planned to build a 420-foot observation tower inside the interior courtyard of the Arizona Science Center, near Washington and Seventh streets in downtown Phoenix.

But those negotiations didn’t work out, and Novawest began looking at other downtown sites.

Sherri Sauntry, senior vice president of marketing and sales at the Arizona Science Center, said the museum and the developer faced timing conflicts.

“It is unfortunate that Novawest withdrew their proposal as the Phoenix Tower concept appeared to be a unique project that could have added to the entertainment and architectural interest of downtown Phoenix,” said Eric Johnson, a program manager in the Phoenix Community and Economic Development Department.

Novawest is negotiating with another site, but the developer cannot secure funding for the $60 million project until it selects one, said Jay Thorne, a principal at the company.

“There have been no changes in the design, but depending on other factors, there may be the chance for a little more height than we were going to get at the Science Center,” Thorne said. “Height allowances change block by block.”

Novawest now hopes to open the project before the college football national championship in the Valley in 2016.

“We remain very optimistic that this project can occur and will occur,” Thorne said. “It’s just not going to follow the script that we envisioned last fall.”

I have a strong feeling the Hance is the new focal point for this structure. Does anyone know the height limits there? The National Championship game will be held in January 2016, so the developer would need to move pretty quickly. There's no indication that's going to happen.

[Phxguy]

If they build the tower in Hance Park could they build directly over the tunnel or will they have to choose an empty lot next to it? I think if they decide to build here would be an excellent way to lure people into knowing Hance Park exists not to mention heights could raised for maybe a 500 footer. We were talking about mot having an attraction to the park? Why not have the tallest one in the state?

I wonder if they're deciding on selecting Hance Park, if they can fit it into the final design in March.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

There is some movement on the now vacant Phoenix Motor Company complex on the SE corner of 3rd Avenue and Indian School. A developer is moving forward with a 4 story TOD apartment complex that will take up the entire property. The current vacant building on the corner will be included into the design of the complex and will serve as a gym and rooftop lounge.

More information can be found here: http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/interne...ts/web_content/z-37-04-4_sp-7-04-4ph.pdf

This proposal will go before city council tomorrow along with the TOD proposal on 3rd Avenue and Camelback.

It's good to see all these proposals. Even though it would be nice to have some more height, density is very important along the rail line.

Looks a bit heavy on surface parking on the outer ring of the complex, but at least its more or less hidden from the street. Thankfully from an aesthetic point of view it doesn't look like a typical suburban stucco complex like so many of the existing ones in that area. Seems like a good project.

Though I can't imagine wanting to live next to the 8 lanes super highway automotive sewer that is Indian School---yuck.

Originally Posted by Phxguy

If they build the tower in Hance Park could they build directly over the tunnel or will they have to choose an empty lot next to it? I think if they decide to build here would be an excellent way to lure people into knowing Hance Park exists not to mention heights could raised for maybe a 500 footer. We were talking about mot having an attraction to the park? Why not have the tallest one in the state?

I wonder if they're deciding on selecting Hance Park, if they can fit it into the final design in March.

It depends on weight, I have no clue what the Pin would way/I dont think anyone does. But if the Deck can support a huge slopping garage on its East flank, the Pin might be a possibility too.

As much crap as the Pin project has received, I'd MUCH rather see it in Hance than that ridiculous parking garage proposal.

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by Phxguy

If they build the tower in Hance Park could they build directly over the tunnel or will they have to choose an empty lot next to it? I think if they decide to build here would be an excellent way to lure people into knowing Hance Park exists not to mention heights could raised for maybe a 500 footer. We were talking about mot having an attraction to the park? Why not have the tallest one in the state?

I wonder if they're deciding on selecting Hance Park, if they can fit it into the final design in March.

Structurally, it almost certainly would be an issue. A parking structure, such as it is mentioned above, spreads its load around a greater surface area. The Pin, would in fact be a pin of a lot of stress in one single point, I doubt the tunnel's support was engineered to take amount of weight in a single spot. Especially if you advocate to make it taller, since that would only add more weight to the structure.

The Pin won't be changing locations to Hance. That was idea thrown around this forum, but the people trying to make it happen are really set at having it at Heritage Square.

[PHX31]

Did anyone hear the outcome of this?

EDIT: Just checked the City's website and the results of the meeting last night are not posted yet.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by Phxguy

If they build the tower in Hance Park could they build directly over the tunnel or will they have to choose an empty lot next to it? I think if they decide to build here would be an excellent way to lure people into knowing Hance Park exists not to mention heights could raised for maybe a 500 footer. We were talking about mot having an attraction to the park? Why not have the tallest one in the state?

I wonder if they're deciding on selecting Hance Park, if they can fit it into the final design in March.

I do not see any possible way that the tunnel would be able to support the added weight of the observation tower without some serious structural work and I'm sure a tower of that type would need a semi-deep foundation for support. The tunnel does not appear to be more than about 15 feet at the most and the base of the pin would need to be spread over a larger area for support. Are there any areas of Hance that are NOT over the tunnel?