Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno
Phelps Dodge is in the center of downtown, this was built behind a stadium in on former annex parking for ASU. I’d hardly compare the two, but you are always a bit hyperbolic in your assessment of projects valley wide. 40,000 square feet of retail that will be visted 95% of the time by State Farm employes. Thats what theyll have instead fo a cafeteria.
Not everything needs to be some shining example of new urbanism; State Farm and Ryan construction have no “obligation” to do anything. This was always a major argument I got into with my architecture and Urban Planning professors. All this happy talk sounds nice but realistically it is Pablum. Tempe wouldn’t turn down this regional HQ if it was a giant windowless cement block it’s too big of a fish.
Is that ideal…no. Is it better than nothing… Yes, is all your forum rage or teeth gnashing going to change the hard realities of business? Absolutely not.
|
You don't include a main street lined with parking and 40,000 square feet with the intention of catering only to employees. This is my last comment regarding the project, because you're clearly not open to the idea that your words are in direct contrast to what has been stated by both the City and the developer. If they cared to serve only tenants, they'd have a cafeteria or food court within one of the towers, not 40k of retail. They wouldn't dedicate 300 spaces to retail guests and create a parking lot for valet service. Why is that hard to grasp? Of course the tenants were kept in mind, but the project has been designed to attract public visitation and interaction, just as every lakefront and downtown project should and will be.
Because no, Tempe wouldn't have allowed a windowless box be developed in this location. They rejected proposals from SouthBank - in a far more suburban section of the lake - for not fitting the design style or density wanted for the lake. But, that's irrelevant because no developer would create a windowless box in this location when they know they can produce a mixed use project that has a much higher earning potential by drawing in pedestrians from downtown, the lake, and ASU.
You also have no understanding of the politics involved with the lake's development either if you think this location is simply a parking lot. It's one of the hottest pieces of real estate in the City and that's evidenced by the size and complexity of this project. The City has a vision for the lakefront, and at the forefront of that vision is making it accessible to the public, who has been burdened with the costs of the lake because of slow-to-build developments which were supposed to contribute to the maintenance. That makes the project's interaction with the public absolutely relevant.
You don't need to tell anyone here that their comments on a project won't change 'reality.' But, this forum is here as a place for discussion and debate and critique of urban projects, and it would be a pretty lame place if all we did was shrug and say "ah well, that's the market for ya."
AZSUNSURFER - I don't have that many problems with the design (just the response that this isn't a project meant for public use), but don't think you think it would have been better to use either Rio Salado or the actual lake as the "main street" instead of creating an interior road that pulls people into the site and away from creating an active streetscape or lakefront? I mentioned that I understand not fronting Rio Salado, but I still think it's approach to the street should be welcoming to pedestrians given that there WILL be pedestrians from both Mill Ave (with 3 hotels planned for the nearest intersection) and the future streetcar entering the site. I also think that if you don't front Rio Salado, your interior should open up to the lakefront. HFL is not a perfect design, but it does a few things much better. All of their public spaces and retail are visible and open to the lake's path, and HFL3's design will meet the intersection with a restaurant on the ground level, and provide a key link to pedestrians that is missing from Marina Heights. Anyway, like I said, I don't hate the project and think there's several good aspects. But, I think it could have done a better job drawing pedestrians in from the street, and missed an opportunity to create a riverwalk-type vibe by closing off much of the project from the lake. Lastly, I think it's fair to criticize the design of the park spaces.
KEVINPhx - Thank you.
Prev
" lol you don't know what you're talking about and I hope you are NEVER an actual decision maker in such matters whether it be as a simple property owner performing new construction or any government employee in charge of such matters to the extent that they are/can be! 
. Obviously I no longer work in the development industry because I found many of the people in that field from College onward to be airheaded and stubborn and unwiling to compromise. They refused to accept the reality we are confronted with especially in "new Cities" int he West.
Linear Mode
