Phoenix Development News (3)

[soleri]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I don''t consider myself qualified to have an opinion on this specific building.

That said I wouldn't agree particularly with the rest. Not a perfect comparison but in Denver's LoDo district, the residential and office development additions are the hot places to be. These uses and others seem to have enhanced the area, not hurt it.

Currently in the demo and site prep phase of an assembled full block, the Z Block project should be great. Long story short they scraped the history on one half of the block while preserving most (but not all) the history on the other half of the block. Of course some bemoaned losing any of the history. Historical powers-that-be were mostly positive about what WAS saved.

You can see a render of the scraped side HERE and a render of how they are preserving and fitting into their project the other half HERE. The building's height would reflect the allowable limits for LoDo on the first half.

LoDo, however, has been a great success for decades, anchored by the beautifully renovated Union Station along with existing upscale usages like the Oxford Hotel, authentic lofts, numerous brewpubs, and a much pleasanter ballpark. Its bones are strong and deep. By contrast, the very modest Phoenix warehouse district is struggling to create enough interest to stay viable as a gentrification project. The dozen or so buildings that comprise it are not great by anyone's standards but the little historic cachet that downtown has is mostly here and on the nearby Luhrs' block.

I lived in Denver back in the 1970s when its downtown was fully functional. All the major department stores (May, D&F, Joslin's, Foley's) were there. 17th St. was called the Wall Street of the west although today it feels sleepy. Demographically, Denver and Phoenix are fairly similar, sunbelt cities with huge sprawl issues. The key difference is age and legacy. Denver was a major city in the 19th century when Phoenix was a small town. Denver has a great building stock that Phoenix never had. Even so, it's stunning the to look at the treasures that Denver abandoned. I bet you wish you had some of those buildings that urban renewal took out in the 1960s. Denver and Phoenix share one other commonality: a huge number of vacant parcels on the periphery of downtown. I'm guessing land speculators have both cities in their greedy grip.

Those renderings look great. The problem for Phoenix is that new development is difficult to create in an area that hasn't gentrified and renovated. To repeat, Phoenix has much weaker bones on which to construct its urban renaissance. Timing is everything. Denver came of age in a golden era while Phoenix came of age when people were running away from cities.

[Jackdavis4]

There obviously isn't a demand for breweries or whatever mixed use projects we want. Mainly because its vacant and kind of scary looking. Finally a project to bring bodies in to the area to help get some demand. I will take people over an abandoned building 11 times out of 10.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

I'm sure you and everyone else who support saving the warehouse district (which, to me, is just a scary, ugly place) are making valid points. But I can't help but be reminded of people trying to save the deserted, dangerous Patriots park, which of course is now CityScape, which was insanely packed for VivaPhx this past weekend.

No, the issues are completely different. Patriots Park was on a parcel in the middle of the downtown core and what was being proposed in its place was exactly what downtown needed: an infusion of mixed use office, retail, hotel and residential development. The loss of Patriots Park was only a "loss" in that public space was being given away to private investors, but without that fight, who knows if we would have gotten the open space in the center of CityScape where all of these great events are held? Certainly not from the original renderings of CityScape.

As I mentioned, if the same warehouses being knocked down or integrated into this apartment project existed anywhere else, I wouldn't care. It's the fact that the only way the Warehouse District retains potential is by leveraging what exists. Otherwise, what makes blocks of open land south of the tracks any more attractive than all of the open land in Evans Churchill? Nothing. And, we'll then have another generic abyss to compete with for investment. These apartments, for example, would do a lot more if they were built somewhere near Roosevelt Row, where a neighborhood or some semblance of one is forming. Maybe then, residents would be able to walk around and add to the needed density levels for services like grocers to take the area seriously. Instead, they're just being built in the cheapest area available, but their location south of the tracks means almost everything they access will be by car.

There obviously isn't a demand for breweries or whatever mixed use projects we want. Mainly because its vacant and kind of scary looking. Finally a project to bring bodies in to the area to help get some demand. I will take people over an abandoned building 11 times out of 10.

These bodies won't create a demand for anything in this location. There are no warehouses nearby that could be easily converted into retail/restaurant use, and even if there were, the area has already been described as "vacant and scary looking," so the thought of these residents milling about is unreasonable. Now, picture Jackson with a 24 hour diner at the base of The Summit, bar/restaurant at Jacksons on 3rd, a sports bar in the Sun Merc building, karaoke bar and music venues in the warehouses attached to Alice Cooperstown, etc. You'd be creating an increasingly vibrant and active area would be seen as a safe destination for residents to walk to and around. Instead, they'll be walled off from downtown by Chase Field, USAC, their garages, and businesses in warehouses that close up shop by 5. How will that erase the feeling of a vacant and scary place?

I don't know what the answer is when there isn't demand for the kind of use that would make the Warehouse District worthwhile. Phoenix screwed up by subsidizing the amount of parking it did for the sports venues - Denver saw such success because it essentially forced people to attend Coors Field via rail, leaving the lots and buildings in tact for development. But, stripping it of its Warehouse District identity makes it no more important or urban of a place than, say, Coronado. Like, it's great when dense housing comes to that type of neighborhood, but it isn't going to make actual DOWNTOWN's quality of life improve in any way because of the disconnection.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by soleri

LoDo, however, has been a great success for decades, anchored by the beautifully renovated Union Station along with existing upscale usages like the Oxford Hotel, authentic lofts, numerous brewpubs, and a much pleasanter ballpark. Its bones are strong and deep. By contrast, the very modest Phoenix warehouse district is struggling to create enough interest to stay viable as a gentrification project. The dozen or so buildings that comprise it are not great by anyone's standards but the little historic cachet that downtown has is mostly here and on the nearby Luhrs' block.

I lived in Denver back in the 1970s when its downtown was fully functional. All the major department stores (May, D&F, Joslin's, Foley's) were there. 17th St. was called the Wall Street of the west although today it feels sleepy. Demographically, Denver and Phoenix are fairly similar, sunbelt cities with huge sprawl issues. The key difference is age and legacy. Denver was a major city in the 19th century when Phoenix was a small town. Denver has a great building stock that Phoenix never had. Even so, it's stunning the to look at the treasures that Denver abandoned. I bet you wish you had some of those buildings that urban renewal took out in the 1960s. Denver and Phoenix share one other commonality: a huge number of vacant parcels on the periphery of downtown. I'm guessing land speculators have both cities in their greedy grip.

Those renderings look great. The problem for Phoenix is that new development is difficult to create in an area that hasn't gentrified and renovated. To repeat, Phoenix has much weaker bones on which to construct its urban renaissance. Timing is everything. Denver came of age in a golden era while Phoenix came of age when people were running away from cities.

Haha, you really know Denver well. I would make a few points of clarification.

Attaining the kind of downtown so many wished for was a very painstaking process. It did not come easy and had a couple of near death experiences along the way.

Denver suffered from not only sprawl but a lot of "white flight." It hurt the surrounding neighborhoods and all the department stories you mentioned.

The downtown snapped back with the first Oil & Gas wave and downtown constuction boom into the early and mid-1980's. Then by the latter part of the 1980's Denver (metro) experienced its own real estate and economic depression. Many of those shiny new office buildings downtown became "see-through" buildings (no tenants - no curtains).

Agreed on the LoDo bones. While not a lot compared to many cities at least they survived. The bust in the late 1980's actually gave LoDo a respite from potentially losing more of those bones, even if many collected dust into the mid-90's.

Still downtown languished until 1995 when Coors Field opened. That definitely infused energy into LoDo.

The 2nd big catalyst was the opening of the new (doubled in size) convention center in 2004 and the quite nice convention hotel across the street in 2005. It took a few years but reached an interim peak in 2008 with the Dem Convention.

The last big catalyst came with the Fastracks vote in 2004, the now $6.5 billion rail transit system expansion. But it was the $500 million transit hub behind Union Station that bolstered downtown - which also helped with the Union Station renovation. Many thanks to the ARRA for making that possible more timely.

Jackdavis4 makes a solid point though which is why I'd be on the fence with respect to the Ballpark Apartments project.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

- Denver saw such success because it essentially forced people to attend Coors Field via rail, leaving the lots and buildings in tact for development.

Sort of. Light rail was a non-factor when Coors Field opened in 1995. There was a nice swath of land along the railroad tracks which they paved with tons of room for buses and cars to park. There was also plenty of lots nearby for parking. Now that those are quickly going away and I think the new East commuter rail line to DIA also removes some of that parking, the owners have some concern. I'll be curious to see how it works out?

[TakeFive]

per loopnet.com


"Foodies driving new in-fill restaurant development in central Phoenix"
Mar 17, 2015 by Mike Sunnucks, Senior Reporter- Phoenix Business Journal

Some of the region's top restaurateurs and restaurant designers are teaming up for a redevelopment project on Seventh Street near Missouri Avenue in Phoenix. The Colony's first phase will be the renovation of a vacant, 1950's era building. The second phase involves a new 8,100-square-foot building. The whole project totals 22,500 square feet

The Herb Box — which has locations in Scottsdale — is among the first batch of restaurants committing to the project along with Stock & Stable (an American-themed restaurant from the owners of Clever Koi) and Pure Sushi, which has a location in Scottsdale. They are slated to open in November.

The Colony is just south of The Yard, Sam Fox's own multi-restaurant hub in a former motorcycle garage.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by combusean

What opportunities were there that aren't extremely risky with a low probably of payoff? Not like Phoenix's downtown is thriving like Tempe's or Scottsdale's or hell even Chandler's these days.

Exactly. So why does it need to be left standing? These preservationist groups seem to think that every boarded up building needs to be left alone and incorporated into any new development. Clearly, this building has no value to anyone and needs to be torn down. It served its purpose and now there's another need for that site. Why do we have to keep every shack, hut, and rathole standing if they don't serve a use? If there is more profit to be had out of a parking lot, so be it. Abandoned historic buildings don't give downtown "character." It just further perpetuates the idea that downtown is some dark, dingy place that needs to be avoided.

Originally Posted by combusean

The use out of that land underneath the structure is a parking lot. The false dichotomy of the "vacant building" or "subpar project" is constantly espoused on this site. No reason you can't have the apartment project and the historic building other than the lowest-common denominator development that is rampant in the Phoenix area.

The building serves no purpose. Why does it have to be incorporated into a new apartment building? Clearly the developer's design for the building didn't include this dock structure, so down it goes.

Originally Posted by combusean

Well maybe if we get your way the developers will eventually tear everything down and there won't be any more whining because there because the developers have torn everything down.

I don't think developers should tear everything down. I just don't think that everything built before 1950 needs to be left standing. Cities evolve. Needs change. The building is being torn down for a parking lot now. Who knows? In 50 years, the apartment building may be torn down for some other use.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Exactly. So why does it need to be left standing? These preservationist groups seem to think that every boarded up building needs to be left alone and incorporated into any new development. Clearly, this building has no value to anyone and needs to be torn down. It served its purpose and now there's another need for that site. Why do we have to keep every shack, hut, and rathole standing if they don't serve a use? If there is more profit to be had out of a parking lot, so be it. Abandoned historic buildings don't give downtown "character." It just further perpetuates the idea that downtown is some dark, dingy place that needs to be avoided.



The building serves no purpose. Why does it have to be incorporated into a new apartment building? Clearly the developer's design for the building didn't include this dock structure, so down it goes.



I don't think developers should tear everything down. I just don't think that everything built before 1950 needs to be left standing. Cities evolve. Needs change. The building is being torn down for a parking lot now. Who knows? In 50 years, the apartment building may be torn down for some other use.

If you're willing to say that "in 50 years, the apartment might be torn down for another use" why can't you be open to the idea that within 50 years, if the Warehouse District was left in its current state, a developer might see the potential in converting the existing building into a unique entertainment venue? The difference is that a parking lot/empty lot can always be converted or developed; however, once a building is torn down or a district loses its appeal, it can't be replaced.

The idea that the vacant warehouses south of Jackson impact people's perception of downtown has no merit. Aside from going to The Duce, which 99.9% of its customers attend via car, you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people who have even heard the names "Buchanan" and "Lincoln" nevermind people who have actually ventured down into that area.

I agree that historic preservationists can have a warped perspective when it comes to saving and preserving buildings. But, you don't seem to understand that this isn't just some random abandoned building in the middle of an area that has already been demolished and rebuilt. It's a warehouse in the center of a district immediately adjacent to our core entertainment zone downtown, that still contains enough in-tact buildings from a similar time with similar architecture and history to tell a story IF they are all kept and maintain their potential to be repurposed. Demolishing it for apartments isn't the same as demolishing a building on Roosevelt - Roosevelt is attractive because it is dead center between downtown and midtown, has already cultivated a thriving arts scene, is adjacent to the freeway access points, etc. Demolition on Roosevelt is concerning only for the fact that it reduces the number of buildings available for low-cost retail that drives that area's attractiveness. But, the scattered nondescript older buildings don't tell any kind of story in that area anymore; so, while I prefer that the buildings be incorporated or moved, I don't cry over losing 1-2 old buildings there for a project that will have an overall beneficial impact.

I don't know how you can't see that there is a huge difference between that and demolishing warehouses in the *WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.* This district is attractive ONLY because it contains enough remaining historic building stock that it has retained the potential for small, creative services/retail/entertainment to be cultivated. If you take away that building stock, the area loses ALL of its attractiveness and potential. It becomes a sketchy neighborhood south of the core that is adjacent to even sketchier neighborhoods, with noise pollution, blight, lack of transit, lack of infrastructure, etc.

Yes, that is a vision for the area that relies on the hypothetical to happen. But, there is literally nowhere else left where that hypothetical exists. Why take that away for 4-story apartments that could be built ANYWHERE? Downtown isn't built-out. Destroying the very essence of an entire district for a project that doesn't provide much benefit to the downtown neighborhood —.

[dtnphx]

Uptown Plaza Strips Back to its Midcentury Modern Past

http://www.downtownphoenixjournal.com/2015/03/17/uptown-plaza-strips-back-past/

Cool photos!

[turpentyne]

Agreed!

The argument for tearing down ANY old building is dead in the water, until we've completely filled those empty lots with useful buildings and improved our density in the 5-10 mile radius of Central Phoenix. There should be no ifs, ands or buts. I get that some might not SEEM worthy.

One person's "slum" is another's "colorful neighborhood". And almost NOTHING in Phoenix is worthy of being razed.

On another note, somebody earlier mused about whether Grand Avenue will ever be a destination. I think it will, but it'll be a long wait. I believe two things will happen first. One - Roosevelt Row's charm will be quashed/smothered by inconsiderate development. Then the artists will move to a nearby place. It's already happened here before, right where the stadium is. One of those people, Beatrice, got annoyed that her artist community had been uprooted... twice. She bought several of the buildings along Grand avenue.

second thing that will have to happen is filling those empty lots on the west side of Central avenue, toward Grand Ave. As in-fill development creeps closer, it'll give Grand avenue some growth potential.

I think this process will take 10 to 20 years - I also believe that Grand avenue will not thrive north of the first freeway overpass, just past Bikini Lounge. For anything north of that - we're looking at half a century of change before people find it useful to develop anything meaningful there.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by turpentyne

Agreed!

The argument for tearing down ANY old building is dead in the water, until we've completely filled those empty lots with useful buildings and improved our density in the 5-10 mile radius of Central Phoenix. There should be no ifs, ands or buts. I get that some might not SEEM worthy.

One person's "slum" is another's "colorful neighborhood". And almost NOTHING in Phoenix is worthy of being razed.

On another note, somebody earlier mused about whether Grand Avenue will ever be a destination. I think it will, but it'll be a long wait. I believe two things will happen first. One - Roosevelt Row's charm will be quashed/smothered by inconsiderate development. Then the artists will move to a nearby place. It's already happened here before, right where the stadium is. One of those people, Beatrice, got annoyed that her artist community had been uprooted... twice. She bought several of the buildings along Grand avenue.

second thing that will have to happen is filling those empty lots on the west side of Central avenue, toward Grand Ave. As in-fill development creeps closer, it'll give Grand avenue some growth potential.

I think this process will take 10 to 20 years - I also believe that Grand avenue will not thrive north of the first freeway overpass, just past Bikini Lounge. For anything north of that - we're looking at half a century of change before people find it useful to develop anything meaningful there.

My concern is the part about the west side of Central needing to be developed/redeveloped in order to fully connect Grand to downtown. There just seems to be so much work needed to create something out of nothing between Fillmore - Adams, Central - 7th Ave, not to mention 7th Ave itself is a huge barrier. But, thanks for the optimistic outlook.

Re: preservation, I'm continually surprised at the approach taken to these situations each and every time. Nobody on any end of the spectrum seems to learn from past mistakes. This apartment complex was proposed in 2013... these demolitions are nothing new. When I raised concerns immediately upon seeing the site plans, most said that the razed building weren't worth saving. Why is this only NOW gaining traction, when the plans have been presented to the City, modified already, approved, and are ready to go? Maybe if an organized opposition was ready back then to have rational discussions with both the developer and the City, then some compromise could have been arranged. But, now the same old story will unfold: preservationists, who lack knowledge of the details of the project at hand, will fight tooth and nail for a cause that they likely couldn't explain to you the importance of if asked, the developer who has been waiting 2+ years to build without any issue isn't going to change his plans at the final minute, development will be labeled 'evil,' and preservationists and journalists alike will mourn the loss of more history and buildings.

The time to act was 2+ years ago. The City should have a vision and plan in place for an area like the Warehouse District that has a unique built environment and potential that is so completely different to that of the rest of downtown. When a project like this comes along and defies that vision, questions should be raised, community input sought, compromises developed and negotiated, etc. It really shouldn't be this hard.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

If you're willing to say that "in 50 years, the apartment might be torn down for another use" why can't you be open to the idea that within 50 years, if the Warehouse District was left in its current state, a developer might see the potential in converting the existing building into a unique entertainment venue? The difference is that a parking lot/empty lot can always be converted or developed; however, once a building is torn down or a district loses its appeal, it can't be replaced.

Because city residents, visitors and investors should not have to deal with blight for decades upon decades for a might and a maybe. This warehouse has likely been empty for decades. There were opportunities for parties to buy it and refurbish it. They weren't taken. Again, it like a hoarder who holds onto stuff because it "might" have some value later on. Sometimes you just have to recognize when something is junk and needs to be replaced. This building adds no appeal to anything. It is abandoned and further perpetuates the notion that downtown is a neglected, shady dump.

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

The idea that the vacant warehouses south of Jackson impact people's perception of downtown has no merit. Aside from going to The Duce, which 99.9% of its customers attend via car, you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people who have even heard the names "Buchanan" and "Lincoln" nevermind people who have actually ventured down into that area.

So if you claim that basically everyone who goes south of Jackson drives, leaving vacant warehouses up will increase people's desire to walk or bike? No. When people see that some care has been taken into a property, they are then encouraged to walk. Having a four story apartment building and a surface lot is definitely more inviting than some abandoned loading dock.

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

I agree that historic preservationists can have a warped perspective when it comes to saving and preserving buildings. But, you don't seem to understand that this isn't just some random abandoned building in the middle of an area that has already been demolished and rebuilt. It's a warehouse in the center of a district immediately adjacent to our core entertainment zone downtown, that still contains enough in-tact buildings from a similar time with similar architecture and history to tell a story IF they are all kept and maintain their potential to be repurposed. Demolishing it for apartments isn't the same as demolishing a building on Roosevelt - Roosevelt is attractive because it is dead center between downtown and midtown, has already cultivated a thriving arts scene, is adjacent to the freeway access points, etc. Demolition on Roosevelt is concerning only for the fact that it reduces the number of buildings available for low-cost retail that drives that area's attractiveness. But, the scattered nondescript older buildings don't tell any kind of story in that area anymore; so, while I prefer that the buildings be incorporated or moved, I don't cry over losing 1-2 old buildings there for a project that will have an overall beneficial impact.

This area isn't attractive to me in its current state, so I don't agree that this "district" of abandoned structures needs to be saved for ifs and maybes. Roosevelt is the same story. Maybe in Phoenix's context, Roosevelt is an attractive street, but the area from 1st Avenue eastward is very unremarkable to me (even after the city's "upgrades"). If a building were to be torn down on this section of Roosevelt, I would shrug my shoulders. I guess we just have to accept that people have different values. That's what preservationists seem to fail to understand one person's trash is another person's treasure and vice versa. If someone would come in and repurpose the warehouses, great. That hasn't happened in the decades that the structures have remained vacant, so down they go. No one has the time or money to wait. Downtown has forward momentum and there is not time to leave straggling areas.

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

I don't know how you can't see that there is a huge difference between that and demolishing warehouses in the *WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.* This district is attractive ONLY because it contains enough remaining historic building stock that it has retained the potential for small, creative services/retail/entertainment to be cultivated. If you take away that building stock, the area loses ALL of its attractiveness and potential. It becomes a sketchy neighborhood south of the core that is adjacent to even sketchier neighborhoods, with noise pollution, blight, lack of transit, lack of infrastructure, etc.

Urbanists and preservationists have labeled this the "Warehouse District." The vast majority of people don''t call it that. If you were to tell someone to meet you in the "Warehouse District," chances are you would just get a perplexed look and a "where's that?" Again, whether or not this area is attractive and something worth saving is completely subjective. If you were to demolish all of the warehouses the area would still have an opportunity to be an attractive, walkable area. This area doesn't have to Phoenix's version of LoDo in order for it to be viable. I would argue that the neighborhood in its current form now is much more unattractive than the development of an apartment building and surface lot.

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Yes, that is a vision for the area that relies on the hypothetical to happen. But, there is literally nowhere else left where that hypothetical exists. Why take that away for 4-story apartments that could be built ANYWHERE? Downtown isn't built-out. Destroying the very essence of an entire district for a project that doesn't provide much benefit to the downtown neighborhood —.

Talk to the developer. Maybe he has some answers for you. Last I checked, people can generally do what they want with what they own. I personally see no problem in demolishing a shanty town for a more modern use. It's how cities progress. All older structures do not need to be integrated into the next phase of the neighborhoods development.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by dtnphx

Uptown Plaza Strips Back to its Midcentury Modern Past

http://www.downtownphoenixjournal.com/2015/03/17/uptown-plaza-strips-back-past/

Cool photos!

They are! It was a good read too.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Talk to the developer. Maybe he has some answers for you. Last I checked, people can generally do what they want with what they own. I personally see no problem in demolishing a shanty town for a more modern use. It's how cities progress. All older structures do not need to be integrated into the next phase of the neighborhoods development.

I generally agree with the proposition that not all old buildings can or should be preserved. On the other hand, what Phoenix lacks more than anything is the "cool factor", the buzz and vibe of the urban young in their habitat. Every great city exudes the energy of cool neighborhoods filled with clubs, brewpubs, and lofts. It's a completely different experience than what you find in 'burbs. Ideally, this district should have been located in the previous arts district on west Jackson St., but the county swooped in and gobbled it up. Yesterday's cool hood is today's latest dead zone. Downtown will never be more convenient, have easier parking, or feel safer than the suburbs. What it should have is something much better - authenticity. Old red bricks have their own magic in a city where spray stucco rules. I'd be very leery of destroying one more old building downtown no matter how marginal it is. Downtown Phoenix needs every red brick it can find.

[TakeFive]

Who knew that Phoenix based Alliance Res. was growing their presence in Nashville?

Question: What is the status or where is Granite Capital Investments in the approval process on the Ballpark Apartments?

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by combusean

What opportunities were there that aren't extremely risky with a low probably of payoff? Not like Phoenix's downtown is thriving like Tempe's or Scottsdale's or hell even Chandler's these days.

Believe me, I'm firmly in the "save almost any historic building" camp, and regarding the Ballpark Apartments, that old warehouse right up against the tracks screams potential for any number of uses. I'm sure a creative company could renovate that into an amazing space for future apartment dwellers on-site, and outsiders. I can't believe this developer can't see the benefit (and even pencil it out) and I can't understand how our City doesn't have the gumption to make them see the light.

However, Downtown Phoenix is definitely thriving, much moreso than Tempe, Scottsdale, and Chandler (well, probably not Tempe). Some of the things that happen are extremely frustrating, but no sense in making these brash statements. Just off the top of my head: Luhr's hotel (forget the real name), Hotel Monroe (Hilton Garden Inn??), ASU Law School, 2 other buildings off 7th Street (uofa Cancer Center and the other one? 6 and 10+ stories). Union @ Roosevelt, Portland on the Park, and several other smaller developments are happening right now. Plus a lot of others in the pipeline. That's nothing to "shake a stick at", and can Chandler and even Scottsdale say the same?

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Believe me, I'm firmly in the "save almost any historic building" camp, and regarding the Ballpark Apartments, that old warehouse right up against the tracks screams potential for any number of uses. I'm sure a creative company could renovate that into an amazing space for future apartment dwellers on-site, and outsiders. I can't believe this developer can't see the benefit (and even pencil it out) and I can't understand how our City doesn't have the gumption to make them see the light.

However, Downtown Phoenix is definitely thriving, much moreso than Tempe, Scottsdale, and Chandler (well, probably not Tempe). Some of the things that happen are extremely frustrating, but no sense in making these brash statements. Just off the top of my head: Luhr's hotel (forget the real name), Hotel Monroe (Hilton Garden Inn??), ASU Law School, 2 other buildings off 7th Street (uofa Cancer Center and the other one? 6 and 10+ stories). Union @ Roosevelt, Portland on the Park, and several other smaller developments are happening right now. Plus a lot of others in the pipeline. That's nothing to "shake a stick at", and can Chandler and even Scottsdale say the same?

It's all about context. Phoenix is the state and county capital, is the largest city in the region, and should be the heart of the entire metro area. It's growth shouldn't be compared to that of its suburbs, but to competitor cities throughout the region/country.

When you put each city in context based on population, status, etc. Tempe and Scottsdale are far exceeding Phoenix in terms of development and attracting business investment. And, I'd say Chandler is even or perhaps slightly ahead, as well.

Marina Heights alone is a larger office and retail investment in Tempe than anything/everything completed in downtown Phoenix since the boom. Yet, on top of that, there is Rio+Mill office, Hotel Palomar, Marriott AC, Graduate Hotel, College Ave Commons, Art Annex, University House I and II, HFL3, SkyWater, 5th Street Townhomes... it really isn't close, and that's just a quick summary.

Downtown Scottsdale has been exploding with infill condo+residential projects, as well as new entertainment developments, and a new office project was just announced recently. SkySong has launched several office and residential phases, as has Scottsdale Quarter, and there are even urban-esque projects planned for areas like South Scottsdale, 101/Bell, etc.

Downtown Phoenix has had 0 office developments, 2 market rate residential projects, 2 HUD projects, 2.5 hotel, 3 education and 0 major retail/entertainment projects in that same time period. The "planned" pipeline is half the size of these cities' and includes mainly proposals that are as old as 2013. Yes, I might have missed 1 or 2... I'm just summarizing.

The only place Downtown Phoenix is really progressing is in adaptive reuse projects. So, yes, let's please knock down the entire inventory of warehouses with reuse potential to clear the way for all of the new construction investment that is pouring in. (not directed at you PHX31)

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

It's all about context. Phoenix is the state and county capital, is the largest city in the region, and should be the heart of the entire metro area. It's growth shouldn't be compared to that of its suburbs, but to competitor cities throughout the region/country.

When you put each city in context based on population, status, etc. Tempe and Scottsdale are far exceeding Phoenix in terms of development and attracting business investment. And, I'd say Chandler is even or perhaps slightly ahead, as well.

Marina Heights alone is a larger office and retail investment in Tempe than anything/everything completed in downtown Phoenix since the boom. Yet, on top of that, there is Rio+Mill office, Hotel Palomar, Marriott AC, Graduate Hotel, College Ave Commons, Art Annex, University House I and II, HFL3, SkyWater, 5th Street Townhomes... it really isn't close, and that's just a quick summary.

Downtown Scottsdale has been exploding with infill condo+residential projects, as well as new entertainment developments, and a new office project was just announced recently. SkySong has launched several office and residential phases, as has Scottsdale Quarter, and there are even urban-esque projects planned for areas like South Scottsdale, 101/Bell, etc.

Downtown Phoenix has had 0 office developments, 2 market rate residential projects, 2 HUD projects, 2.5 hotel, 3 education and 0 major retail/entertainment projects in that same time period. The "planned" pipeline is half the size of these cities' and includes mainly proposals that are as old as 2013. Yes, I might have missed 1 or 2... I'm just summarizing.

The only place Downtown Phoenix is really progressing is in adaptive reuse projects. So, yes, let's please knock down the entire inventory of warehouses with reuse potential to clear the way for all of the new construction investment that is pouring in. (not directed at you PHX31)

Relative to size, yeah, I see what you are saying, Phoenix should be compared to other regional major cities. Regarding downtown Scottsdale, there is probably more residential, but the other areas of Scottsdale are well outside of downtown and shouldn't be included in a comparison. I'd rather have the ASU Law School than all of the downtown Scottsdale residential being built currently. A bunch of 2nd home condos for rich people... or a major University's Law School - which is more important in the grand scheme of things?

I still think people are being overly critical and putting on blinders when it comes to what's going on in DT Phoenix. It's not quite as impressive as some regional cities (which, yes, it should be compared to and compete with), but it's not like it's a barren wasteland with nothing important going on.

[TakeFive]

Jjs5056... Your comment confuses as it starts out sounding like a "we need to develop" but ends by taking a u-turn.

The potential of the "warehouse district" compares favorably to what's being called RiNo or River North in Denver. Although a couple of years old, the theme is captured well by Mike Dano in Confluence:

f you're not paying close attention, River North appears comprised solely of run-down auto repair shops and century-old warehouses. Slow down -- you'll see blossoms of industrial-chic apartments, office buildings and galleries flowering in the remnants of Denver's turn-of-the-20th-century manufacturing boom

The pioneer of RiNo was Zeppelin Development when they created their 20 acre property, a former Yellow Cab terminal into Taxi. Their projects are called Taxi 1, Taxi 2, Drive, Drive2, Freight, Diesel... they are intentionally NOT upscale but they are cool.

The area is being promoted as an arts district but who knows... Adaptive reuse has been well done but many, many buildings will be demoed in favor of higher density. They just have a lot of — buildings in what was an old industrial area.

Ballpark Apartments could just serve as (one) catalyst for that area.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Relative to size, yeah, I see what you are saying, Phoenix should be compared to other regional major cities. Regarding downtown Scottsdale, there is probably more residential, but the other areas of Scottsdale are well outside of downtown and shouldn't be included in a comparison. I'd rather have the ASU Law School than all of the downtown Scottsdale residential being built currently. A bunch of 2nd home condos for rich people... or a major University's Law School - which is more important in the grand scheme of things?

I still think people are being overly critical and putting on blinders when it comes to what's going on in DT Phoenix. It's not quite as impressive as some regional cities (which, yes, it should be compared to and compete with), but it's not like it's a barren wasteland with nothing important going on.

I don't think it's really fair to say that the rest of Scottsdale shouldn't be included in a comparison. Something like the Borgata redevelopment - sure - is pretty irrelevant. But, SkySong, for example, attracting commercial and residential mixed use development around an academic institution built in a relatively urban manner is extremely relevant. Companies chose SkySong over Downtown Phoenix. Residential developers built more residential adjacent to SkySong than they have ASU Downtown (and I realize now Roosevelt Point counts in the discussion as a student housing project). Rinse and repeat for a place like Scottsdale Quarter. These suburban locations are all attracting investment that Downtown Phoenix should be - and isn't.

And, it's not accurate to say that the residential being built in Old Town is all going to be filled with 2nd-home buyers. This isn't 2006 anymore where these projects were funded by out of state investors purcashing condos. 2nd-home owners represent a very small percentage of the total number of units being built for sale or rent in and around Old Town. And, you're nuts if you think the ASU Law School will have more of an impact on Downtown Phoenix than all of that residential! I really can't remember the total number of units being built or planned in Old Town (and, I'm just talking Old Town here - even though there has been dense, "urban" residential built all over the city), but on the conservative side, I'll say 6 projects at 250 units each. That type of influx of residents would essentially double the current downtown population, I believe... again, I don't remember the current counts. But, it would be substantial increase no matter what. And, with the majority of them being owner-occupied, the purchasing power of the downtown population would likewise increase by a very large amount, which would translate into an increase in retail and services.

The ASU Law School, on the other hand, is 6 stories built on the site of what once was a 3-4 story hotel with ground level retail. Its retail uses consist of a 9-5 office (the non-profit law firm), an ASU bookstore, and a cafe that is likely to be used by people mostly affiliated with ASU in someway. IOW, the building will do very little as far as connecting with the greater downtown and encouraging integration of the campus into the surrounding neighborhood. It is being built with a parking garage on-site, meaning most students will easily and conveniently be able to drive to their classes and leave without ever walking beyond the perimeter of the parcel. And, with no new residential being built with the project, a very small amount of these students will be living and thus "playing" downtown given that most of downtown's residential properties are at or near capacity.

That isn't blinders, it's reality. Downtown is a barren wasteland in many areas. The entire area between Roosevelt and Hance Park east of Central is nothing but dirt. Yet, somehow, just south of that area is really the only place downtown where there is some progress and some investment toward building something of a "there" in the few remaining buildings and on some of the many empty lots. Like I said, adaptive reuse is where downtown is really seeing something organic and positive happening. That's why it's so sad and short-sighted that anyone would think that clearing out the warehouse district is a good plan. Even there, though I hate the uses, there has been some investment with the companies moving into Jacksons on 3rd and the Sun Merc building. A realistic view of downtown shows that it isn't attracting new construction at anywhere near the pace of its suburbs, but that its older build stock is encouraging some creative adaptations and infill.