Phoenix Development News (3)

[dtnphx]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

So it does seem high. I found this from last March: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/...opa-county-2nd-in-population-growth.html

Maricopa County added 70,000 people. I'd guess that the Phoenix metro area could probably add 350-400k people in the next four years.

Even the lower estimate is a lot of f'in people, so things are gonna get crowded and more dense as the years progress.

About Circles; I like the look of the building but I don't think it's so "out there" that it wouldn't resemble what they're showing. Looks fairly conservative to me. I wish the Circles portion was more prominent is my only issue.

[azsunsurfer]

Circles kinda reminds me of buildings I've seen in Japan where one owner decided not to sell so they still attempt to build a tower around it. Kinda awkward but not a terrible design.

Despite my observation about the suburbs still growing for the time being...I think developers now have this compact 4 story wood frame construction product down. I think they realize they can squeeze more units in less land without needing to acquiring larger parcels for suburban garden type products (although Mark Taylor is still doing Mark Taylor even there newer stuff is 'denser'). This also allows them to reduce costs by not having to build entire concrete products which are more expensive and could have to command higher rents. Doesn't make sense unless they want to convert them down the road to condos. They probably see a healthy ROI and minimize the need to spend on infrastructure since the sites are becoming more dense. I also think we (millenniala) and some older folks are favoring these product types even if they give a sense of a false urban feel. I think the result is the valley will still manager to grow up while still growing out.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

We had a huge win this week w/ using the leverage of a GPLET to get a developer to include affordable housing. The City used to give GPLET's out like candy, asking for little to nothing in return.

If the developer of Circles wants to compromise a building that is eligible for the National Historic Register, that ought not receive a GPLET. No GPLET's for demolishing quality built form and our history.

I'm glad the renderings show keeping the corner of the Circles building, but we can do better. Get rid of that silly cut out and push the massing of the building north more and save Circles in tact and get it on the national register.

Exactly. Phoenix is continuing to act like its 2010; Mackay is so desperate to prove that she brought the same success to Phoenix as she did to Chandler that she'll give away GPLETs or convince companies to locate in Midtown instead of Downtown, etc. Downtown housing is currently failing to address the demographic that is most likely to live in an urban environment - recent graduates and young professionals. There just aren't the jobs available to that group to justify $1,200/m on 400 square feet. 10 units at Derby for 1/2-price seems small, but if it's a catalyst toward change in the way Phoenix doles out incentives, then it's great news.

I don't see anything that exciting about the Circles project. I see a generic, 20-story tower in place of 80% of one of the last iconic historic structures left downtown when there are dozens of vacant lots where a tower like this could be built, as well as many design changes that could be made to salvage more of the original building. That a small corner window is seen as a 'win' speaks to the piss-poor historic preservation in Phoenix. Like mentioned, removing that cut-out would allow for the preservation of nearly the entire Circles building.

Downtown has a ton of momentum, but aside from a very few projects, I think the most impressive changes have been the adaptive reuse and activation of the area between Garfield and Fillmore. The Derby will be a great, dense, infill project, and I wish more lots were being filled in by towers with affordable components than historic buildings being leveled.

Midtown may get a few midrises in the future (hotels, perhaps), but for the most part, the historic neighborhoods surrounding it will limit development. What exists now is far from a comfortable, walkable, environment, and single-use, 4-story residential projects miles away from each other will do nothing to change that. Perhaps those residents will use LRT to head Downtown for a game or something, but I think the goal for Midtown should be on creating pockets of dense new mixed-use residential alongside renovated towers to get the mass of population and ground-level space needed for the goods and services that make a neighborhood actually livable. Camelback/Central looks promising, and McDowell should have been an easy target, but The Muse and Broadstone are basically awful.

[Jjs5056]

It also seems like there is a huge influx of creative businesses opening along Grand Ave and given the lack of space under construction in Evans Churchill for arts-related retail or housing for those with your typical artist's income, I am sure that will continue. It will only get worse as ASU builds on its PBC land south of Garfield.

Which kind of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 since Grand is always to feel disconnected by the highway that is 7th Ave; new developments like Rio Salado College and Alta Fillmore have done nothing to help create a sense of connectivity. I would have much rather seen these places open south of Hance Park, in the Luhrs Building, St. James/Madison Hotel, etc.

Hopefully, Phase I of Hance Park will happen somewhat soon and the new entrance off Central and food/beverage added will make that dead zone between Roosevelt > Moreland, 1st St > 3rd St more attractive. It'd be great to see Portland on the Park type of projects on that side.

[Jjs5056]

PBJ had a very uninformative article speculating that the AMC at AZ Center will be demo'd or downsized. I'm sure that the speculation is based on the leasing map which carved out the corner, but it would be cool if it was for something more substantial.

I don't see why they couldn't save the garden and semi-circular building; fill it with a brewery and wine bar, and create a beer garden effect or something? But, it has to be cost-prohibitive at this point to sink more lipstick onto a 3-level building that has continued to decline. A retail/restaurant building with maybe loft offices, and then a larger apartment building along Fillmore would be cool. Downtown could use the generic chains that the Center once had now that there's residents.

And, then maybe an Alamo Drafthouse could open in the warehouses across USAC and finally bring entertainment to the area?

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

It also seems like there is a huge influx of creative businesses opening along Grand Ave and given the lack of space under construction in Evans Churchill for arts-related retail or housing for those with your typical artist's income, I am sure that will continue. It will only get worse as ASU builds on its PBC land south of Garfield.

Which kind of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 since Grand is always to feel disconnected by the highway that is 7th Ave; new developments like Rio Salado College and Alta Fillmore have done nothing to help create a sense of connectivity. I would have much rather seen these places open south of Hance Park, in the Luhrs Building, St. James/Madison Hotel, etc.

Hopefully, Phase I of Hance Park will happen somewhat soon and the new entrance off Central and food/beverage added will make that dead zone between Roosevelt > Moreland, 1st St > 3rd St more attractive. It'd be great to see Portland on the Park type of projects on that side.

The 7th avenue "highway" is quickly becoming less of an issue. There are currently about 50 multi-family units under construction at 8th and Roosevelt, there's a 4500 sq. ft. private residence at 9th and fillmore, and there are a number of other things in the works in the neighborhood we call "the triangle".

It will not be too long before anything between 15th avenue and 12th street will be very urban.

[Obadno]

Relevant to our population discussions:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/...citys-jump-in-population-could-mean.html

The city conducted a census in October 2015, which showed around 11,000 have moved there since 2010.

for buckeye alone, 22% increase in 5 years

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/...or-mid-decade-census-pays-off-for-7.html

The other cities with a mid-decade partial count.

All of them went up between 20-30% over 5 years. 40%-60% increase per decade is pretty incredible. Even if we stay on the low end the 2010 census puts Phoenix metro at 4,192,887 at a 40% increase that means we will grow by nearly 1.7 million people and have a population of just under 6 million by 2020.

I dont think this is a wild possibility either you can really feel the energy of growth in the city right now.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

The 7th avenue "highway" is quickly becoming less of an issue. There are currently about 50 multi-family units under construction at 8th and Roosevelt, there's a 4500 sq. ft. private residence at 9th and fillmore, and there are a number of other things in the works in the neighborhood we call "the triangle".

It will not be too long before anything between 15th avenue and 12th street will be very urban.

Yep - I agree that west of 7th Avenue is turning out/going to be great. It's the first artist destination (Warehouse District > Roosevelt Row) where there is such a large in-tact neighborhood filled with affordable houses for living or adaptive reuse. I hope it can coexist with Roosevelt Row if/when EC gets built out near the park. It'd 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to see, for example, Made eventually turned into a law firm, and so on. You'd think the community would have been asking the city to put an RFP out for artist housing on 2nd Street instead of a stupid parking lot?

But, what on 7th Avenue itself makes you think the highway effect is being mitigated? I don't believe Alta Fillmore has walk-up units on 7th Avenue; in fact, it might even be gated IIRC. Nowakowski tried to convince them to put a ground-floor grocer in but they balked... now THAT would be a game-changer. But, as it is, it's basically design as the "edge" of downtown and also killed the chance to extend Polk through the horrible superblocks between Fillmore and Van Buren. And, the only other recent project I remember is Rio Salado CC, which I don't get how it was approved with literally not one single pedestrian-oriented feature.

It would just 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for 'the triangle' to develop into this cool self-sufficient district that is disconnected from downtown. I am sure people will make the walk in herds for First Friday, but I'm talking every day. If West Van Buren gets cleaned up and the West Fillmore RFP gets built, that'll at least put some density on the other side. With the historic structures along WVB (Baptist Church, Masonic Temple, several on Adams, Welnick Marketplace, series of warehouses around 6th Ave/VB, etc.), it would've been cool to see Grand curve and extend east. But, Welnick got gobbled up and fingers crossed it won't turn into a chain-mall but these projects often do it seems. And, GCC is turning the cool warehouses on 6th into a "makerspace," which has potential but anything MCCCD touches seems to turn to 🞵🞵🞵🞵. If had located their Corporate College and/or expanded Phoenix College nearby, that could spark something... but, they don't do anything with foresight in mind.

We'll see. Obviously, people will make due (do?). It would just be nice if the denser neighborhoods that are really transforming felt like they were part of downtown like Evans Churchill does. It's a bit better than the 7th Street moat separating Garfield, since it doesn't face the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 of the PBC.

[biggus diggus]

As more people move on the other side of 7th, more people will start walking across the street. Eventually traffic will get heavier and city transportation planners will start looking into ways to ease crossing on foot. It's already happening on 7th Street as they are doing a study for a pedestrian crossing at Monroe.

[Jjs5056]

Yea, I think people have been lobbying for a crosswalk there since the Children's Museum opened. If they didn't do it for the children yet, I don't see them caring about artists this millenium. Jk.

I wonder if Hance Park will ever actually break ground on its updates? Looks like another presentation of a presentation is scheduled... so, two years after the first presentation, we're still..... presenting? Are there private profits generated from the PAM or Library? I doubt it, but the developers of Portland on the Park and FOUND:RE Hotel... surely, they could donate something to kick-start what essentially is the selling feature of their projects? I wish there more detailed renderings of what the bridge redesign will look like, because even that along with defined entrances on all 4 corners would make a huge difference.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/...ls-118m-downtown-park-en-hance-ment.html

Looks like Phase 1 includes the bridge, "cloud," skate park, and Firehouse food and beverage redevelopment. While I like that it will be in use, I'm not so sure I like the way they've walled off the south side of the property. Since this whole thing is so ambitious/long-term, I wish they'd imagine buying out the owners of the former Channel 12 building and extending the park to Portland. At the very least, acquiring the north portion of the parking lot would create a much more visible entrance from Roosevelt Row.

[biggus diggus]

People lobbying and planners considering are two different things.

[HooverDam]

The Hance Park plans are pretty awful. They continue to make the park more difficult to see and they enhance it worst trait (that its surrounded by too much parking) instead of reducing parking. When your whole plan is "what if we had a HUGE parking garage with some grass on top of it," maybe you need to go study actual successful urban parks.

The fact that they're continually just doing presentations shows their plan has little power to move the community and more importantly monied backers to get the thing done. A good plan would have had that effect.

On an unrelated note---though related to monied doners--- I'm hearing rumors that Bruce Halle (of Discount Tire fame) may be soon donating a huge amount of money as well as all or part of their private collection to the Phx Art Museum. It could be a big time game changer for PAM if true.

[Jjs5056]

http://motleydesigngroup.com/wordpress1/2016/03/08/storm-clouds-circle/

The first article/blog I've seen in opposition of the Circles tower. Link includes a view of the site plan, which shows the details of the ground floor... nothing too interesting vs. what you could've guessed from the renderings. I'm glad to hear from an informed architect (Motley Group) who has done great work before because it adds credibility to those saying it CAN be done. On a personal level, it's refreshing to hear someone speak so fondly of Phoenix's past. With all that I've read, I never known there was an "Auto Row" beyond DeSoto and this building. So many of these fights are over nothing at all; but, if you are okay with wrecking this building, you just can't complain about the demos of the last century that left downtown bare. We all want to see towers and density, but how can you be for a project that trashes 75% of one of the only recognizable historic buildings left for an extremely uninspired 19-story apartment that could fit on any of the dozen or so lots surrounding this site?

3-4 really cool businesses could fit in the section being demo'd, and their use would preserve a building that helps make Roosevelt Row what it is. I don't want to see the project scrapped since I know moving it to a vacant parcel isn't feasible. But, it's quite obvious from just looking at the design that much more could be done to preserve the architectural intent of the ground level.

And, the design of the tower would likely be torn apart by HP specialists given how it tries to match the original building in many ways. It would look much better, IMO, if 75% of the first floor was kept and the tower around it was inspired more by the rotunda's shape and glass as contrast. Then again, it's CCBG, so it's amazing that they were able to do anything higher than 5 stories and with more than a leasing center on the ground floor in PHX.

On a slightly related topic, why is the COP HP 100% opposed to "facadectomies" or whatever you want to call cladding a modern tower with the facade of a historic structure? They actually recommend demolition over this, which I think is nuts. The Hearst Building is awesome and I think this was originally proposed for the Luhrs Marriott... that wasn't the most impressive facade around, but even so, I would have rather seen a modern tower rising out of that 2-story facade than the boring designs we've half-seen. If it came with the requirement that there be some space dedicated for a small monument documenting the history of the site, what in the world make demolition better?

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

3-4 really cool businesses could fit in the section being demo'd, and their use would preserve a building that helps make Roosevelt Row what it is. I don't want to see the project scrapped since I know moving it to a vacant parcel isn't feasible. But, it's quite obvious from just looking at the design that much more could be done to preserve the architectural intent of the ground level.

Is the implication here that this perpetually empty building somehow is contributing to Roosevelt Row's success? Look I'm all for historic preservation, in a lot of ways more than the next guy (I've worked on many projects that transformed historic structures) but this one hasn't exactly played a role in anything since it's been unused for so long.

[Jjs5056]

Biggus- I know. I was just teasing... thought the smiley was enough.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

The Hance Park plans are pretty awful. They continue to make the park more difficult to see and they enhance it worst trait (that its surrounded by too much parking) instead of reducing parking. When your whole plan is "what if we had a HUGE parking garage with some grass on top of it," maybe you need to go study actual successful urban parks.

The fact that they're continually just doing presentations shows their plan has little power to move the community and more importantly monied backers to get the thing done. A good plan would have had that effect.

On an unrelated note---though related to monied doners--- I'm hearing rumors that Bruce Halle (of Discount Tire fame) may be soon donating a huge amount of money as well as all or part of their private collection to the Phx Art Museum. It could be a big time game changer for PAM if true.

Yea, the design always misleads me because I forget that the plan is to place the park on top of parking... but, of course, they've never shown a view from 3rd Street, have they? I don't even get how that would look but clearly, the park wouldn't be flush with 3rd Street which is, as you said, the main problem in several areas. And, I can't envision how a new Central Bridge would fix anything. It needs to be raised and, thus, the park will be hidden from its most trafficked "access point." The four corners look more colorful, but the issue is the grading and size which could have been fixed on at least the corner by the Firehouse; but, instead, they've seemingly added f&b buildings that I Imagine reduce visibility?

I am sure the west part of the park will improve since there looks to be direct connections from Portland, plus the residents/guests of the new developments will add users. But, unless the Firehouse becomes a really big-name restaurant/bar, I don't know that the east side will be much of an improvement. They need to knock down that old Channel 12 building and be done with it. If you need to place a giant cloud over a park to get people to know it exists, there are obviously MAJOR issues.

At least Nowakowski has yet to get his wish for a Latino (or Hispanic?) Cultural Center in the park. The current cultural "attractions" are completely isolated and add nothing to the park itself. That center would be great integrated into the Gerardo's and El Fresnal buildings in the warehouse district, where there is historical context. Sigh.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Is the implication here that this perpetually empty building somehow is contributing to Roosevelt Row's success? Look I'm all for historic preservation, in a lot of ways more than the next guy (I've worked on many projects that transformed historic structures) but this one hasn't exactly played a role in anything since it's been unused for so long.

The implication is that if, say, 75% of the building were saved, the businesses in there could contribute to the success of Roosevelt Row in the same way others have through adaptive reuse.

What about "I don't want to see this project scrapped" = "leave it vacant as is" ?? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[biggus diggus]

Developing the building as proposed salvages the façade of the portion of the building which carries significance while also bringing new residents to the area who are capable of supporting retail or food service which could be tenants in the building. Wishing to keep the building as is does more to stymie development of the area than help it.

As for asking why the vacant lot can't work for this building I will assume is not a serious question or suggestion. The right price for land and existing structure plays a huge role in what the development costs are and some of (read: most of) these land owners downtown want prices so high that they just don't pencil out. If someone is sitting on a vacant parcel and only paying taxes on it every year, they've very little incentive to sell it for a decent price.

[BobMotleyArchitect]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Developing the building as proposed salvages the façade of the portion of the building which carries significance while also bringing new residents to the area who are capable of supporting retail or food service which could be tenants in the building. Wishing to keep the building as is does more to stymie development of the area than help it.

As blog author, I'd like to respond to this, since this issue is the nexus of the debate.

The idea that the significant part of the building is that which is the most visually interesting or stimulating is false. Significance is tied either to an historical event (construction and operation of the building as a dealership, commercial activity of Auto Row in its heyday) and/or its architectural design, which must include all parts of the building designed as a single work. In this case it's both. To focus on a highlight area only is superficial, akin to saving the drawer-fronts on a Chippendale buffet and thinking you have preserved a great piece of antique furniture.

The idea that we must choose between the proposed apartment development or nothing is a straw argument. Tim Sprague tried to make the numbers work and could not, but that was at the bottom of the recession. Rental rates for commercial space remain on the rise and it was most people's opinion that feasibility was at hand. Particularly if the price got negotiated down by a quarter million dollars.

[biggus diggus]

Thank you for the response, enjoy the point of view. From my point of view as an apartment guy I see the value in keeping the facade, which happens to be what most people take in when they look at the building.

"oh it's historic, look honey!" but I can see how someone who is really dedicated to their craft as an architect may see more to it.

[BobMotleyArchitect]

No doubt Empire/CCBG see it your way!