Phoenix Development News (3)

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Too bad it's a big chain but also good thing it's a big chain.

It's another non-local business on Roosevelt to irritate the guys who want local only, but it's also something recognizable to a lot of people and I think it will do well.

Yea, I think it's a good fit in terms of its product - they sell booze? Are they open late? I never would have guessed that space would get snatched up, but there really aren't many other options. 4th Street could be really, really interesting depending on who takes the live/work space at Proxxy.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Yea, I think it's a good fit in terms of its product - they sell booze? Are they open late? I never would have guessed that space would get snatched up, but there really aren't many other options. 4th Street could be really, really interesting depending on who takes the live/work space at Proxxy.

Im more interested in what will go up across from Proxy now.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Here's how I see this whole situation.

[And this is coming from someone that wishes the entirety of Phoenix's historic areas and buildings could have been saved through the years. I would love it if we were similar to a place like Paris... we could have the whole "Old Town" of Phoenix be preserved (or renovated into new uses), and then a Central Business District with all of our modern towers and skyline business areas separated (maybe down by the Salt River, or by Papago Park), similar to Paris's La Defense.]

The previous owners were being greedy, as are the new owners (although they are at least providing a great minor concession to the preservationists by preserving the best part of the Circles building rather than demolishing it all). To them it's all about money, and rightfully so, it is (or was) their property. I highly doubt any of us would do otherwise.

The community and Mr. Motley (based on his blog post) are also being greedy, it's just a different type of greed. To them, saving as much of the history and architectural significance is like money and profit to the land owners. Plus, perhaps Motley Design Group is upset they didn't have the chance to rehab the whole building (which can also be construed as a money-greed). Although, I love the work the Motley Design Group has done and I hope they continue the good work on other buildings.

If the community and HP lovers (myself included) want to save buildings, then buy them. Don't let them sit and rot, then complain or demand concessions when someone ponies up their own dough and takes on risk to their own livelihood.

Granted, it's not as cut and dry as this sounds.

Well, thanks for the civil tone since I don't know why it always has to turn nasty. So, none of this is supposed to be an attack and many of the "you"s aren't directed at you necessarily. /disclaimer ... I just think the "if you want to preserve it, you should have bought it" line of thinking is really unfair and if you truly believe that, then how could you ever fight for HP? Why have any discussion on here over a building's design? It's the developer's money, so shouldn't we just shut up? It's just an extension of the "it's better than nothing" excuse. It really isn't far-fetched of residents to expect someone who purchases a historic building to restore it or use it in a respectful way. That developers who have little connection to the city's past get to come in, wipe out more history, and make their money is the problem. He chose to purchase a property that had historic appeal. In most cities, preserving it would be implied.

And, you've ignored the very real compromise that exists. I don't expect the entire thing to be saved; but it's clear by the large gap cutting through the center that this tower could have been more compact and thus allowed a good 50-75% to remain. If you think it's just about saving the pretty parts, that's missing the point. The stump of the St. James is absolutely worthless right now. That stump tells nobody of the days where hotels were everywhere to cater to travelers through the state, or that there was a warehouse district extending all over that area. The most important design characteristic was the curving window contrasted to the sharp, straight office space and the window looks totally awkward in the renderings because out of context, it's just a weirdly shaped window. Architects design buildings, they don't assemble parts.

It's always "just this one more... it's not THAT important" and it keeps going and going. What is so special about THIS tower that it's worth yet another remnant of history, another possible space for small business/retail/living? It looks like something built in NJ in 1989. And, there are plenty of other residents coming through other projects that aren't removing one of the few buildings that adds character to the area through its architecture alone. CANVAS, 420 Roosevelt, ArtHaus, and now the Circles Building... if you don't think those all added character to the area, that's fine. But, I think these were some of the best parts of Roosevelt Row and I like towers as much as anyone and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and moan about anything under 10 stories. But, I'd take a local bookstore and consignment shop, or dance hall, or anything over this project.

But I completely agree that the 2.9 million price tag is the main culprit of creating this situation, by forcing a huge project to recoup the investment. I don't think it's fair to use the "would you rather it stay vacant?" argument either when its value is not reflective of the market. It wasn't that this building was not attractive to potential tenants; it was purposefully priced beyond their means.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Im more interested in what will go up across from Proxy now.

LOL, you've missed my weekly bitchfest about this? All of that land is now ownded by ASU for the Biomedical Campus. The first real urban neighborhood to form from the ashes is being suffocated by the city's sprawling campus.

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The City went through various studies of a 7th Street crossing several years ago. The option favored was a pedestrian bridge over the street. I haven't heard anything for quite some time about a possible construction timeline.

https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Documents/096955.pdf

The former Channel 12 building was recently renovated, with the City's involvement, to serve the Southwest HIV / AIDs center. It's unlikely to be torn down anytime in the near future.

I know. That doesn't mean that in an already-unlikely long-term planning project, they couldn't envision a scenario where the City found it space on the PBC for example. Or, as mentioned, purchasing the parking lot at least.

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Yea, I think it's a good fit in terms of its product - they sell booze? Are they open late? I never would have guessed that space would get snatched up, but there really aren't many other options. 4th Street could be really, really interesting depending on who takes the live/work space at Proxxy.

I don't remember if the Mill location serves booze but I do know it stays open till 3am on weekends and around midnight during the week

[Jjs5056]

Cool. Will be a good vibe between it and Bliss then. Too bad the Wurth House is being turned into a Welcome Center. A cluster of bars would've been neat.

The bungalow next to Bliss and the uglier building adjacent have been for sale foreeeevveeerrr. I wish someone would do something cool with the house (I hate when the lawns are paved into driveways) and maybe replaces the ugly one with a live/work studio or something? That would just leave the poor duplex behind Bliss... wish it had opened as the dance spot it was supposed to be (I think?).

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

LOL, you've missed my weekly bitchfest about this? All of that land is now ownded by ASU for the Biomedical Campus. The first real urban neighborhood to form from the ashes is being suffocated by the city's sprawling campus.



I know. That doesn't mean that in an already-unlikely long-term planning project, they couldn't envision a scenario where the City found it space on the PBC for example. Or, as mentioned, purchasing the parking lot at least.

Lets cross our fingers for student housing and ground floor retail

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Lets cross our fingers for student housing and ground floor retail

Nope. Cancer research and clinic, with no mention of commercial space being included. PBC plans show at least one of these lots being used entirely for another garage.

This is why I complain about the PBC: The Cancer Center takes up maybe 75% of its lot and is only 5 stories. Now, at least 2 more full city blocks are being devoted to cancer-related uses. There's no reason that all of this couldn't have been developed on one lot in taller structures with underground parking.

The size of the campus should have been reduced earlier on, which would have forced them to build a more urban product. It should have never extended around McKinley and Garfield, which would right now be attracting a ton of private investment had it been available. Using 1/4 of downtown land for a sprawling campus of single-use fortresses with separate, above-ground parking is no more urban than ASU Research Park. Cities are meant to integrate different uses; that's why they are popular again. People want to be able to eat and live where they work. This campus has no urban components, and if not for the jobs and education it provides, 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

There's no reason the PBC couldn't be more appropriate for its location. They own the triangle lot with the two historic homes next to Skyline- that could be a park with an urban farm, meditation park/garden, recreation uses, etc. - all great for health and wellness and a needed amenity for that area. The houses could be used for a farm-to-table restaurant and yoga/cycling/exercise studio. Retail on Fillmore, 4th Street, and McKinley could contain pharmacies, health clinics, florists/gift shops, nutrition stores, gyms, restaurants, and an organic grocery store. Pierce, Garfield, and 5th Street could have offices for doctors, dentists, chiropractors, massages, spas.

God forbid, a school beside ASU/NAU/UofA could be attracted. Or, With the amount of students and employees, a residential component would also be appropriate. A midrise with mostly studio and 1-bedroom apartments on Garfield/4th Street would be a much better transition. Mixed use medical districts are developed in almost every city, so this isn't crazy talk. It's just what happens when ASU and COP are in control of a project, and it especially 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 when- like I mentioned- there's so much private demand in the area.

[Jjs5056]

Arizona Center
http://azbigmedia.com/azre-magazine/new-market/arizona-center-sells-for-126-million

I don't remember reading this much detail about the developer's plans for AZ Center. I remember the $ they planned on spending on changes, but nothing about what those changes were... maybe I missed it, but in case anyone else did, the developer was quoted as saying that the plans include renovating and expanding the retail, adding parking, and upgrading the landscaping.

It seems like that place really is just a goner. Every new owner upgrades the landscaping; and, seriously, more parking? When you have a surface lot, massive garage, and two underground structures? Is that a joke? The downtown Phoenix market is saturated with restaurants and is lacking stores and services... and, a residential or at least hotel component would make that possible. CityScape is starting to struggle, but even if the tenants deteriorate, it'll likely always have enough foot traffic built-in to lease out the spaces. Replace the retail on 3rd with double-sided retail and 4 stories of office lofts, replace the garage and surface lot with apartments and retail to connect the PBC garage retail with Skyline's, renovate the theater (box office on 3rd street, retail cut into the corner of 3rd/fillmore), and make the service drive off Fillmore much more of an appealing entry from the north. What 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 is that still leaves room for two more towers, which shows what a waste it was to create the superblock to begin with. I suppose one of the spaces could turn into a dog park and the other saved for a hotel in 20 years?

3rd Ave/Roosevelt
Forno is closing on 3rd Ave/Roosevelt; apartments are planned. West Roosevelt is one of the most beautiful parts of downtown and judging by the all of the stalled projects (edison, union, mckinley row..), I feel like this great neighborhood-scale commercial intersection will end up with a dirt lot. If it's another boxy 4-over-1, that would really be a shame. Again, I don't know why - with so many lots for sale - the few (but growing) thriving spots get targeted. I'm sure it will have a fantastic leasing center, though!

Welnick Marketplace
http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/B1713AF1-5BD9-4408-904E-762212ACE603.pdf

Sad that this project is in limbo waiting for tenants; should have known it was just PR when they mentioned all the talks they had been having w/ a number of businesses... I'm happy to see the building restored, but I am a little disappointed by the site plan which shows that the small building on the east side will be demo'd (if not already). They also purchased the lot behind Firestone for more parking which is one less lot for potential high-rise development or development of any kind to improve WVB.

The site plan also shows that they own the lot to the west and a Phase 2 is planned there. Is there a historic building underneath? I hope it's gorgeous if so, because a 1-story retail building on half a block in the part of town with the most lenient height limits will be really 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. I am hoping that it isn't a restoration project and that real development is planned. With Grand Ave picking up, the Welnick Marketplace, and the Baptist Church (along with Crescent) could use the support of some residential. I'd love to see a 2-tower mixed income project there and a higher-end condo next to Welnick to kickstart real development down there.

And, I hope one day they do build on the lot behind Firestone with any use. Firestone (and even the Sun Devil Auto building) is perfect for a restoration project, too, which would look great in front of a modern tower.

Renaissance Renovations
http://dtphx.org/2016/02/26/renaissance-...s-street-activation-with-10m-investment/

Renaissance renovations begin this spring. I hate to criticize anything about this project, because I think it's awesome that a business owner is doing this and think it will make a huge difference, but with these new renderings and more details, I am a little disappointed in a few things. Nothing major.

1) There's only 1,500 square feet left of retail and the businesses listed are a cafe, wood-burning restaurant/grill, and ICON lounge... unless the cafe and restaurant are both new concepts from one of the big players in town, that's a pretty unimaginative use of an awesome design. Hopefully, that last space is a cool boutique or something.
2) The designs already show me something that drives me nuts about the entire city... the signage! For such a car-oriented city, signage that can be read by drivers is almost nonexistent. The hanging signs are great secondary signage for pedestrians, but larger signage along the top for drivers is needed.


"Bar Cluster"
http://dtphx.org/2016/02/19/meet-downtowns-new-emerging-bar-cluster/

So, some city official is pretending that he was some leading force behind the growing nightlife cluster near Central/Adams. Of course, we've all said that these blocks were the most urban in the city, so this wasn't totally unexpected. Regardless, they have a sheet of available space in the cluster zone, and it sounds like the Van Buren/1st Ave garage may be undergoing renovations (thank god; that arcade is so dreary looking, and the whole thing needs to be covered in art panels) and possibly has 1 tenant already since it says 3 spaces, but only 2 available. That'd be great after sitting vacant so long.

Surprised not to see the old Ghost Lounge, remaining spaces next to Cornish Pasty, and US Bank listed. And, it's a long-shot but it'd still be nice for 44M to fill its space.

Block 23
www.thiscouldbephx.com/block-23-the-past-present-and-future-of-downtown

Blog about Block 23 - the lot between Colliers and CityScape. It was actually the original town square prior to PSP and the author would like to see it returned to that state. I agree with his statement that if public money is expected for an arena, public goods should be provided in return but I want to see those benefits within the arena site. As for Block 23, I'm torn because it does function so well as public space and leaves open views of 4 major destination blocks. Also, even though the author raved about Civic Space, that park has clearly become an ASU property unfortunately, so there really is a lack of true public space in the CBD. But, that is such a prime location that it's hard to justify a park. A W Hotel and Residences n the north, and Office tower on the south would be awesome and could be built in a way that open space runs through it, though it woud be a more office park environment of course.

I'd rather see the CVS building on the PSP Block demolished and a true park recreated with view of the surrounding historic buildings. Lucky Strike and Gypsy Bar would be great additions to Colliers or to any new arena retail, and Copper Blues + Stand-Up Live would be great in Luhrs, Barrister, or the warehouses on Jackson across from USAC. The other chains could go anywhere.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

This is why I complain about the PBC: The Cancer Center takes up maybe 75% of its lot and is only 5 stories. Now, at least 2 more full city blocks are being devoted to cancer-related uses. There's no reason that all of this couldn't have been developed on one lot in taller structures with underground parking.

so would you say its a cancer to the neighborhood?

[combusean]

The ABI Multifamily report is out for year end 2015, may have been for a while, but anyways it sheds some light on the dearth of activity at 4th Avenue and McKinley:

A 50 unit development is planned there by Canwood Enterprise now who seem to be novice builders. I'm almost certain this would be a decent size building for the lot.

http://abimultifamily.com/wp-content/upl...hoenix-Construction-Pipeline-YE-2015.pdf

[biggus diggus]

uhhhh

Their information is not accurate, Matt (metrowest) owns that parcel and they are going to develop it. The units on 3rd avenue sold very well and these will be the same product.

[combusean]

^ Well where the heck do they get that information?

[biggus diggus]

I couldn't tell you.

[azsunsurfer]

Ike's out here is nowhere near as good as the original in SF.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

I just think the "if you want to preserve it, you should have bought it" line of thinking is really unfair and if you truly believe that, then how could you ever fight for HP? Why have any discussion on here over a building's design? It's the developer's money, so shouldn't we just shut up? It's just an extension of the "it's better than nothing" excuse. It really isn't far-fetched of residents to expect someone who purchases a historic building to restore it or use it in a respectful way. That developers who have little connection to the city's past get to come in, wipe out more history, and make their money is the problem. He chose to purchase a property that had historic appeal. In most cities, preserving it would be implied.

But I completely agree that the 2.9 million price tag is the main culprit of creating this situation, by forcing a huge project to recoup the investment. I don't think it's fair to use the "would you rather it stay vacant?" argument either when its value is not reflective of the market. It wasn't that this building was not attractive to potential tenants; it was purposefully priced beyond their means.

Again, not 100% my views, but kind of a devil's advocate view combined with reality:

Your first paragraph does make sense, but I still think that's just as greedy as the developer's "make that money" line of thinking. Not everyone cares about or wants HP. Sure 99% of us on this forum do, but that's just our interest and desire.

Your second paragraph is just even further from reality and way too idealistic. It would be great (in your opinion) if the building's owner took way below market value and/or preserved the building and leased it out to any number of people. But the building was sold, therefore, that IS the market value. It was priced too high for some people, but not everyone, and the building's owners were greedy but that's reality (I would be greey too in that situation ... it's my and my family's livelihood, and that trumps any HP or "steward for the City/community" argument. I can almost guarantee everyone on this forum that isn't independently wealthy would too).

EDIT: I guess the reason I'm even arguing this is the fact that some of the "opposition" out there are making their "demands" about this site (heard that in their own words) and it just bothers me to hear them put it like that.

[biggus diggus]

Here's a copy of this:

click link to enlarge http://i.imgur.com/SxaVKsz.png

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by combusean

^ Well where the heck do they get that information?

I read an article that specifically mentioned 802 N 4th Ave being purchased by developers who had a "long-term" mindset for building anything on it. I just assumed that maybe it was supposed to be for 4th Ave and Fillmore? But, that doesn't make too much sense either. But, McKinley Row renderings were released recently, so it seems like we have two developers and one is pretending they own land they don't (not really, but.. well, one of them doesn't).

Your first paragraph does make sense, but I still think that's just as greedy as the developer's "make that money" line of thinking. Not everyone cares about or wants HP. Sure 99% of us on this forum do, but that's just our interest and desire.

Your second paragraph is just even further from reality and way too idealistic. It would be great (in your opinion) if the building's owner took way below market value and/or preserved the building and leased it out to any number of people. But the building was sold, therefore, that IS the market value. It was priced too high for some people, but not everyone, and the building's owners were greedy but that's reality (I would be greey too in that situation ... it's my and my family's livelihood, and that trumps any HP or "steward for the City/community" argument. I can almost guarantee everyone on this forum that isn't independently wealthy would too).

EDIT: I guess the reason I'm even arguing this is the fact that some of the "opposition" out there are making their "demands" about this site (heard that in their own words) and it just bothers me to hear them put it like that.

Residents of a city spend taxes that are used to fund things like master plans, zoning guidelines, district design guidelines, etc. Cities like Phoenix clearly care about land use given the amount of planning docs you can find on dtphx.org. Are you saying that it's selfish for taxpayers, many of whom participate in time consuming planning events, to see the vision ultimately developed and approved by/for the community? Are you against DRC's who sometimes send a developer back to the drawing board for very costly changes? Or, is it their responsibility to make sure developers implement what's in the best interest of its residents? What about Urban Form? By investing so much into downtown Phoenix, encouraging TOD, infill, and adaptive reuse, and realizing the importance of preservation, the City can and should use the power of saying "no" when something goes against the output of public processes.

Roosevelt Row arguably is the reason downtown stood a chance and given the fight put up against developers who are slowly turning it into very much a generic area architecturally, the City should have protecting its identity as a priority. Phoenix did not need to approve any variances, easements, or zoning changes requested for this. And, while greedy developers and lackadaisical governments exist everywhere, most major cities take the voices of their constituents seriously and say no to such developers, or work on a compromise which - in most cities - developers are happy to do because there is a respect for the community they wish to build in. Everything about building in Phoenix is about money, but one person's desire for wealth shouldn't come before the voices of the tax-paying residents.

The fact that you think it's laughable that the former owners would lower their price after several years so that it could be sold and turned into a public good shows how different the mentality is. I'm sure if you ask Michael Levine, he'd tell you he has passed on developer money for his historic properties many times and ultimately been paid less. That's what civic leaders do when they have some form of power. And, the Singers even said that they were holding out for the right builder and that preservation was one of their requirements. I don't disagree that they HAD to act differently, just that there were options other than having it sit vacant forever.

I'd probably be annoyed by what you are seeing, too, but in reality, the public has already made demands to downtown property owners through standards in things like Urban Form. The call for HP has been especially loud, and to know that and still come in and commit the very same offense they are upset over just shows a disrespect for the city. If there was no viable design alternative, then I'd blame COP for approving as much demo as will occur. But, there are clearly other ways to get the same density and I think they need to be explored. Working with and not against the community usually results in a win-win.

[biggus diggus]

Man, that was a lot of words for a forum post.

It's not hard to see who owns 802 n 4th if you don't believe me.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Man, that was a lot of words for a forum post.

It's not hard to see who owns 802 n 4th if you don't believe me.

The county assessor's website takes a month to update, and that's only after the deed is filed. The lot could be in escrow or any number of things.