Phoenix Area Low- and Mid-Rise Development Thread

[PHX31]

/\what a bummer to lose that Pruitt Furniture strip for some cheap multifamily housing schlock yet again. Even though it's likely just a 50s era strip mall, it is the kind of unusual building look and form that makes the City interesting. In 20 or 30 years, such types of "vintage"/"historic" strip malls might be as long-ed for or desired as we think today of pre-war buildings that met the wrecking ball in the 70s or 80s.

I understand it's just demand for housing and a dying furniture business likely just trying to sell its real estate that is creating this new project.. but this looks like a prime spot for some sort of cool strip mall renovation and new tenants like the Uptown Plaza at 7th Ave & Camelback. It wouldn't even need much renovation, it seems pretty original. Could be a nice anchor for this close-in east side neighborhood.

[combusean]

I think that building is kitschy and unremarkable, made worse by the parking in front of it. Something this size would be impractical to repurpose/reuse anyways, definitely no market for retail or office after extensive or impossible/impractical renovations.

I'm more concerned what's going to happen with Pruitt's, I hope they're not going out of business.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by combusean

I think that building is kitschy and unremarkable, made worse by the parking in front of it. Something this size would be impractical to repurpose/reuse anyways, definitely no market for retail or office.

I'm more concerned what's going to happen with Pruitt's, I hope they're not going out of business

I like the "kitch", it's unique. Sure, there are some less than desirable aspects, but your response is almost exactly my point. Right now it's not worth saving because of X, Y, or Z... but in 20 years we may long to have kept similar kitchy strip malls of the mid-century. I'm sure people in the 70s thought a pre-war building wasn't worth saving then because it was ugly old tired victorian brick and had X, Y, and Z problems (but would now be historic and awesome).

[combusean]

If Phoenix ever starts running out of decades-old defunct strip malls to the point people are worried about the remaining stock and do some historic survey, that would be a massive improvement over the current ugly state of affairs that is the central city.

Many modernist and pre-war buildings have proven their value over time. There are decent modernist buildings, this is not one of them. Nobody in the history of modernist appreciation has thought that stitching Colonial elements onto them was ever a good idea, and "kitsch" isn't enough for preservation. There's also like, a handful of pre-war commercial buildings left compared to a nearly infinite supply of strip malls, all of which are much more inviting and not car-dominated like this hulk.

Finally, nobody's going to put like $30 - $50 million into renovating this and probably tens of millions of dollars more into providing parking for it. There are zero potential tenants for something like that.

[PHX31]

That's what they always say.

And they fought to save the faintly googie liquor store, you don't know what modernists are going to cling to.

[ASUSunDevil]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Another 5-story apartment building proposed, this one for Thomas/34th St.:

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Docu...ed_reduced.pdf

One of the better looking proposals IMO, and seems to do a good job stepping down to the SFHs.

So much potential in this part of town. Love the Gensler designl

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by combusean

If Phoenix ever starts running out of decades-old defunct strip malls to the point people are worried about the remaining stock and do some historic survey, that would be a massive improvement over the current ugly state of affairs that is the central city.

Many modernist and pre-war buildings have proven their value over time. There are decent modernist buildings, this is not one of them. Nobody in the history of modernist appreciation has thought that stitching Colonial elements onto them was ever a good idea, and "kitsch" isn't enough for preservation. There's also like, a handful of pre-war commercial buildings left compared to a nearly infinite supply of strip malls, all of which are much more inviting and not car-dominated like this hulk.

Finally, nobody's going to put like $30 - $50 million into renovating this and probably tens of millions of dollars more into providing parking for it. There are zero potential tenants for something like that.

Facts.

[DUPio]

Live near Pruitt and drive that section of Thomas frequently. It's dominated by run down liquor stores, pawn shops, strip clubs and struggling retail. Lots of transients in the area that make it feel unsafe. It's in desperate need of some investment so I'm extremely excited to see something like this even proposed. True that this particular lot is actually pretty decent compared to the stuff around it but make no mistake this development as envisioned would be a huge improvement. Hopefully this gets built and spurs more investment into the area as redevelopment gets pushed farther south and west.

I’m also curious if anyone knows anything about what’s going on at the SEC of 28th and Indian School?

[combusean]

I was never a fan of preserving the liquor store either, but it had a lot going for it:

- developer promised they were going to keep it
- developer pulled the demo permit anyways, surprising everyone
- that galvanized the local community at the behest of one popular guy
- the community had actually been patronizing the store
- Googie is kitsch, but it's an actual recognized movement and those sites are very rare in Phoenix. Whatever they were going for at 34th and Thomas isn't part of some recognized movement.
- the zoning/code issues such as lack of parking actually favored the liquor store's continual desire to stay in business as a tenant, whereas Pruitt has sold the site already and it can't economically be brought up to code. A tiny liquor store in an already quirky and popular area would be a small project to renovate with lots of potential tenants, Pruitt would be a monumental undertaking in a crap area with no potential tenants. I would have even thought there'd be some potential for "creative office," but those ceilings are like 8' inside. Nobody's touching that.

[azsunsurfer]

With the Pruitt's gone that neighborhood is going to be a furniture desert smh.

[PHX31]

I see your points. I guess I just have a deep frustration built up through the years where this City littered with vacant lots always seems to have development plans that involve demolition of existing buildings, sometimes historic ones, or as in this case, just an interesting one (IMO).

Speaking of the googie Melrose Liquor store, what will ever become of it? It is saved, and now nothing but an ugly chained off lot and graffitied building?

Also, I wonder what will happen when another tiny non-descript (and currently pink!) vaguely googie building is about to meet the wrecking ball just 1.25miles south on 7th Ave. Will the preservationists step in to save the Long Wongs building at 7th Ave & Thomas? I do know through the years a couple offers have been made for that hard corner (to include the cash checking store-old flower shop-old gas station?). Once it was being planned to be a dunkin.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by PHX31

I see your points. I guess I just have a deep frustration built up through the years where this City littered with vacant lots always seems to have development plans that involve demolition of existing buildings, sometimes historic ones, or as in this case, just an interesting one (IMO).

Speaking of the googie Melrose Liquor store, what will ever become of it? It is saved, and now nothing but an ugly chained off lot and graffitied building?

Also, I wonder what will happen when another tiny non-descript (and currently pink!) vaguely googie building is about to meet the wrecking ball just 1.25miles south on 7th Ave. Will the preservationists step in to save the Long Wongs building at 7th Ave & Thomas? I do know through the years a couple offers have been made for that hard corner (to include the cash checking store-old flower shop-old gas station?). Once it was being planned to be a dunkin.

Doesn't that have to do with property tax? Empty lots are cheap for tax and insurance, but nonperforming buildings are not AND they are expensive to tear down.

From an owner perspective better to sell the whole thing to a developer and let them deal with the vacancy costs and demolition and kicking out tenants taht wont leave etc.

Land Bankers sitting on prime lots keep holding as prices keep going up they are in for long term returns and dont care about the blight in they cause. The City needs to do something to incentivize developing lots rather than doing nothing.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Doesn't that have to do with property tax? Empty lots are cheap for tax and insurance, but nonperforming buildings are not AND they are expensive to tear down.

From an owner perspective better to sell the whole thing to a developer and let them deal with the vacancy costs and demolition and kicking out tenants taht wont leave etc.

Land Bankers sitting on prime lots keep holding as prices keep going up they are in for long term returns and dont care about the blight in they cause. The City needs to do something to incentivize developing lots rather than doing nothing.

Yes, and it's all fairly annoying (from our/my perspective as an enthusiast with no real skin in the game).

[combusean]

They just did prop 13 light in Arizona which is a land bankers dream. Imagine buying some crappy building and not paying the costs it takes for the city and county to service it over time. The inspiration for this has turned out to be an affordability disaster in California, all done under the name of "fairness."

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by combusean

They just did prop 13 light in Arizona which is a land bankers dream. Imagine buying some crappy building and not paying the costs it takes for the city and county to service it over time. The inspiration for this has turned out to be an affordability disaster in California, all done under the name of "fairness."

I agree that Prop 13 caused more problems than it solved but I'm not sure what you mean by Prop 13 light? AZ has a 5% limitation on the growth in your taxable value but it's really pretty different than Prop 13 which had a 2% limit on the growth in total levies. AZ doesn't really have that.

It is pretty wild to see my home grow in value incredibly over the last few years but my taxable value keeps chugging along at 5% growth a year, which I think is reasonable.

When I talk to property owners, property tax is def a concern but I doubt its the *reason* why it is developed or not developed. But yah a lot with a ton of taxable value like a large building which is not deployed is a disaster for the owner because you owe tax on the value of the land and building regardless of its profitability. Can you imagine what the owner of the Chase tower downtown is thinking every year as they are paying property taxes!?

[Prestige Worldwide]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The City needs to do something to incentivize developing lots rather than doing nothing.

Municipalities are too scared of Prop 207 to do anything that has any teeth and sometimes I don't blame them. It's not a great situation.

[combusean]

Or the Legislature could just change to a land value tax, which completely disincentivizes land banking.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by Prestige Worldwide

Municipalities are too scared of Prop 207 to do anything that has any teeth and sometimes I don't blame them. It's not a great situation.

I hadn't really studied up on Prop 207 so I went looking for the actual text.

There are several exceptions to the rules on eminent domain.

One is 4. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS, LIQUOR CONTROL, OR PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY, NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING, AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES IF THE LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE UNITED STATES;

And I was thinking that I heard that many bad apartment complexes have an illegal number of sex offenders living there but it's not enforced. Could be a potential loophole! Definitely would be accused of gentrification!

Either way it doesn't seem like eminent domain is impossible, just more difficult.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by combusean

Or the Legislature could just change to a land value tax, which completely disincentivizes land banking.

I hadn't heard of that so I googled it. Do you mean a land only tax so the value of the improvement isn't considered at all? So a shack on an acre pays the same amount as a mansion on an acre? Somehow I don't think that's going to fly.

If your assumption was you still need to get the same amount of property taxes, wouldn't that mean you're shifting quite a bit of taxes away from high value properties to properties without any improvements?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

I hadn't really studied up on Prop 207 so I went looking for the actual text.

There are several exceptions to the rules on eminent domain.

One is 4. LIMIT OR PROHIBIT THE USE OR DIVISION OF A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS, LIQUOR CONTROL, OR PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY, NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING, AND OTHER ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES IF THE LAND USE LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS STATE AND THE UNITED STATES;

And I was thinking that I heard that many bad apartment complexes have an illegal number of sex offenders living there but it's not enforced. Could be a potential loophole! Definitely would be accused of gentrification!

Either way it doesn't seem like eminent domain is impossible, just more difficult.

It would be funny if we went around turning all the strip clubs into high rises. But I think that exception is just saying that property owners can't claim that regulations limiting their ability to have strip clubs on their land is a "taking" such that they are entitled to compensation from the government.