Phoenix Development News (3)

[Sepstein]

How can the height limit only be 56' on the empty lot on Central and Adams? And plz don't tell me it's renaissance air rights or something that whole thing seems so stupid! How does any downtown give any one tower air rights?

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by nickw252

Hah, I often times wonder the same thing. Maybe they're class projects?

The city of Phoenix sent out a Request for Ideas for these three sites. All three are owned by the city. Originally the concept was to open it up for developers, but they also opened it to the public in general. We will see a lot more of these in the next few days. Most of them will be unrealistic, and without financial backing, but hopefully there are a few good selections for each site with actual capital behind them. If the city sees that they are both financially able to be accomplished and appropriate, the plan is to go through with the winning solutions.

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

The city of Phoenix sent out a Request for Ideas for these three sites. All three are owned by the city. Originally the concept was to open it up for developers, but they also opened it to the public in general. We will see a lot more of these in the next few days. Most of them will be unrealistic, and without financial backing, but hopefully there are a few good selections for each site with actual capital behind them. If the city sees that they are both financially able to be accomplished and appropriate, the plan is to go through with the winning solutions.

Looking forward to seeing all of them. I don't think having the public's input is a waste of time, as some have said here, even if their ideas will never will be viable. I think it is great that people are taking an interest in their city and I don't view their efforts any more of a waste of time than all of us sitting around on a messageboard going back and forth about how our ideas would be so much better. haha

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

Looking forward to seeing all of them. I don't think having the public's input is a waste of time, as some have said here, even if their ideas will never will be viable. I think it is great that people are taking an interest in their city and I don't view their efforts any more of a waste of time than all of us sitting around on a messageboard going back and forth about how our ideas would be so much better. haha

Don't get me wrong, I agree it is great to get ideas out there. I don't think those in the field of design and construction should have a monopoly over how we should shape our city. And I often partake in these types of dream projects.

My comment was more guided towards hoping that out of all of these ideas, we get something real out of it. It would be great if we could get any of these three sites developed. And if it is successful, hopefully the city will continue to open up some of the many properties they own. We often complain about landbanking here, but one of the worst offenders is the city itself. I really hope we can get not only good ideas out of this exercise, but also real projects.

[Jjs5056]

Can anyone confirm the 56' limit for the Central/Adams lot? Seems awfully shot. An Aloft was planned there a few years back I have to think it would've been over 100'.

I think an Aloft would be perfect still, and would like to see a smilar brand build in a mixed use building with residential above.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by Sepstein

How can the height limit only be 56' on the empty lot on Central and Adams? And plz don't tell me it's renaissance air rights or something that whole thing seems so stupid! How does any downtown give any one tower air rights?

It's in the CC&Rs for the lot. The developer of Phelps Dodge Tower behind it bought the whole block, razed everything but Hanny's, built the tower, and left that parking lot over with deed restrictions.

I'll see if I can find an actual document stating as such from the assessor's office.

Jjs, the Aloft was not 100', it was only five stories. It never went anywhere probably due to funding and the fact the site was too small.

[Sepstein]

Does anyone know if the have broken ground on Elavation on Central? Saw a old article saying construction would start in late December!

[poconoboy61]

Looks like the first Arizona Pizza Studio restaurant is moving into vacated space in Cityscape next to Urban Outfitters.The concept of the restaurant allows you to custom make your pizza, choosing from a preset list of crusts, meats, vegetables and cheeses. The chain only has locations in Southern California and one at the Mall of America, but it looks like they have a very aggressive expansion plan into the Phoenix and Tucson markets. The Yelp reviews from existing locations are pretty positive and it seems like a perfect fit into an area that is lacking quick pizza to go.

Originally Posted by Sepstein

Does anyone know if the have broken ground on Elavation on Central? Saw a old article saying construction would start in late December!

No. I rode past on bike today and noticed no signs of construction anywhere. It's a bit disconcerting that we are not seeing groundbreaking of any of these proposals (Elevation on Central, the proposal just north of the Walgreens on Central and Osborn, the proposal on 1st Avenue and Roosevelt, Hotel Monroe, Blue on Washington, etc). What is the hold up? Are developers waiting for someone to make the first move?

[combusean]

It takes anywhere from 1 - 2 years to design, permit, and fund a project from its initial announcement.

Elevation on Central (project number 12-1778) has only had one permit, a water flow test that they didn't even finish issued almost a year ago to the day. I have a slight feeling there is no infrastructure on that site to support their project easily and this project is dead. They don't seem that well capitalized.

11 Capital Place (project number 11-3117) is actively permitting.

12 Capital Place (project number 11-4270) just got their first permit last month.

Union at Roosevelt (project number 08-165) has nothing substantial in the last seven months, another water flow test.

Hotel Monroe has nothing, but that doesn't surprise me given they just bought the damn building.

What project is at Central and Osborn?

[poconoboy61]

^^ Broadstone Central. A horribly suburban low-rise apartment complex for this part of Central, but approved nevertheless.



http://azbex.com/phoenix-approves-alliance-residentials-broadstone-central/

http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@dept/@dsd/documents/web_content/z-39-13n.pdf

Seeing as the developers of the Hotel Monroe want it to be open by the Superbowl, you would think there would be some signs of life. Just missing windows, boarded up doors, and graffiti exist today.

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

^^ Broadstone Central. A horribly suburban low-rise apartment complex for this part of Central, but approved nevertheless.



http://azbex.com/phoenix-approves-alliance-residentials-broadstone-central/

http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@dept/@dsd/documents/web_content/z-39-13n.pdf

My god! I must have missed this one and I wish I would have missed this post now. lol That giant plot of land on Central will be taken up by this thing?!

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

My god! I must have missed this one and I wish I would have missed this post now. lol That giant plot of land on Central will be taken up by this thing?!

The plot's doesn't seem that wide to me, but it is pretty deep. They would squeeze it between Walgreens and the existing 20 story office that contains Alexi's. It's my understanding that the apartments would stretch back quite a ways, of course with a massive parking structure wrapping around a considerable part of it. I won't be the least bit upset if it doesn't get built. I'm shocked that it was approved in it's location. It seems like Houston, with it's infamous lack of zoning, has this kind of mishmash. A 20 story office building, next to a sprawling four story suburban style apartment complex, next to a suburban style Walgreens.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by combusean

It's in the CC&Rs for the lot. The developer of Phelps Dodge Tower behind it bought the whole block, razed everything but Hanny's, built the tower, and left that parking lot over with deed restrictions.

I'll see if I can find an actual document stating as such from the assessor's office.

Jjs, the Aloft was not 100', it was only five stories. It never went anywhere probably due to funding and the fact the site was too small.

Ah, I thought it was closer to 8. Anyway, that's disappointing, but hopefully that actually encourages potential developers since they can go for the cheaper construction. A small residential project would complement the active scene theyre trying to build up on Adams, IMO, though a hotel is always fine.

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Ah, I thought it was closer to 8. Anyway, that's disappointing, but hopefully that actually encourages potential developers since they can go for the cheaper construction. A small residential project would complement the active scene theyre trying to build up on Adams, IMO, though a hotel is always fine.

I think the city put out an RFP for this Central/Adams site around the same time as the RFP for Central Station. I think this RFP expires on December 31, so I'm sure we'll see some exciting proposals for a 50 foot tower in about a year.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by combusean

Moreover, there's a 56' height limit on Central and Adams, .

This is no longer the case. The CC&R's on that lot were tied to Phelps Dodge/Freeport McMoRan, when they left to OCPE, the CC&R's expired. You can build up to the FAA limit on that lot now if you wanted to.

[Sepstein]

That's great news!

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

This is no longer the case. The CC&R's on that lot were tied to Phelps Dodge/Freeport McMoRan, when they left to OCPE, the CC&R's expired. You can build up to the FAA limit on that lot now if you wanted to.

This is very true. The only issue with this lot from a development point of view is that it is really difficult to incorporate parking. The narrowness of the lot complicates it, and getting a very tall residential project would be affected by this issue. My guess is that we might end up seeing several mixed-use mid-rise proposals for this RFP.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

This is very true. The only issue with this lot from a development point of view is that it is really difficult to incorporate parking. The narrowness of the lot complicates it, and getting a very tall residential project would be affected by this issue. My guess is that we might end up seeing several mixed-use mid-rise proposals for this RFP.

The city specifically mentioned both it being a midrise and that parking would need creative solutions, so you're on the right track for sure.

Can you explain the parking issue a little more? Is it an issue of tight space for a car's turn radius? Or that it would necessitate so many levels that it wouldn't be cost effective?

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

The city specifically mentioned both it being a midrise and that parking would need creative solutions, so you're on the right track for sure.

Can you explain the parking issue a little more? Is it an issue of tight space for a car's turn radius? Or that it would necessitate so many levels that it wouldn't be cost effective?

Yeah, it has to do with turning radii, but also just basic rules of thumb or how much room you need for cars and parking. For example, if you have angled parking, you normally need around 18' for the cars and another 18' for the driving area. This places you at 36' already, and that is using only one-way circulation. Too have vehicles driving in both directions you are looking closer to 20'. Since the lot is both narrow and not very long, a lot of space would be lost just in the circulation element of parking. So you would end up with multiple levels of parking, with very few actual parking spots in each.

The ideal for such tight lots would be an elevator system. But those are ridiculously expensive, and with so little demand for dense parking in Phoenix, it wouldn't be very practical.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

Yeah, it has to do with turning radii, but also just basic rules of thumb or how much room you need for cars and parking. For example, if you have angled parking, you normally need around 18' for the cars and another 18' for the driving area. This places you at 36' already, and that is using only one-way circulation. Too have vehicles driving in both directions you are looking closer to 20'. Since the lot is both narrow and not very long, a lot of space would be lost just in the circulation element of parking. So you would end up with multiple levels of parking, with very few actual parking spots in each.

The ideal for such tight lots would be an elevator system. But those are ridiculously expensive, and with so little demand for dense parking in Phoenix, it wouldn't be very practical.

Is this lot smaller than 44 Monroe? On Google Maps it looks a lot bigger yet their parking garage works well (it's tight inside though).

It would be nice if a few floors up they could extend the building over the Adams St. sidewalk to give more floor space (and provide shade). Unfortunately in Phoenix the demand and land values aren't high enough to justify creative and potentially expensive solutions like this (or an elevator).