HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6281  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 7:41 PM
KevininPhx KevininPhx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjs5056 View Post
I don't know why everyone is so positive about this project. As Sean mentioned, the apartment itself is occupying an incredibly small portion of the block it will be sitting on. The majority of the site will be dedicated to a garage and new MAG offices, with large setbacks and no retail fronting Van Buren - the street that has been designated by the City to become the 'retail' route of downtown.

Look around downtown; the whole office+garage superblock concept has been done over and over and has resulted in spurts of activity where the office hits the ground, surrounded by a sea of dead space. This shouldn't be tolerated in 2014/2015. The apartment is facing Polk St, which is to become a private entrance for residents; so, essentially, depending on the design of the WAG offices, very little of downtown's streets will be enhanced through this project.

I think its orientation is also heinous. Design has shifted from this kind of design for residential into more slender, sleek forms. I like the roundness, but this should take up no more than 1/4 the land over an underground parking structure, with a mixed use office tower taking up another 1/4, and either midrise mixed use residential taking the remaining 1/2, or have it left as a park for residents until the market dictates another use.

Finally, the City has let historic gem after another go to waste... and they want to salvage the crap they put up in 2009? Come on.
***
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6282  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 8:05 PM
rocksteady rocksteady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjs5056 View Post
I know nothing about air rights, but you'd think a luxury condo like 44M would've made sure something like this didn't come in and completely wipe out its views.

However, due to the new 20' sidewalks and awkward setbacks that are proposed for the project, many units will still have great views. Those in the direct center are screwed, but they'll still get a decent city-scape view with this tower, OCPE, etc.
With your constant talk of height and density, I'm curious why you would even care that one of the only residential highrises in downtown might have to look at another one? That's what downtown living is all about and hopefully no one does put up a fight and prevent others from getting built in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6283  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 8:05 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is offline
self-important urbanista
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,102
The good news: New vegetation was planted outside Hanny's on First Street this morning.

The bad news: I wouldn't use the word "trees" to describe it. The plants are at most two feet tall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6284  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 8:42 PM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6285  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 8:44 PM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise View Post
Exactly. Hell if you want dense skyscrapers not everyone can have the "view".
Quote:
With your constant talk of height and density, I'm curious why you would even care that one of the only residential highrises in downtown might have to look at another one? That's what downtown living is all about and hopefully no one does put up a fight and prevent others from getting built in the future.
Quote:
I'm really not sure how much their views will be "obstructed."

First, they'll still have views of Camelback Mountain to the northeast.

Second, this is a highrise condo building, don't the occupants want urban views? What's wrong with having a view of a brand new skyscraper a few blocks up?
Okay, I am not sure where the misunderstanding is coming from... I was simply responding to Sean's post which said he would be pissed if he were an owner/renter 44M.

If you read my post, I clearly stated that there would be hardly any obstructions for the majority of units due to the setbacks of the new tower and that any obstructed units WOULD HAVE NICE CITY-SCAPE VIEWS. How much clearer can I be that there shouldn't be an issue with having NICE CITY-SCAPE VIEWS? I never once expressed concern over 44M's views; I am more concerned with a superblock in the center of downtown that is being designed against current residential trends that are moving toward sleek, slender towers instead of this block form.

My next post was merely a question since I don't know anything about air rights. CityScape couldn't build condos on top of their retail because Renaissance or Phelps Dodge had the air rights, so I just wondered why a luxury condo wouldn't have the same. Sorry for asking a question about something I know little about, but please - continue jumping down my throat and misquoting me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6286  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 9:59 PM
PHXFlyer11 PHXFlyer11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjs5056 View Post
My next post was merely a question since I don't know anything about air rights. CityScape couldn't build condos on top of their retail because Renaissance or Phelps Dodge had the air rights, so I just wondered why a luxury condo wouldn't have the same. Sorry for asking a question about something I know little about, but please - continue jumping down my throat and misquoting me.
I do not think air rights refer to the views of a property and their control over what can be built on property owned by others. Air rights have to do with owning the space above the actual land.

For example, for Central Station, the City of Phoenix would still own the land and probably the public transit portion. The air rights refer to the space above that city-owned property that they are selling or leasing to another entity to build on top (vertically) on that same property.

I know in some cases, although I doubt in Phoenix, views can be protected by other means, but I think it has more to do with agreements and probably in some cases a re-zoning of height for a specific lot that effectively limits the height of a property rather than "air rights."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6287  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 10:07 PM
PHXFlyer11 PHXFlyer11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,441
I dug a little bit more... see this very interesting article on the air rights of a church in Manhattan being sold to another owner (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/ny...0air.html?_r=0). Basically because the church was not built out to the maximum allowable height, that unused space was sold to another developer that allowed them to build higher on their piece of land. Very interesting concept, but I doubt that the anybody paid the City of Phoenix for the air rights over retail at City Scape. I think either a) there was not sufficient demand for towers or b) the owners of the other towers simply put up a stink with the city, and because we don't have sufficient demand, the city caved.

I would think that if there was demand for the space above the City Scape retail, the City of Phoenix could definitely build up, if they wanted to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6288  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 10:19 PM
ASU Diablo ASU Diablo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,350
Some proposed changes to urban code, hopefully for the better...

Phoenix partnership presents code to regulate construction near light-rail stations

Reinvent PHX, the collaborative partnership committed to growth and sustainability in Phoenix, is working with the city to develop a proposal to adopt a new form-based code that would regulate development around light-rail stations.

The organization has been developing what they call a “Walkable Urban Code.” The code would promote “mixture and density of activity” around transit stations in areas specified by Reinvent PHX, including uptown, midtown, Solano, Eastlake-Garfield and Gateway. It would aid in increasing the use of the light rail in general and along the central Phoenix to East Valley light rail corridor in particular, promoting multiple modes of transportation, according to the draft proposal.

Katherine Coles, a member of the Reinvent PHX project team, presented the proposal in front of the Historic Preservation Commission Monday, focusing on the goal of establishing a transit-oriented model for urban planning and development along the city’s light-rail corridor.

“We want to promote a more walkable, vibrant, dense environment,” Coles said. “The code is designed to promote an appropriate mixture of density and activity around the light-rail stations.”

Sandra K. Hoffman is the deputy director of the Planning & Development Department for the city of Phoenix, the division overseeing the proposal. She said she believes the proposal will be accepted and that her department did a good job of modifying some of the text that the original contract company created.

“That way, we can address some really specific items that we really want to make sure are covered, such as historic preservation,” Hoffman said. “It’s critical for downtown, it’s our history. We want to be thoughtful in how we build around it.”

Reinvent PHX wants to make the distinction that regulations already in place for historic preservation should always take precedence over the new code. This would be achieved in several ways, including by making sure there are buffers in the development, like a landscape strip between the anticipated construction and where historic property is located.

While similar to the current downtown code that was established 10 years ago, the new code would replace current transit-oriented district overlays along the light rail, which were put into place before it was even constructed.

This would be done by enacting “transect-based” planning, which Coles noted many cities around the country have already implemented. This splits up zones on a 6-unit scale from rural to intensely urban. The scale for this proposal would start in the middle and go up, from single-family homes to thriving urban settings.

According to the proposal draft, “One of the principles of transect-based planning is that certain forms and elements belong in certain environments … a deep suburban setback destroys the spatial enclosure of an urban street. It is out of context. These distinctions and rules don’t limit choices; they expand them. This is the antidote for the one-size-fits-all development of today.”

Coles said that a key component of the proposal is regulating building height and placement, rather than use of the building. There would be a broader scope of what can be done with buildings in each zone.

Through creating these denser urban areas, the project team hopes to increase population and employment through infill development, forge a more friendly pedestrian, bicycle, and public-transit environment and institute better connectivity of pedestrian and vehicular routes. This would also mean barring the impact of building and land uses that do not support transit ridership.

David Krietor, CEO of Downtown Phoenix, Inc., a community development group dedicated to the continued revitalization of downtown Phoenix, said the light rail is contributing significantly to the urban core, especially as it relates to downtown Phoenix and downtown Tempe.

“In downtown Phoenix, there is strong demand for new residential development that has an urban feel to some extent because of access to light rail,” Krietor said. “Walkability is very important to downtown residents. Being sensitive about super-block development, creating more shade and providing interesting things for pedestrians to see at street level are all important to walkability and we should support these efforts.”

Contact the reporter at Rebecca.Brisley@asu.edu

http://downtowndevil.com/2014/09/17/...truction-code/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6289  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 2:13 AM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11 View Post
I dug a little bit more... see this very interesting article on the air rights of a church in Manhattan being sold to another owner (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/ny...0air.html?_r=0). Basically because the church was not built out to the maximum allowable height, that unused space was sold to another developer that allowed them to build higher on their piece of land. Very interesting concept, but I doubt that the anybody paid the City of Phoenix for the air rights over retail at City Scape. I think either a) there was not sufficient demand for towers or b) the owners of the other towers simply put up a stink with the city, and because we don't have sufficient demand, the city caved.

I would think that if there was demand for the space above the City Scape retail, the City of Phoenix could definitely build up, if they wanted to.
Thank you for the explanation and research. The apartments were only supposed to be 5 or so stories, so I would think that the market could've absorbed the units at that time, and the official reason was indeed that it was an air rights issue. BTW, this would be an issue with RED, not the City of Phoenix necessarily.

CityScape would be a much more aesthetic project had those apartments been built on top of the heinous concrete roofing of the 2-story retail strip. The balconies overlooking 1st Ave and Jefferson would've added some vibrancy, as well. Too bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6290  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 4:44 AM
R.C113 R.C113 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11


I love the building and do think it is unique.. definitely out-standing for Phoenix. However I must point out that it's proposed location isn't exactly feng shui, and would it actually function as it has been envisioned to? Personally I feel this building would make more sense on the SE corner of Central and Adams St.. being that it is a mix-used residential building. It would have to be more slender of course, but it would still reside along the light rail and it would just make more sense overall and FORCE young people to wander about giving the impression of a bigger city, which is essentially what they are already doing... I think the location of it's original proposal would be better off with something not as tall, and it could then potentially be used for something strictly transit/retail. It would be a win win situation if they made more sense of this project. I think Phoenix did a good job using the grid technique for it's overall layout, but when it comes to erecting buildings and permission to do so.. it comes to downright non-sense. Being a Phoenician I could only wish that our city counsel and project developers would take more pride in making Phoenix a city of the future!
__________________
"What is a city but the people? True the people are the city" - Shakespeare
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6291  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 5:24 AM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
I agree that a residential tower at Adams/Central would be great and add a lot of permanent vibrancy to that area which might force the on-again-off-again retail market in the immediate vicinity to stabilize. A slender tower would also mean more height, which would be a nice value-add, and if you look at the top residential towers being designed right now, they're all extremely thin and tall. It would help modernize the skyline, while serving a much needed ground level purpose with the influx of residents. Similarly, I think Adams/2nd Ave is an important lot was unfortunate to slip through the cracks during the boom. For being one of the most urban of downtown's streets, Adams could really use a residential addition.

I also agree that the use of the Central Station site as mainly residential is not ideal. Not to beat a dead horse, but with Van Buren being zoned to become the shopping center of Phoenix, this could've served as the first building block toward creating that kind of commercial core. If this is truly our Central Station, think the DeSoto Marketplace would've been a great fit for this location, spilling over into Civic Space, and allowing for artisans and other vendors beyond just food.

Unfortunately, downtown couldn't support two types of markets like that even with the slight differences. At the very least, the ground level should've been a place that drew in all departing and arriving guests and provided a place for visitor information, light rail ticket stations, downtown ambassador kiosks, and at least incorporated some of our top restaurants into the design in a similar fashion to Sky Harbor - however, with double entrances so both the street and inside could be activated.

MAG office could still go above, and I don't have a problem with a residential component, but a luxury apartment with dog park seems so exclusive for what should be a community centerpiece.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6292  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 5:28 AM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
There was a design meeting regarding the Muse project on McDowell and Central that is apparently pretty horrible - I mentioned this already, but did anyone go or hear what went down?

Also, the RFP for Central/Adams and the empty retail around the Convention Center is an upcoming topic. I hope we are able to get some news from that meeting and that somehow, there's been some interest in the former.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6293  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 5:48 AM
upward 2000 upward 2000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 403
Has anyone read of a 400' observation tower planned downtown?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6294  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 6:01 AM
michael85225 michael85225 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by upward 2000 View Post
Has anyone read of a 400' observation tower planned downtown?
Yeah that's old news from a while back. If I understand, it's pretty much dead. There has been talk about relocating it but I'm not to optimistic about the project becoming real.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6295  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 12:02 PM
upward 2000 upward 2000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael85225 View Post
Yeah that's old news from a while back. If I understand, it's pretty much dead. There has been talk about relocating it but I'm not to optimistic about the project becoming real.
I've had a feeling it might be a dead project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6296  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 4:39 PM
westbev93 westbev93 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 203
Small update on the Union--my client said he's meeting to go over schedule b's next week. So it's still going forward, albeit slowly.

He also mentioned a Townhomes on 3rd project that is supposed to go forward soon. Something about super high end rentals where the tenants pick out their fixtures and finish. Anyone hear of this before?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6297  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 5:15 PM
nickw252 nickw252 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North Mesa
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjs5056 View Post
There was a design meeting regarding the Muse project on McDowell and Central that is apparently pretty horrible - I mentioned this already, but did anyone go or hear what went down?

Also, the RFP for Central/Adams and the empty retail around the Convention Center is an upcoming topic. I hope we are able to get some news from that meeting and that somehow, there's been some interest in the former.
I have pictures of the proposal at McDowell and Central. I'll post them when I get home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6298  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 5:49 PM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,035
New details emerge for Sky Harbor's Terminal 3 project

Hi All,

Here the news about terminal 3 project lately.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ject/15785309/

Quote:
The vision for a redesigned Terminal 3 at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is getting clearer.

It's a vision calling for a modern terminal with more natural light, more energy efficiency and more convenience.

Phoenix Aviation Department officials presented details for the $590 million modernization project to the city's Downtown, Aviation and Redevelopment subcommittee this month. The City Council might approve funds to continue the project at its Wednesday, Sept. 17, meeting.
Hopefully, they will start construction the security checkpoint in Spring 2015 right after Super Bowl games is over. Is schedule to be completed in mid-2016. This will be consolidated the TSA checkpoint, and later on they will construction in the main-terminal. Is schedule to be completed in mid-2018 and also, they will be demolished the T3S gates and they will constructed new 15-gates. Those 2 airlines will be relocate from entire T3 to T2. This will be temporarily when the terminal 3 project is completed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6299  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 5:57 PM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by westbev93 View Post
Small update on the Union--my client said he's meeting to go over schedule b's next week. So it's still going forward, albeit slowly.

He also mentioned a Townhomes on 3rd project that is supposed to go forward soon. Something about super high end rentals where the tenants pick out their fixtures and finish. Anyone hear of this before?
Yes, Townhomes on 3rd is yet another MetroWest project; they still need to complete their 2nd Avenue project as well, IIRC.

The townhomes will be located at 822 3rd Ave between McKinley and Roosevelt. Location makes sense, though I wish they were closer to Fillmore to spur some development in that area.

Fits in with MetroWest's goal of increasing owner occupancy in the Roosevelt neighborhood.

http://static.squarespace.com/static...0Brouchure.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6300  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2014, 6:00 PM
Freeway Freeway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by westbev93 View Post
Small update on the Union--my client said he's meeting to go over schedule b's next week. So it's still going forward, albeit slowly.

He also mentioned a Townhomes on 3rd project that is supposed to go forward soon. Something about super high end rentals where the tenants pick out their fixtures and finish. Anyone hear of this before?
The 3rd Avenue project is already under construction. That site has been active for some time. I highly doubt Union is going anywhere. For such a small project, it honestly is taking forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:31 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.