Phoenix Development News (3)

[ASU Diablo]

The bill is definitely making progress with no foreseeable opposition. The passage of this will hopefully act as a catalyst for downtown to get more breweries! I would LOVE to see Four Peaks expand into the Warehouse District along with San Tan and the other smaller ones as well...

Bill amended to allow craft brewers to increase beer production
http://www.azcentral.com/story/money...tion/24674609/
Arizona Central

Arizona's craft breweries have compromised on a bill that will allow them to produce more beer than currently allowed in the state while maintaining their restaurants and bars.

The Arizona Craft Brewers Guild is pushing for a change in state law this year that would clarify that the nearly 60 microbreweries could maintain restaurants and bars after exceeding a certain amount of production. Senate Bill 1030 was held up last month in a committee when the bill's opponents raised questions about its legality.

The Guild then compromised on an amendment, which passed its first test Monday while advancing unanimously through the Senate committee where it had been held up. The bill's sponsor is Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City.

The new bill language will allow microbreweries to produce as much as 200,000 barrels of beer annually among multiple locations. The cap is 40,000 barrels today. A barrel is 31 gallons, or two full-size kegs.

"This is exactly what we asked for," said Rob Fullmer, executive director of the Arizona Craft Brewers Guild.

Breweries need to know there is a path for them to continue growing if they are to continue investing in Arizona, he said.

Under the current law, brewers who make more than 40,000 barrels of beer a year are not allowed to run restaurants. That means the bigger breweries in the state, such as Four Peaks Brewing Co., can't keep expanding without selling or closing their restaurants, or changing the law.

Supporters hope the amended SB 1030 moves through a full vote of the Senate this week.

Under a three-tier system that dates back to the end of Prohibition, a company only can be a producer, distributor, or retailer of beer in the state, and can't do business as more than one of those.

In 1987, Arizona passed special rules to allow small brewers to make and sell beer at their restaurants and bars. That allows them to act as a producer and retailer, with no distributor.

Arizona brewers making less than 40,000 barrels of beer a year get special privileges, such as being allowed to "self-distribute" beer to a second location themselves without a distributor. Current law also allows them to self-distribute 3,000 barrels of beer a year to other retailers.

Under the amended bill, a brewer would have to give up those self-distribution rights once it exceeds 40,000 barrels, except for its on-site retail sales. Brewers also could not expand to any new retail locations once exceeding 40,000 barrels.

"We don't know of any opposition at all," Fullmer said of the amended bill.

The three companies that originally opposed SB 1030 approve of the amendments, Fullmer said. Those companies were Alliance Beverage Distributing, Southern Wine and Spirits and Young's Market. Collectively, the opponents refer to themselves as the Arizona Wine and Spirits Association.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by airomero83

The bill is definitely making progress with no foreseeable opposition. The passage of this will hopefully act as a catalyst for downtown to get more breweries! I would LOVE to see Four Peaks expand into the Warehouse District along with San Tan and the other smaller ones as well...

I'm glad the bill is advancing, but I don't think it will lead to the larger local breweries like Four Peaks or SanTan opening new pubs or tap rooms in the Warehouse District. The main change from this legislation will be to allow successful local breweries to expand production capacity without having to close existing retail locations -- something current law might force them to do. The new legislation, however, will not allow them to add more retail locations than they already have if they have gone above a certain production threshold. In terms of cultivating new breweries and pubs in Downtown Phoenix, the benefit may be indirect. Seeing that Four Peaks has been allowed to grow, others may be more inclined to invest in new breweries. In addition, some small breweries in the East Valley might still be able to set up locations Downtown before they hit production caps.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

I'd love to have that "non-tall" Paris skyline.

But it isn't that tall! The tallest building their is under 60 floors

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

But it isn't that tall! The tallest building their is under 60 floors

Still over 200' feet taller than Chase. I'd take it.

[ASU Diablo]

I'm glad the bill is advancing, but I don't think it will lead to the larger local breweries like Four Peaks or SanTan opening new pubs or tap rooms in the Warehouse District. The main change from this legislation will be to allow successful local breweries to expand production capacity without having to close existing retail locations -- something current law might force them to do. The new legislation, however, will not allow them to add more retail locations than they already have if they have gone above a certain production threshold. In terms of cultivating new breweries and pubs in Downtown Phoenix, the benefit may be indirect. Seeing that Four Peaks has been allowed to grow, others may be more inclined to invest in new breweries. In addition, some small breweries in the East Valley might be still be able to set up locations Downtown before they hit production caps.

Thanks for the clarification...missed that part!

[soleri]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

a few to add, just for comparrsions sake...

Cincinnati - Queen City Square (2011 @ 665').
Raleigh - PNC Plaza (2008 @ 538')
Fort Lauderdale (Las Olas Complex - 2 new tallest towers built since 2004, new tallest U/C by 2017 - although part of the Miami metro, Ft. L. can stand on it's own).

I'm sure I'm missing a couple more, but I can't think of them offhand.

Correct me if I'm wrong since I have only been in Phoenix for 2 years, but wouldn't have Chase possibly been topped by now by a couple of proposals if it weren't for the economic crash? I haven't really had the time to research past proposals, but I seem to remember a few 500+ footers thrown around 5 or 6 years ago or so.

Thanks for the corrections.

I'm not aware of any proposals that would have topped the Chase tower recently. In 1985, there was a proposal to build a 50-story building on the empty acreage between Glenrosa and Turney on the west side of Central. And in 1988, there was an epic proposal coming from a Monaco citizen to build a 114 story building at 2nd St between Moreland and Portland. This proposal really dominated our civic discussion for several months but it was almost entirely empty of real-world tangibles. I forget how high the Brophy Tower (SWC, Highland & Central) was, at times, proposing to go back in 2005.

For those interested, here's a video that should really compel greater discussion about what makes a good city. Phoenix doesn't need taller buildings. It needs much better urban form. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by soleri

Phoenix doesn't need taller buildings. It needs much better urban form.

It needs both. The former is your opinion and the latter seems to be all-around consensus. Let's keep the two 'ever apart. Count me in as someone who absolutely desires a new tallest and believes it would better define and symbolize a forward- and upward-thinking Phoenix. It's a stigma thing now...the Goliath Phoenix MSA has no height whatsoever...

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

It needs both. The former is your opinion and the latter seems to be all-around consensus. Let's keep the two 'ever apart. Count me in as someone who absolutely desires a new tallest and believes it would better define and symbolize a forward- and upward-thinking Phoenix. It's a stigma thing now...the Goliath Phoenix MSA has no height whatsoever...

Sorry, but there is absolutely no "need" for a new tallest in Phoenix. The market doesn't justify such a project, nor would such a project do anything to improve the economy of downtown. If you have a personal desire to see taller buildings, that's great. But, downtown Phoenix will be judged based on the experiences visitors/residents have on the street level, not whether the buildings they pass are 501' or not. As it stands, that experience is completely destroyed by the disconnected built environment between areas of dining/entertainment as a result of the insane amount of vacant lots. Midrises that bring entertainment, residents or jobs to downtown with a desert-inspired design can be just as significant, if not moreso, than a shiny tall generic glass tower.

Phoenix can be as forward-thinking as it wants, but that won't create a demand for a new tallest, nor will it change FAA regulations that limit where something taller could even be built. In addition, there are many more ways Phoenix can prove its progressiveness that will go much further in enhancing its reputation than simply building a tall building: attracting clean businesses, attracting major corporations, attracting major private investment, building out the Biomedical Campus to the point where it has national or regional significance, passing legislation that isn't stuck in the 1920s and prioritizes things like education, transit, and so on...

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Sorry, but there is absolutely no "need" for a new tallest in Phoenix. The market doesn't justify such a project, nor would such a project do anything to improve the economy of downtown. If you have a personal desire to see taller buildings, that's great. But, downtown Phoenix will be judged based on the experiences visitors/residents have on the street level, not whether the buildings they pass are 501' or not. As it stands, that experience is completely destroyed by the disconnected built environment between areas of dining/entertainment as a result of the insane amount of vacant lots. Midrises that bring entertainment, residents or jobs to downtown with a desert-inspired design can be just as significant, if not moreso, than a shiny tall generic glass tower.

Phoenix can be as forward-thinking as it wants, but that won't create a demand for a new tallest, nor will it change FAA regulations that limit where something taller could even be built. In addition, there are many more ways Phoenix can prove its progressiveness that will go much further in enhancing its reputation than simply building a tall building: attracting clean businesses, attracting major corporations, attracting major private investment, building out the Biomedical Campus to the point where it has national or regional significance, passing legislation that isn't stuck in the 1920s and prioritizes things like education, transit, and so on...

Actually, Phoenix's skyline is judged on its height by many. YOU may not look at a city that way, but most people do. Many people who visit the Valley only see downtown from a distance. People who have a layover at Sky Harbor only see downtown from the windows of whatever terminal they're in. These people couldn't really care less about how this whimsical factor interacts with another whimsical factor in making downtown. They catch a glimpse or two of downtown from a distance a make a judgment. I have even had several friends over the years express shock at how small and short our downtown is. I had one friend ask where downtown was WHILE we were driving through downtown. Look at Dubai, for example. Many Americans have Dubai on their travel wishlists because of the images of super modern skyscrapers. Those pictures don't show how buildings interact with the street level and pedestrians at cafes with cyclists whizzing by. It's all about the skyline.

Other than that, I agree with your assertion that taller buildings are not needed here. The market doesn't warrant taller office buildings and having a 500 foot residential tower just to exceed Chase is not necessary. I find it odd when I visit a city and their tallest building is a residential tower. It looks off. I personally think that Chase does fine aesthetically as our tallest building. It doesn't look particularly dated, especially looking at the other highrises in downtown and the Central Corridor. It is not some horrible all beige building with funky looking windows. It still looks halfway decent, IMO.

As for Phoenix attracting business, good luck with that. They will continue going to Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Deer Valley, Gilbert, and to freeway corridors in the West Valley. I have raised the issue for many years about Phoenix's passivity when it comes to trying to attract new business. At some point Phoenix will have to realize that it can't sit on the sidelines, watch businesses select other Valley cities, and then clap for the suburbs in the name of regionalism. The suburbs are clearly out for blood in trying to attract new investment and really couldn't give a rat's ass about regionalism. Phoenix needs to realize this and compete. It simply won't happen. None of our political leaders seem to really care about attracting business to the city of Phoenix.

[somethingfast]

I'm using "need" (and I suspect we all are since most of this forum is opinion-based) very liberally. The city "needs" what the people want. It's a reflection of their needs (real) and desires (non-real). The density vs. height argument will never really be settled. Some people will sacrifice one of the other in the event there's a lack of either. Sure, having both is ideal. My response is based upon the largely true belief by most outsiders that Phoenix is "that big city with a tiny skyline". So that's the stigma. Very few of those people -- only have empirical evidence here: what we read, conversations with visitors, friends in Germany, whatever -- will say, "gosh, while Phoenix is certainly lacking any kind of signature tower or vertical identity, I hear it's making great strides in creating a truly livable, urban core". Nope. They don't know and they don't care. If they see it first-hand, great. They recognize it as such. But "most" (the world outside) people simply identify Phoenix as the big city with the little downtown because that's what they see when the fly in and out of Sky Harbor or see the skyline in pictures or as the backdrop of a pro sports game or drive through on the way to somewhere else. In that context, I would argue that a true skyscraper (i.e. 600' or taller) would make a significantly bigger impact on the perception of Phoenix than a very small outside population visiting a denser, more vibrant downtown first-hand and leaving saying "wow, Phoenix is on track! go check it out!". of course we want that. but the stigma issue is here to stay until something taller is built. and it's simply this: Phoenix is the 5th largest (or something) city in the US and 14th (or something) largest MSA and it has a completely incongruous skyline. Density and urbanity is great, no question, definitely want it. And in that regard Phoenix is (slowly) moving in the right direction. But civic pride and pride of ownership and the ability to stand (literally) neck and neck with other similarly-sized cities necessitates some more height.

[Jjs5056]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that the people who are judging Phoenix based on its skyline would have a different opinion if the next skyscraper is built at 501' vs. 450' - I think they'd be far more likely to take note of multiple skyscrapers in the 400' range than a single new tallest. It's all relative. Phoenix striving to densify its core of skyscrapers with buildings in the 400' vicinity is a reflection of its environment and location and I don't think that if, in a perfect world, downtown and Midtown became connected by a series of 300' - 400' towers, that the city would seem any less cosmopolitan than if it had a single new tallest.

I also disagree that the majority of people judge downtown Phoenix based on its skyscrapers. The rhetoric regarding the revitalization of downtown has always centered on the fine-grained improvements made, such as the expanded CC, new hotels, ASU, light rail, etc. Talks of skyscrapers seldom even enter the conversation. If there is such a contingent of people who would judge downtown based solely on its buildings' heights, why in the world would we want to cater to them? Obviously, they have no intent on actually visiting downtown and experiencing what it has to offer if they are looking at from such a superficial POV.

"But civic pride and pride of ownership...." < I definitely do agree with. I think ALL architecture downtown (in particular) needs to be held to a higher standard, which is why I am so critical. Far too often, out of state developers build crap structures that have no context to the desert environment in which they are being built, or to the communities that surround them. Whether the next building is 3 stories or 30, I think we should all expect top-notch architecture that is sensitive to its surroundings. In the end, a downtown with midrise buildings that connect to the street and have a design unique to the Phoenix desert environment will give Phoenix much more respect than a single generic tall tower.

[somethingfast]

I think we agree more than not. Just arguing the merits of both positions. I'm just stating my view as someone who was born and raised in Arizona and recently worked downtown (Chase Tower) but has lived (and currently do) in the Washington, DC area, Houston and Minneapolis. No reason to mention Houston and Minneapolis as competitors in this equation but I will say that DC obviously has the height limit issue but Northern Virginia does not and NoVa isn't all that vertical but has a great deal of density in specific pockets (Arlington/Rosslyn, Tysons Corner, Reston Town Center). All of those areas have more density and street life (maybe not Tysons but it's coming along FAST) than Phoenix with most buildings in the 250 to 350' range. But......the lack of any kind of signature building stands out here as well. There's no focal point. So don't dismiss verticalness or at least a few very strong vertical reference points as essential or at least important to the overall "impression" of a CBD. And, heck, Tyson's Corner is about to get a state's tallest with the construction of Capital One's new HQ -- 35 stories and 471'. It's going to look amazing peaking out over a massing of buildings in the 150-300' range all around. Excelsior!

[FitnessPower]

Why not have both... We're not saying either one 600 footer or ten 300 footers... How about the best of both worlds, I'd rather have a 600 footer and eight 300 footers if the demand allowed it.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

It needs both. The former is your opinion and the latter seems to be all-around consensus. Let's keep the two 'ever apart. Count me in as someone who absolutely desires a new tallest and believes it would better define and symbolize a forward- and upward-thinking Phoenix. It's a stigma thing now...the Goliath Phoenix MSA has no height whatsoever...

I'll merely note here that cities that pay more attention to their urban form usually have more high rises because density from fine-grained development creates the positive market conditions for even more density. You already have the retail infrastructure in place for one thing. This is not true in central Phoenix. Merely erecting high rises won't change its autocentric paradigm. Developers would gladly build high rises if there was a demand based on actual market conditions. Instead, we have city government dangling carrots like tax abatements before developers. 35 frustrating years later, the Phoenix is still using this kind of triage because there is only tepid demand for office space and high-rise residential.

I really don't know anyone outside a forum like this one who cares whether cities have great skylines. Yes, they make nice postcards and pretty vistas. But how people visit Houston because it has a great skyline? Of all the reasons to visit a city, skylines are really one of the weakest attractions. What matters is urban energy at street level - people on the sidewalks, hip clubs and restaurants, natural focal points, and an overall sense of vibrancy. Will a new "tallest" in Phoenix change downtown in that way? No.

The irony here is that Phoenix keeps hoping that more sterile high rises will finally create the urban soul it killed when it began clear-cutting downtown over 40 years ago. More alert city planners now understand that catastrophe, which is why they're championing historic preservation long after the city's once-vital urban texture was destroyed. If Phoenix had kept its original urban soul alive with organic development, downtown would be a hot market today. You wouldn't have to complain that "they" (whoever "they" are) should be building a new "tallest". A real city is a natural expression of actual facts on the ground. Phoenix's most salient "fact" is that sterilizing downtown only served to make it inert, inorganic, and I'm sad to say, lifeless. Every good downtown has great old buildings - bones, as it were - that supports new development. This is why downtown LA is booming today. It's not the sterile Bunker Hill area that's leading the revival. It's the old downtown. It was seedy and disreputable but it was never leveled. Now, it's LA's hottest neighborhood, with a new "tallest" under construction.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by FitnessPower

Why not have both... We're not saying either one 600 footer or ten 300 footers... How about the best of both worlds, I'd rather have a 600 footer and eight 300 footers if the demand allowed it.

Yes, there are people saying that a super tall regardless of design would define Phoenix and make it more of a creditable city than shorter, better designed buildings that improve the street level activity of the city. I don't agree with that assessment.

Having both? Of course - we'd all love that. But, this is downtown Phoenix that hasn't broken ground on a high rise since CityScape and the Courts Tower. It's only natural to discuss what the focus should be on since it's clear that having both happen is an unreasonable expectation.

somethingfast - I don't dismiss the notion that a tall building would add interest to the skyline or improve the opinion of the Phoenix CBD from an outsiders' POV. I just think that several 400' buildings would leave the same impression, if not more, than a new tallest, and would be more beneficial to downtown in general. I think if one building is going to have a major impact on downtown on its own, it needs to be one that is iconic regardless of height. Don't you think something along the lines of the Pin (but better execution of the idea) would have a greater impact than a 501' blue glass tower? Those are my only points. That several well-designed but shorter buildings that improve the street level activity of downtown will do more in the longterm than a nondescript 501' tall tower will.

In other news, demolition should be finishing up at 4th/McKinley. Really hope that project comes to fruition 1) because it would suck to end up with a dirt lot in place of what was a successfully leased retail building, 2) it will be a great connection between Roosevelt Point and Skyline Lofts, and 3) Live/work has been super successful downtown so I hope the 10 units help spur some more retail action in the area.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by soleri

I'll merely note here that cities that pay more attention to their urban form usually have more high rises because density from fine-grained development creates the positive market conditions for even more density. You already have the retail infrastructure in place for one thing. This is not true in central Phoenix. Merely erecting high rises won't change its autocentric paradigm. Developers would gladly build high rises if there was a demand based on actual market conditions. Instead, we have city government dangling carrots like tax abatements before developers. 35 frustrating years later, the Phoenix is still using this kind of triage because there is only tepid demand for office space and high-rise residential.

I really don't know anyone outside a forum like this one who cares whether cities have great skylines. Yes, they make nice postcards and pretty vistas. But how people visit Houston because it has a great skyline? Of all the reasons to visit a city, skylines are really one of the weakest attractions. What matters is urban energy at street level - people on the sidewalks, hip clubs and restaurants, natural focal points, and an overall sense of vibrancy. Will a new "tallest" in Phoenix change downtown in that way? No.

The irony here is that Phoenix keeps hoping that more sterile high rises will finally create the urban soul it killed when it began clear-cutting downtown over 40 years ago. More alert city planners now understand that catastrophe, which is why they're championing historic preservation long after the city's once-vital urban texture was destroyed. If Phoenix had kept its original urban soul alive with organic development, downtown would be a hot market today. You wouldn't have to complain that "they" (whoever "they" are) should be building a new "tallest". A real city is a natural expression of actual facts on the ground. Phoenix's most salient "fact" is that sterilizing downtown only served to make it inert, inorganic, and I'm sad to say, lifeless. Every good downtown has great old buildings - bones, as it were - that supports new development. This is why downtown LA is booming today. It's not the sterile Bunker Hill area that's leading the revival. It's the old downtown. It was seedy and disreputable but it was never leveled. Now, it's LA's hottest neighborhood, with a new "tallest" under construction.

Thank you for expressing what I apparently was unable to. I'm glad I'm not nuts - as well as every single person I know - for visiting cities because of the things I hear about their nightlife, culture, art scene, sporting options, etc. and not because they have a 501' building.

[somethingfast]

[QUOTE=Jjnot because they have a 501' building.[/QUOTE]

Really? My buddies, who are also skyscraper fanatics, have visited some cities very much because of their skyscrapers. Chicago and New York obviously but even some smaller cities (much smaller than Phoenix) that flat-out have more impressive skylines (Louisville for example). And that's the rub. Whether you value what's going on at the street-level or what thrills you about the buildings, every single city I've been to that resonates has BOTH qualities. San Diego is just about the only city I can think of that is somewhat vertically-challenged like Phoenix (and how many buildings do they have now between 350' and 500'??? i dunno, but *considerably* more than Phoenix) that is still very dense and dynamic at the street level.

Here's my bottom line fear: there really is no reason that DT Phoenix should flourish. it's not situated near anything remarkable (body of water, etc.) and now that Tempe is establishing itself as not only the cultural focal point of the greater Phoenix area but in rapid fashion the business focal point as well...well, maybe we should simply be rooting for Tempe all the way and let Phoenix flounder. Floundering produces desperation and low economics costs...maybe then it would truly gain the traction it needs to become what all of us would like it to be. Does Tempe allow a 500'+ building anywhere near its core? If so, I would suggest that Tempe will build the next tallest in Arizona...

[soleri]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

Really? My buddies, who are also skyscraper fanatics, have visited some cities very much because of their skyscrapers. Chicago and New York obviously but even some smaller cities (much smaller than Phoenix) that flat-out have more impressive skylines (Louisville for example). And that's the rub. Whether you value what's going on at the street-level or what thrills you about the buildings, every single city I've been to that resonates has BOTH qualities. San Diego is just about the only city I can think of that is somewhat vertically-challenged like Phoenix (and how many buildings do they have now between 350' and 500'??? i dunno, but *considerably* more than Phoenix) that is still very dense and dynamic at the street level.

Here's my bottom line fear: there really is no reason that DT Phoenix should flourish. it's not situated near anything remarkable (body of water, etc.) and now that Tempe is establishing itself as not only the cultural focal point of the greater Phoenix area but in rapid fashion the business focal point as well...well, maybe we should simply be rooting for Tempe all the way and let Phoenix flounder. Floundering produces desperation and low economics costs...maybe then it would truly gain the traction it needs to become what all of us would like it to be. Does Tempe allow a 500'+ building anywhere near its core? If so, I would suggest that Tempe will build the next tallest in Arizona...

Tempe hit a home run with Town Lake, and it has also benefited greatly from its inward focus. Can it be the center for the metroplex as a whole? I don't think so. In a polycentric "city" (per Joel Kotkin), Tempe is definitely a player. But the region as a whole needs one center to make sense of all its disparate parts. The fact that downtown Phoenix doesn't fulfill that historic function is a tragedy not just for downtown but for the region as a whole. It's also an economic drag for the region since there's no central nervous system for this sprawling metroplex. The only real analog to Phoenix nationally was LA but their resurgent downtown is rendering that dubious comparison irrelevant.

Downtown Phoenix's meager assets will be difficult to leverage in reclaiming its rightful status as the regional core. But building a new "tallest" is pointless in and of itself. You really need a city/downtown that people want to be in. A 500+ foot building is not the answer. All the other cities you might love for their skylines and flashy high rises also have a great deal more urban energy than Phoenix, including Houston and Dallas. Downtown Tucson, fer crissakes, is more energetic. It won't be easy, but as Jjs and others have noted, smaller infill will do more to make downtown urban than just skyscrapers for their own sake. Once real urbanism begins to click, then the private market will discover downtown Phoenix. You want a real reason and purpose for the next "tallest", not just bragging rights on a forum like this one.

[somethingfast]

^^ short of Phoenix bringing in employers like Tempe, it doesn't seem like it can happen fast enough to really create inertia. I realize things are happening with the biomedical and university campuses...and those aren't marginal...but a significant public attraction (San Antonio's Riverwalk and Tempe's Town Lake) seems to be the missing ingredient to generate real interest in even being downtown at all outside of the day workers. Tempe's Town Lake started 20+ years ago and it has really paid off in the last 5-10 years with the sweet spot being now through the next 10 years probably. Why don't Phoenix civic leaders think a similar solution? Whether it's a town lake/canal system (I'm not big on irresponsible use of water but if it's reclaimed or way of charging groundwater -- great) or an "underground" (come on, no brainer, get out of the heat somehow) it just seems there needs to be a flashpoint that can help create some critical mass. DT Phoenix in of itself isn't remotely interesting from a geographic setting (Tempe has buttes, again, advantage Tempe)...DT Phoenix is just situated in the nadir of the Valley itself. A spire (not some f--king 400' "toy") with observation deck well over 1,000 feet would at least provide an incredible panoramic view of the whole Valley. Maybe build something like no farther north than necessary per FAA guidelines. It's something tangible and unique. I dunno...I'm at a loss for any other things that could catapult the core and get people down there for pure attraction purposes. Yes, people living/working downtown is essential but so is getting people down there just to be down there for fun. A bar alone is not enough.

[turpentyne]

Just felt like adding my voice to the concensus.

Do I like the idea of tall tall buildings? Yes.

But I'm a realist, Even within the FAA restrictions, and spreading forward, we don't need to actually scrape the moon with tall buildings. We just need density and multi-use that interacts with the street and foot traffic.

This can be achieved with 10 to 30 story buildings. Anything more is pushing the envelope of what our local market can work with.

I'm just sick of 5 story buildings that are short-sighted, to save money. And yes.. the pun was intended.

I agree that it'd be nice to have some taller icon building like a CN tower or whatever works, but we do have to work with the reality that is our local city environment.

I should add, I don't see any problem with a polycentric city. Sort of a play on the idea of competition breeding improvements, a la tech industry. Toronto has multiple central points. Though perhaps not as distinct as the Valley's central points, they do exist and don't detract. I do think though, that it'd be a shame to have the heart be one of the weaker points. And regardless of what happens, Phoenix is and will be perceived as that 'heart' long into the foreseeable future. Skyscraper fanatics don't improve a city. Economy and culture do.