Phoenix Development News (3)

[combusean]

^ You're practically never going to see another signature tower/new tallest in Phoenix. Buildings that tall are a sign of hubris and very-long-term investment--the only reason Phoenix even has Chase Tower is that it was built as the headquarters for Valley National Bank.

There's no magic local anchor tenant that I am aware of that would build something that big in Phoenix. Instead, Phoenix gets safe buildings that are built to be sold.

[biggus diggus]

Careful, you're likely to get blasted for spewing that type of logic.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by combusean

^ You're practically never going to see another signature tower/new tallest in Phoenix. Buildings that tall are a sign of hubris and very-long-term investment--the only reason Phoenix even has Chase Tower is that it was built as the headquarters for Valley National Bank.

There's no magic local anchor tenant that I am aware of that would build something that big in Phoenix. Instead, Phoenix gets safe buildings that are built to be sold.

A rapidly growing metro area of 5 million people will never see a tall office building again??

Don't get me wrong, Yes you need some company to want to build its headquarters or a major operation downtown for it to happen but Im sure it will at some point.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by Obadno

will never see a tall office building again??

That's not what he said.

"You're practically never going to see another signature tower/new tallest in Phoenix"

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by combusean

^ You're practically never going to see another signature tower/new tallest in Phoenix. Buildings that tall are a sign of hubris and very-long-term investment--the only reason Phoenix even has Chase Tower is that it was built as the headquarters for Valley National Bank.

There's no magic local anchor tenant that I am aware of that would build something that big in Phoenix. Instead, Phoenix gets safe buildings that are built to be sold.

Ah but you overlook the obvious. When the market heats up there's always the potential for a residential or mixed-use tower. You just hope they don't build something like the sinking/tilting Millennium Tower in San Francisco, eh?

And if you reside in flyover country but have a semi-hot market there's always those wannabe's hoping to use your town as a springboard to fame and fortune. They just need to find a friendly land banker with an ideal site who for a little slush money is willing to play along. That's when we go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

But Phoenix has had their share over the years and you know what... some day our dreams will all come true... I guarantee it.

[ASUSunDevil]

Originally Posted by Obadno

A rapidly growing metro area of 5 million people will never see a tall office building again??

Don't get me wrong, Yes you need some company to want to build its headquarters or a major operation downtown for it to happen but Im sure it will at some point.

We are a few years behind L.A./Denver and look at what's under construction/proposed right now in those two cities.

Block 23 will lease fast and we will get a new tall (maybe not tallest) office tower shortly afterwards.

Mix that in with the 10-30 story residential buildings and we're looking great.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Many, many major cities and even a few mid-sized cities are now proposing or are currently building a new tallest...even cities that have had struggling cores are now building taller. It is actually the current trend and the U.S. as a whole is seeing a major skyscraper boom.

With this in mind, I see no reason why a city that for many years was the fastest growing city in the U.S (and after the economic crash is AGAIN the fastest growing city/metro/county in the country), could not get a new tallest.

I am not saying it's going to happen within the next couple of years. But it is really short-sighted to think that Phoenix is unlikely to go taller than Chase. It is inevitable. The question is...when will someone do it?

Either way, we at least we do have a couple of 350'ers proposed. I'm anxiously waiting for those.

[combusean]

^ I was mostly discussing new tallests or signature buildings in terms of office towers.

I suppose a mixed use complex with residential/hotel rounding out the top floors would make sense, but those are rare and would be a first for Phoenix--it's not like there's any shortage of land to warrant it. Going back a bit, it's still cheaper to build a couple towers than have a huge exposure of liability with one--this is a town that rarely has Phase 2 of a tower project. The second phase of Colliers will be 20 years after the first, presuming it gets built after a handful of proposals on that site.

And for that tallest to actually crack the 500' mark, it'd likely have to be built in Midtown which suffers from high office vacancy and is a secondary market, so it's even less likely.

I could probably see some slender, value-engineered residential building with some douchebag living on the top floor being a new tallest in terms of height only, but that'd be lame.

The trend of new tallests usually signifies an economic crash, fwiw.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by combusean

The trend of new tallests usually signifies an economic crash, fwiw.

Sad but true.

[Ballister]

Well, after that nauseating, "It will never happen..." discussion, let's all take a cyanide pill and end it all.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Are you kidding? I would rather have a downtown of well designed and occupied 5-10 story buildings than a tower any day of the week.

Ya know, like certain continents:



Tall buildings does not make a city downtown great.

Really? So NYC's skyline isn't great bc of the many 1,000 footers there? Same with Chicago? Yes, density is important but every major US city of any renown generally has at least one 700+ footer. Name me one top 15 metro that doesn't have that besides Phoenix. Phoenix needs a fucking signature tower, period. Whatever that final height is is immaterial. It's not 250, 350 or even 450 feet high. It's taller than Chase and hopefull by a wide margin. Phoenix's skyline will always look lame due to its stubbiness ins a "wide open" expanse as its background. I cannot get excited about anything >400 feet at this point...

[biggus diggus]

Do you care more about a skyline that looks cool in photos from 5 miles away using a 200 zoom lens or do you care more about a bustling and dense urban center. If it's the latter then you better hope for many 10 story buildings. NYC's density comes from blocks upon blocks of walkup apartment buildings.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

Yes, density is important but every major US city of any renown generally has at least one 700+ footer. Name me one top 15 metro that doesn't have that besides Phoenix.

According to Wikipedia's list of largest cities by population, seven of the top 15 most populous cities in the US don't have a 700+ foot tall building as follows:

1. Columbus, OH
2. Jacksonville, FL
3. Austin, TX
4. San Jose, CA
5. San Diego, CA
6. San Antonio, TX (caveat: it has a 750 ft. observation tower)
7. Phoenix, AZ

Honorable mention - the 16th largest city, Ft. Worth, TX, also doesn't have a 700+ footer.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by nickw252

According to Wikipedia's list of largest cities by population, seven of the top 15 most populous cities in the US don't have a 700+ foot tall building as follows:

1. Columbus, OH
2. Jacksonville, FL
3. Austin, TX
4. San Jose, CA
5. San Diego, CA
6. San Antonio, TX (caveat: it has a 750 ft. observation tower)
7. Phoenix, AZ

Honorable mention - the 16th largest city, Ft. Worth, TX, also doesn't have a 700+ footer.

One problem. somethingfast stated "Name me one top 15 metro that doesn't have that besides Phoenix." So if the reference is the metro area and you check Wikipedia for MSA's then he may have a case... I dunno, didn't research it, don't care.

[CrestedSaguaro]

He said 15 top "metros"...and Columbus has at least
4 500+ footers and even one 624 footer. Of those 15 metro areas, Only Washington/Arlington doesn't have anything tall (and I consider Riverside/San Bernardino technically part of the LA metro).

I mean everyone here gets gung-ho when Tempe or Phoenix proposes a 250' tower and half of the comments are "too bad it's not taller". So, why all of a sudden the downer of having taller towers here??

Also, I would like to mention, this is SKYSCRAPERPAGE, not City Data. If someone here doesn't like skyscrapers, you really should be posting these conversations elsewhere.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Originally Posted by nickw252

According to Wikipedia's list of largest cities by population, seven of the top 15 most populous cities in the US don't have a 700+ foot tall building as follows:

1. Columbus, OH
2. Jacksonville, FL
3. Austin, TX
4. San Jose, CA
5. San Diego, CA
6. San Antonio, TX (caveat: it has a 750 ft. observation tower)
7. Phoenix, AZ

Honorable mention - the 16th largest city, Ft. Worth, TX, also doesn't have a 700+ footer.

[biggus diggus]

You people get pretty heated talking about structure height.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by Ballister

Well, after that nauseating, "It will never happen..." discussion, let's all take a cyanide pill and end it all.

Thank you for understanding.

I cannot have optimism here, and any attempts at uplifted spirits must be immediately crushed with the boot of reality.

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by airomero83

The big residential project on SWC of 3rd Ave n Roosevelt is now dead. Such a shame since Forno 301 had to move out but I'm sure they needed the bigger space anyways. These parking lots are such an eyesore too.

So it appears that I was wrong about this. Straight from the horse’s mouth (Tim Sprague - Habitat Metro), this project is still a go and are still active in the planning process. Good news!

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

Really? So NYC's skyline isn't great bc of the many 1,000 footers there? Same with Chicago? Yes, density is important but every major US city of any renown generally has at least one 700+ footer. Name me one top 15 metro that doesn't have that besides Phoenix. Phoenix needs a fucking signature tower, period. Whatever that final height is is immaterial. It's not 250, 350 or even 450 feet high. It's taller than Chase and hopefull by a wide margin. Phoenix's skyline will always look lame due to its stubbiness ins a "wide open" expanse as its background. I cannot get excited about anything >400 feet at this point...

This website is called skyscraperpage but it functions as a general forum about development in the city.

I get that you want to see a large tower but I think its a strange thing to focus on, Ive stood in lifeless residential complexes in Hong Kong with 60 story towers in every direct, I would rather spend an afternoon on mill ave than there.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I've been on this forum for almost 15 years and learned quickly that it was never purely a site for skyscraper enthusiasts. I've learned more about urban development and planning than I ever anticipated, and am grateful for that, even though my career isn't in urban planning or development.

Does Phoenix need a "signature tower" (whatever that entails)? No.

Does it need a new tallest? No.

Should Phoenix get a new tallest or signature tower? I don't see why not, but it's pretty far down on the list of priorities at this point. It needs to (and is, as best I can tell) focus on density, which is all any of us should really care about at this point in time. The faster vacant lots and surface parking lots can be re-purposed and/or developed, the better.

Does it need infill (a mix of midrise and lowrise structures) Yes, and it's doing about as well as it can in that area, all things considered. It doesn't always happen as fast as I'd like to see, but a) I don't live in Phoenix and b) I'm an impatient asshole.