Phoenix Development News (3)

[xymox]

Originally Posted by mdpx

Hate to say this and would love something grand built there, but this seems like one of those proposals that often comes at the tail end of a building boom. Remember the size of Cityscape when first proposed? Can picture that much inventory, regardless of the sector; office, retail, multifamily going in at that corner. Might be a first phase and out disaster, although I hope not.

I predict we get half a giant pit out of this that will sit there well into the next cycle...

Is this an opportunity zone? That could explain the optimism on getting things built. But I'd imagine its kind of like the whole Park Central project - multiple phases that are built when demand is there. But that makes me wonder why they don't put up one of those 680ft residential/hotel towers since demand for residential is certainly here...

[ASU Diablo]

Well this concept sounds pretty cool! Nice to see more retail coming along W Van Buren. So this late-night pizza joint and then the other one block over on 5th Ave as well!

https://www.azcentral.com/story/ente...ix/3653247002/

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mdpx

Hate to say this and would love something grand built there, but this seems like one of those proposals that often comes at the tail end of a building boom. Remember the size of Cityscape when first proposed? Can picture that much inventory, regardless of the sector; office, retail, multifamily going in at that corner. Might be a first phase and out disaster, although I hope not.

I dont totally disagree, if we could get the offices on the corner and then maybe a smaller residential portion some years later that would be awesome.

[ASUSunDevil]

Originally Posted by Chestnut1

Jason Morris, an attorney with Withey Morris working on the project, said to high-quality development like Central Park, which is planned to be developed on a vacant parcel adjacent to Steele Indian School Park on Central Avenue and Indian School Road, will enhance visitors 'experiences at the park.

This gives the project credibility IMO unless the developer just enjoys burning $ on really expensive land use attorneys.

[combusean]

^ I think the developer is credible enough. There's nothing that says they have to build this all at once. If you had 15 acres on a solid intersection you can hang out for as long as you want and build when there's demand, and it's trivial to reprogram the site at a zoning hearing if demand shifts from one to another.

I think it's not completely unrealistic to think the smaller office tower (presuming they get a blockbuster tenant, this project vaguely reminds me of the NW waterfront in Tempe), a residential tower, and the senior housing get built this cycle.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Still will be a dead wall facing the street, but at least it will have some art now instead of grey paint. Hopefully, they come up with some truly great murals that will attract tourists and artists to take photos...

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...am/1090231001/

[ChaseM]

Originally Posted by xymox

I predict we get half a giant pit out of this that will sit there well into the next cycle...

Is this an opportunity zone? That could explain the optimism on getting things built. But I'd imagine its kind of like the whole Park Central project - multiple phases that are built when demand is there. But that makes me wonder why they don't put up one of those 680ft residential/hotel towers since demand for residential is certainly here...

Part of my abruptness but I whole hardheartedly agree, I wish developers would grow a pair and build something over 500 ft. They keep playing it safe and to be franc it's getting really annoying with all these 200-300 ft developments. Pretty soon we could have a flat skyline similar to San Diego. While I'm all for density, I'm also for a bit of height as well and I agree I do believe the demand is there. All it's going to take is that one developer who's going to take a chance.

[combusean]

I'm OK with a bunch of 300-400 foot buildings filling the skyline, we'd already be doing pretty well at that point. Built to be sold is actually a thing unless you have some absurdly high dollar bank or at this point tech tenant willing to make a major longterm investment.

Chase finally left their namesake tower after 45+ years.

When we have signature tenants there will be bigger buildings.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by combusean

I'm OK with a bunch of 300-400 foot buildings filling the skyline, we'd already be doing pretty well at that point. Built to be sold is actually a thing unless you have some absurdly high dollar bank or at this point tech tenant willing to make a major longterm investment.

Chase finally left their namesake tower after 45+ years.

When we have signature tenants there will be bigger buildings.

Chase was only on the building since they purchased Bank One in like early 2000's. VNB had signage the longest. Oh, the good ol' days...

[soleri]

Originally Posted by ChaseM

Part of my abruptness but I whole hardheartedly agree, I wish developers would grow a pair and build something over 500 ft. They keep playing it safe and to be franc it's getting really annoying with all these 200-300 ft developments. Pretty soon we could have a flat skyline similar to San Diego. While I'm all for density, I'm also for a bit of height as well and I agree I do believe the demand is there. All it's going to take is that one developer who's going to take a chance.

A city as sprawling as Phoenix is going to be relatively low-density. The trade-off is that you get to drive everywhere, say from one end of nowhere to the other.

There is no need, let alone demand, for super-tall buildings in Phoenix. Unless the developer is an egomaniac, the market dictates what gets built. BTW, downtown San Diego looks vastly better than it did 30 years ago. It used to be a dump.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by soleri

A city as sprawling as Phoenix is going to be relatively low-density. The trade-off is that you get to drive everywhere, say from one end of nowhere to the other.

There is no need, let alone demand, for super-tall buildings in Phoenix. Unless the developer is an egomaniac, the market dictates what gets built. BTW, downtown San Diego looks vastly better than it did 30 years ago. It used to be a dump.

Nobody NEEDS a 2,000' building. Not really. Countries build tall for ego. America used to have a sizable ego in that regard. Still alive in NYC and Chicago. Prestige has always been part-and-parcel with hi-rises. 200-400 foot buildings lack any kind of "wow" factor. Northern Virginia has a general height limit also (about 400') but it has nothing to do with FAA requirements, just generally accepted that Washington Monument should dominate the area's skyline so only build to half as tall (required) in DC and the very active NoVa market has generally honored that. But not lately. I think Tyson's is getting a 600' footer. Phoenix needs to view itself as its namesake - RISING from the ashes. Nothing too "rising" about 300' buildings. I'm all about the vanity factor and they would stop dividing the buildings up (Renaissance Square could have been ONE tower at the limit of 600') and just build a little taller, we'd not be so snickered at by the rest of the world. And we are. Heck, even San Diego builds to its limit of 500' generally. Could we at least build to our limit????

[xymox]

Originally Posted by somethingfast

Nobody NEEDS a 2,000' building. Not really. Countries build tall for ego. America used to have a sizable ego in that regard. Still alive in NYC and Chicago. Prestige has always been part-and-parcel with hi-rises. 200-400 foot buildings lack any kind of "wow" factor. Northern Virginia has a general height limit also (about 400') but it has nothing to do with FAA requirements, just generally accepted that Washington Monument should dominate the area's skyline so only build to half as tall (required) in DC and the very active NoVa market has generally honored that. But not lately. I think Tyson's is getting a 600' footer. Phoenix needs to view itself as its namesake - RISING from the ashes. Nothing too "rising" about 300' buildings. I'm all about the vanity factor and they would stop dividing the buildings up (Renaissance Square could have been ONE tower at the limit of 600') and just build a little taller, we'd not be so snickered at by the rest of the world. And we are. Heck, even San Diego builds to its limit of 500' generally. Could we at least build to our limit????

We also have to consider that as a city - downtown area especially - Phoenix is so much younger than Chicago, NYC, etc. We really didn’t start building downtown until the 1970s. So, I think it will come with time. I’m quite fine with our skylines getting filled in with the 300-400ft buildings. Just having one continuous skyline from downtown to midtown would be nice. Someone will take a risk eventually - the city is maturing/changing each cycle. 10 years ago if you asked me if we’d see 10 more towers downtown in the next 10 years I’d have laughed at you. Now it looks like we could get 9 in one year. I’ll take that, and be patient a bit longer for the signature towers to show up. Just seeing these larger multi-tower developments go up instead of partially built and left to sit for 20 years is such an improvement, IMHO.

[Tito714]

A couple things I noticed driving through downtown today. McKinley is back open from central to 1st ave. Block 23 tower crane cane down.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by xymox

We really didn’t start building downtown until the 1970s.

Before the 1950's, Phoenix had a robust, walkable downtown and a streetcar network that connected the city center to outlying neighborhoods. It may not have had buildings over 20 stories, but it had urban vitality. The opening of Park Central in 1957 and the abandonment of streetcars in 1949 were two of the earliest harbingers of the weakening of Phoenix's urban fabric. The problem became worse in the '70s and '80s when key historic buildings were demolished, some to make way for urban renewal projects like the Hyatt and Symphony Hall and some simply to create vacant lots and surface parking. Then, the city decided to allow high-rise development in Midtown, further eroding downtown's role. The more successful efforts to revitalize downtown Phoenix today have involved mitigating some of the damage done in the '70s and '80s.

[TJPHXskyscraperfan]

All the developement is great, no matter the size honestly although it would be great to get something, at least 500 or 600 feet. Of course we have those limits downtown so would that mean it would have to go midtown? I guess that wouldn’t really help the downtowns skyline at all. It would be like those random high rises all around Houston miles away from their downtown. I’d love to see still though. One thing I don’t understand though is how Detroit, a metro area of absolutely no growth can have a downtown that is in the mist of building a 900 foot building which will be a new tallest for Detroit. Detroit’s downtown is in a rebuild much like ours but with a lot more infrastructure all ready in place. They have many once vacant high rises turning into apartments, hotels and offices. Getting young professionals from Detroit’s burbs that once maybe were scared to live in Detroit to move to the city. With the amount of urban blight around Detroit’s downtown you would think their downtown would sprawl quite a bit with all the empty land around their downtown but no they are building a 900 foot tower! With that said, with the amount of people moving to Phoenix from out of state along with people moving to the core from our suburbs you would think we could get a new tallest soon.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Before the 1950's, Phoenix had a robust, walkable downtown and a streetcar network that connected the city center to outlying neighborhoods. It may not have had buildings over 20 stories, but it had urban vitality. The opening of Park Central in 1957 and the abandonment of streetcars in 1949 were two of the earliest harbingers of the weakening of Phoenix's urban fabric. The problem became worse in the '70s and '80s when key historic buildings were demolished, some to make way for urban renewal projects like the Hyatt and Symphony Hall and some simply to create vacant lots and surface parking. Then, the city decided to allow high-rise development in Midtown, further eroding downtown's role. The more successful efforts to revitalize downtown Phoenix today have involved mitigating some of the damage done in the '70s and '80s.

To claim Phoenix had a "robust" downtown in the past is mostly untrue. It was the center of a farming community but Id hardly call it a bustling downtown.

[combusean]

Yeah ... no. 65,000 people in 1940 over all of 9.5 square miles isn't exactly a small farming community. It was much denser with substantially fewer cars before WW2, and there are entire downtown neighborhoods like Chinatown, the ethnic alleys, and Five Points that simply don't exist anymore.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by combusean

Yeah ... no. 65,000 people in 1940 over all of 9.5 square miles isn't exactly a small farming community. It was much denser with substantially fewer cars before WW2, and there are entire downtown neighborhoods like Chinatown, the ethnic alleys, and Five Points that simply don't exist anymore.

Romanticism

[combusean]

^ Troll.

[Obadno]

Give me a break bro, 65k is half the size of Prescott. As dense as you imagine it was it was hardly a bustling urban core.