Quote:
Originally Posted by biggus diggus
I agree with a good bit of what you're saying combosean but the emotional appeal at the beginning is where we differ. Making people feel good about a building being there isn't going to be the difference between profit and failure. Obviously they're not going to develop a losing project but it just seems odd to me that one old building full of (probably) flex office space or retail can stay without additions.
|
AFAIK, this forum's never existed solely to discus the financial aspects of development. You continuously reply to other perspectives with a dismissive "that doesn't make a profit" rhetoric. That POV is useful/ interesting, but anything built in a city is going to elicit so-called "emotional" commentary. If developers find that inherently obstructive, they can try to make $ in a different industry.
DTPHX is HOME to a growing # of people; not an office. They deserve to have their voices heard, from basic NIMBY complaints to more valid concerns over design, preservation, etc. Projects across the country show developers and residents can both benefit. As I've mentioned, PHX was held to a "better than nothing" standard for years and had to accept mediocre / destructive development. Now that it's attracting investment, 2 empty lots + historic structures may preferable to a superblock of cheap mid-rise rentals in the few neighborhoods that retained an authentic urban environment.
This looks gorgeous; residents turned their concerns into a feature that makes the finished product more expensive and permanent looking vs. others nearby. Every proposal for a large piece of land in the heart of a city should be similar: different heights, uses, materials, and mix of old/new, etc.