Phoenix CityScape Thread

[combusean]

Originally Posted by Phxbyrd211

Hey, everyone wants 5 400ft towers and more shopping and restaurants too. I agree that 510' isn't making much of a statement which is why I think they should have stuck to the original 525' or more; the FAA would not have gone to the mattresses.

It's true that another building may come along and replace CS as the new tallest but what are the odds that it would happen within the lifetime of the tenant's lease? That building will also have to be at least a mile away from CS and may not have a large retail component anyway. As far as the heart of DT, CS is going to be the last word in tall buildings because it's the last large parking lot. When it comes to home buyers the only time that matters is the tallest building when the close the sale. After that who cares but the next homeowner?

CityScape works because it is right in the center of things. But there is something to be said about development anchoring the edges of downtown, like a slightly smaller sized development could happen on the Pappas site, which is about bigger than two blocks.

There's also something interesting in the assessors maps that's new for the two blocks bounded by Garfield and Pierce, Central Ave and 1st St a block from the light rail station. The Schneider Second Subdivision (2009 Sub) just appeared adjacent to a block that is also majority owned by Schneider. The remaining parcels are owned in equal amounts by the city and a couple individuals. There's something about it that just points to a very big development. It is just outside the downtown core and significant increased height could work there.

[PhxPavilion]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

I wouldn't consider it "barely"...the rest of the buildings around the Cityscape site are all under 400'. At 510', it would tower over them substantially.

Chase doesn't exactly tower over the Phoenix skyline, so why would a building only 25' taller? My point is, it won't be that noticable, certainly nothing like the Sears Tower does in Chicago or the Empire state building in NY or the Library tower in LA and 510' is nothing in those cities, hell 700' isn't that tall.

[HX_Guy]

A rendering that appears on AZCentral about new office space in downtown.
It's the same as one we've seen before, expect that one cropped out the left part of the image (corner of 1st St and Jefferson). I like what I'm seeing in how it looks like to have street facing storefronts all around the corner.



What do you guys think about the multi level design? Personally I would rather do without as it takes people off the street and creates more of a mall type atmosphere vs an urban downtown experience, but I guess it's needed to get the sq footage they want.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by PhxPavilion

Chase doesn't exactly tower over the Phoenix skyline, so why would a building only 25' taller? My point is, it won't be that noticable, certainly nothing like the Sears Tower does in Chicago or the Empire state building in NY or the Library tower in LA and 510' is nothing in those cities, hell 700' isn't that tall.

Chase tower doesn't exactly tower over anything becuase the US Bank building helps to step it down toward the rest of downtown. The difference between Chase and US Bank is only 79'.

The buildings around Cityscape would be Two Renaissance Square and Wells Fargo at 372', Bank of America at 360' and Phelps Dodge at 289'. The Wachovia tower would be the nearest tallest at 375' therefore the 510' tower would stand a full 135' above it's neighbors. I think that would stand out quite a bit.

[sundevilgrad]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

A rendering that appears on AZCentral about new office space in downtown.
It's the same as one we've seen before, expect that one cropped out the left part of the image (corner of 1st St and Jefferson). I like what I'm seeing in how it looks like to have street facing storefronts all around the corner.



What do you guys think about the multi level design? Personally I would rather do without as it takes people off the street and creates more of a mall type atmosphere vs an urban downtown experience, but I guess it's needed to get the sq footage they want.

I kind of like it. I think it could provide a "market" type feel if done right. However, that might be unlikely considering it will probably be filled with sitdown, suburban style restaurants and such...

[combusean]

I think that so long as it's above the streets and not secluded from them I can't complain too much, especially if they're activating the ground floor as much as they can as well. I dislike pedestrian bridges for this reason, but the stairs in the hump of Block 22 balance out the plaza on block 77. Most downtown malls are rather fortress-like from the street even if they do include windows, so this doesn't do a half bad job at 2 more levels of people stuff above the street, which I don't think I've seen in person before.

[tempedude]

Overall, I am pretty pleased with how Cityscape will look. It is far better than what Columbus,Ohio attempted with their major downtown urban revival('savior') project in the early 90's.

Know what Columbus did? They planted a huge enclosed 3 level suburban style mall smack in the heart of downtown. Yep, with JcPenny, Macys, Sears etc., just like you would find here, something like Arrowhead Mall. Whats worse is they built two 6 level parking garages with zero wrap around street level retail; and those garages were built on both sides of the mall, completely isolating it from the street. Yep the mall is surrounded by the garages on two sides. I could go on and on about the poor design and concept of putting this type of mall in the heart of any city, but I think you get my drift. I should add, the Columbus plan included zero new office space or condos with CityCenter.

Guess what...ding ding....the mall didn't revitalize downtown Columbus. The people that came to visit the mall drove downtown, parked their cars inside the parking structures, and went into the mall never to be seen or heard from again. End of story. My point here is that Columbus CityCenter (thats the name of the mall) never created pedestrian traffic in other areas of downtown as the city fathers were hoping. The explanation is pretty obvious.

Anyway, back to my main point. Despite all the criticism and teeth gnashing about what CityScape will or won't have, CityScape is pretty well thought out and could be far worse by the example I just gave, and I think you will agree. Ultimately its just one of the key elements that will revitalize downtown Phoenix. Now, hurry up and build the dang thing already.

[gymratmanaz]

PLUS, the pedestrian traffic at Cityscape is easily in simple walking distance to the Jackson Street Entertainment District - and visa versa. Cars driving on Jefferson might actually have to look both ways before turning to avoid pedestrians. What a novel and exciting challenge for us!!!!!!!!!!!

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

What do you guys think about the multi level design? Personally I would rather do without as it takes people off the street and creates more of a mall type atmosphere vs an urban downtown experience, but I guess it's needed to get the sq footage they want.

I could be wrong (usually am) but I think you may be putting too much literally on the 'people on the street' thing. Why do we want people on the street? Because it makes a city seem alive, it makes things safer and because pedestrians walking around window shopping increases the business the stores receive. I think the multi level design doesn't take away from any of that. The place that immediately came to my mind is Bourbon St in New Orleans there are a lot of balconies along the street and people party up their during Mardi Gras, and you wouldn't really say they aren't on the street.

From what I can tell, the CityScape design will keep a lot of people visible from the street, and walking in and out of the center. I like the design, it seems like its getting the most for its square footage.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by combusean

I think that so long as it's above the streets and not secluded from them I can't complain too much, especially if they're activating the ground floor as much as they can as well. I dislike pedestrian bridges for this reason, but the stairs in the hump of Block 22 balance out the plaza on block 77.

I'm the same way, I hate pedestrian bridges in urban environments. When was the last time you saw a pedestrian bridge in NYC, Chicago, or San Fran? I would rather have people on the street going between the different buildings then on a bridge or through some tunnel as is the case with the convention center.

[gymratmanaz]

They have them everywhere in Minnesota. They are skyways. Of course they have them due to winter. Bridges add depths and levels, making the city more diverse in architecture. how about the walkway between the two phases of the convention center? I think they are cool!!!

[HX_Guy]

I would personally not have them, again, because they take people off the street and put them in a tunnel. For convention goes I'm sure it's better as you are there for the convention, not to walk the street...but for people watching, it does nothing.

[Archdevil]

I would personally not have them, again, because they take people off the street and put them in a tunnel. For convention goes I'm sure it's better as you are there for the convention, not to walk the street...but for people watching, it does nothing.

I couldn't agree more! Pedestrian bridges remove people from the street and that is a bad thing especially for a city that needs all the help they can get when it comes to getting people on the street.

[combusean]

The skyway system in Minnesota seems sorta cool, but the inclusion of limited hour fast-service retail at the skylobbies does a double whammy against the street. We have enough of those issues in Phoenix.

[tempedude]

I am not really in favor of pedestrian bridges either. But, isn't the pedestrian bridge at CityScape just an open air bridge connecting the plazas. Something like the pedestrian bridge on University Ave. in Tempe at the ASU Campus? Once you cross you are back at street level again?

The one at CityScape isn't enclosed or connecting buildings or anything is it? I'm just a little confused on what its supposed to look like I guess.

[HX_Guy]

From what I have seen, the bridge is not enclosed but it does not go from the street level back to the street level. It appears to start on the 2nd level and finish on the second level across the street, you would then have to walk across the development to the stairs/escalators to get back to the street.

[andrewkfromaz]

The thing about people on the street is that you need a concentration; the street has to seem busy. When you divide it up (say between floors or between sidewalk and pedestrian bridge), the street seems less busy and people tend to feel pressure to go somewhere more happening or to get off the street. I don't think that the upper floors of open-air retail at Cityscape will make a difference either way. The people walking up there will be there for shopping at those stores only, drawing them and keeping them is the retailers' job. The people walking at sidewalk level are more likely to be walking from somewhere else to somewhere else, and just wanted to walk past Cityscape cause it's nicer than other routes.

[soleri]

I understand why Minneapolis has those skybridges given the harsh winters. But they pay a steep price in terms of vibrant street life. The city has some enviable attributes - downtown department stores, urban density, etc. - but downtown feels anemic despite them.

There's a lot of speculation that indoor malls are obsolescent. Scottsdale Fashion Square is the most successful mall in Arizona but I never want to go there. Even when it's crowded, it feels "dead" to me. Real cities are joyful because they're real. Homeless people on the sidewalk contribute more to urban ambiance than sterile parking garages or office building "plazas".

If CityScape is truly urban, you'll see multiple demographics and messiness. If it's too controlled and sterile, you'll see another mega-project that resembles a Potemkin village. Given the high investment, project managers will probably enforce strict conformity standards. It's a completely natural bias on their part but it may well just make CityScape too sterile for real life. Mega-projects will usually err on this side, and I'm not sure how you engineer for vitality. If downtown Phoenix were otherwise lively, this wouldn't be a critical issue. Unfortunately....

[gymratmanaz]

But with a bridge you can stand on it and wave to the masses below....You know, like Evita would have done......LOL

[andrewkfromaz]

I agree about indoor shopping malls. This weekend I had the opportunity to spend some time on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, and then some friends wanted to drop by Water Tower Place, a fairly massive 7-story indoor mall. Despite the frigid weather outdoors, the mall lacked the vitality of the open street, "managed" only by the city and the free market.
The one cool thing about the mall, that made the whole experience worth it for me, was visiting the bathroom and finding a Dyson Airblade in place of traditional hand dryers. Awesome.
I do wonder what the difference is between indoor malls and the newer outdoor malls. There's really nothing that sets them apart, other than the "newness" factor.