Phoenix CityScape Thread

[loftlovr]

ljbuild-
Welcome to the forum.
Or should I say, WELCOME TO THE FORUM!
(messing with you)

[Archdevil]

ljbuild HEY HooverDam sorry if i offended you BUT you don't have to read my posts if you dont want to, choice is yours!
BUT I AM simply making a point.
Im a PRO-GROWTH person. I like to see things CHANGE for the better for Phoenix and more money and JOBS pumped into this city. Every time Phoenix is compared to just about any other american city, PHOENIX, is always lagging behind. less than ten years ago Phoenix was the BIGGEST metropolitan area in the nation without an adequate freeway system.
Yes we have come a long way in that era. BUT, because the city waited so long to build them, once they finsih the new ones they are already near obsolete. THE DOWNTOWN has a similar blueprint.
Here is the situation, PHOENIX is the 5th largest city in the nation in terms of population. BUT ! The Downtown HAS NOT SHOWN IT !!!!
Now i am not blind, i do see the things taking shape downtown (light-rail, new convention center etc.) HOWEVER, when someone comes along with an idea to spruce up downtown or even anywhere in Phoenix, and you have some BACKWARDS THINKING IDIOT/S GET IN THE WAY of progress, that is what PISSES me off.
For example, Phoenix is also lagging behind in HOTEL space. The SHERATON hotel alone wont cut it.
So here you have the "W" HOTEL trying to help fill that gap. BUT , what do you have in the way, More idots trying to save an ugly "sun mercantile" bldg. that is on the site that is only good enough to draw rats and cobwebs.
ANYTHING that will make downtown better and STICK-OUT im all for it.

Regarding the Sun Mercantile building.... There are a lot of people that would argue for historic preservation and there are a lot of people that would say historic preservation and adaptive reuse will help downtown to become a vibrant place. I really don't have a huge opinion on it, I go either way and I am all for development. However, the developer of the W is not being fare to the city in my opinion. They want a 39 story hotel and everyone supports that, plus they are developing condo's directly North of the Sun Merc. The problem is that they said they wanted to reuse the Sun Merc in the name of historic preservation and they are not planning on doing that. They want to gut the entire building and just use the old facade. That just doesn't fit into most people's idea of adaptive reuse. So I think we really need to care about these things as a community. We are all pro development here but at the same time we need to be asking the hard questions. Like .... Why can't the developer preserve this one little historic structure? Why can't we preserve the little history that remains downtown? Why should we allow developers to plow anything out of the way to make way for new developments? All I am trying to say is that you should consider the issue and realize what the city would lose if we let developers make all of the decisions. These guys just take and take so they can make big big money! I think that maybe they could start to give a little back to the community by actually helping to preserve something the community finds valuable. If the developer really cared about the community then this development would be under construction right now and the Sun Merc would be un-touched....instead it is being held up in court!

[Downtown_resident]

Archdevil, you're exactly right. Sarver has had opportunities to do this project the right way so that the Sun Merc could be preserved and we'd get the W Hotel, which would be a great addition to downtown. First, he could have chosen the alternate Will Bruder design that wrapped around the Sun Merc. Second, he could have compromised with the DVC and the other plaintiffs on the lawsuit in the same way that David Wallach did in building the Summit. Sarver wanted no part of any compromise and chose to go full-bore into litigation. Finally, my understanding is that Sarver pulled some dirty tricks behind the scenes with the city with regard to extra height on the hotel (and a broken promise to leave alone Sun Merc) but that's all I want to say about that.

This is an important matter because if Sarver succeeds, it essentially says that no historic building in Phoenix is safe from the wrecking ball. This is not a building owned by a private party, or the developer itself-- it's owned by the City of Phoenix-- all of us! And with all due respect to LJ, he needs to get his facts straight with regard to the Sun Merc's history and importance-- it's been listed on the National Register of Historic Places for 22 years and has been on the Phoenix Historic Property Register since 1987. It was not sitting empty-- it housed the Phoenix Suns Athletic Club for years and was going to become the first branch of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004 before Sarver decided he had to drive a 10-story stake through its heart.

Finally, LJ, taking a step back, if you don't understand the need for historic preservation, go spend some time in LoDo in Denver, or the Gas Lamp District in San Diego, or in lower Manhattan. These were all areas that were poised to be demolished in favor of 'progress' until a few stinky idiots got in the way and saved the buildings. What do you think of those areas now? Answer me that, and then remember, this problem is even more acute in Phoenix because we have so little history left.

[Archdevil]

as far as the dirty tricks go, the story I heard was that Sarver proposed the hotel at a lower height , I think 30 floors. In that proposal they had also had the condos punched through the Sun Merch. I think that is when historic preservation jumped in and tried to comprimise with him by suggesting that he build the tower taller and leave the Sun Merch alone. So Sarver took it back to the drawing boards and came back with a new proposal with the added height on the tower and still tearing down the Sun Merch! What a jerk! I wouldn't have a problem running this guy out of town for good. I really don't think the city needs to try to keep these dirty developers around, as downtown grows more developers will be interested. I say better off waiting for the right guys then letting jerks like Sarver screw us all.

[wrendog]

wow.. ljbuild is a PASSIONATE fella..

[kevininlb]

Ugh, I hate this s**t about preservation. I'm sorry, there's plenty of old sh*t all over Phoenix. We don't need to save one ugly building. I say Sarver is doing what any good developer would do. He's pushing a design he thinks -- right or wrong -- is best for his business and the area. Personally, I'm with him on this one. And besides, the whole Jackson Street Entertainment District will preserve and beautify a lot of crap that's looking awfully crappy and unused at the moment. I'm afraid what will happen with the W is this, Sarver will pull out rather than compromise on that stupid building.

[HooverDam]

^Im halfway with you. If Sarver wants to tear the roof off of the building- which you can't see from the ground and is certainly not part of the buildings uniqueness- I don't see a problem with that. Leaving the facade is good enough for me, I've never seen so much trouble over a roof.

But I disagree that there is plenty of old stuff in Phoenix, we have very little, and would should try to preserve what we have.

[kevininlb]

I know you're right. I just find it irritating when progress is stymied in the name of preservation. My point, simplistic though it might be, is that DT needs progress more than it needs preservation.

[Downtown_resident]

Garbage. "Progress" and "preservation" aren't antithetical. As I said in an earlier post, LoDo, GasLamp, and huge parts of Lower Manhattan were all potentially going to be razed in favor of "progress." That never happened-- and today, looking back, do you think that was a mistake?

Phoenix has to preserve its history because it has so little left (so much has been torn down in the name of progress). And for downtown Phoenix, from a strategy standpoint, it's crucial. Why should anyone care about downtown Phoenix versus the 24th and Camelback area, or Kierland, or Old Town Scottsdale, or downtown Tempe? As we all probably agree, those places currently all beat downtown in terms of number of pedestrians, retail, entertainment, high-end jobs, and probably housing. The only competitive edge downtown really has in spades on those places is its uniqueness as a product of its history. And downtown has been giving away that advantage for decades. Seriously, why should I prefer the W downtown to the Ritz on Camelback if the areas have been homogenized to the point of sameness? Why would anyone?

[HooverDam]

^And a roof that you've never seen, nor has anyone else seen, makes downtown a more unique place how? Its a freaking roof. Its not the Sistine Chapel's roof we are talking about here. I think if you preserve the rest of the building thats a reasonable compromise.

As to why you'd prefer the W, location. Its close to Chase/USAC, the Convention Center, the Symphony and lots of great theaters. And if the city wasn't run by a bunch of boneheads it would also be near championship golf near the river bed, but thats another story.

I totally know where you are coming from, its a shame that Phoenix has knocked down so much of its history, especially places like the Fox Theater, but I don't think the unseen roof a warehouse is going to make any slight shred of difference in the long run.

[DevdogAZ]

Not to mention that the roof was redone by Jerry Colangelo when the building was transformed into the Suns Athletic Club, so the roof has no historic value anyway.

I've got no problem with trying to preserve things that are historically significant. But preserving a single story warehouse in an area that really needs some height just doesn't make sense. What if there were some beautiful old house on the block that CityScape is going to be built on? Some of you would probably prefer that it be preserved, even though a house in the middle of a city just isn't compatible planning. I say let Sarver move ahead with whatever plans he has. If it includes maintaining the facade of Sun Merc, good for him. But if it doesn't, I won't care. If the building is really that important to people, they should pay to have it dismantled and re-erected as a museum in a more appropriate location.

[Downtown_resident]

I can't believe you're seriously calling that a "compromise." Just take one look at the rendering that shows the W "flex space" stuck on top of Sun Merc-- the 10 story building decapitates and then totally overwhelms the Sun Merc, which might as well not even be there anymore. As far as the interior of the building, go to the Bentley Gallery, or take a look at post #1548 in Phoenix Development news (interior of Tommyknocker Brewery)-- the roof and interior trussing are some of the coolest parts of the old warehouses. Anyway, while you say it's "just a roof," the building will be compromised to the point where it will immediately be de-listed from the National Register of Historic Places.

I hear what you're saying as far as the incremental change of losing Sun Merc, but you've got to draw a line somewhere. Phoenix's history has been lost piece by piece because each case boiled down to, "I don't think this will matter that much..." In this instance, as this building is owned by the city of Phoenix-- not the developer like the Madison Square Garden-- this is pretty sickening news for historic preservation in the Phoenix area.

And what about Sarver's dirty tricks and absolute refusal to compromise, even when a viable alternative design existed? Did you know this "flex space" targeted to sit on Sun Merc may have been earmarked as a (10-story) parking garage before the council stipulated that it couldn't be used for such? It amazes me how much people are willing to overlook because of a fancy rendering.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[jvbahn]

The best part is that from what I've been told the roof that currently exists is not part of the original structure. It's an addition from a bit later period, still old, but not super-old.

Sort of like that damned radio tower on the Westward Ho. What a beautiful example of 1920's Art Deco/Spanish Colonial almost ruined by a 1950's antennae that hasn't been used since the 1970's. Someone really needs to take that nasty thing down and restore the Ho to its original beauty.

As for the Sarver design, as long as the building's walls are still there, who cares about the interior, no one's been inside it anyway, and no one will if it doesn't get built, so whining about the building is a moot point. I would love to preserve the old buildings, but a dead city that serves as a museum piece is not any sort of answer.

[Downtown_resident]

Once again, as several of you seem mistaken on this point, the building was not unoccupied. It was the Suns Athletic Complex for years and was only closed down in 2004 when it was to be refitted to house a branch of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Tons of people would've come into the building. Yeah, it's vacant now thanks to the uncompromising ways of one developer who was already rich as hell...

Regardless, the litigation rolls on and I'm done rehashing these arguments. The defendants are bringing a new attorney onto the case, hardly a sign that the matter is winding down...

[CANUC]

Downtown_resident, so the reality is that you are completely opposed to the 10 story building on top of the Mercantile building. So if you had a choice you would indeed stymie development in the name of preservation regardless of the compromise the developer would make. So it's an all or nothing position? Also I find the ‘evil developer’ attitude tired and the bravado you throw out there with the this comment

Regardless, the litigation rolls on and I'm done rehashing these arguments. The defendants are bringing a new attorney onto the case, hardly a sign that the matter is winding down...

just seem counter productive and will cause more people to oppose your stance than to feel like a solution can be found. Also why do you keep glossing over the fact that the roof is not original to the structure and therefore has no historical significance? Honestly do you really believe that the city would stop Sarver from developing his project in it’s current form? Lets be realistic the only reason this thing won’t get built would be because of market conditions.

[jvbahn]

Thanks for the illumination about the roof and the various designs, but I must admit, I'd much rather have the development there and a section of city that is viable. It's part of a larger ensemble, and I agree with your argument that Phoenix urgently needs preservation of its historic buildings, but I don't feel this is a compromise, since the original structure was altered to have the current roof. Since Carver has expanded his project to include almost every developer and landowner in that area, it'll mean much more for the positive long-term development and viability of that section of the city. I can seriously deal with the lack of the roof structure knowing that 500 million of development dollars will go to renovating a street that is now absolutely nothing to the citizens of PHX, except for the few of us dorks who actually are interested in what's going on.

Before we get to the "attack the rich capitalist asshole" argument, I'm wondering who else is going to put down millions of their own money in order to develop any given corner of Phoenix. You don't build a 39 story tower with a 40K salary. It's these sorts of people who make things or break things, I'd much rather see his vision work(yes, the fancy rendering), than have the dust-bowl that is the current Jackson Street any day. If I'm a sellout, so be it, but I prefer to view it as pragmatic reality. Just build something, goddamn it!

I know this argument means nothing to you, because your passionate about the preservation of what's there, and that's great, if Phoenix had more people like you in the 60's and 70's, downtown would already be a renovated, thriving destination, but unfortunately that's not the case, so.......

[Downtown_resident]

Downtown_resident, so the reality is that you are completely opposed to the 10 story building on top of the Mercantile building.

Yes.

So if you had a choice you would indeed stymie development in the name of preservation regardless of the compromise the developer would make.

Sarver has not made any compromise. His plan is exactly the same as the one he started with, other than the fact that the 30-story W is now 39 stories (still with the 10-story "flex space").

So it's an all or nothing position?

That isn't fair. There were, and are, other alternatives here which would be great compromises-- Sarver could have chosen the Bruder design. If a 30-story tower and 10-story annex were OK in the beginning, then why couldn't they go with just the 39-story tower? Couldn't Sarver try another design, probably just as expensive as paying legal fees to fight it out in court? What if they added height to the 39-story tower (already FAA-approved)? What about more height on the 'toilet seat' portion of the W? And why is Sarver's initial bargaining point viewed as a 'compromise?'

Also I find the ‘evil developer’ attitude tired and the bravado you throw out there with the this comment

Regardless, the litigation rolls on and I'm done rehashing these arguments. The defendants are bringing a new attorney onto the case, hardly a sign that the matter is winding down...

What bravado? I don't believe developers are all 'evil,' (a word I reserve for far worse actions than breaching the integrity of a building), and I'm a capitalist too and there's nothing wrong with making money. But don't you at least sense a tiny smidgeon of greed at work here in the dirty tricks we discussed above?

Also why do you keep glossing over the fact that the roof is not original to the structure and therefore has no historical significance?

If there were no 'historical significance' to the fact that the roof is being compromised, the building wouldn't be coming off the historic register. The rendering says it all-- the Sun Merc for all intents and purposes is the quaint basement of a 10-story structure.

Honestly do you really believe that the city would stop Sarver from developing his project in it’s current form?

No. The city voted on this and approved it. A court could-- it has-- halted it and believe me the developers could not move now if they wanted. Ultimately though you are probably right, when the litigation is resolved market conditions will dictate whether this is built as Sarver will not compromise.

OK, now I think I'm done...let me just say it is a real shame the Sun Merc fiasco had to happen. I think the W is a great project for downtown and I would love nothing more than to see it get built and Sun Merc to stay intact. And I'm happy if Sarver makes some money on the deal too.

I do doubt that ideal scenario will happen. So, in lieu of that ideal, it's OK for the people to try to force some compromise. What can I say? I'm passionate about Phoenix and what little history we have left, so I'm willing to fight for it instead of accepting the vision of some guy from San Diego.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[HooverDam]

I didn't even know the roof thats on the building now isn't the original roof, all the more reason this case is ridiculous then. I've seen the renderings, I don't mind how Sarvers building will hang over the Sun Merc, its fine by me, I wish it was Bruders design like everyone else, but that ship has sailed.

[PHX31]

I agree with everyone but downtown resident. Besides, it's not the Sun Merc anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, it's an abandoned Phoenix Suns athletic club. You're essentially lobbying to preserve something that really isn't.

What's wrong with taking old and incorporating new? As in, keeping the facade and look of the building and incorporating a new structure on top? Aside from you don't think it looks good? There's plenty of these type of reuse buildings all over the place in many cities. What do you think about the UofA medical school downtown that took the place of the old Phoenix Union High School? There's now a big glass cube behind one of the "historic" buildings. Would you rather that not be there in order to see the entire historic building?

Eh, this is a slam dunk argument, nevermind all that I've said. If the entire structure was being demolished, I know most of us would be up in arms, but it's not, everything you can see now, is staying, so what's the big deal?

[jvbahn]

Haha, careful with that "slam dunk argument" statement. Look how Iraq turned out when that was said, you could curse the whole thing and it would just stay in litigation forever and nothing would be built.