Phoenix Development News (3) - Page 460

combusean · #**9181** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 7:23 PM**

Meh, 7 stories is a copout for that corner--that's one of the most signature intersections in Phoenix.

The previous cornerstone at camelback project was something like 400', which ran into a lot of opposition, but I'd like to see something 250' to endcap the skyline.

phxhbg · #**9182** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

Barnes and Noble is a dying chain. You're too funny sometimes.

The one place where you still need brick and mortar book stores are college campuses. That would also be a nice amenity for DT.

phxhbg · #**9183** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by combusean

Meh, 7 stories is a copout for that corner--that's one of the most signature intersections in Phoenix.

The previous cornerstone at camelback project was something like 400', which ran into a lot of opposition, but I'd like to see something 250' to endcap the skyline.

Sean is exactly correct. Seven stories is way to low for this premiere spot. The last proposal had to have been 10 years ago and many of the residents have probably turned over. Such is the norm in Phoenix.

The Mayor and Council should have let another tall proposal come to the forefront and then deal with the push back afterward.

PhxMatt · #**9184** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 8:11 PM**

The seven story proposal is not for the whole corner, just the odd shaped piece along the light rail. The rest of the corner is owned by the group that submitted the proposal however nothing new has been proposed for that lot.

The seven stories actually makes decent sense, the Omninet proposal on the other side of the light rail tracks was five stories. They may have a plan to step this up in height as they get further from the neighborhood closer to the intersection. Just a thought...

Spitfiredude · #**9185** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 8:34 PM**

If they were opposed to 400', what makes you think they will be thrilled by 250'? Just because some of the residents (probably well under 50%) have left, doesn't mean that all have. Also, it doesn't mean that the new residents won't oppose a 250' project. Come on people, use common sense.

biggus diggus · #**9186** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhxMatt

The seven story proposal is not for the whole corner, just the odd shaped piece along the light rail.

Can anyone confirm this?

My understanding is Cornerstone owns the entire corner (empty lot) and is proposing a development there which is potentially unrelated to the city's recent RFP on the piece that currently serves as a bus pull-through.

mdpx · #**9187** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfiredude

Come on people, use common sense.

Yeah, come on people.

combusean · #**9188** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhxMatt

The seven story proposal is not for the whole corner, just the odd shaped piece along the light rail. The rest of the corner is owned by the group that submitted the proposal however nothing new has been proposed for that lot.

This is not true. You can't build anything on that oddly shaped piece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Can anyone confirm this?

My understanding is Cornerstone owns the entire corner (empty lot) and is proposing a development there which is potentially unrelated to the city's recent RFP on the piece that currently serves as a bus pull-through.

The Business Journal article said Cornerstone bought the city RFP'd lot for $2k above asking at $790k. See the copy in the Low and Mid-rise thread.

biggus diggus · #**9189** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 10:11 PM**

Right that's what I thought.

dtnphx · #**9190** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by combusean

This is not true. You can't build anything on that oddly shaped piece.

The Business Journal article said Cornerstone bought the city RFP'd lot for $2k above asking at $790k. See the copy in the Low and Mid-rise thread.

This map from Maricopa County shows the odd-shaped lot that is currently owned by the City of Phoenix. It shows Cornerstone owns all of the other dirt parcels. So, I don't think a 7-story apartment complex would go or could go on the oddly-sized parcel. Seems feasible for the entire dirt lot site minus the city-owned parcel for an expanded transit center. They could have bought it and will lease back to the city for their transit center while taking some land in exchange.

http://pdf.leeazmail.com/pdfs/file=tmpC49A.pdf

combusean · #**9191** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 11:31 PM**

Phoenix RFP'd the lot because there's not going to be a transit center there anymore.

combusean · #**9192** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfiredude

If they were opposed to 400', what makes you think they will be thrilled by 250'? Just because some of the residents (probably well under 50%) have left, doesn't mean that all have. Also, it doesn't mean that the new residents won't oppose a 250' project. Come on people, use common sense.

250' mirrors the height of the building across the street and zoning for one building frequently sets a precedent for nearby structures.

Secondly, the site was already approved for 250'.

http://archive.azcentral.com/communi...ntral1016.html

exit2lef · #**9193** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by combusean

Phoenix RFP'd the lot because there's not going to be a transit center there anymore.

Agreed. That transit center hasn't been active since 2013, when bus route 39 was discontinued. 39 was the only route that originated and terminated at the bus bays there. The other nearby bus routes, 0 (Central) and 50 (Camelback) stop on the street a short walk from the light rail station, but not within the transit center per se. With the city's Proposition 104 plan focusing on improving bus service along the grid and not on meandering, interlining routes like 39, there just isn't a scenario in which that facility would be brought back to life.

Also, I don't see any way that narrow sliver of land could fit an apartment building. The only scenario that makes sense to me is for the same developer to develop both the city-owned and privately-owned land as one project.

dtnphx · #**9194** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Also, I don't see any way that narrow sliver of land could fit an apartment building. The only scenario that makes sense to me is for the same developer to develop both the city-owned and privately-owned land as one project.

There would be no problem fitting an apartment building or office building regardless of height on that lot. The lot (including the former transit site) is 2.29 acres. Doesn't seem like it, but there you go. The former BMO bank building across the street sits on 1.97 acres and the building footprint only covers about 50 percent of the lot, so there's potential for a large building with or without the RFP'd land.

exit2lef · #**9195** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtnphx

There would be no problem fitting an apartment building or office building regardless of height on that lot. The lot (including the former transit site) is 2.29 acres. Doesn't seem like it, but there you go. The former BMO bank building across the street sits on 1.97 acres and the building footprint only covers about 50 percent of the lot, so there's potential for a large building with or without the RFP'd land.

The transit center alone is just about 1.5 acres, based on a quick estimate made with Google Maps, and is irregularly shaped with minimal street presence. The combination of the transit center and the privately owned land adjacent to it looks to be about 3.5 acres. The transit center by itself doesn't seem a viable site for an apartment building, but the transit center combined with the private land would work.

dtnphx · #**9196** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 6:57 PM**

The transit center parcel alone is only 27,353 SF which is about a sixth of an acre. That is from Maricopa County Parcel Maps. So were the figures I quoted for the remaining parcels above. There was never a possibility of building a large building on the transit center parcel alone. All the land on the corner totals 2.29 acres.

nickw252 · #**9197** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtnphx

The transit center parcel alone is only 27,353 SF which is about a sixth of an acre. That is from Maricopa County Parcel Maps. So were the figures I quoted for the remaining parcels above. There was never a possibility of building a large building on the transit center parcel alone. All the land on the corner totals 2.29 acres.

An acre is 43,560 square feet. 27k would be just a little over a half acre.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...e=UTF-8#q=acre

exit2lef · #**9198** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtnphx

There was never a possibility of building a large building on the transit center parcel alone.

That's what I've been trying to say in my prior posts, but perhaps I wasn't clear.

dtnphx · #**9199** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickw252

An acre is 43,560 square feet. 27k would be just a little over a half acre.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...e=UTF-8#q=acre

Yes! Sorry, I meant to say six-tenths of an acre. One-sixth is just stupid small.

RichTempe · #**9200** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 2:18 AM**

Don't know if this link has been posted on here before, but it's new to me. It's from the ABI Multifamily website and has an interactive map of all multifamily construction activity (50+ unit properties) in the Phoenix-MSA. It's updated quarterly, so this is from the 1st quarter of 2016.

It's everything from low- to high-rise residential for the entire valley, which is why I put it here, but mods feel free to move it to one of the other Phoenix development threads if it's more appropriate there.

http://abimultifamily.com/abinsight-...eline-1q-2016/