Phoenix Development News (3)

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The city just wants people downtown...anyway possible.

It doesn't matter that the streetscape is horrible, if people come downtown we can worry about that later.

You are reverse of the strategy the city ahs employed, nobody goes downtown, so why make it even more difficult to do so.

Phoenix has many good projects going on right now (Portland, Union, Proxy, Marriott and a few others) and I find it amazing that people are wanting to right off Downtown over 1 bad development. Yes, I agree that the "Ugly" building wall above is completely a dead spot, but the amount of students and activity that most of the ASU and UofA projects have brought to Downtown are amazing.

When I first moved here 2 1/2 years ago, There was nothing being built in Downtown except the Cityscape Residences. Right now, I count no less than 11 projects currently under way or getting ready to break ground just in Downtown alone. Most of these are decent projects! Let up on the negativity and let things get going. Not every development is going to be good, but give Phoenix it's due credit. It's doing what it can in a city that most residents are so anti-urban. I for one am loving all that Phoenix is accomplishing. I walk Downtown every day and am excited for all the construction activity I see.

[dtnphx]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

Phoenix has many good projects going on right now (Portland, Union, Proxy, Marriott and a few others) and I find it amazing that people are wanting to right off Downtown over 1 bad development. Yes, I agree that the "Ugly" building wall above is completely a dead spot, but the amount of students and activity that most of the ASU and UofA projects have brought to Downtown are amazing.

When I first moved here 2 1/2 years ago, There was nothing being built in Downtown except the Cityscape Residences. Right now, I count no less than 11 projects currently under way or getting ready to break ground just in Downtown alone. Most of these are decent projects! Let up on the negativity and let things get going. Not every development is going to be good, but give Phoenix it's due credit. It's doing what it can in a city that most residents are so anti-urban. I for one am loving all that Phoenix is accomplishing. I walk Downtown every day and am excited for all the construction activity I see.

I couldn't agree more. I get upset when I see some buildings that fail to offer the potential they should, but I don't write manifestos one after the other to ease my mind. I'm guessing he's off his meds...again.

[RichTempe]

Webcam is live for Portland on the Park:

http://ueb.net/webcam10.html

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

I half disagree. It's a beautiful building. But as much as I like how it looks, it seems designed to keep people away from it.

Right now I am just happy it's a decent looking building and the campus continues to grow and more importantly it employs people and patients will be coming and going. Downtown Phoenix is on the way up in many ways.

[biggus diggus]

I think the building is a cancer to downtown.

[TakeFive]

Easy Like Sunday Morning

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

I completely agree. Education Week ranks the best states for education and Arizona is still not great, but not at the bottom.

Good point.

The relevance is simply how this might impact (or not) business recruitment - economic development. Presumably that's why the Phoenix Business Journal featured the story, not to mention it quickly became their most popular story. It's fair to say this wouldn't be at the top of their "bragging points" recruiting list. But yeah, there's ways to overcome or counter this. May be working...

PBJ's Mike Sunnucks carried this story:
"Exclusive: Credit repair company leases entire Phoenix building, hiring 450 new workers"
While not impacting downtown directly it's nice to see the (positive) business activity and city vacancy being absorbed, new jobs for the area.

The more interesting story:
"New York software company expanding into Scottsdale, hiring 75 by 2016"
Jun 3, 2015 by Hayley Ringle, Phoenix Business Journal
In addition to the obligatory compliments I took note of a couple of things.

CEO and co-founder Josh McCarter said he chose Scottsdale for the company's expansion after looking at Portland, Austin and Denver.

and especially this:

The office and living affordability of the Valley were also big coups, he added.

“We have a relatively young employee base so the cost of living was really a big material deal for us,” McCarter told me by phone Wednesday. “That’s something we really found fit well with Phoenix.”

This speaks to the competitive advantage of "affordability" which would include leasing costs specifically and overall business costs. Plus, Josh McCarter also specifically mentions the easier affordability with respect to his employees. This is not insignificant; the rents for apartments in Austin, Portland and Denver have gotten very high.

I had pointed out on a different thread that CEO's make decisions that will impact an area five years from now (and beyond). Millennials can pack up and move on a dime.

And yes, with all that's brewing up downtown the city should soon grow its share of such decisions.

[TakeFive]

With respect to ongoing discussion about density, number of stories etc. there's various factors at play but one is simply the cost of construction, especially against the anticipated revenue stream. Zoning, building codes, local cost factors is not an area that I know about other than the overall principles. For anyone who might be curious there's this:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...d-rises-in-dc/

This is a good Washington DC blog, and I found this post interesting with regard to the on-going "stick-built" debate in Denver.

There's usually good stuff in the comments too.

One of the examples used is a Hines proposed building in Minneapolis. As mentioned the comments are often more instructive than the write-up. In any case it's quite interesting.


With respect to how new buildings "engage the street" many projects will not activate the sidewalk as much as preferred perhaps other than for the fact they do increase the downtown population, whether daytime or nighttime.

What is especially egregious are blank walls. What should be encouraged is architects paying attention to the first 2/3 stories. Most people aren't skyscraper bloggers and don't walk around looking up but the first couple of stories should be interesting, engaging as opposed to blank.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to ongoing discussion about density, number of stories etc. there's various factors at play but one is simply the cost of construction, especially against the anticipated revenue stream. Zoning, building codes, local cost factors is not an area that I know about other than the overall principles. For anyone who might be curious there's this:
One of the examples used is a Hines proposed building in Minneapolis. As mentioned the comments are often more instructive than the write-up. In any case it's quite interesting.


With respect to how new buildings "engage the street" many projects will not activate the sidewalk as much as preferred perhaps other than for the fact they do increase the downtown population, whether daytime or nighttime.

What is especially egregious are blank walls. What should be encouraged is architects paying attention to the first 2/3 stories. Most people aren't skyscraper bloggers and don't walk around looking up but the first couple of stories should be interesting, engaging as opposed to blank.

This street engagement stuff is being blown way out of proportion most particular with a building designed to treat and research cancer. If you have ever had cancer you don't want to engage anything. The disease is often dehumanizing on the effects the treatments can do to your body. You really want quiet and seclusion and you want privacy. Having retail or whatever in the ground floor of this building would be your last concern. As far as every building being built in downtown Phoenix "engaging the street" that kind of thinking is wacked in general.
Some of you people need to get out more and see cities that have great downtowns like San Francisco and Seattle. Those cities though vibrant in every aspect have all kinds of buildings that "do not engage the street." So can we please stop this constant rant about engaging the street. I am stoked about the new buildings going up in downtown Phoenix after all of these years things are on the right track.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

This street engagement stuff is being blown way out of proportion most particular with a building designed to treat and research cancer. If you have ever had cancer you don't want to engage anything. The disease is often dehumanizing on the effects the treatments can do to your body. You really want quiet and seclusion and you want privacy. Having retail or whatever in the ground floor of this building would be your last concern. As far as every building being built in downtown Phoenix "engaging the street" that kind of thinking is wacked in general.
Some of you people need to get out more and see cities that have great downtowns like San Francisco and Seattle. Those cities though vibrant in every aspect have all kinds of buildings that "do not engage the street." So can we please stop this constant rant about engaging the street. I am stoked about the new buildings going up in downtown Phoenix after all of these years things are on the right track.

Exactly. This is first and foremost a University project and a research center for one the deadliest disease that exists. I don't think having retail for this particular project was what they had in mind. The goal was student education and research. Also, I would imaging being a research center, with probably the amount of privacy and data that would be required for this type of building, they don't want any schmuck walking off the street asking for bathrooms, money, etc. for the sake of security.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

This street engagement stuff is being blown way out of proportion most particular with a building designed to treat and research cancer.

Some of you people need to get out more and see cities that have great downtowns like San Francisco and Seattle. Those cities though vibrant in every aspect have all kinds of buildings that "do not engage the street." So can we please stop this constant rant about engaging the street. I am stoked about the new buildings going up in downtown Phoenix after all of these years things are on the right track.

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

I half disagree. It's a beautiful building. But as much as I like how it looks, it seems designed to keep people away from it.

I was not intending to address that building in particular although I agree with KevininPhx. I accept your points though. Perhaps "engage the street" was misleading.

I was making more of a general statement and I wasn't clear that I meant the first couple of floors should at least be more visually interesting from an architectural standpoint. I don't care about retail or even entrances. Windows are nice, make a BIG difference but there are other ways to have at least some eye appeal.

If with the research center the ground level of the building is merely a backdrop for intended landscaping then problem solved. Most buildings have only one or two sides which engage the street in some form or fashion. There are any number of architectural tricks to up the visual interest and appeal of the first couple of stories at a minimum.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I was not intending to address that building in particular although I agree with KevininPhx. I accept your points though. Perhaps "engage the street" was misleading.

I was making more of a general statement and I wasn't clear that I meant the first couple of floors should at least be more visually interesting from an architectural standpoint. I don't care about retail or even entrances. Windows are nice, make a BIG difference but there are other ways to have at least some eye appeal.

If with the research center the ground level of the building is merely a backdrop for intended landscaping then problem solved. Most buildings have only one or two sides which engage the street in some form or fashion. There are any number of architectural tricks to up the visual interest and appeal of the first couple of stories at a minimum.

Oh, please don't get me wrong. I completely agree that the wall facing 7th is pretty bland. But I feel this negative is completely minumal compared to all the positives this project has brought to Downtown. I just find it amazing that a few forumers are so quick to write off "any hope" for Downtown Phoenix over this one building.

Maybe I am just looking at it from an outsider perspective. It seems that forumers think that Phoenix is the only city in the nation that has vacant lots and bad developments. I have lived in 5 major cities prior coming to Phoenix. Three of those cities have what's considered a successful downtown. Yet, they all have the same issues (surface parking lots, too many parking garages, undeveloped/vacant lots, office vacancies, etc.). So, this is not just a Phoenix thing. Most Downtowns are going through this and are on the rebound as the trends are starting to push towards urban redevelopment. I think Phoenix is doing a decent job over the last year or so of turning things around. There are no signs of slowing down at this time. So I just feel there's just no reason to write this city off at this point when things are starting to get good.

On a plus note, you guys provide more information than I can find on my own. I really appreciate that! I'm too old and too tired to spend hours searching for answers, lol. So by all means, don't stop posting information!

[exit2lef]

EJ Montini of the Republic makes the case for a combined hockey / basketball arena in Downtown Phoenix: http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmon...otes/28780347/

[PHX31]

I thought about that earlier today, given the problems in Glendale and Sarver's desire for a new Suns arena, why not one for both? I think the only problem is that by the time this new arena might be built for both teams in DT PHX, the Coyotes may have long since moved to a new city. I highly doubt another hockey team will ever come to Phoenix (expansion or relocation). At that point I'm not sure I think a new arena for the Suns only is worth it.

If the Coyotes do some how some way find themselves back in DT PHX, I wish they would change their name back to the Phoenix Coyotes. Naming teams after states is so terrible.

[dtnphx]

Originally Posted by PHX31

I thought about that earlier today, given the problems in Glendale and Sarver's desire for a new Suns arena, why not one for both? I think the only problem is that by the time this new arena might be built for both teams in DT PHX, the Coyotes may have long since moved to a new city. I highly doubt another hockey team will ever come to Phoenix (expansion or relocation). At that point I'm not sure I think a new arena for the Suns only is worth it.

If the Coyotes do some how some way find themselves back in DT PHX, I wish they would change their name back to the Phoenix Coyotes. Naming teams after states is so terrible.

This could be a blessing in disguise. Glendale's pain could be our gain. He makes a great case for the arena's to share (easier to finance, raise capital) and creates more synergy. I agree with you too about team names. State names make me cringe!

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by dtnphx

This could be a blessing in disguise. Glendale's pain could be our gain. He makes a great case for the arena's to share (easier to finance, raise capital) and creates more synergy. I agree with you too about team names. State names make me cringe!

nothing much to add, but that would be amazing to have both teams in downtown area

[ASUSunDevil]

Losing "Phoenix" in the title of our teams was almost as bad as the initial move to Glendale. If only we could pick up Cardinals Stadium and move it to Priest and Washington (where it belonged).

This article mentions a potential Coyotes arena near Talking Stick Resort, which would make sense to me (they practice in North Scottsdale, affluent hockey crowd, fanbase they built in Glendale would still have easy access via the 101). I have minimal faith in Sarver getting an arena deal done, and who knows if he would be willing to share it with another team.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...-downtown.html

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by ASUSunDevil

Losing "Phoenix" in the title of our teams was almost as bad as the initial move to Glendale. If only we could pick up Cardinals Stadium and move it to Priest and Washington (where it belonged).

This article mentions a potential Coyotes arena near Talking Stick Resort, which would make sense to me (they practice in North Scottsdale, affluent hockey crowd, fanbase they built in Glendale would still have easy access via the 101). I have minimal faith in Sarver getting an arena deal done, and who knows if he would be willing to share it with another team.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...-downtown.html

Keep them away from a location where driving would be a requirement to go see a game. They need to bring them back Downtown. Now that there is light rail, which didn't exist when they were there previously, they will do much better in attendance, especially now that the line has has been expanded into Cenral Mesa as there is a decent hockey fan-base in the East Valley. And yes, rename the back to Phoenix Coyotes!

[exit2lef]

If the Central Station project does actually include a grocery store, this new 365 concept from Whole Foods sounds like it might be a good fit: http://www.azcentral.com/story/enter...rand/71061842/

[biggus diggus]

My opinion is having hockey all the way out in Glendale keeps people like me, who don't really care about hockey, but would go if it were close and found themselves bored one day, out of the game.

I live and work downtown, so if the games were there, I'd probably go a couple times a year, but I don't care enough to go to Glendale!

edit: I just realized basically what I said is I am too lazy to drive 20 minutes. ha ha

[PHXFlyer11]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

My opinion is having hockey all the way out in Glendale keeps people like me, who don't really care about hockey, but would go if it were close and found themselves bored one day, out of the game.

I live and work downtown, so if the games were there, I'd probably go a couple times a year, but I don't care enough to go to Glendale!

edit: I just realized basically what I said is I am too lazy to drive 20 minutes. ha ha

What infuriates me is that this is all Glendale's doing. They wanted these teams out there, then they wonder why people don't go to games. They are screwing over the rest of the valley and state who would like to keep a hockey team. I agree with you in that I'd go to some games, despite not being a hockey fan if they were downtown.