Phoenix: CityNorth - 144 acre "Urban" development

[PHX NATIVE 929]

Originally Posted by NorthScottsdale

What they should do is just close down PV mall and all those tenants can move to CityNorth. Has anyone noticed how horrible PV mall has gotten? They are putting a Costco on one end where the knife shop used to be for christ sakes!! Who puts a Costco in a mall? And they tore down every single shade tree they could find and replaced them with palm trees. Pisses me off to no end there were hundreds of shade trees in the center and they are all gone now for paloverde's and palm trees. I think PV mall is committing suicide, especially with the opening of a wal mart right across the street.
/end rant lol i had to let that off my chest

Department stores are a dying breed. The option was to put in a store that fits the area's changing demographics and will be profitable or wait for a department store that wasn't going to show up. Times change. Neighborhoods change. The Loop 101 dramatically altered the retail landscape of north Phoenix/north Scottsdale.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by PHX NATIVE 929

Increased visibility for tenants was a major factor.

You know what else increases visibility? Building right up to the street! If PV Mall really wanted to revitalize itself, it would retro fit the city street system onto the Mall and build an urban development. Obviously that would cost a huge amount of money, but it could revive the mall area.

[SimPhoenix]

It will be interesting to see how light rail integrates in 10+ yrs. Westcor seems positioned well to capitalize on LR expansion, potential blank palette for TOD. The loss of the large pines that were removed initially got my blood boiling. However, the sign and storefront enhancements that have taken place were needed. The new views of Camelback and Squaw Peak are pretty nice.

[kevininlb]

I know everyone just seems to love shade trees. The fact of the matter is that they often look ugly - untrimmed messes. At PV mall, they sat on open space where people didn't walk. All the ugly messes did was block the view of the mall, which didn't help lure in customers. It was a business decision. Visually, it looks about a million times better with the palm trees. As for Costco, um, great idea - bring in customers. Seems like a no-brainer.

And, by the way, I'm no mall fan, but PV is a pretty big draw for college-age kids these days. Not sure why, but it seems there are a lot of teen-targeted clothing stores, skateboard stores, etc.

[andrewkfromaz]

Originally Posted by kevininlb

And, by the way, I'm no mall fan, but PV is a pretty big draw for college-age kids these days. Not sure why, but it seems there are a lot of teen-targeted clothing stores, skateboard stores, etc.

I think it's just demographics - NE Phoenix is pretty chock-full of young people.

The pines that were around PV Mall were terrible-looking, and no one could park underneath them so they were also entirely pointless.

[HooverDam]

I guess the first part of CityNorth opened up:

CityNorth's High Street opens in northeast Phoenix
by Michael Clancy - Nov. 15, 2008 08:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Businesses now are open along High Street at CityNorth as opening weekend activities continue at the development in northeast Phoenix.

Considering the hurdles, the developers say, the street that makes up Phase 1 of CityNorth turned out well.

Words like "miracle," "remarkable" and "great" were thrown around with abandon at Thursday morning's opening. John Klutznick, who has spearheaded the project for the Thomas J. Klutznick Co., promised the 200 people at the ribbon cutting: "We are just getting started."

The street consists of two blocks that include nine buildings three or four stories tall. Various finishes and shading devices are used along the street.

By itself, High Street appears a bit odd, sitting alone on a large parcel of land. Desert Ridge Marketplace is hundreds of yards away to the west, and the street's back side is turned to Deer Valley Drive and the Toscana apartment complex across the road. High Street is even further from 56th Street and Loop 101.

It will take Phase 2's completion for the street to have company. Although the developers are ready to begin construction, the money needed to finance Phase 2 has been elusive.

"It will take longer than we expected, we know that," said Kenneth Himmel, president and CEO of Related Urban, Klutznick's development partner. He vowed to be "first in line" when financing becomes available again.

The economic slowdown has proved to be a particularly difficult challenge. In response, the developers delayed the second phase of the project until 2010 and converted numerous for-sale condos into rental units.

Himmel said that retail along High Street would be 85 percent occupied by spring and that office space would be close to half leased by then. No estimates were provided on residential sales or leases.

Howard Elkus, a Boston architect who often works with the developers, wanted to make one thing clear.

"This is not a mall," he said. "This is a piece of the city."

Elkus noted that CityNorth's offices and residences make it a different animal.

City officials praised the development. Vice Mayor Peggy Neely called the opening of High Street the culmination of 20 years of planning and said it already is generating benefits for the city in terms of jobs and fees.

She said those who doubt the project will be successful need only to look around. Since 2001, she pointed out, Kierland Commons, the Westin Kierland Resort, Desert Ridge Marketplace and the J.W. Marriott Desert Ridge resort opened and now are major successes.

Mayor Phil Gordon said the project already has generated $7 million in revenue for the city.

Work continues on the shops and restaurants that have yet to open, and to the south, open space sprawls over to the freeway on the southern border of the property.

None of that was on the minds of Thursday's visitors.

No homeowners, renters or office tenants have moved in yet, but the shopkeepers and visitors praised the feel of the street.

Shops and restaurants line the street, with office space and residential units on upper floors. In that regard, Elkus said, it bears a resemblance to shopping areas in older cities.

Lew Gallo, one of the owners of the not-yet-opened Haus and its neighbor, Alessi, said he appreciates the mix of local and national retailers, the availability of dining options and the location.

He is eager to open and to see the second phase begin.

Considering the difficult economic climate, Klutznick said, completion of Phase 1 is "a miracle."

Himmel said the developers will stick to their promise of "something different and special."

"Cities like this take a lot of time and effort," he said.

After this opening weekend, CityNorth's next key date is in court.

A legal challenge to a tax-sharing agreement between the city and the developers will be heard at the Arizona Court of Appeals on Nov. 25.

The Goldwater Institute says the city should not be in the business of subsidizing development, especially when the cost runs close to $100 million. It points to findings from its own consultants and a consultant hired by the city that indicate the deal will not pay off for the city.

The city argues that it is allowed to make tax-sharing deals that promote the city's economic health. CityNorth is expected to generate plenty of money for everyone, officials say.

[Don B.]

I can't stand the Goldwater Institute, by and large, but this is one area where they have nailed it. Especially now as Phoenix enters the room with a $250 million budget deficit on a total budget of $1.5 billion.

I do note Gaylord, Inc., is asking for a $125 million handout from Mesa to build a massive resort 40 miles from downtown Mesa in far southeast Mesa, near the former Williams Air Force Base. I'm hoping Mesa tells them to go piss up a rope.

--don

[kevininlb]

I went for lunch at City North over the weekend.

If you care...

Liked it a lot. The condos look fantastic and future development looks like it'll blend pretty well into Desert Ridge. It's not spectacular, but it's a really nice to place to walk around.

[glynnjamin]

God I went to CityNorth on Saturday and couldn't leave fast enough. Parked on the north side of it, walked down some path that was not an alley (looked like Kierland) and onto High St and there was some woman singing with a big dinosaur thing. I was immediately disturbed. We tried to walk away from it but the music was piped through half of the street. When we crossed over to the west side, there was some terrible girl band singing "I Love Rock & Roll" that I thought was Britney Spears or something...it never stopped and only got more annoying until I realized there were two girls with guitars singing on a stage in front of Kona Grill - no one was watching them.

As far as the stores go, it was full of places my 65 year old mother likes to shop. Chicos, Talbots, White|Black, Fresh Produce, etc and only one contemporary "boutique" store called Apricot Lane (there is one at Westgate too, I think).

I commented to my wife that if we had bought a place there and that music was playing all day, I would demand my money back and move out immediately. It was painful.

To call the environment "urban" was simply a joke. It was Kierland through and through. Where are the alleys? Where are the distinct architectural designs? Where are the parking meters? Nothing about it felt urban. If running a street down the middle of a mall is urban then Mesa Riverview, Westgate, and a number of other retail spots are urban. It is a nice attempt but a failure in execution. The most positive aspect is that the city of Phx will see taxes from the high end stores that should siphon away Scottsdale Fashion Square's business in 2010.

[exit2lef]

The city's deal with the developers has been struck down once again:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/n...thonline.html#

Personally, I think it's good news. I'm never a fan of subisidies for retail, but especially not for sprawlish, outside-the-101 retail.

I'm not normally a fan of the Goldwater Institute, but I think they've done us a favor on this one.

[Azndragon837]

^Yay! Give me my $100 million back City of Phoenix! I didn't want my taxpayer dollars to subsidize an "urban" development on the fringes of Phoenix. I'd rather have my tax dollars go into downtown.

For once, I will side with the Goldwater Institute. I hope the AZ Supreme Court will rule in favor as well.

-Andrew

[PhxPavilion]

I find the whole development repugnant, just another massive, shameless cookie cutter sprawl fest trying to capitalize on the exurbs of the city.

I fully support banning city incentives statewide. Developers will build regardless as long as there is demand and a potential for profit.

[Gump]

Originally Posted by PhxPavilion

I find the whole development repugnant, just another massive, shameless cookie cutter sprawl fest trying to capitalize on the exurbs of the city.

I fully support banning city incentives statewide. Developers will build regardless as long as there is demand and a potential for profit.

Maybe...but at what pace? Other Cities and States there is Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) that spurs development in underdeveloped areas and those funds are then used to build schools and pay fireman and teachers. Arizona has long opposed such financing. Such financing mechanisms work great in Chicago, where the Mayor there once said he would TIF the TIF if he could to gain more tax dollars. Why Arizona does not permit such financing, I am unsure. It would be a great way to more quickly spur growth-including areas like Downtown.

[kaneui]

Originally Posted by Gump

Why Arizona does not permit such financing, I am unsure. It would be a great way to more quickly spur growth-including areas like Downtown.

Other than Tucson's ongoing Rio Nuevo District and projects in Apache Junction and Casa Grande, TIF has been disallowed by state statute since 1999, with Arizona apparently the only state in the country with such restrictions. Rio Nuevo was fortunate to get a 12-year extension of its initial 10-year program in 2006, expanding its total TIF support to potentially $600M; however, any new TIF projects in the state would require new legislation.

For more info.: http://design.asu.edu/hcdr/documents...tFinancing.pdf

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Gump

Maybe...but at what pace? Other Cities and States there is Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) that spurs development in underdeveloped areas and those funds are then used to build schools and pay fireman and teachers. Arizona has long opposed such financing. Such financing mechanisms work great in Chicago, where the Mayor there once said he would TIF the TIF if he could to gain more tax dollars. Why Arizona does not permit such financing, I am unsure. It would be a great way to more quickly spur growth-including areas like Downtown.

Its really awful that TIFs aren't allowed in Arizona, they could do wonders for Central Phoenix. Im not sure either of the case against TIFs, perhaps someone knows/remembers better. But when I was in St Louis it seemed to me TIFs did wonders for helping begin to redevelop their downtown.

[PhxPavilion]

Originally Posted by Gump

Maybe...but at what pace? Other Cities and States there is Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) that spurs development in underdeveloped areas and those funds are then used to build schools and pay fireman and teachers. Arizona has long opposed such financing. Such financing mechanisms work great in Chicago, where the Mayor there once said he would TIF the TIF if he could to gain more tax dollars. Why Arizona does not permit such financing, I am unsure. It would be a great way to more quickly spur growth-including areas like Downtown.

In 1980 TIFs were ruled down by the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of Pima County because it was deemed unconstitutional, by way of state constitutional provisions, to issue bonds or special assessments without the vote of property taxpayers to whom would be affected.

In 1999 an alternative to the TIF known as Pay-As-You-Go was repealed after it had been attempted to be used to contruct a theme park.

I'm sure much of the criticism as noted by the wikipedia article here shows TIFs aren't always a great idea. Chicago is known for its corruption, both past and present.

If the city of Phoenix really wants to revitalize downtown they need to set boundaries for developers and stop the nonsense of allowing them to build furthur and furthur out in the boonies; it only promotes what has been happening in this city for the last few decades, pure sprawl. Developers and citizens alike flock to the newest mega-communities on the outskirts of the city where it's the cheapest and abandon the interior.

[Gump]

Originally Posted by PhxPavilion

In 1980 TIFs were ruled down by the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of Pima County because it was deemed unconstitutional, by way of state constitutional provisions, to issue bonds or special assessments without the vote of property taxpayers to whom would be affected.

In 1999 an alternative to the TIF known as Pay-As-You-Go was repealed after it had been attempted to be used to contruct a theme park.

I'm sure much of the criticism as noted by the wikipedia article here shows TIFs aren't always a great idea. Chicago is known for its corruption, both past and present.

If the city of Phoenix really wants to revitalize downtown they need to set boundaries for developers and stop the nonsense of allowing them to build furthur and furthur out in the boonies; it only promotes what has been happening in this city for the last few decades, pure sprawl. Developers and citizens alike flock to the newest mega-communities on the outskirts of the city where it's the cheapest and abandon the interior.

You are right. Zoning, permitting high-rise mega development north of the core has affected density in the core. As for TIF, sighting corruption as a reason for being against it is misplaced. Corruption will always surround politics. That does not mean that creating a tax base should be opposed because certain people may benefit in the short term. Small price to pay, I think, for having $$$$$ to pay for schools, community centers, infrastructure for decades to come.

[phoenixboi08]

I think this development is pretty creative. It really takes what people love about living in the suburbs (outside the city) but creates an environment that is somewhat urban in it's own way. I think this kind of development should continue!

[andrewkfromaz]

I went to City North for the first time just recently, and I actually liked it. I think Kierland is totally ok too, so maybe I just trend that direction. Maybe some day I'll be old enough for these places to actually work for me, but for now, I admire from afar.

Anyway I think the urban design is much better than you people give it credit for - it actually looks pretty nice from High Street, the middle of the project. And the density is solid, which is a huge departure from anything else in Phoenix.

[glynnjamin]

^But it goes against what Phoenix is trying to do with downtown! Why couldn't you just drop that whole thing in around Jackson St? Or drop it in along 3rd Ave between Van Buren & Roosevelt? Phoenix is trying to compete with Scottsdale by playing Scottsdale's game. That is stupid. The rich people come downtown all the time for games, for art shows, for the symphony, theatre, the Orpheum, etc etc.

If the city really wanted to revitalize downtown, they wouldn't have given them all that money to build as far away from downtown as possible. There are no big retail dollars being spent in Phoenix because we don't have a decent shopping center. Biltmore is great but is limited to the exceptionally wealthy with many of their shops. Give me an area like Westlake in Seattle in downtown Phoenix. That is going to require some help from the city. Until there is shopping downtown, no one will move here. We don't even have a damn grocery store and they are building a scale model, Vegas Style, of what our downtown never will be 30 miles north! What an insult!