HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5201  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2014, 8:20 PM
Thirsty Thirsty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Lyons View Post
I wish UA would get their act together on this. The remaining university buildings that won't be part of this project are all eyesores on lots that are not big enough to be developed into anything significant on their own.
The article said UA pulled out because it is writing an new development plan. I'm guessing this means they have their own plans for the eyesores.

I don't know who to credit, the university or the neighborhood associations, but the UA has by choice or by force begun to make infill a focus of its growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5202  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2014, 10:03 PM
Ted Lyons Ted Lyons is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirsty View Post
The article said UA pulled out because it is writing an new development plan. I'm guessing this means they have their own plans for the eyesores.

I don't know who to credit, the university or the neighborhood associations, but the UA has by choice or by force begun to make infill a focus of its growth.
Sadly, I'd say there's probably no way the university has any significant plans for 1145 North Campbell. They may have some ideas for the whole Babcock facility on the other side but I don't know these developers were really looking to use that space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5203  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2014, 5:52 AM
Thirsty Thirsty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Lyons View Post
Sadly, I'd say there's probably no way the university has any significant plans for 1145 North Campbell. They may have some ideas for the whole Babcock facility on the other side but I don't know these developers were really looking to use that space.
the article was all about how they have to re-zone and redesign because they can no longer build on the Babcock property now that UA is out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5204  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2014, 2:20 PM
Ted Lyons Ted Lyons is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirsty View Post
the article was all about how they have to re-zone and redesign because they can no longer build on the Babcock property now that UA is out.
I missed that specific reference to Babcock but, regardless, that's just one of the neighboring properties and the most likely to be redeveloped by the university at some point. The properties to the east, which will be on a tiny island of very visible, almost undevelopable land are more concerning to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5205  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2014, 6:50 PM
Qwijib0 Qwijib0 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by southtucsonboy77 View Post
Qwijib0, I respect your rebuttal...but I did not say a couple of things, for example:

- I did not say Downtown Links was a worthless solution. I said that we would have Downtown Links and a 2 lane roadway (Broadway) connecting off of it. Look at I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson. ADOT has built 3 lanes each way for a majority of the route...except there are areas where it gets narrowed down to 2, the biggest segment being the Gila River reservation section. Heading into and out of Phoenix, it causes a bottleneck. Who would of thunk that the Gila River leaders would build so much economic development on that section 20 to 10 years ago? On a smaller scaler, this is what will happen on Broadway. I'm thinking comprehensively and regionally, not the outer fringe of another central Tucson "fill-in the blank" neighborhood. I'm afraid many people think about their own section of town. I ride the Xpress bus from Marana...but how efficient would that route be if I-10 was still a 3 lane "freeway" from downtown to Prince? Or 2 lanes? Stats and numbers could be used in any way...but numbers are also down in that segment of Broadway due to many businesses leaving. Its deserted and dead, especially at night. Doesn't mean it will not get redeveloped or get new life in years to come. Also, areas east and west of that segment are thriving.

- I did not say we need more roads...or Broadway should be 3 or 4 lanes. I said Broadway should have 3 lanes. Period. That is widening a road, not adding a road. Having a crosstown, aka east/west freeway, is not a city that would be saturated with freeways. Its have a (one) freeway. Its having balance. Economic development leaders, planners, businesses, ect. will tell you our transportation infrastructure is pretty bad...and they are not talking about transit. I support transit. I ride transit. I worked for PAG when the RTA was created. I'm all for it. But taking away (again) the true intent of why a roadway was funded for improvement and enhancement is just...another Tucson blunder. AND, just to point out...if we're talking about wasting money...the overkill and abundance of neighborhood meetings for 22nd, Grant, and Broadway have been money pits. I've seen the numbers. The RTA was regionally approved by voters. But Tucsonans still want to mess it up. SMH.

All of this is just an opinion.
Sorry about putting words in your mouth I think we actually may be closer in opinion than not. Cross-town movement is important but I think that the Grant and 22nd improvements plus LINKS (also sorry for mis-characterizing your opinion of) will be able to handle the expected load, given current volumes without dedicating 3 lanes of broadway to cars as well. That stretch of Broadway is pretty much the last unimproved thoroughfare in 'old' Tucson that was built with human-scale and walkability in mind. I'd hate to not try extending a multi-modal road (car+transit+bike+walk) from downtown rather than prioritizing vehicles in the last stretch of the city where there are valuable bones close to a university population that is heavily walk and bike that might be revitalized given streetscape and transit investment. Impressions of what Tucson can be have changed dramatically since the RTA vote so I think revisiting it is worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5206  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2014, 5:41 AM
Thirsty Thirsty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Lyons View Post
I missed that specific reference to Babcock but, regardless, that's just one of the neighboring properties and the most likely to be redeveloped by the university at some point. The properties to the east, which will be on a tiny island of very visible, almost undevelopable land are more concerning to me.
Babcock sits next to the corner lot. If you're talking about the NE corner, I agree. Moving west of the tower site sits, Babcock, McD's, a bank and then the underpass. West of that is mostly parking that was once planned to be a new campus for the engineering college... don't know what came of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwijib0 View Post
Sorry about putting words in your mouth I think we actually may be closer in opinion than not. Cross-town movement is important but I think that the Grant and 22nd improvements plus LINKS (also sorry for mis-characterizing your opinion of) will be able to handle the expected load, given current volumes without dedicating 3 lanes of broadway to cars as well. That stretch of Broadway is pretty much the last unimproved thoroughfare in 'old' Tucson that was built with human-scale and walkability in mind. I'd hate to not try extending a multi-modal road (car+transit+bike+walk) from downtown rather than prioritizing vehicles in the last stretch of the city where there are valuable bones close to a university population that is heavily walk and bike that might be revitalized given streetscape and transit investment. Impressions of what Tucson can be have changed dramatically since the RTA vote so I think revisiting it is worthwhile.
Very rational post. I'm of the 'reevaluate camp', but it isn't from an anti-car or anti-progress POV. Having lived on the East side, I know everyone driving to I-10 already avoids Broadway b/c of downtown. People will catch Barazza/LINKS at Golf Links or 22nd (or not at all if coming from the NE).

Four-lanes each way, with right and left (or even double-left) turn lanes at intersections and hopefully a RoW LRT is just too much for the walkable urban atmosphere we're hoping to create in that little corner of the city. I don't think it is unreasonable to draw a rectangle with the university and I-10 at 22nd as the corners and focus on density, walkability and transit inside those boundaries. A fifth of Tucsonans live and/or work in that area. Can we preserve at least that section of Broadway, Stone and both 6th's for people who don't drive 20+ miles to work?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5207  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2014, 2:10 PM
Ted Lyons Ted Lyons is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirsty View Post
Babcock sits next to the corner lot. If you're talking about the NE corner, I agree. Moving west of the tower site sits, Babcock, McD's, a bank and then the underpass. West of that is mostly parking that was once planned to be a new campus for the engineering college... don't know what came of it.
Yeah, I'm talking about the very corner of Campbell & Speedway, which is the most visible portion of the entire block. The Babcock property is definitely large enough to be redeveloped. The two lots I'm referencing are not.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5208  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2014, 2:51 PM
Qwijib0 Qwijib0 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thirsty View Post
Very rational post. I'm of the 'reevaluate camp', but it isn't from an anti-car or anti-progress POV. Having lived on the East side, I know everyone driving to I-10 already avoids Broadway b/c of downtown. People will catch Barazza/LINKS at Golf Links or 22nd (or not at all if coming from the NE).

Four-lanes each way, with right and left (or even double-left) turn lanes at intersections and hopefully a RoW LRT is just too much for the walkable urban atmosphere we're hoping to create in that little corner of the city. I don't think it is unreasonable to draw a rectangle with the university and I-10 at 22nd as the corners and focus on density, walkability and transit inside those boundaries. A fifth of Tucsonans live and/or work in that area. Can we preserve at least that section of Broadway, Stone and both 6th's for people who don't drive 20+ miles to work?
I'm not so sure 6 lanes plus that much bike landscape and ped buffer is a death knell for that section of Broadway being unwalkable. San Fran replaced a freeway with surface street when it collapsed in the quake but the street needed to carry some amount of traffic. It works well as both a walkable scape and road.

In the cross section I posted of a 6 lane Broadway, the sidewalk is 28 feet from traffic with a landscape buffer. It's not going to be a compact walkable boulevard, but with Hawks or traffic lights at park, highland, cherry, plumer and treat I think it would be very navigable and appealing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5209  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2014, 5:06 PM
southtucsonboy77's Avatar
southtucsonboy77 southtucsonboy77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: T-Town, AZ
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwijib0 View Post
Sorry about putting words in your mouth I think we actually may be closer in opinion than not. Cross-town movement is important but I think that the Grant and 22nd improvements plus LINKS (also sorry for mis-characterizing your opinion of) will be able to handle the expected load, given current volumes without dedicating 3 lanes of broadway to cars as well. That stretch of Broadway is pretty much the last unimproved thoroughfare in 'old' Tucson that was built with human-scale and walkability in mind. I'd hate to not try extending a multi-modal road (car+transit+bike+walk) from downtown rather than prioritizing vehicles in the last stretch of the city where there are valuable bones close to a university population that is heavily walk and bike that might be revitalized given streetscape and transit investment. Impressions of what Tucson can be have changed dramatically since the RTA vote so I think revisiting it is worthwhile.
It's okay...we're just one lane each way from being on the same page! But I do see your point...and it's a good point. And I enjoyed everyone's comments on the subject. I always use the analogy of sports...I'm a Cowboys fan...my brother is a Raiders fan...but we both love football (although my team is clearly the better team).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5210  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2014, 7:31 PM
andrewsaturn's Avatar
andrewsaturn andrewsaturn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 130
Johnny Gibson Market Downtown Update

According to its Facebook, the new downtown market will not open by December. They are hoping for a January opening date instead.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Johnn...81044618724294
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.