Phoenix Development News (3)

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

This is often the argument I read about in a city like LA, which is much more densly populated and congested. LA to this day will build large residential projects with an abundance of parking. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would purchase a property in an auto-dependent region without convenient parking.

This will always be the case in Phoenix too, which is a much smaller, less dense of an urban area.

It may be the case that nearly every apartment building provides parking in LA, but my gripe really concerns the exposure of the parking relative to the actual building. IME, the apartment buildings that I have visited in LA have had subterranean parking. There usually isn't some multi-story parking garage exposed to the street, or worse, some giant surface parking lot surrounding the entire structure. Here in Phoenix, there seems to be some rule that parking must be exposed. I understand that subterranean parking may add to construction costs, but to me it is necessary to achieve true urbanism. Just as residents may not want to live in a complex without nearby parking, people walking downtown don't want to pass parking garage after parking garage dedicated to every little apartment and office complex. These garages create dead zones and I certainly don't think having dead zones next to each and every apartment complex in Phoenix is necessary in the name of being an auto dependent city.

Literally, the ONLY large scale apartment buildings in the city of Phoenix that seem to incorporate parking relatively well into the design of the structure are 44 Monroe, Skyline Lofts, and the new CityScape apartments. These apartments on Buchanan will feature yet another exposed parking garage, the proposed apartments near the Walgreens on Central and Osborn will, of course, provide surface parking and a new adjacent parking garage, and I'm sure 95 percent of all future developments will have this structure as well.

I'm well aware of this city's auto dependent nature. As much as I may not like the idea, I can agree that nearby, accessible parking is requisite to attract people in a city like Phoenix. However, I am of the belief that once land is developed, it's gone until that structure is torn down. It bugs me that developers and the city don't seem to realize that every inch of land is valuable, allowing both parties to work together on how to incorporate necessary parking in a way that is not intrusive and at least gives a slight nod to urbanity. The reality though is that land here is cheap and available, the city and many urban boosters are clearly so desperate to see land filled in with anything that they dismiss quality and thoughts about how every approved structure contributes to the overall fabric of downtown, the city is run by a bunch of people from small towns who clearly have no idea what urbanity is, and this is the type of state that has truly never told a developer no because our economy is extremely heavily reliant on development.

I live in Downtown Phoenix and I still think downtown has a lot of potential, but it bugs me to see so many mistakes still being made to this day.

[Jjs5056]

Amen.

I'm not sure why there is always so much defensiveness when people point out that parking should be underground, wrapped, or at east include ground level retail. There isn't a street in downtown that hasn't been destroyed by garages breaking up any small strip of retail there may be.

Why can't be try and at least start off the renovation of the last real "untouched" section of downtown right and keep it pedestrian-oriented?

[plinko]

I'm never surprised at the assumptions on this forum that developers can just add floors, underground parking or put in thousands of square feet of money losing retail space without some second thought.

I can see a few things I might change about the design (with this set program, not more units, not more floors, not undergrounding parking), but it isn't a bad project by any means. I'm not certain that closing vehicles to Buchanan is the right move, but it's probably the best way to get this to pencil for the money guys. I am happy that at least they have chosen to save something on the site and integrate it rather than a simple scrape. Not all old buildings are worth saving, but some actually are.

I mean, what's the solution here guys? More form based codes? More regulations related to land use? More citizen led design review boards? All of those have their places, but honestly do very little to really enhance these types of projects. Especially in a city like Phoenix, where real urban development is few and far between.

The real challenge of providing 'meaningful' comments to a developer on their project is simple: can your solution (with the exact same program and rate of return) be constructed at the same cost?

Without of true understanding of just how expensive going to 5+ stories is, undergrounding parking, or just how much viable leasable retail space you can get (just because you build it, doesn't mean that it will rent for anything decent), it's just a wankfest about how much you don't like something. But it's meaningless and uninformed.

That being said, if this was between Jefferson (even Jackson) and Roosevelt there would be some legitimate gripes. But the notion that the Harrison or Buchanan alignments will someday be some urban paradise is kind of a joke. Especially given how few other activated retail streets there are in Phoenix (and in better locations).

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by plinko

I'm never surprised at the assumptions on this forum that developers can just add floors, underground parking or put in thousands of square feet of money losing retail space without some second thought.

I can see a few things I might change about the design (with this set program, not more units, not more floors, not undergrounding parking), but it isn't a bad project by any means. I'm not certain that closing vehicles to Buchanan is the right move, but it's probably the best way to get this to pencil for the money guys. I am happy that at least they have chosen to save something on the site and integrate it rather than a simple scrape. Not all old buildings are worth saving, but some actually are.

I mean, what's the solution here guys? More form based codes? More regulations related to land use? More citizen led design review boards? All of those have their places, but honestly do very little to really enhance these types of projects. Especially in a city like Phoenix, where real urban development is few and far between.

The real challenge of providing 'meaningful' comments to a developer on their project is simple: can your solution (with the exact same program and rate of return) be constructed at the same cost?

Without of true understanding of just how expensive going to 5+ stories is, undergrounding parking, or just how much viable leasable retail space you can get (just because you build it, doesn't mean that it will rent for anything decent), it's just a wankfest about how much you don't like something. But it's meaningless and uninformed.

That being said, if this was between Jefferson (even Jackson) and Roosevelt there would be some legitimate gripes. But the notion that the Harrison or Buchanan alignments will someday be some urban paradise is kind of a joke. Especially given how few other activated retail streets there are in Phoenix (and in better locations).

I'm not assuming developers can just add more floors. I pointed out in my last post that one possible reason developers here are not investing in underground parking is due to the added cost. At the same time, I take issue with an urban label being attached to each and every apartment building in the city's core just because it's in the city's core. When you build a low-rise development with a parking garage or large surface lot next to or around that development, the word urban needs to be tossed out of the window. I respect your view of this proposed complex. I just don't agree that it's the right style for the core of the 5th or 6th most populous city in the United States. It would be unacceptable in Philadelphia, it would be unacceptable in Houston, it would be unacceptable in San Diego, it would be unacceptable in Dallas, but somehow it's okay here because we view any development as good development.

I also believe that you don't need ground floor retail on every new apartment building. This is just some irritating, new age urban planning buzzterm that people need to let go of. Is retail space appropriate in some apartment buildings? Yes. But does every single new development need to be equipped with this? No. Skyline Lofts has "ground floor retail" incorporated into it and all the spaces facing Fillmore are empty. The retail stores on the Pierce side are always devoid of customers. I am originally from an East Coast city where numerous apartment building have no ground floor retail. The city still buzzes with activity. There are cities with much more pedestrian oriented downtown areas than Phoenix that are having a very difficult time attracting tenants to ground floor retail spaces.

The solution to these poorly thought out complexes downtown is more regulation and form based code. We need to realize that we are constructing a downtown that we are going to have to live with for decades to come. Just because we are in a relatively soft real estate market now doesn't mean we need to quickly fill up vacant lots with any and every development proposal that is thrown our way. You say that Harrison and Buchanan will never become active streets because you are focused on the past and not the present and future potential. In the 1940s and 1950s, I'm sure regular visitors downtown never projected that one day people would be flocking to the current sites of Desert Ridge, Westgate, P83, San Tan Village to shop instead of coming downtown. Many people in the 1980s and 1990s thought some of the neighborhoods in my city, which were neglected and full of vacant lots would never be revitalized for all of the same reasons you've listed concerning Buchanan and Harrison, and now they're some of the most sought after areas. I can tell you that the future potential for revitalization and activity centers in areas such as Buchanan drops markedly with the approval of projects such as this one.

I'm done debating this topic. This apartment complex will likely get constructed as is. The good thing about downtown is that there are still plenty of vacant lots around that are available for development. Hopefully they will be of better quality than this. I'm eager to see quality development on the lot between Skyline and Roosevelt Point and on the lots directly to the east.

[dtnphx]

PoconoBoy:

You seem to have an enormous amount of energy inside devoted to defending your position (as we all do sometime). Tell me, have you ever gone once to a city council meeting to offer your ideas or protest against these developers? I can see a rant or two now and then, but when you're writing volumes and then declare you're done with the topic, perhaps some action will help alleviate all this hopelessness you feel about every development that's proposed.

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by dtnphx

PoconoBoy:

You seem to have an enormous amount of energy inside devoted to defending your position (as we all do sometime). Tell me, have you ever gone once to a city council meeting to offer your ideas or protest against these developers? I can see a rant or two now and then, but when you're writing volumes and then declare you're done with the topic, perhaps some action will help alleviate all this hopelessness you feel about every development that's proposed.

I have not. I'll admit that up until very recently, when I moved downtown, I really wasn't that interested in the development process here. I lived in the Tucson and then suburban Phoenix and basically dismissed downtown as a lost cause. Now that I live downtown, I can't help but see its potential. However, I've realized that my personal feelings and reality are very contradictory when it comes to the current state of development downtown. Truth be told, I'll probably be long gone from Phoenix in a decade or two, so despite my perceived passion, I have little vested interest in the future of this city. It would just be nice to see this city headed down the right path for its own sake, not mine.

In any case, I would not call my last several long winded posts on here rants. I was just stating my feelings as most every other poster has done at one time or another.

[ASUSunDevil]

Can Phoenix un-suburbanize?

A proposed development in Phoenix would link the polished towers of downtown with the traditionally poor Grant Park neighborhood.

by Peter O'Dowd
January 17, 2014 - 3:29am


There’s a movement afoot to bring new money into urban areas all over the country, and surprisingly, Phoenix, is part of that movement.

The city has long been famous for its suburban sprawl. But now, plans are moving ahead to link high-rise downtown with a neighboring Latino barrio that wealthy developers have mostly ignored for the better part of 100 years. Not a shovel of dirt has moved, though neighbors already have expectations and fears.

With a good arm, you could probably pick up one of the empty beer bottles on 14.6 acres of land set aside for the proposed development, give it a good chuck, and clear the railroad tracks that separate Grant Park from the polished office buildings of downtown Phoenix. Feliciano Vera is the developer who intends to bridge this divide between rich and poor. “This is a condition that predates statehood,” he said.

In Grant Park, trees and good sidewalks are scarce. Decades of industrial use have polluted the soil. In 2012, median income – at about $19,000 a year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau – was less than half what of it was citywide.

“For our community to go over the railroad tracks and for the downtown people to come on this side of the railroad tracks, it’s like going to China,” said Eva Olivas, CEO of the Phoenix Revitalization Corporation, a group that works to improve the local neighborhoods.

But Olivas said the area is also rich with Latino history. In the 1970s, the now famous saying “si se puede” – Yes, we can – was coined just a few blocks from here when Cesar Chavez embarked on his historic fast for farmworker rights. “We have been waiting and learning and preparing for this moment,” Olivas said. “This community wants to support something.”

That "something" could be up to 800 new apartments and townhouses – a third of them set aside for low-income residents. There’s room, right under an airport flight path, for about another 300,000 square feet of commercial and retail space.

But with such long a history of disinvestment in this area, what makes the developer think he can pull it off? “The timing,” said Vera. Indeed, from Las Vegas to Detroit, American inner cities are revitalizing. “On the macro level, nationally we are going through this period of intense urbanization,” Vera said.

To gauge the community’s support, Vera is hosting a series of meetings for residents. At a recent gathering inside the Grant Park gym, Vangie Muller and Nenette Parra fantasized about this idea of urbanization. For both women, something as simple as a grocery store would be a huge improvement. But Parra also worried developers will put the community as she knows it at risk. It wouldn’t be the first time in Arizona that working-class Latinos got pushed out of their neighborhoods. Developers “cater to those that are more educated, that are able to speak up,” she said. “Everything that our neighborhood isn't -- that's what they cater to. That's what we don't want.”

The feeling is echoed at El Portal, a Mexican restaurant across the street from Grant Park. “There’s really not an embracing of the Mexican-American culture,” said owner Earl Wilcox. “It’s more the cowboy stuff, the Old West stuff.”

Wilcox’s family is well connected politically, and he’s used that clout to complain that the wrong development will threaten small businesses like his. Wilcox said competition from a big chain could wipe him out and spoil the atmosphere of the entire place.

“If they just come in, historically and traditionally the way they do things – build it and worry about all these things later – then there’s going to be a lot of problems,” he said. But if the developer recognizes Grant Park’s Latino culture, he said “it could be something really beautiful.”

Featured in: Marketplace for Friday, January 17, 2014

[poconoboy61]

Anyone know what's going on with The Pin? It sounds like they are scouting out new locations... possibly Hance Park? Their responses on Twitter about the project are very vague and make it seem like the project may or may not be moving forward. Does anyone have any sense of what's happening from insiders? Are the developers looking for additional height? I know there was pretty decent media coverage about a year ago advertising that the project would be complete by next year's Super Bowl. That's clearly not going to happen, even if construction were to start next week.

[PHX31]

I don't know anything about The Pin... but you bring up a good point regarding the Super Bowl. I would think the Luhrs City Center Hotel and the Hotel Monroe people would have been working their asses off to get those online by the time the Super Bowl rolls around. Not going to happen now, maybe for the next Super Bowl in 2020 or whatever. It's unfortunate. I actually remember thinking that the Hotel Monroe would have been figured out and renovated by the All-star game years ago. I was way off.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by PHX31

I don't know anything about The Pin... but you bring up a good point regarding the Super Bowl. I would think the Luhrs City Center Hotel and the Hotel Monroe people would have been working their asses off to get those online by the time the Super Bowl rolls around. Not going to happen now, maybe for the next Super Bowl in 2020 or whatever. It's unfortunate. I actually remember thinking that the Hotel Monroe would have been figured out and renovated by the All-star game years ago. I was way off.

The NCAA National Championship Game will be in Glendale in 2016. They should both be able to meet that deadline. That being said, I'm not sure if one week of brisk business should really dictate the construction of an $80M hotel tower.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by nickw252

That being said, I'm not sure if one week of brisk business should really dictate the construction of an $80M hotel tower.

Sorta true, but showing a ton of out-of-towners a good time for a week can lead to repeat business for years to come.

I really would just like more hotel options in downtown Phoenix for the big game so more people can stay and play downtown rather than having to spread out more to find rooms. It would be nice to compete with Scottsdale more and more.

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Sorta true, but showing a ton of out-of-towners a good time for a week can lead to repeat business for years to come.

I really would just like more hotel options in downtown Phoenix for the big game so more people can stay and play downtown rather than having to spread out more to find rooms. It would be nice to compete with Scottsdale more and more.

So true. I was in San Diego a few weeks ago for an annual sales meeting and 6,000 employees flew in and took over 2 hotels (4 towers) right next to each other. We pick a new city every year and Phoenix isn't an option because there isn't the available hotel space near the convention center to hold that many people. I often wonder if Phoenix would have a greater convention and business climate with more hotel space. Our winter and spring time weather is a huge draw and a company like ours would easily pick Phoenix if it were an option. Over $10 million alone was spent on flights, lodging, food, etc.

[poconoboy61]

Looks like the 99 year old Barrister Place building, better known as the building used as the backdrop from the opening scene of the original Psycho is up for sale. Hopefully developers don't overpower the city and tear this one down. That would be a true travesty.

By Dustin Gardiner
The Republic | azcentral.com
Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:56 PM


The Barrister Place building in downtown Phoenix has a storied past, opening in 1915 as the tallest building in the state and, later, playing a cameo as a backdrop to the 1960 horror movie “Psycho.”

It has sat vacant for more than three years after the city, which owns the building, shuttered it.

The city expects to put the building on the market in the next few months, accepting bids from prospective buyers on the condition that they agree to preserve its facade. Potential uses could include a hotel, offices, a restaurant or retail shops, officials say.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...html#protected

[dtnphx]

It won't be torn down. Councilman Waring brought up the idea to level it to see if it could generate more value to sell the land. Typical Republican thought process there, but under enough protection. I bet they find a buyer in a relatively short timeframe.

[gymratmanaz]

And it is required to keep the current exterior!!!!!

[rocksteady]

I would love to see this become a cute boutique hotel with a nice cafe and bar at the bottom in the heart of downtown. So many business travelers prefer staying in locations like these over the standard Marriotts, Hyatts, Hiltons.

[Jjs5056]

I had just mentioned this building and what occupied it; good timing! This excites me, yet scares me until I hear the definition of "facade" (which, for the St James was only the front wall) and see plans.

The obvious use is a hotel, with hopefully a decent amount of condos set aside for a better market. But, if someone hasn't bitten yet on the hotel demand we have downtown, I'm not sure this will be #1 on the list unless 1) there are incentives involved, or 2) I'm assuming wrong that rehabs are riskier and we all know how much fun developments are in Phoenix! Luhrs and Monroe have been dragging their asses, and Colliers and AZ Center have plots ready to go in closer proximity to the CC.

I do hope this gem is brought back to life, and that - I know this is blasphemy - RED buys Luhrs after the hotel piece is complete. They destroyed the chance of having a 2-sided retail boulevard along Jefferson, but I wouldn't trust anyone else to get that Arcade filled and connected to a finished Barrister.

And, since I can't leave this so positively skewed: fuck RED for destroying Jefferson if the south side does end up filling up; and, what a damn shame a renovated Central Building can't be a part of this part of town's revival.

[plinko]

That block is really interesting in terms of how it is divided up. Barrister is on its own 50ft frontage lot and then the little parking lot that serves it is two parcels that have another 75ft of frontage total. Is that little parking lot owned by the City as well?

The reason I'm curious is whether or not you could open up more windows on that side (east) of the building. Also, if it's a hotel, you could have a motor court/service entry off the public alley behind and get three nice retail tenants across Jefferson (a 75ft wide x 60ft deep building would allow for a 75ft x 75ft motor court for vehicles behind).

I would love to see something like the Hotel Max in Seattle on this site.

The existing building gets you about 11 rooms per floor (for a total of 55). That's not bad for a trendy boutique hotel but on the small side.

If you also then built the retail building along Jefferson I mentioned and you stacked more stories on top of that and attached it to the hotel you could get maybe 8 rooms per floor (double-loaded). Even if that wing was only 4 stories total that gets your room count up to 87 without spending a ridiculous amount of money for new construction. Then again, it would also be great if it was 10 stories with a pool on the roof.

Not that I see any of this happening of course...

The issue is rack rates and that this site (like the Monroe) doesn't have any parking. That's actually more of a problem than it would seem given that the Hyatt, Crowne Plaza, Westin, Sheraton and Palomar all have on-site parking.

Anybody remember how many rooms the Monroe was supposed to have?

[Jjs5056]

I have to imagine the lot will be part of the deal. If that's the case, you are saying parking should be okay or no?

Because I love your idea and won't stop until I see it.

Original Hotel Monroe was to have 144 rooms:

"As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the original 1931 Valley National Bank building, Grace Communities is renovating this historic landmark and reopening the doors as the Hotel Monroe. When completed, this chic newly renovated boutique hotel will be located in downtown Phoenix in the center of Copper Square at the intersection of Central Avenue and Monroe Street, arguably one of the finest locations in the valley. The Hotel Monroe provides approximately 144 rooms ranging from standard, junior suites and one and two bedroom suites. The eleventh floor of the hotel will be designated as the concierge floor featuring several unique suites & penthouses. The twelfth floor will feature a unique nightclub with sunset views of downtown and the valley. Hotel guests will enjoy a variety of cuisine options and entertainment venues including a five star restaurant and lounge, wine bar, night clubs and a barista café. Executive boardrooms and meeting rooms will be abundant. The boutique hotel's accommodating amenities are sure to please every discriminating taste-just a few examples are 24 hour room service, full service spa with saunas and whirlpool, a state of the art fitness center, yoga room and outdoor sundecks with cabanas."

[Jjs5056]

Who is directly responsible for bringing in and attracting hoteliers/hotel development? Given the economic engines that are PHX Sky Harbor and Convention Center, I would hope that there is a dedicated team making this a priority. We have heard for years that there is more demand than supply for larger conventions; what is the hold up? We're falling behind and losing time.