Tucson Development Thread

[farmerk]

T'Town, we'll see if that whiny NIMBY, Steve K., will vote for this project.

As for Benedictine Monastery Project, I'd keep the original design.


20-story tower, 20 years in the making, may grace prominent Tucson intersection

On Tuesday, the Tucson City Council is to vote on a plan to build the 20-story tower on the northwest corner of Campbell Avenue and Speedway that will feature residential, office, retail and open space with an emphasis on public transit.....

...A local firm, Rick Joy Architects, is designing the building with louvers to create a porous look, versus a giant concrete appearance, said architect Matt Luck.

“You won’t be constantly walking around the perimeter,” he said. “You’ll be able to weave in and out and cut through the property.”

The colors and design are intended to reflect desert tones, Luck said.

“We want the building to have a sense of place,” he said. “Yes, it’s a large project, but very specific to Tucson.”...

...If the council approves the Speedway-Campbell plan on Tuesday, the building could be completed by 2022.

Shenkarow estimates the project’s budget at about $300 million...

[Patrick S]

Originally Posted by farmerk

T'Town, we'll see if that whiny NIMBY, Steve K., will vote for this project.

As for Benedictine Monastery Project, I'd keep the original design.

Why wouldn’t he? This project makes sense and isn’t surrounding a beautiful historic property. Just because someone doesn’t agree with one poorly advised project doesn’t mean they’re a NIMBY.

[farmerk]

Originally Posted by Patrick S

Why wouldn’t he? This project makes sense and isn’t surrounding a beautiful historic property. Just because someone doesn’t agree with one poorly advised project doesn’t mean they’re a NIMBY.

Steve K. has a NIMBY track record.

It's NOT a poorly advised project. To you it is.

I'm sorry I offended your hero. Take it easy.

[cdsuofa]

The zoning examiner has recommended approvals for both projects (as I believe the Baffert rezoning is on the agenda as well). So that's good news. This NIMBY stuff is getting ridiculous. We don't want U of A eating up our neighborhoods but we also don't want tall buildings in and around the University. We dont want to see our desert razed for housing developments, but we dont want medium and high density infill projects. We want clean air and less cars but we don't support the projects that make that type of lifestyle possible. Could go all day with these types of examples. It's getting ridiculous.

[InTheBurbs]

Fire at Broadway and Euclid

Is this the Mark site? They mention that the first damaged construction cranes.

https://tucson.com/news/local/overni...home-top-story


Image: Tucson Fire Dept.

[InTheBurbs]

From the Mark's Webcam:


https://ueb.net/webcam31.html

[azliam]

Originally Posted by InTheBurbs

From the Mark's Webcam:


https://ueb.net/webcam31.html

That blows. I saw on the news here in PHX this morning and thought I'd pull up the webcam. Didn't expect to see that.

[Ted Lyons]

The wooden structure appears to be completely leveled. https://twitter.com/gloriaeknott/sta...09885999460354

If significant demo of the concrete structure is required (doesn't look like it, but who knows), I'm doubting this project gets finished.

[OldPueblo$]

Sure seems like arson no? For a fire of that magnitude to occur at this stage in construction seems odd.

[azliam]

Originally Posted by Ted Lyons

The wooden structure appears to be completely leveled. https://twitter.com/gloriaeknott/sta...09885999460354

If significant demo of the concrete structure is required (doesn't look like it, but who knows), I'm doubting this project gets finished.

Follow up tweet:
https://twitter.com/gloriaeknott/sta...15781265649664

[Azstar]

Originally Posted by OldPueblo$

Sure seems like arson no? For a fire of that magnitude to occur at this stage in construction seems odd.

I would not be shocked if this fire were started by NIMBY's. There's a substantial number of "keep Tucson shitty" contingent who object to any development, of any sort, anywhere. About a year ago there were dozens of people protesting the widening/upgrading of Broadway in exactly that area.

[somethingfast]

Originally Posted by Azstar

I would not be shocked if this fire were started by NIMBY's. There's a substantial number of "keep Tucson shitty" contingent who object to any development, of any sort, anywhere. About a year ago there were dozens of people protesting the widening/upgrading of Broadway in exactly that area.

Not saying that isn't what happened but, holy crap, that is a major crime to commit for the sake of "preservation". Tucson has a lot of nutjobs that way but I really hope this is just an accident and not arson...by anyone. To go that far in a "cause" or to collect insurance is just psychotically dangerous.

[InTheBurbs]

Looks like UEB took down the webcam. Likely some clues as to the cause. When I saw it this morning it was stopped at a point that showed the fire already underway in or next to what looked like the construction office or a storage building. Only saw it for a second and didn't get a chance to take a screen grab or go back in time.

[cdsuofa]

This screams arson in my opinion. Check out the aftermath... the heat must have been so intense.
http://tiboaz.biz/2018/06/19/images-...lopments-fire/

[chenley333]

Originally Posted by Azstar

I would not be shocked if this fire were started by NIMBY's. There's a substantial number of "keep Tucson shitty" contingent who object to any development, of any sort, anywhere. About a year ago there were dozens of people protesting the widening/upgrading of Broadway in exactly that area.

Lot's going on in this post.

I'm not sure it's helpful to use blanket labels for people who have different views from you on development projects as NIMBY. True, there are some who don't want any new development, but the vast majority of people both for and against projects have varied and nuanced reasons.

So I'm in the neighborhood along the east side of Park Ave (Rincon Heights) and we and the Pie Allen n'hood met multiple times with the developer of The Mark. We were prepared to support an even larger project (700+ beds, 10 floors, plus ground-level retail) but the developer couldn't wait an extra year to start generating revenue, so that scaled it down, removed the retail, and began construction. So if we're using labels, here's an example where the neighborhoods were actually YIMBYs.

As for the Broadway protesters - that's me too. Totally unrelated to The Mark project. We just don't see it as "widen = upgrading". We agree that Broadway is in need of lots of work, but we feel there's a way to do it without demolishing 2 miles of local businesses and historic properties. If it has to be widened, we were hoping for dedicated transit/streetcar/BRT, not just another car lane. What other metro area of 1 million do you expect to be able to drive right into downtown on a 6-lane road?

See, nuance. Not against it, just have a different definition of "upgrading".

[chenley333]

Originally Posted by chenley333

Lot's going on in this post.

I'm not sure it's helpful to use blanket labels for people who have different views from you on development projects as NIMBY. True, there are some who don't want any new development, but the vast majority of people both for and against projects have varied and nuanced reasons.

So I'm in the neighborhood along the east side of Park Ave (Rincon Heights) and we and the Pie Allen n'hood met multiple times with the developer of The Mark. We were prepared to support an even larger project (700+ beds, 10 floors, plus ground-level retail) but the developer couldn't wait an extra year to start generating revenue, so that scaled it down, removed the retail, and began construction. So if we're using labels, here's an example where the neighborhoods were actually YIMBYs.

As for the Broadway protesters - that's me too. Totally unrelated to The Mark project. We just don't see it as "widen = upgrading". We agree that Broadway is in need of lots of work, but we feel there's a way to do it without demolishing 2 miles of local businesses and historic properties. If it has to be widened, we were hoping for dedicated transit/streetcar/BRT, not just another car lane. What other metro area of 1 million do you expect to be able to drive right into downtown on a 6-lane road?

See, nuance. Not against it, just have a different definition of "upgrading".

In re-reading this, I didn't mean for it to sound so snarky. So nothing personal against AZStar. I'll try not to be so sensitive

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by chenley333

Lot's going on in this post.

I'm not sure it's helpful to use blanket labels for people who have different views from you on development projects as NIMBY. True, there are some who don't want any new development, but the vast majority of people both for and against projects have varied and nuanced reasons.

So I'm in the neighborhood along the east side of Park Ave (Rincon Heights) and we and the Pie Allen n'hood met multiple times with the developer of The Mark. We were prepared to support an even larger project (700+ beds, 10 floors, plus ground-level retail) but the developer couldn't wait an extra year to start generating revenue, so that scaled it down, removed the retail, and began construction. So if we're using labels, here's an example where the neighborhoods were actually YIMBYs.

As for the Broadway protesters - that's me too. Totally unrelated to The Mark project. We just don't see it as "widen = upgrading". We agree that Broadway is in need of lots of work, but we feel there's a way to do it without demolishing 2 miles of local businesses and historic properties. If it has to be widened, we were hoping for dedicated transit/streetcar/BRT, not just another car lane. What other metro area of 1 million do you expect to be able to drive right into downtown on a 6-lane road?

See, nuance. Not against it, just have a different definition of "upgrading".

I live along the "Sunshine Mile" as well and I think almost everyone here is onboard with rail or BRT along Broadway, so I'm legitimately curious how you think the project could have proceeded with that infrastructure without widening to three lanes each way. My personal view of the project is that it's not ideal because it doesn't include BRT or rail but that the current scope at least allows for that in the future without taking additional property at a later date. A narrower project now would have likely required an additional 30 years to expand a second time, which is a losing argument for me.

[chenley333]

Originally Posted by Ted Lyons

I live along the "Sunshine Mile" as well and I think almost everyone here is onboard with rail or BRT along Broadway, so I'm legitimately curious how you think the project could have proceeded with that infrastructure without widening to three lanes each way. My personal view of the project is that it's not ideal because it doesn't include BRT or rail but that the current scope at least allows for that in the future without taking additional property at a later date. A narrower project now would have likely required an additional 30 years to expand a second time., which is a losing argument for me.

Agree, you could run a streetcar in mixed traffic with the current 4-lane configuration, but that's not ideal. I was on the Citizen's Task Force and we were really close to having the additional lane be dedicated to transit, but the City wouldn't go for it. We also pushed them to complete their detailed High Capacity Transit Study for Broadway, and they promised to do that. But now, almost 3 years later, that study has been shelved. So it felt like they were dangling the transit carrot just to get an additional auto lane. I would have liked to have seen them commit to funding/building Broadway as a transit-priority road, and until/unless they could do that, leave it as is.

I know that would leave the businesses who have been waiting for 25+ years in limbo even longer. It was a messy project - been on the books way too long, based on faulty traffic projections (current traffic less than 20 years ago), and businesses left to hang.

I'm still conflicted on this project. In the end, I begrudgingly supported the 6-lane configuration that's now moving forward with the hope for future BRT/rail etc. Some days I regret that. I hope we don't have to wait 30 years to see good redevelopment and good transit.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by chenley333

Agree, you could run a streetcar in mixed traffic with the current 4-lane configuration, but that's not ideal. I was on the Citizen's Task Force and we were really close to having the additional lane be dedicated to transit, but the City wouldn't go for it. We also pushed them to complete their detailed High Capacity Transit Study for Broadway, and they promised to do that. But now, almost 3 years later, that study has been shelved. So it felt like they were dangling the transit carrot just to get an additional auto lane. I would have liked to have seen them commit to funding/building Broadway as a transit-priority road, and until/unless they could do that, leave it as is.

I know that would leave the businesses who have been waiting for 25+ years in limbo even longer. It was a messy project - been on the books way too long, based on faulty traffic projections (current traffic less than 20 years ago), and businesses left to hang.

I'm still conflicted on this project. In the end, I begrudgingly supported the 6-lane configuration that's now moving forward with the hope for future BRT/rail etc. Some days I regret that. I hope we don't have to wait 30 years to see good redevelopment and good transit.

Thanks for the response and I'm glad someone with your investment and knowledge served on the task force. In sum, your points pretty much mirror my views. One sort of dormant issue that doesn't get mentioned is that, if the reduced traffic figures are accurate and if traffic doesn't increase massively with the added lanes, we have a built in selling point (the unnecessary third lane) for transit infrastructure down the road.

On the property front, I think I have less of an attachment to many of the structures proposed for demolition than some. Steve Kozachik made a valid point awhile back about limiting battles to properties that deserve to be saved. I think Rio Nuevo won such a battle with the "bungalow block." Conversely, I don't think the Madaras Gallery building or Water Ways (both of which, if I'm not mistaken, Kozachik supported preserving) met that standard.

[crzyabe]

Looks like the 20 story tower at Campbell and Speedway was approved and can move forward

20-story tower slated to get underway at prominent Tucson intersection