Tucson Development Thread

[combusean]

It's *very* difficult and extraordinarily expensive to build rail transit.

A half cent dedicated to multimodal transport (ie, palatable to voters) brings in about $14 billion over 20 years in the Phoenix area--enough for a slew of light rail and bus and freeway improvements that's *on top of* a 4/10 cent transit tax in Phoenix proper that built the initial light rail leg and will construct a few miles of the Northwest Extension.

That same half-cent sales tax in Tucson brings in about a seventh of what it does in Phoenix, yet streetcars are only about half the cost of full-fledged light rail.

Ergo, to complete a transit system or even get it off the ground requires significant federal investment. There is substantial competition amongst other cities to get that money--therefore it's totally reasonable to compare Tucson to other cities because that's exactly what the Federal Transit Administration does.

Further complicating matters is that getting that money also very much depends on having an effective federal representation. Phoenix is lucky to have Pastor in Congress, sitting on the House Transportation Committee, I don't know what weight Tucson's representatives can pull as they flesh out future extensions to the fledgling streetcar.

That all being said, it is now a policy of Obama's FTA to favor the redevelopment potential of routes in the central city as a precursor to increasing density, compared to the Bush FTA policy of favoring routes that simply proposed getting people from Point A downtown to Point B in the suburbs as fast as possible. Eg, freeway-aligned routes that have limited redevelopment opportunities no longer score as high as in-street alignments where the redevelopment opportunity is greater.

Given that Tucson and Phoenix are about 20 years late in the game of using transit to redevelop their downtowns and central areas, there's far more greater gains to be had compared to cities farther along in the downtown/central area revitalization process.

This is a major plus for whatever is proposed in Arizona as far as the FTA is concerned.

I think that's at least part of what phxSUNSfan was getting at.

[phxSUNSfan]

Again, Combusean is correct and yes that is part of what I was saying. Beyond that Tucson will have to compete (I repeat this because it is important) with cities like Seattle in areas where Tucson might have some economic strength. For military, space, and biotech jobs you are directly competing with Seattle (which has a few of the nation's largest military bases nearby), Phoenix (with Luke and the new F-35 program), Boston (which has one of the highest concentrations of bio-tech firms and a larger complement of university research), etc.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

I think you are confused. I never said Tucson lacked museums but was comparing total cultural amenities (theaters, museums, cultural centers, artist's colonies) of both cities. I included not only museums but shopping, high-rise housing, employment density, etc.

As I've said numerous times, you're comparing apples to oranges and, for the size of Tucson, it has a good number of museums, theaters, and "cultural amenities" downtown. Those are really the least of our problems.

As I've noted, Tucson probably won't see "high-rise" housing downtown for a long time, if ever, because that's not the type of city it is and that's not the type of development we need necessarily.

However, the fact that our current downtown development is not "high-rise" in nature does not discount the benefits it provides the city. A six-floor 300+ bed student housing complex in downtown Tucson means a lot more than a similar project in downtown Phoenix and potentially more than something like a 20-floor project in downtown Phoenix. That's the level of nonequivalence I've been talking about.

Secondly, you speak of Tucson becoming a great urban place but cower when compared to other leading cities (NOTE: a great urban place doesn't have to equate to a huge metropolis).

See, again, you express the sentiments we all agree upon but preface them with a statement that flies in their face. Tucson can be a great urban place while be completely incomparable to other leading cities. The concepts are not mutually exclusive. Cities like Asheville are great urban places while simultaneously being completely incomparable to cities like Charlotte.

A streetcar will not allow Tucson to compete now or in the future for people and talent that will fill downtown condos.

See, this is just wrong, and your argument seems to be based on the fact that a similar streetcar in Phoenix would not work. The significant private development occurring along our streetcar line, which, again, has barely begun construction, disproves your point outright.

The other fact that diminishes your argument is that a streetcar, even if travelling at the speed of traffic, need only get a few miles in a reasonable time in Tucson to provide significant value in Tucson. Hotel Congress is only a mile and a half from University and Park. That's a short distance, but perfect for a streetcar ride. The distance between similar destinations in Phoenix (US Airways Center to University and Mill) is almost 9 miles by my estimation, so that would be completely unworkable for a streetcar. Again, what works here wouldn't work in Phoenix and vice versa.

In order to develop a dense downtown Tucson will have to compete with other cities (yes, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake, etc included) to attract high quality jobs that will afford the citizenry that lifestyle. Therefore, your statements are contradictory. You can't argue that Tucson will be ready to take off the training wheels and in the same breath refuse to compare your city to others.

First, I never made the "training wheels" comment. Second, as with everything else I've said, a relatively small number of jobs means more to Tucson than a larger city. A company with 25 employees total could commit to downtown Tucson and make a major difference in the community. The same company would barely make a dent in downtown Phoenix.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

Again, Combusean is correct and yes that is part of what I was saying. Beyond that Tucson will have to compete (I repeat this because it is important) with cities like Seattle in areas where Tucson might have some economic strength. For military, space, and biotech jobs you are directly competing with Seattle (which has a few of the nation's largest military bases nearby), Phoenix (with Luke and the new F-35 program), Boston (which has one of the highest concentrations of bio-tech firms and a larger complement of university research), etc.

I don't know how well you understand the logistics behind the military-industrial complex. Contractors, of all types, generally locate to cities where their services/products are needed the most and in which they can communicate directly with their counterparts within the military. This primarily depends upon the missions attendant to local military installations.

I honestly don't know much about what the Air Force does at DM but, based on my experience being from Sierra Vista, intelligence contractors have a major presence in the community due to the fact that the fort has a major military intelligence presence. Similarly, there are several high tech contractors located in the community due to the presence of the Electronic Proving Ground and other such facilities. Contrarily, the city is not battling it out for naval shipbuilders.

Another factor you're discounting is potential BRAC decisions which have historically been major concerns for Arizona installations. Potential reallignment decisions are sure to impact future contractor investments more than anything and, due to relatively unchecked encroachment, Luke is susceptible to reallignment more than most installations, especially if McCain isn't around when the decisions are made.

As for university-based investments, those again are tied directly to each university's objectives. So, while Tucson may be competing with cities like Seattle for private investment related to activities pursued mutually between UW and UA, we're not necessarily competing with them for investment related to activities pursued solely by UW and vice versa.

In regard to companies that could relocate to Tucson due to the research conducted by UA, it can only be a good thing that the university has recently decided to commit to a presence downtown. Further, the direct link being constructed between the university and downtown and the current development of residential properties along that link play in our favor as well.

[phxSUNSfan]

Originally Posted by Ted Lyons

I don't know how well you understand the logistics behind the military-industrial complex. Contractors, of all types, generally locate to cities where their services/products are needed the most and in which they can communicate directly with their counterparts within the military. This primarily depends upon the missions attendant to local military installations.

I honestly don't know much about what the Air Force does at DM but, based on my experience being from Sierra Vista, intelligence contractors have a major presence in the community due to the fact that the fort has a major military intelligence presence. Similarly, there are several high tech contractors located in the community due to the presence of the Electronic Proving Ground and other such facilities. Contrarily, the city is not battling it out for naval shipbuilders.

Another factor you're discounting is potential BRAC decisions which have historically been major concerns for Arizona installations. Potential reallignment decisions are sure to impact future contractor investments more than anything and, due to relatively unchecked encroachment, Luke is susceptible to reallignment more than most installations, especially if McCain isn't around when the decisions are made.

As for university-based investments, those again are tied directly to each university's objectives. So, while Tucson may be competing with cities like Seattle for private investment related to activities pursued mutually between UW and UA, we're not necessarily competing with them for investment related to activities pursued solely by UW and vice versa.

In regard to companies that could relocate to Tucson due to the research conducted by UA, it can only be a good thing that the university has recently decided to commit to a presence downtown. Further, the direct link being constructed between the university and downtown and the current development of residential properties along that link play in our favor as well.

Of course, I don't agree...but we'll leave it at that.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

Of course, I don't agree...but we'll leave it at that.

Well, your positions thus far have generally been unfounded, so . . .

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by combusean

It's *very* difficult and extraordinarily expensive to build rail transit.

A half cent dedicated to multimodal transport (ie, palatable to voters) brings in about $14 billion over 20 years in the Phoenix area--enough for a slew of light rail and bus and freeway improvements that's *on top of* a 4/10 cent transit tax in Phoenix proper that built the initial light rail leg and will construct a few miles of the Northwest Extension.

That same half-cent sales tax in Tucson brings in about a seventh of what it does in Phoenix, yet streetcars are only about half the cost of full-fledged light rail.

Ergo, to complete a transit system or even get it off the ground requires significant federal investment. There is substantial competition amongst other cities to get that money--therefore it's totally reasonable to compare Tucson to other cities because that's exactly what the Federal Transit Administration does.

Further complicating matters is that getting that money also very much depends on having an effective federal representation. Phoenix is lucky to have Pastor in Congress, sitting on the House Transportation Committee, I don't know what weight Tucson's representatives can pull as they flesh out future extensions to the fledgling streetcar.

That all being said, it is now a policy of Obama's FTA to favor the redevelopment potential of routes in the central city as a precursor to increasing density, compared to the Bush FTA policy of favoring routes that simply proposed getting people from Point A downtown to Point B in the suburbs as fast as possible. Eg, freeway-aligned routes that have limited redevelopment opportunities no longer score as high as in-street alignments where the redevelopment opportunity is greater.

Given that Tucson and Phoenix are about 20 years late in the game of using transit to redevelop their downtowns and central areas, there's far more greater gains to be had compared to cities farther along in the downtown/central area revitalization process.

This is a major plus for whatever is proposed in Arizona as far as the FTA is concerned.

I think that's at least part of what phxSUNSfan was getting at.

I totally understand how much the federal government is relied upon to fund these projects. The City of Tucson is only paying $84 million for the streetcar even though the total budget is $197 million. The TIGER grant was only for $63 million but I'd assume there's other federal money helping to bridge the final $50 million (technically $37 million as the project is $13 million under budget).

My basic premise, though, was that, if the redevelopment potential of this $200 million project is comparably equivalent or better than the redevelopment potential of a $1.4 billion project in a different city, we're not really competing on the same level. This also goes to my point that, although a $200 million streetcar may seem piddling and ineffective in Phoenix, it means a lot more in a smaller city like Tucson where major points of interest are much closer to each other.

[phxSUNSfan]

Originally Posted by Ted Lyons

Well, your positions thus far have generally been unfounded, so . . .

Funny, I think your positions are vastly unfounded. You manage to dismiss competition and scarcity spectacularly. Meaning you miss all of the economics behind developing urban places and mass transit. It seems you think Tucson exists in some economic bubble. You pick topics to support your point that are far off base.

I mentioned Seattle's military bases competing with older installations like DM, then you mention Naval Stations...failing to understand that one of the largest joint bases in the nation is near Seattle: Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Army and Air Force). This is the future structure of the military. An exception exists if a base is highly specialized, requiring it to remain open or at current troop levels. DM isn't in that category as their mission can be accomplished on a joint base with greater "sister forces" integration and I came to understand that during my time in the military.

You also think that UofA's research dollars are unique. That is hardly true. 25 years ago ASU wasn't even a Top 100 research institution and UofA was a Top 15. Fast forward to today and ASU and UofA are both in the Top 25 for research and development. ASU and other schools like UW are competing directly with UofA for money and it will get even more competitive.

Also, my posts weren't always in reply to you. I tried to kill two or more birds with one stone but that muddled the conversation (e.g. when addressing high-rise development raised by someone else). Funny thing is we probably agree that Tucson will develop a smaller scale urban environment. Tucson will still need mass transit beyond a streetcar to effectively move its residents. That is where competition on a national scale will be a set back for the city (commuter rail from Marana, through town and into the S. Tucson for instance). You'll be competing with larger cities for those type of projects unless you wish downtown Tucson to remain too small for a city of over half a million people.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

You manage to dismiss competition and scarcity spectacularly.

No. What I dismiss is the idea that, if Tucson doesn't try to model itself after Phoenix, it's setting itself up for failure. This is has been your primary motivator in posting here from day one. The issue of Tucson competing for future transportation funding, which it currently is not and was not at issue, is a total tangent to your initial argument, which was essentially, "Tucson's streetcar won't make a difference and won't attract development and investments." I've provided you with hard evidence about how wrong this is, but you persist, which is how we ended up at the discussion of future funding competition.

Meaning you miss all of the economics behind developing urban places and mass transit. It seems you think Tucson exists in some economic bubble. You pick topics to support your point that are far off base.

See above.

I mentioned Seattle's military bases competing with older installations like DM, then you mention Naval Stations...failing to understand that one of the largest joint bases in the nation is near Seattle: Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Army and Air Force).

I just moved back to Tucson from Washington last year, chief, so I have a pretty decent understanding of the massive military presence in the Sound region. Further, my "naval shipbuilding" comment was simply an anecdote about how installations with limited missions aren't attracting investments from contractors who have no connection to those missions.

Seattle has numerous military installations, most of them with disparate missions, so the region is competing for dollars against cities all over the country. The same can't be said of DM and Luke, which are both relatively minor installations with very specific missions.

Further, due to local factors tied to several of the major installations in Arizona (city encroachment at DM And Luke, water usage at Fort Huachuca) none of our bases are ever going to be considered for massive reallignment additions, so this entire discussion is a non-starter and, again, has nothing to do with your initial point.

You also think that UofA's research dollars are unique.

No. That's not what I said at all. I said UA's research dollars were unique in fields in which their research was unique. This is just simple logic.

You seem to either have reading comprehension problems or you're just so argumentative that you want to believe I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you believe even if I'm not. Yet again, this has nothing to do with your initial argument and has only become a topic of conversation because you've so thoroughly twisted your point, which was this:

You mean become like Phoenix and actually develop real mass transit like light rail? Or have high rise apartments and condos downtown, increased density, cultural attractions, museums, theaters and shopping in the Central City? No, you wouldn't want that for Tucson. It is already as sprawled out as Phoenix for its size but lacks the density and planned mass transit corridors. A 5 mile streetcar wouldn't cut it in Phoenix.

That is where competition on a national scale will be a set back for the city (commuter rail from Marana, through town and into the S. Tucson for instance). You'll be competing with larger cities for those type of projects unless you wish downtown Tucson to remain too small for a city of over half a million people.

See, just as I suspected, this is a debate you've picked out of thin air. I've never even considered that we were discussing issues such as this because I know they're ridiculously far-fetched even given our relatively progressive government and increasing dedication to urbanism.

On this note, though, I don't know if you have a good grasp on what makes Tucson's transportation infrastructure so ineffective. The commute from Marana to downtown isn't really a problem at all right now, and won't be for quite awhile given the current expansion of I-10.

The real issue is cross-town traffic congestion, which is why all of us who live here envision shorter, but much more useful, upgrades down Broadway and up Campbell/Oracle. These are the drives that push people away from living in the city, not the relatively easy drives on the highway.

So, while you're arguing one thing, we're arguing something else altogether and I think that goes right back to you framing your plans for Tucson around what has worked for Phoenix even though each city's needs are not the same.

[aznate27]

Anywho...moving on...

The Star did an article on the bioscience industry here in Arizona. The future is looking pretty bright for even further growth in that industry, especially in the Tucson region.

Bioscience bright spot for jobs in Arizona

Arizona's biosciences sector is expanding despite the still-struggling economy - boosted in Southern Arizona by expansion at companies like Oro Valley-based Ventana Medical Systems/Roche.

Employment in Arizona's biosciences sector rose 7.4 percent from 2009 to 2010, according to the latest update of a statewide bioscience plan commissioned by the Phoenix-based Flinn Foundation.

Locally, much of that job growth came at Ventana Medical Systems, which has added more than 300 jobs since being acquired by German drug giant Roche AG in 2008.

And the company is still expanding, the company's chief said Thursday at a biosciences industry update hosted by Flinn at the Marriott University Park.

Ventana, a University of Arizona technology spinoff that makes tissue-diagnostics instruments, now employs about 1,200 people in Arizona and plans to bring in more workers from recently acquired companies, said Mara Aspinall, named president of Ventana Medical Systems last August.

"Ventana is very proud to be here," Aspinall said in one of her first public speeches since taking Ventana's top post. "We doubled our acreage in the Oro Valley area, and we intend to continue to expand there."

Since Arizona's Bioscience Roadmap was launched in 2002, through 2010, private biosciences employment including hospitals has grown 41 percent, compared with 11 percent nationally, according to a road map update.

In the Tucson region, non-hospital employment in research, testing and medical labs rose 33 percent over the same nine-year period, says a study by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice.

But much work remains to be done to adequately fund the state's research universities, boost federal research grants and attract venture capital to nourish bio startups, said Walter Plosila, senior adviser to Battelle and the report's author.

"The numbers for the whole decade are very strong, and more importantly, we continue to make progress," Plosila said.

Private equity investment in Arizona bioscience firms by venture-capital funds and individual "angel" investors fell from more than $40 million in 2002 to about $25 million last year, the report found.

However, the amount of so-called "risk capital" - considered the lifeblood of many biotech startups - rose last year to an estimated $69 million, Plosila said.

Much of that was attributable to Southern Arizona, where Tucson-based HTG Molecular Diagnostics announced a $15.7 million venture-capital deal, he noted.

"The entrepreneurial engine of Arizona is clearly in the Tucson region," Plosila said, though he added that Arizona still lags in locally based investment.

Arizona has outpaced the nation in the growth of funding from the National Institutes of Health, but the state still gets less than its share of funding by population, Plosila said.

The growth of NIH grants to non-university private research institutes has outpaced university grants, with the dollar amount of grants rising nearly 80 percent between 2002 and 2011, compared with 18 percent for the universities, Plosila noted.

While that's a testament to the strength of private research in the state, it also may reflect the impact of cuts to state university funding, Plosila said.

"The cutbacks in higher-ed funding in the state - $428 million in cuts to date - that's going to be a major challenge," he said.

T.J. Johnson, president and CEO of HTG Molecular and co-chair of the Biosciences Leadership Council of Southern Arizona, said the council recently hosted an event with about 40 legislators to stress the importance of university funding as well as K-12 education.

Arizona's low rankings for public schools don't go unnoticed by prospective employees, said Johnson, whose company has more than doubled its staff since 2008 to about 45 now and plans to double again in the next five years.

"No question - people read the statistics," Johnson said.

Ventana's Aspinall said Arizona's biotechnology assets and collaborative efforts make the state well-positioned to prosper as the medical industry moves toward "personalized" health care - essentially using genetics and related technologies to match patients to therapies.

The state needs to get the word out, she said, adding that she was surprised by the relative strength of the state's biotech industry after arriving from the Boston area.

"Arizona is a hidden gem," she said. "One of the key messages, maybe in the next stage of the road map, is ensuring that others know outside of the community - that is a key piece to creating that movement."

To read the most recent progress report on Arizona's Bioscience Roadmap, go to www.flinn.org.

Contact Assistant Business Editor David Wichner at dwichner@azstarnet.com or 573-4181

[phxSUNSfan]

There was a similar article in the Arizona Republic and Phx Buz Journal concerning bio-tech in Arizona. They were a little different in their analysis of the situation: highlighting growing NIH grants and funding to ASU. It seems a Phoenix/Tucson, ASU/UofA rivalry makes its way into nearly every discussion like these.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...-prospers.html

Ted, my commuter rail "for instance" was just that; If an East-West route is needed more it would be prudent to start planning for that now. One way Tucson is very much like Phoenix is its lack of planning for the future. Phoenix should have had commuter rail by now; we have a shovel ready MAG plan in case funding from the Feds becomes available. Tucson needs to do the same...as energy and gas prices contiunue to rise, mass transit will be needed and future development will depend on such transportation infrastructure.

[Anqrew]

New Cushing St Bridge Photos.




all from https://www.facebook.com/TucsonStreetcar

[Patrick S]

Originally Posted by phxSUNSfan

It seems a Phoenix/Tucson, ASU/UofA rivalry makes its way into nearly every discussion like these.

This is where both cities (and their respective residences) are going wrong. We need to stop thinking of ourselves us Tucsonans and Pheoniciens. Phoenix is a great city, but I love living in Tucson - Phoenix is just too big for me (I grew up in a town of 25,000 people - and it was the biggest town for almost 100 miles, until you hit the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis). Just as some people love living in Phoenix, but still like Tucson. To each their own. We need to start thinking of ourselves as Sun Corridor Residents though. Let's face it, we live in a country right now that is just starting to come out of a massive recession and though austerity measures are not the answer right now (they will only hurt the recovery), they will be needed in the future. With more jobs in the recovery comes more tax dollars, but thanks to the mess we were in and the things needed to get us out of it (the stimulus - which I supported and still think was necessary), we are going to be fighting with other areas for resources. Phoenix may have 4.2 million people in its metro area, but that still is only like #14 or 15 in the country (The Inland-Empire is right above it with Riverside, CA - a town of about 300,000 as it's biggest city - talk about sprawl). I grew up 6 hours from Chicago, but used to go there a lot - that's a big place (almost 10 million). I've been to LA (over 12 million - plus w/ the Inland-Empire part of its Combined Statistical Area it's almost 17 million - and NY - metro area over 18 million, and those dwarf even Chi-town, and make Phoenix look small. I know Tucson is 'only' a million, but every bit helps when you're making the pitch for those all important dollars. Together (and with Pinal County too), we've got about 5.5 million people, two very good universities (but think of Boston w/ Harvard, Boston College, MIT, Boston Univ.), one major airport (Sky Harbor) and another one that can be utilized if needed (TIA), closeness to Mexico, availability to rails (Tucson has lines heading east-west), I-10 in both cities -Phoenix for moving things to the west coast (L.A./S.F./Pacific Northwest) - and Tucson for moving things east to Texas (Dallas/Houston/San Antonio) and Florida (Miami/Jacksonville/Tampa-St. Pete) and I-8 in between for moving things to or from San Diego. Both cities would be perfect places for an inland port - and Tucson may be even better since it's closer to Mexico and the much longer eastern sections of I-10. The point is that we would be much better to work together to help both places. Do I want Tucson to become Phoenix - no way, I moved here little more than 3 years ago and I love it here. Do I want it to be bigger and better, yes, just not sprawled as much as Phoenix. Tucson isn't too big and too built in to have missed its shot at still getting it right in terms of in-filling itself and building up rather than out - and it seems like with new and proposed projects, helped by the streetcar, that it is moving in the right direction. Is the streetcar the answer to all of the problems here - is it the end-all-be-all for the city. No, we need a real light-rail to run down Broadway, to the Airport and DMAFB. And, as much as I don't want Tucson to be Phoenix, I don't want Phoenix to be Tucson. I had grandparents in Chandler when I was younger and used to come out there in the mid to late-1990s, when Chandler was exploding. I like Phoenix, I do, I just like it here better. Both cities have their good points and their bad points. We'll never get anywhere if we argue and compete against each other. phxSUNSfan - I actually thought most of your comments were pretty spot on about Tucson. I also think some down here have an inferiority complex - and probably rightfully so. I grew up in a state dominated by one city that was 350 miles away and had 3/4 of the state's population in its metro area, so I understand Tucson's psyche. I simply state that for both cities to get ahead we need to work together to achieve our goals, especially for the limited resources we are already seeing and are sure to be seeing for the foreseeable future.

[kaneui]

In the latest attempt to save the crumbling Marist College, the Downtown Tucson Partnership is soliciting letters of interest from the private sector to restore the 1915 adobe structure, perhaps as a boutique hotel and restaurant:




Concrete stucco plaster applied to the adobe building in the 1960s locked in moisture; add
clogged roof drains that caused water seepage, and the underlying structure was compromised.
(photo: Benjie Sanders/Arizona Daily Star)


As fixer-upper, historic Marist College has upsides
by Rhonda Bodfield
Arizona Daily Star
February 5, 2012

One of Tucson's most endangered and remarkable historic buildings could be plucked from neglect and given new life. It will take some vision - and a hefty bankroll - to resurrect the historic Marist College, which was built in 1915 and has been unoccupied but for flocks of pigeons for more than a decade. You may have heard it all before. Downtown advocates and historic preservationists have been talking about the urgent need for at least eight years. But so far the only thing that's happened is the building has fallen further into disrepair.

Enter Michael Keith, head of the Downtown Tucson Partnership. He sees past the bird droppings and the dated bathrooms and the tarps on the corners protecting the crumpled adobe from further damage. In Keith's vision, the floors are stripped down to the fir underneath the aged carpet and linoleum. The chipped paint is removed from the bannisters and stairways to show gleaming wood underneath. The low ceilings are removed so they can soar 15 feet overhead. Natural lighting pours through lightly tinted stained-glass windows. The former parochial school for boys ideally would come back as a boutique hotel and restaurant, bathed in soft uplighting and serenaded by the bells of the St. Augustine Cathedral next door.

The partnership this week issued a "request for interest," attempting to gauge the interest level from development teams in bringing the building back. Keith, a developer himself before joining the nonprofit partnership, has coveted the property for more than two decades. A restaurant could easily go in the basement, a former gymnasium that still has basketball backboards mounted on the wall. The two stories above that could accommodate about 20 hotel rooms, by his estimates. "It's a significant cultural asset," he said. Given the right mix, he said, its rebirth could be "brilliant."



For full article: http://azstarnet.com/article_9de8ecd...17d443434.html

[Locofresh55]

Originally Posted by kaneui

In the latest attempt to save the crumbling Marist College, the Downtown Tucson Partnership is soliciting letters of interest from the private sector to restore the 1915 adobe structure, perhaps as a boutique hotel and restaurant:




Concrete stucco plaster applied to the adobe building in the 1960s locked in moisture; add
clogged roof drains that caused water seepage, and the underlying structure was compromised.
(photo: Benjie Sanders/Arizona Daily Star)


As fixer-upper, historic Marist College has upsides
by Rhonda Bodfield
Arizona Daily Star
February 5, 2012

One of Tucson's most endangered and remarkable historic buildings could be plucked from neglect and given new life. It will take some vision - and a hefty bankroll - to resurrect the historic Marist College, which was built in 1915 and has been unoccupied but for flocks of pigeons for more than a decade. You may have heard it all before. Downtown advocates and historic preservationists have been talking about the urgent need for at least eight years. But so far the only thing that's happened is the building has fallen further into disrepair.

Enter Michael Keith, head of the Downtown Tucson Partnership. He sees past the bird droppings and the dated bathrooms and the tarps on the corners protecting the crumpled adobe from further damage. In Keith's vision, the floors are stripped down to the fir underneath the aged carpet and linoleum. The chipped paint is removed from the bannisters and stairways to show gleaming wood underneath. The low ceilings are removed so they can soar 15 feet overhead. Natural lighting pours through lightly tinted stained-glass windows. The former parochial school for boys ideally would come back as a boutique hotel and restaurant, bathed in soft uplighting and serenaded by the bells of the St. Augustine Cathedral next door.

The partnership this week issued a "request for interest," attempting to gauge the interest level from development teams in bringing the building back. Keith, a developer himself before joining the nonprofit partnership, has coveted the property for more than two decades. A restaurant could easily go in the basement, a former gymnasium that still has basketball backboards mounted on the wall. The two stories above that could accommodate about 20 hotel rooms, by his estimates. "It's a significant cultural asset," he said. Given the right mix, he said, its rebirth could be "brilliant."



For full article: http://azstarnet.com/article_9de8ecd...17d443434.html

Boutique hotel??? I guess I under estimated how roomy this place was. I could picture like a boys n girls club or something going there or maybe a bed n breakfast but the truth of the matter is that whatever goes there, they have to do it fast....this building is crumbling more and more and the longer it sits there crumbling, the worse it will get for Tucson. I'd hate to see this building go away but if it does, there better be something fantastic replacing it there.

[Anqrew]

The District is getting finished pretty quick, looks good.

[ComplotDesigner]

How the District on 5th looks from RTC.

[bleunick]

Honestly... Im not a huge fan of how 'The District' looks. The facade doesn't complement any of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood, the old buildings along 4th ave, or the warehouses along 6th. It actually kind of looks like that generic looking Hampton Inn on the east side next to Park Place. The least they could have done was design the south side of the building to fit in with the existing structures along 6th street. Maybe by using all brick or by adding some sort of art deco-y pizazz. I just hope this doesn't start any kind of trend in architectural design for the area.

[Anqrew]

New Broadway-Stone building to house RTA's headquarters

Agency, sharing space with PAG, will be near modern-streetcar stop




Robert Caylor Construction Co. is developing a six-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Stone Avenue. Caylor's One East Broadway building will have parking, street-level retail, offices and 39 apartment units.

Caylor, which specializes in urban infill developments, also owns 2 East Congress, the Chase Bank building next door. The design of the new building will complement the look of its historic neighbor but will be more modern, said owner Rob Caylor.

He said he hopes to start construction this fall, for the building to open around the same time as the modern streetcar late next year.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt...#ixzz1llvhTuP3

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by Anqrew

Robert Caylor Construction Co. is developing a six-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Stone Avenue. Caylor's One East Broadway building will have parking, street-level retail, offices and 39 apartment units.

Caylor, which specializes in urban infill developments, also owns 2 East Congress, the Chase Bank building next door. The design of the new building will complement the look of its historic neighbor but will be more modern, said owner Rob Caylor.

He said he hopes to start construction this fall, for the building to open around the same time as the modern streetcar late next year.


Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt...#ixzz1llvhTuP3

I just saw this on StarNet. Exciting news. This adds to the pretty lengthy list of midrise projects slated to begin construction downtown this year.