Tucson Development Thread

[Thirsty]

ArizAnon,

The builders put balconies facing an adjacent lot that they either never owned or have since sold knowing that such a prime lot only 40 yards from Congress would lure another structure of similar scale. If it were intended to have unobstructed views in perpetuity, they would have retained that land. I know the subsidized renters can't pool enough to buy it, but that's life as a tenant.

Also, if nobody were losing something they have grown accustomed to (sunrise on the balcony) it would be seen as a bonus.

People here point to Mediterranean cities with narrow streets that are always in the shade, and the buildings stay cool, and maybe you know the person in the neighboring balcony and think "that must be nice". What's the difference here? The buildings are modern looking, we probably won't be hanging our laundry in the streets, and that's about it.

And the bar has to follow the same liquor laws as every other bar down there. It sounds more like an after hours club rather than 24/7 booze. Maybe it will keep some of the shouting, urinating and vomiting off the streets!

Tangentially, I think it will be great when other projects put more height on avenues such as Arizona and Herbert. Once shaded, and power/garbage relocated, those would be great pedestrian only retail. A sort of trial balloon for the people who want to remove the cars from Congress.

[Eapiwo]

I'm sure the tenants in the MLK apartments will quickly forget their complaints with being in the shade as soon as it hits 115°.
Unfortunately their view will be lost. It was a nice amenity for low income housing but it was never meant to last given the nature of the lot. The silver lining is that during morning to noon hours their balconies will be a more comfortable temperature for more of the year and they won't be fighting the heat island in their building as much.

Ancient desert cities built like that to be more efficient at cooling off. The ground level would seldom see light during summers. I believe a similar attempt at a city like that is going on in the Abu Dhabi region of the UAE which is a model our city should start practicing in my opinion.

[InTheBurbs]

Alaska to start Tucson-San Jose service beginning August 29

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/0...ncisco-routes/

[kmiller5]

http://tucson.com/news/local/propose...d87d6bc3c.html

Seems like a cool project. Much better than the ancient apartments and vacant lots there now.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by kmiller5

http://tucson.com/news/local/propose...d87d6bc3c.html

Seems like a cool project. Much better than the ancient apartments and vacant lots there now.

Agreed. If I'm a Jefferson Park resident, I'm trying to leverage the best design possible rather than wasting my time fighting the project as a whole.

[OldPueblo$]

Originally Posted by Ted Lyons

Agreed. If I'm a Jefferson Park resident, I'm trying to leverage the best design possible rather than wasting my time fighting the project as a whole.

Kozachik says his hands are tied but for the wrong reason. How can he opine to anything as he is a U of A employee. He would need to recuse himself. As for the neighbors, they are representative of all the other no growth, anti-business, anti-change mentality that is all too pervasive here.

[chenley333]

Originally Posted by Ted Lyons

Agreed. If I'm a Jefferson Park resident, I'm trying to leverage the best design possible rather than wasting my time fighting the project as a whole.

So the story doesn't emphasize the real issues that the neighborhoods have with this project - it really isn't about the project itself - size etc.

There are 3 main issues.

1.It is a UA project that is outside the Planning Boundary that was negotiated with the hoods. If the UA goes ahead with this, they're basically setting a precedent where they can do it anywhere and basically gives the middle finger to the hoods who negotiated in good faith.

2. Even though ACC will build and collect profit from the project, by being under the UA umbrella, it totally bypasses the city rezoning process - again removing an avenue for the public input.

3. Also by being under the UA umbrella, it removes this large block of land from the City property tax rolls, even though a private company will profit from it's operation. Not sure of the details as of yet, but basically, UA will collect dorm rent/fees and lease the dorms from ACC (basically giving ACC a steady income stream) - so kind of like UA is laundering money so that it appears to be just another UA dorm.

There may be some legitimate concerns with the height/design, but the bigger issues is the process that makes the neighborhoods feel stepped on again by the UA.

[OldPueblo$]

[QUOTE=chenley333;7738886]So the story doesn't emphasize the real issues that the neighborhoods have with this project - it really isn't about the project itself - size etc.

Always open to hearing all sides but you hurt your cause when you say "UA is laundering money" and end with "There may be some legitimate concerns with the height/design". That aside, how does this negatively impact the neighborhood? Finally, the article states that the General Plan noted that this was a possibility so it was previously disclosed and I imagine discussed.

[wildcatmd]

Originally Posted by chenley333

So the story doesn't emphasize the real issues that the neighborhoods have with this project - it really isn't about the project itself - size etc.

There are 3 main issues.

1.It is a UA project that is outside the Planning Boundary that was negotiated with the hoods. If the UA goes ahead with this, they're basically setting a precedent where they can do it anywhere and basically gives the middle finger to the hoods who negotiated in good faith.

2. Even though ACC will build and collect profit from the project, by being under the UA umbrella, it totally bypasses the city rezoning process - again removing an avenue for the public input.

3. Also by being under the UA umbrella, it removes this large block of land from the City property tax rolls, even though a private company will profit from it's operation. Not sure of the details as of yet, but basically, UA will collect dorm rent/fees and lease the dorms from ACC (basically giving ACC a steady income stream) - so kind of like UA is laundering money so that it appears to be just another UA dorm.

There may be some legitimate concerns with the height/design, but the bigger issues is the process that makes the neighborhoods feel stepped on again by the UA.

I'm not part of this discussion but I think the article is portraying what's happening in a disingenuous way. It seems that the university is listening to their concerns by having a discussion with them and making design choices that will minimize impact. I'm sure the reporter found that most NIMBY neighbors he could find to get a couple of sound bites.

I also think they should thank their lucky stars that UA is partnering with the developer instead of the developer just doing it themselves. I mean at least an Honor student dorm is going to quiet and quite nice. They could have some sort of monstrosity like the HUB which will lead to trash, ragers and disturbances all year long.

I also find it so funny that these neighbors are happy to take advantage of the University when it benefits them in terms of bringing in professionals, cultural opportunities and general life to the city but god forbid the University develop empty lots and blighted housing into something more meaningful.

Yea the city loses a block of taxed property but how much would that even bring in compared to the jobs and students in this facility? Besides that, the city will freely dole out tax breaks to any company looking for a race-to-the-bottom relocation but god forbid they help out an organization that is committed to the long term welfare of the city

[Eapiwo]

Little update, big impact
City Park broke ground and the greyhound terminal opened

[kmiller5]

Originally Posted by Eapiwo

Little update, big impact
City Park broke ground and the greyhound terminal opened

Can someone more experienced in the development world fill me in as to whether City Park will need to undergo the archaeological survey that the AC did? It seems like some projects do and others don't and I'm not sure why. Thanks for any insight!

[hthomas]

Originally Posted by kmiller5

Can someone more experienced in the development world fill me in as to whether City Park will need to undergo the archaeological survey that the AC did? It seems like some projects do and others don't and I'm not sure why. Thanks for any insight!

It all depends, the AC site needed a study because archeological material was found on site, it wasn't anticipated. The City Park site, may or may not need one, depending on what is uncovered as the project moves forward.

[wildcatmd]

http://tucson.com/business/tucson/in...7adcbb896.html

More jobs downtown! Great to hear and it seems like we're close to hitting critical mass there.

[Eapiwo]

Neat conceptual buildings.
I've found this website with renderings for projects around the city, however I'm not sure if any of these are serious proposals or not. However they maintain the short yet nicely, modern theme we've been experiencing downtown.
http://www.rahwork.com/#/nebel/

[southtucsonboy77]

Originally Posted by Eapiwo

Neat conceptual buildings.
I've found this website with renderings for projects around the city, however I'm not sure if any of these are serious proposals or not. However they maintain the short yet nicely, modern theme we've been experiencing downtown.
http://www.rahwork.com/#/nebel/

Good link. Unfortunately, those are serious proposals. Oh boy, Block 175...not really what I envisioned. Not talking about height, but the architecture. It doesn't seem to fit in. I do like the urban front door/front steps streetscape though.

141 South Stone belongs on the west end. I won't go on my usual rant.

Boxyard I do like. Neat concept.

[southtucsonboy77]

Downtown Tucsonan Trend Report March 2017

Great summary of all the business activity that has happened recently and that is upcoming. Nice list of new businesses.

[Eapiwo]

Originally Posted by southtucsonboy77

Good link. Unfortunately, those are serious proposals. Oh boy, Block 175...not really what I envisioned. Not talking about height, but the architecture. It doesn't seem to fit in. I do like the urban front door/front steps streetscape though.

141 South Stone belongs on the west end. I won't go on my usual rant.

Boxyard I do like. Neat concept.

I am generally on the infill is infill side of things but these renderings aren't super beautiful, excluding the streetscape homes. The architecture just doesn't feel like it belongs downtown. It feels more like a regular apartment complex you'd find anywhere else in the city. These structures remind me of a modern day Herbert or Tucson House which have proven to be vicious eyesore (although the renovation of the Herbert helped). My expectation for buildings of these sizes is that they have a more distinctly Tucson style of architecture and not a global one kinda like the new MLK building and the Seniors Apartments on the west of I-10.

[Patrick S]

New TMC/El Rio Clinic opening at 1 W. Broadway. This looks like a clinic geared towards urban professionals. Tells me they see a need for this downtown due to population growth.

New downtown Tucson health clinic offers a different patient experience

[chenley333]

The developer has now backed away from the PAD and is now going with a proposal that fits within the existing zoning for this block. It's is scaled down to about 600 bed student housing and unfortunately no longer has any street-level retail. It will be 8 stories along Broadway, and 4 stories along Park, 10th St, and Tyndall.

We only have a site plan for now, no elevation diagrams yet.

[Ted Lyons]

Originally Posted by chenley333

The developer has now backed away from the PAD and is now going with a proposal that fits within the existing zoning for this block. It's is scaled down to about 600 bed student housing and unfortunately no longer has any street-level retail. It will be 8 stories along Broadway, and 4 stories along Park, 10th St, and Tyndall.

We only have a site plan for now, no elevation diagrams yet.

Honestly, the retail was so minimal as to be pointless, so that part doesn't bother me. Eight versus ten floors is also a relatively minor difference in this area since there are no other tall buildings or plans to develop any in the immediate vicinity.