General Phoenix Metro Discussion Thread

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Notice that I said that people are claiming they'll boycott. I'm seeing some chatter on Facebook about a boycott, along with a string of negative Yelp reviews mentioning the BID. Whether that actually translates into diminished sales remains to be seen. People tend to jump on a boycott bandwagon on social media but don't always change their habits as consumers. If friends or coworkers propose going to AT, how many people want to be the dissenter who explains the complicated BID process and AT's role in it? Likewise, many of those talking most loudly about a boycott are also mentioning that they already don't go there anyway.

Whether the boycott makes a difference or not, it would be nice if some of the leading pro-BID voices made a statement against a boycott. It would be a gracious gesture that acknowledges that a vibrant Downtown is home to a variety of opinions, even some that many Downtown advocates find objectionable. While I don't like the way that AT and its allies handled the BID process, it would probably take a revelation that the alehouse serves beer brewed with kitten blood to make me say I'd absolutely never set foot in the business ever again. The adverse Yelp reviews are likely to be eventually deleted by a site admin.

LOL. I agree that an anti-boycott message would be nice, but that group doesn't seem to like to play nice much from the outside. Speaking of which, is The Dressing Room ever opening? I know BE Coffee is from the same owners, but it seems shady to get that much money on GoFundMe for a certain proposal and never really attempt to get it off the ground. I would also just like to see that space active.

Given our usual disagreements on retail, I thought this was interesting to learn: for financing purposes, most of the apartments going up are divided into the residential space above and "community space" on the first floor, even if the intent is to lease some/all of it. The rents of the apartments must cover the project even if the ground floor is always empty. The retail space is then marketed by your big-name realtors who price it in a way that doesn't force their other properties (i.e., Colliers Center or CityScape) to drop theirs... and, so we end up with empty spaces in what seem to be prime locations.

Other developers, like Union/MetroWest finance in a riskier manner that looks at the project as a truly mixed use building. I *think* the takeaway from that approach is that pricing the space at a bargain becomes more of a realistic option for these types of projects because unlike the others, any revenue is better than 0 revenue. I may have butchered 1 or both of these, but interesting to learn a bit more about how why there seems to be such a discrepancy between market demand and leases.

Skyline apparently converted all of their western retail space into office units, but I didn't get to take a look.

[PHX31]

Does anyone know anything about the original use of the historic building that currently houses Coach's Corner Grill on the north side of the Suns/D-backs parking garage between 3rd & 4th St on Jefferson? It's in its original state (basically) and stretches all the way between 3rd & 4th. I've never really noticed it was actually original. Hard to tell what it may have been for back in the day. The center part of the building likely was some type of entrance for automobiles? Maybe the building was a repair shop's offices? A depot of some sort? It sill has some ornamentation and random original old doors.





Here is a historic aerial, the building I'm talking about is the long skinny one under "phoenix".

[biggus diggus]

Our skyline looks like a stunted version of Atlanta's.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Our skyline looks like a stunted version of Atlanta's.

Pictures don't do it justice!!!

[dtnphx]

We may have stunted buildings, but they have civil war memorials and rebel flags everywhere celebrating the losing side. So sad.

[biggus diggus]

Stunted intelligence.

[muertecaza]

Announcement expected on Coyotes stadium before the NHL draft on June 24. Article still mentions Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa and the Pima-Maricopa Indian Community as potential options.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...ake-arena.html

Arizona Coyotes President, CEO and co-owner Anthony LeBlanc expects to have an announcement on a new arena before the June 24 National Hockey League draft...

“We anticipate making some kind of announcement,” LeBlanc said.

He said the team was multiple, viable options for a new arena...

Potential arena options for the Coyotes include a downtown arena in Phoenix that the hockey team would share with the Phoenix Suns and Phoenix Mercury...

The Coyotes could also partner with Arizona State University for a shared arena and accompanying development at Karsten Golf Course in team...

The hockey team could also look at sites in Mesa and on the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community...

[muertecaza]

The baby Peregrine Falcon that was nesting on the county building at 3rd Avenue and Jefferson died :-(

http://science.kjzz.org/content/3155...n-phoenix-dies

[exit2lef]

There's some controversy over this proposed facility. I have some friends who are outraged about bottling water in a desert city, but my feelings are mixed. I think bottled water is overconsumed, and I'm glad to see more places adding refill stations for reusable water bottles. At the same time, I recognize that bottling is sometimes the only viable way to distribute water. If Phoenicians are going to consume bottled water in at least some quantity, doesn't it make sense for it to be produced locally, avoiding the environmental impact of trucking it over great distances? Besides, the one fact ignored by the opponents is that the city's water department doesn't really have the authority to regulate how water is used as long as bills are paid on time. If the city were to attempt to claim this authority, I imagine the state legislature would move quickly to override that action -- just as it has done with pet stores, plastic bags, and business improvement districts. Thoughts?

http://www.azcentral.com/search/nestle/

[KevininPhx]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

There's some controversy over this proposed facility. I have some friends who are outraged about bottling water in a desert city, but my feelings are mixed. I think bottled water is overconsumed, and I'm glad to see more places adding refill stations for reusable water bottles. At the same time, I recognize that bottling is sometimes the only viable way to distribute water. If Phoenicians are going to consume bottled water in at least some quantity, doesn't it make sense for it to be produced locally, avoiding the environmental impact of trucking it over great distances? Besides, the one fact ignored by the opponents is that the city's water department doesn't really have the authority to regulate how water is used as long as bills are paid on time. If the city were to attempt to claim this authority, I imagine the state legislature would move quickly to override that action -- just as it has done with pet stores, plastic bags, and business improvement districts. Thoughts?

http://www.azcentral.com/search/nestle/

Outraged? About what? We have water and people need to drink it. Thepplastic bottle?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

Outraged? About what? We have water and people need to drink it. Thepplastic bottle?

The environmental impact of producing, transporting, storing, and disposing of plastic bottles is the most concrete and quantifiable issue. It's also the one that I understand the most when trying to see things from the Nestle opponents' point of view. Nevertheless, it seems those impacts might be reduced if water is bottled and consumed in the same place without the need for long-distance transport.

If you read some of the articles and look at the opponents' Facebook page, there are additional issues raised that are mostly philosophical, symbolic, and emotional. I'm less sympathetic to those arguments. Keep in mind that Nestle has been a bete noire among green / progressive groups since the '70s. It all began with controversy about infant formula sales in developing countries.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by KevininPhx

Outraged? About what? We have water and people need to drink it. Thepplastic bottle?

Its a emotionally based argument "Bottling our water??? IN A DESERT!!!!"

Despite Arizona not having anything close to a water shortage. I put no stock in this kind of ignorant knee jerking.

Nestle bottle factory will create something like 100 low skill jobs, it is good for the community, it should be built, it will have no negative impact on our water supply and no measurable change in our... plastic pollution??? The amount of plastic bottles consumed and littered around town daily is probably more than the facility will make in a week, and nestle will properly dispose of their waste.

Literally what is the problem

[PHX31]

I thought the water rights were bought from somone/something else, it's not like they're taking more water/new rights. So in essence, the water usage issue is nothing to me.

I have an issue with all of the plastic bottles in general. People should use less plastic/plastic bottles. Just buy a reusable bottle and refill it with your own tap water (filtered). That's exactly what you're buying anyway, it's way effing cheaper than buying plastic water bottles, and less plastic is being used.

I'm fine with the Nestle bottling plant. Instead of protesting it or getting pissed, just don't buy it. If everyone did that they wouldn't be building a plant and it would be a non-issue.

[biggus diggus]

People don't drink water in the desert so it makes no sense to have a bottling plant.

[combusean]

I would understand the outrage more if Phoenix tap water were drinkable.

But it's not. It's disgusting. I don't know how I grew up on it, but when I come back after having been spoiled on Hetch Hetchy's finest, it's completely foul. Others who have grown up out of state had said the same thing to me and I never believed them until recently.

I wish these quasi-environmentalists that are opposed to one particular bottling plant would focus a fraction of their energy on making the tap water more drinkable thus negating the overall demand for bottled water in general.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by combusean

I would understand the outrage more if Phoenix tap water were drinkable.

But it's not. It's disgusting. I don't know how I grew up on it, but when I come back after having been spoiled on Hetch Hetchy's finest, it's completely foul. Others who have grown up out of state had said the same thing to me and I never believed them until recently.

I wish these quasi-environmentalists that are opposed to one particular bottling plant would focus a fraction of their energy on making the tap water more drinkable thus negating the overall demand for bottled water in general.

I had the same experience vis-a-vis tap water--I drank it exclusively growing up but now don't really go for it.

I've seen some instances where Nestle has entered into lengthy "water rights" contracts where they have pretty extensive rights for lengthy 25-50 year periods. I could see why that would be objectionable. But the City has been clear that there are not water rights being transferred. Nestle is just becoming the 4th bottling water bottling facility in Phoenix, and is paying the going rate for their water just like everybody else. I don't see much of a problem.

I am a little bit sympathetic to the moral/perception argument. I think Arizona's done a pretty good job planning its water resources, and I think it's beneficial for the perception of Arizona to reflect that. But I don't think this Nestle plant is consequential enough to be the hill I'd choose to die on for the cause.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by combusean

I would understand the outrage more if Phoenix tap water were drinkable.

But it's not. It's disgusting. I don't know how I grew up on it, but when I come back after having been spoiled on Hetch Hetchy's finest, it's completely foul. Others who have grown up out of state had said the same thing to me and I never believed them until recently.

I wish these quasi-environmentalists that are opposed to one particular bottling plant would focus a fraction of their energy on making the tap water more drinkable thus negating the overall demand for bottled water in general.

The tap water here tastes just fine to me if you filter it. I don't see a need to use a new plastic bottle every time you need water here.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The environmental impact of producing, transporting, storing, and disposing of plastic bottles is the most concrete and quantifiable issue. It's also the one that I understand the most when trying to see things from the Nestle opponents' point of view. Nevertheless, it seems those impacts might be reduced if water is bottled and consumed in the same place without the need for long-distance transport.

My understanding is that Nestle picked this location in order to have access to a great transportation network. Meaning, I believe their intent is to use Phoenix water and truck to California where they were denied a new plant. I tend to be very black/white on issues like you but if that is the intent I do find it annoying that were basically being used for something that was denied one state over.

Is it worth 50 or so low skilled jobs? I guess a lot of people think so.

[muertecaza]

In Phoenix, an ambitious plan aims to cover 25% of the metropolis with tree shade

This Southwest capital presents a distinctive postcard: brutal heat, desert peaks, sprawling subdivisions and endless asphalt.

Richard Adkins wants to add another image: trees...

Under a plan Adkins is developing with the support of city officials, 25% of Phoenix would have tree canopy by the year 2030. That would be a notable increase from the current situation: A recent study determined that overall canopy in the city is less than half that.

Yet with a new emphasis on downtown development and walkable neighborhoods, as well as increasing concerns about heat on human health (forecasts show that climate change will make things even hotter here), Phoenix is actively seeking more shade.

That can mean “engineered” shade, like the small steel “trees” rising out of planters on some corners downtown, or larger structures like those in Civic Space Park or at many of the city’s newer transit centers. It will also mean more real trees – whether natives, like mesquite and palo brea, or non-natives that have proven resilient in a particularly challenging setting.

The way Adkins describes one non-native he and other arborists in the Southwest have grown fond of, the Chinese pistache, offers a window into just how much is asked of a tree in urban Arizona.

“Not very messy at all, very low maintenance, but very high yielding as far as benefits,” Adkins said of the pistache, which is native to China. “Great thick shade, good for air quality because it has a very thick crown and can intercept a lot of particulate matter. It has a good root system that’s not too shallow, so I don’t have a lot problems right now with buckling sidewalks or destroying infrastructure. And it’s one of the only trees that’s going to give you nice red fall color. In Phoenix, we don’t have have a lot of fall color — we don’t have a lot of fall, period.”

...That last point has not always been so appreciated in Phoenix. Tall palms, evoking a desert oasis but providing little shade, are still prominent in many places, as are green lawns. There can also be a shade divide, with vast stretches of bleakness — nothing overhead but the sun — in some lower-income neighborhoods.

...The shift has come as Phoenix tries to catch up with other cities in making the kind of urban environment to which young workers flock. But meeting the goal comes with more challenges here, including working collegially with a development community accustomed to paving what it wants to pave – and not necessarily being told what it should plant. And then there is water, or the lack of it.

“There’s a lot of pushback – ‘You plant more trees, well, we’re going to have to use more water,’” Adkins said. “That’s where it gets into species choice and water management. Even today, most people over-water everything. But is water a consideration? Of course? Do I feel we have ways of watering and harvesting rainfall with green infrastructure to help provide for our street trees? Absolutely. Do I think we need to give up trees for water? No.”

The showcase for the city’s new emphasis on trees and shade may be Civic Space Park, completed in 2009 by cobbling together nearly 3 acres of land in the middle of downtown. It includes solar panels, pervious pavers, a fair-trade coffee shop and dozens of Chinese pastiche and oak, another tree Adkins said can do surprisingly well here if properly managed. When the trees are mature, perhaps in another 5 or 6 years, more than 70% of the park is expected to be shaded.

Getting the entire city up to 25% will be considerably more challenging. While some older parts of town average as much as 17% shade, other areas dip to 7% or 8%.

“Twenty-five percent, that’s very ambitious,” Adkins said. “But you’ve got to have a number to shoot for. That’s what gets people behind you and moving forward.”

[muertecaza]

BREAKING: Private group could buy Chase Field from Maricopa County

A private group wants to buy Chase Field in downtown Phoenix from Maricopa County.

The Maricopa County Stadium District owns the Arizona Diamondbacks ballpark.

The stadium panel will hold a meeting tomorrow on pursuing a sale of the Chase Field to an entity called Stadium Real Estate Partners II LLC.

The potential buyer is made up of Atlanta-based Integral Group of Atlanta and Park South Capital LLC of New York and Toronto. Integral is a real estate investment firm...

The D-backs have veto power over a potential sale of the ballpark, said county spokesman Fields Moseley.

Moseley said the meeting tomorrow would allow the Stadium District to get an appraisal and pursue a potential sale of the ballpark. That sale could close by the end of October.

Preliminary terms of a potential deal call for a $60 million price.

Moseley said that is a minimum price.

The D-backs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The D-backs and county have been fighting over repairs and renovations to the ballpark which opened in 1998...