Phoenix Development News (3)

[azsunsurfer]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

Go stick your face against the window of Roosevelt Point's retail space and tell me if you can't figure out why it's unleased.

Don't have time? I'll give you a hint: It's completely unfinished! There are no floors, no pipes, nothing! If you want to put anything in there, you have to do 100% of the TI yourself. The "retail" in Roosevelt Point was built to meet the letter of the zoning ordinance but certainly not the spirit.

I had a friend who wanted to move her Yoga studio from Arcadia to Downtown and looked at Roosevelt Point. Usually the TI for a yoga studio is some mirrors and not much else. But at Roosevelt Point she would've had to pour concrete floors, finish the walls, etc and it was way too costly.

So let's not condemn the idea of ground floor retail and use moronoically designed places like Roosevelt Point or Tapestry on Central as examples.

It's not uncommon in the commercial real estate world for new buildings to only offer cold shell as it would offer potential tenants greater flexibility in design. It's first generational space and of course the TIA is going to be higher, I am sure the Union may be identification. Why would a landlord spend the money to deliver it as vanilla/ warm when the tenant may request changes anyway. I am sure they'll offer TI contributions...

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

It's not uncommon in the commercial real estate world for new buildings to only offer cold shell as it would offer potential tenants greater flexibility in design. It's first generational space and of course the TIA is going to be higher, I am sure the Union may be identification. Why would a landlord spend the money to deliver it as vanilla/ warm when the tenant may request changes anyway. I am sure they'll offer TI contributions...

I've heard similar stories from others who have expressed interest in leasing space at both Tapestry and Roosevelt Point - so obviously whatever the TI situation is at these places is not the norm and if they are offering contributions, it clearly isn't enough for the type of small/local businesses looking to rent space on Roosevelt Row. There has been an explosion of new restaurants/bars in the area, and even ones that have gone out of business or moved have been replaced almost immediately. The demand is clearly there.

Another difference is the marketing of the retail space. Union has been marketing the commercial spaces for several years now - they clearly made it a priority to try and get those spaces claimed and ready for occupancy as soon as possible after construction ends. I would assume that if the spaces are pre-leased, it makes it that much easier/cost effective for preparing the spaces. For Roosevelt Point, where retail clearly isn't their priority, the marketing was much less aggressive.

The last difference is that Union is a market rate apartment building adjacent to a residential area filled with the young professional+ demographic. Roosevelt Point was marketed to students who don't have as much disposable income. This is probably not as likely to have impacted the viability of the retail space, but thought I'd point it out.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

So let's not condemn the idea of ground floor retail and use moronoically designed places like Roosevelt Point or Tapestry on Central as examples.

The moronically designed places put unfilled space on the market that potentially depresses rents and demand for well-designed space elsewhere. Until we can specify what well-designed retail space looks like and write those details into code, it doesn't make sense to require more ground floor retail space that adds to the oversupply.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Groundbreaking for the Union at Roosevelt is tomorrow finally! http://www.sustainablecommunitiescollaborative.com/

Hopefully the groundbreaking for Portland at the Park in "the Spring" will mean earlier rather than later.

Gotta say - for all the bitching we do here, there really is a lot going on downtown. We've got several 10+ story buildings under construction or relatively imminent, quite a few smaller residential projects in line, and a lot of little renovation and reconstruction projects and small businesses opening.

I can remember being here years and years ago. I remember discussing the original Phelps Dodge building being built, which was a HUGE event, but I also remember nothing even being close to being built or even proposed downtown.

Where we are now is incredible progress. Be thankful and enjoy what is going on and what is on the horizon.

There are some positive things happening downtown. I think that's fairly obvious to most. However, the problem is that downtown still isn't seeing the large amount of private investment that other competitor cities have over the last few years. Dayton, and even Cincinnati, aren't cities that Phoenix should be comparing itself to. Denver, Portland, Austin, and even Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, and Seattle are all cities that Phoenix should be competing with for new job opportunities and new talent/migration. Most of these cities are seeing the same kind of revitalization and adaptive reuse projects that are happening here, but many of them have also been in the midst of major construction booms (for apartments especially, but also hotel and commercial projects).

It's great that downtown's restaurant and entertainment scene is evolving and that areas like Roosevelt Row are growing. But, the lack of outside investment in large residential or commercial projects (when there has been shown to be a demand or at least limited supply of both) is still a big problem. Union will be the first market rate residential project to break ground in downtown since Alta/Skyline Lofts in 2007. It would be great if all of the projects proposed actually came to fruition, but the reality is that most have been languishing for over a year and won't ever break ground. And, for those that do, they'll have been heavily subsidized by the City in some way. Which is fine if it still provides the density that downtown desperately needs, but it's just not a sign that the development community finds downtown to be that attractive of a market.

One needs to look only at Scottsdale (residential) and Tempe (hotel and office) to see how far behind Phoenix is. It missed the condo boom, and is likely to miss the apartment boom as well (give or take a few projects that may break ground).

[mdpx]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

There are some positive things happening downtown. I think that's fairly obvious to most. However, the problem is that downtown still isn't seeing the large amount of private investment that other competitor cities have over the last few years. Dayton, and even Cincinnati, aren't cities that Phoenix should be comparing itself to. Denver, Portland, Austin, and even Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, and Seattle are all cities that Phoenix should be competing with for new job opportunities and new talent/migration. Most of these cities are seeing the same kind of revitalization and adaptive reuse projects that are happening here, but many of them have also been in the midst of major construction booms (for apartments especially, but also hotel and commercial projects).

It's great that downtown's restaurant and entertainment scene is evolving and that areas like Roosevelt Row are growing. But, the lack of outside investment in large residential or commercial projects (when there has been shown to be a demand or at least limited supply of both) is still a big problem. Union will be the first market rate residential project to break ground in downtown since Alta/Skyline Lofts in 2007. It would be great if all of the projects proposed actually came to fruition, but the reality is that most have been languishing for over a year and won't ever break ground. And, for those that do, they'll have been heavily subsidized by the City in some way. Which is fine if it still provides the density that downtown desperately needs, but it's just not a sign that the development community finds downtown to be that attractive of a market.

One needs to look only at Scottsdale (residential) and Tempe (hotel and office) to see how far behind Phoenix is. It missed the condo boom, and is likely to miss the apartment boom as well (give or take a few projects that may break ground).

Incorrect: CopperPoint (up the street from Alta/Skyline Lofts) (2013), Residences at Palomar Hotel (CityScape) (2014); Camden Copper Square
(2010), 44 Monroe (conversion to apartments from condos (2010), and more, but I can't think of all of them. Even if these are totally it, that's still several hundred apartments built in the past five years. There are hundreds of apartments planned for downtown and some will break ground this year. Your argument is flawed, dude. Progress is coming in spite of your contrary and repetitive position.

[PHXFlyer11]

Originally Posted by mdpx

Incorrect: CopperPoint (up the street from Alta/Skyline Lofts) (2013), Residences at Palomar Hotel (CityScape) (2014); Camden Copper Square
(2010), 44 Monroe (conversion to apartments from condos (2010), and more, but I can't think of all of them. Even if these are totally it, that's still several hundred apartments built in the past five years. There are hundreds of apartments planned for downtown and some will break ground this year. Your argument is flawed, dude. Progress is coming in spite of your contrary and repetitive position.

You make a good point here. While PHX is behind many comparable and even smaller cities as far as investment and housing downtown, the % growth rate is likely higher. In total units I'm sure all of the cities mentioned have added many more units, however we started at a lower number and are in all likelihood growing residential downtown at a higher % then those cities. It seems the number of apartments has more than doubled downtown in the last 6 years or so.

[Jjs5056]

I forgot about CityScape, but 44 Monroe and Camden Copper Square were constructed at nearly the same time. And, if by CopperPoint you mean Roosevelt Point, those were marketed toward students.

Regardless, even if you want to consider all of those as being built since 2008, it's still a very small number. Tempe, a suburb, has added The Vue, The District, Gracie's Village, Grigio Metro, NorthShore, SALT, Skywater, Hanover, W6, Farmer Lofts II, Alta Tempe... you get the point.

It's not a negative POV to realistically assess Phoenix's growth compared to competitor cities. Yes, Phoenix may have gone from 4 downtown apartment options to 8 in 7 years, but its low original inventory is all the more reason why it needs to be adding more residential if it wants the core to be successful and bring in retail that isn't food-oriented, a grocery store, etc. Wanting Phoenix to take advantage of a boom that others have is not a bad thing, and I said what's occurring organically is really amazing. The amount of establishments opening around Roosevelt Row is very exciting. The "play" aspect of downtown has certainly turned a 180 in the last decade. But, now, it needs bigger projects and outside investment to make it a place where can truly live, work and play which has always been the goal of its backers.

Where I'll admit I am 'negative' is in regards to the office market. I don't know how anyone can honestly think Phoenix has done a good job at attracting jobs and companies downtown. CityScape and OCPE were the last office projects and both were mainly relocations from other Phoenix properties. I'll leave alone competitor cities, and focus on Arizona. Tempe, Chandler, and Scottsdale have all attracted MAJOR employers some of which have invested a ton into development projects and infrastructure. If downtown can't even compete with its suburbs for jobs, how can it compete with other states? In fact, this article from the Business Journal talks about how downtown is not attracting milennials: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...y-lags-in.html

Once again, I don't think it is a bad thing to want Phoenix to attract these milennials. And, that means having residential and retail/service options for them to live an urban lifestyle, along with centrally located, high-paying jobs.

None of that takes away from the positive, denies the progress that's been made, nor is it an argument. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about the proposals coming to fruition. I'd especially love to see Portland on the Park, Barrister Place and 4th/McKinley happen. If more and more of the proposals start breaking ground, then downtown will have reached another level and would be a great thing.

[PHXFlyer11]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Once again, I don't think it is a bad thing to want Phoenix to attract these milennials. And, that means having residential and retail/service options for them to live an urban lifestyle, along with centrally located, high-paying jobs.

The article specifically calls out educated millennials. This makes more sense to me. It seems like Roosevelt attracts a lot of millennials but likely few are educated with formal university degrees. I don't think most artists, tattoo shop owners and hipsters have college degrees.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

The article specifically calls out educated millennials. This makes more sense to me. It seems like Roosevelt attracts a lot of millennials but likely few are educated with formal university degrees. I don't think most artists, tattoo shop owners and hipsters have college degrees.

I still think there is a demand for more housing catered toward that demographic, as well. All of the live/work spaces at Artisan Village and Skyline are occupied - it would be great to see more developed near Roosevelt Row to provide affordable housing and gallery/retail space that is hard to come by, with most of the older building stock being occupied and the new construction being too expensive. That's why 4th/McKinley is high up on my wish list.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Union will be the first market rate residential project to break ground in downtown since Alta/Skyline Lofts in 2007.

Originally Posted by mdpx

Incorrect: CopperPoint (up the street from Alta/Skyline Lofts) (2013), Residences at Palomar Hotel (CityScape) (2014); Camden Copper Square
(2010), 44 Monroe (conversion to apartments from condos (2010), and more, but I can't think of all of them.

44 Monroe broke ground in 2006--I was there to watch the concrete pour on June 2, 2006, and it was a condo building anyways.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/combus...57605718061161

Camden Copper Square was built in 2000, not 2010, nor is it in downtown.

http://www.camdenbuildersinc.com/por...copper-square/

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

The moronically designed places put unfilled space on the market that potentially depresses rents and demand for well-designed space elsewhere. Until we can specify what well-designed retail space looks like and write those details into code, it doesn't make sense to require more ground floor retail space that adds to the oversupply.

I don't disagree, we also need to more carefully pinpoint what corridors should have ground floor retail. Roosevelt St, Central Ave, those places make sense. Having it scatter shot everywhere doesn't make much sense. Places like Skyline probably would've just been better off w/ walkup stoops rather than half full retail.

[PHXFlyer11]

Update to warehouse on 9th and Jefferson is seeking a new tenant: http://azbex.com/partners-plan-phx-a...reuse-project/

I think it'd be great to see a few 8-10 story buildings pop up on that lot East of 7th st. Might make Chase field look like less of a monstrosity.

[mdpx]

Originally Posted by combusean

44 Monroe broke ground in 2006--I was there to watch the concrete pour on June 2, 2006, and it was a condo building anyways.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/combus...57605718061161

Camden Copper Square was built in 2000, not 2010, nor is it in downtown.

http://www.camdenbuildersinc.com/por...copper-square/

Well, good for you that you were there for 44 Monroe. The project still became apartments later on and that adds to the count. As far as the date for Camden Copper Square, my apologies on getting the date wrong. But it's not in Downtown, really? It's just two blocks from being technically downtown and I'm guessing those who actually live there say they live downtown.

[combusean]

^ If you're going to argue with people (and me) about something, provide factual information or drop it. A condo tower being converted years later doesn't mean it was originally broke ground as market rate apartments.

I guess Camden Copper Square is downtown, but downtown technically exists between the 7s and Buckeye and McDowell according to the officially designated improvement district and urban form plans. It's like saying Garfield is a downtown neighborhood, which is as much true as it is incorrect.

[mdpx]

Originally Posted by combusean

^ If you're going to argue with people (and me) about something, provide factual information or drop it. A condo tower being converted years later doesn't mean it was originally broke ground as market rate apartments.

I guess Camden Copper Square is downtown, but downtown technically exists between the 7s and Buckeye and McDowell according to the officially designated improvement district and urban form plans. It's like saying Garfield is a downtown neighborhood, which is as much true as it is incorrect.

I was factual and was clear that it was the conversion of 44 Monroe to market rate apartments that I was speaking of. I never said it was broken ground as apartments. I had the Camden apartments start date incorrect and I apologized for the error.

It also doesn't matter to me as it does to you the official designation starts and stops especially if it's one or two blocks. I still live here and do many things in Downtown (in and out of the designated improvement district). With that logic, the Children's Museum is not located downtown because it does not lie between the 7s.

[Phxguy]

In other construction news, the 4th and McKinley buildings are being demolished to make way for the 5-story live/work apartments.

[doppelbanger]

Originally Posted by PHXFlyer11

Update to warehouse on 9th and Jefferson is seeking a new tenant: http://azbex.com/partners-plan-phx-a...reuse-project/

I think it'd be great to see a few 8-10 story buildings pop up on that lot East of 7th st. Might make Chase field look like less of a monstrosity.

That would be cool to see something bigger happen on that lot although it is not too big of a lot. I actually work for AHCCCS which occupies the two building between this lot and Chase field so I have been observing that lot for a while. Those warehouses to the east seem like they have always been unoccupied for most of the 5 years I have been there. Do you guys think east of 7th can ever develop much more or would downtown proper have to be developed first and then develop across the 7s as overflow?

[Phxguy]

And more good news, the Arizona museum of mining had been voted to reopen.

[mdpx]

Phoenix revitalization vision could redevelop strip malls

Eric Jay Toll
Reporter- Phoenix Business Journal

The city of Phoenix is looking at a plan to revitalize neighborhood commercial areas and help landowners revamp or remove excess or outmoded strip malls.

The recession was a death knell for many strip malls. Today, they have high vacancy rates and some four-corner locations have more shop space than shop potential. As the centers decline in occupancy, quality of stores and viability, the buildings do as well. Phoenix is considering an initiative that will reverse the trend.

"Freeways put an end to that drive-by traffic," said Phoenix Community and Economic Development Director Christine Mackay. "Take 32nd Street from Shea Boulevard to Union Hills Drive. After SR 51 opened, traffic on the street dropped from 50,000 vehicles per day to around 10,000 vehicles. That's taking 80 percent of the customers away from the stores."

Most often referred to as "strip malls" to reflect the linear design, the centers typically featured plenty of local or neighborhood-oriented business. Customer traffic came from nearby with the growing number of commuters spilling out of subdivisions further up the road.

But as freeways began to snake across the Valley — starting in 1990 when Interstate 10 was extended through the city — the centers started drying up as commuters took to the highways.

"The movement of traffic away from the neighborhood centers really cut into businesses' abilities to survive," said Mackay. "It also hurt revenue streams for shopping center owners. Space became vacant and some centers started to look shabby."

For 32nd Street, the effort is ongoing because there are no funds to improve the segment. That is not stopping stakeholders from putting ideas on the table through council members Jim Waring and Bill Gates.

"We've been meeting in other neighborhoods as well, and people are saying that they want to have a neighborhood 'center' that's walkable," Mackay explained. "The city is going to take a look at the various blocks and work with land owners to see what kinds of different development might be better to bring back vitality."

Mackay said residents would like something to provide a neighborhood anchor or attraction.

"We could look at a business or city service branch moving into a neighborhood as one idea," she explained. "In other cases, where a neighborhood center may be obsolete, we could explore changes in zoning to better use the property to meet current neighborhood and market needs."

Eric covers economic development, banking and finance, infrastructure, transportation and utilities.

[KEVINphx]

Hilarious and sad that adults can be so pathetic as to argue online over what is "downtown" lol - I bet your manpanties really get in a bunch when suburbanites from Peoria or Mesa or Awatukee call Central and Indian School "Downtown" or even 14th street and Camelback! hahaha