That was kind of my point, which I guess I didn't make very well. We have either high end developments like Summit, 44 Monroe and Palomar or the specialized housing I mentioned in my earlier post. Phase II of Portland Place is apparently breaking ground soon and will be high end as well. There doesn't seem to be anything in the pipeline (yet) for the average person. So it's gentrificiation and upscale blocks or student/subsidized housing with no middle ground.

And based on what I am hearing from developers and other in the industry, it is difficult right now to secure financing for "average person" multi-family housing.

What I don't get is...how come it seems to be done it other parts of Phoenix, just not in downtown? Just today I was driving north on I-17 and just south of Bell Rd there is a HUGE site where a new apartment complex will be going up, there is a banner for "Avenue Apartments".

Do developers not have enough land in downtown to do a project like this? Is the land downtown too expensive? Do they have no interest in building mid or high rise apartments and just know the 3-4 story ones so they just keep pumping those out?

I think the land is too expensive. To make their bottom lines pencil out they'd need to build more on the expensive land, and securing that higher $$$ of financing is not happening.

I don't know, that's just my guess.

I don't even care about mid and high rise apartments. If a bunch of the empty lots scattered around downtown phoenix (especially the smaller to very small lots - not the superblocks) were developed with small 2-5 story developments, the mix of old and new in Phoenix would be awesome. I'm thinking something like what's on McDowell:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i265/phxrep/sdadf.jpg

It's perfect. Zero setback, multi-use (small ground-floor business combined with condo above), surrounded by historic/older buildings. How almost zero more of these have been built on the plethora of single empty lots around downtown is beyond me. It has to be the price of the land. Unfortunately, that's the only one of the sort I can even think of off the top of my head.

This is a great project, and there are a few more like it. But not enough. I agree we need more of these.

As for "student" housing, it is not only for students. It is just who these companies cater and market to. But anyone could actually go rent out a unit at any of these places.

I wasn't referring to the apartments marketed to students but truly open to the public. I was referring to the huge sums of money the federal government has been putting into true student housing like dorms (that obviously hasn't been an issue in downtown Phoenix but it is where a lot of multi-family construction has been centered since the recession).

My understanding, and I am no developer so take it with a grain of salt, is that the land downtown is too expensive in that it is all priced and entitled for superblock developments. It is hard to convince someone who owns land that theoretically could have a high rise that they should develop a 2-4 story building. Their acquisition costs reflect a reality that doesn't exist now, likely will not exist anytime soon, and probably never really existed at all (and probably would not be beneficial to the urban fabric and livability but that is a different discussion and one that most developers could not care less about). In that situation, there is virtually no economic incentive to develop the property, which is why it ends up just sitting. So long as the land is vacant, the taxes can stay relatively low.

Some pictures from around downtown from this afternoon.

YMCA:

http://imageshack.us/a/img163/8859/20130219172237.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img11/9580/20130219172231.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img10/1059/20130219172354.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img402/2136/20130219172435.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/1666/20130219172625.jpg


Native Connections:

http://imageshack.us/a/img843/483/20130219173424.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img163/1817/20130219173612.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img339/557/20130219173717.jpg


And "The Marquee" senior housing I mentioned a few posts ago:

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/3607/20130219173043.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/1104/20130219173056.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img152/1751/20130219173127.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img10/3194/20130219173237.jpg

Generally the land is too expensive in downtown too build cheap suburban style complexes. St. Croix Villas is really the only suburban type complex within the downtown footprint (between the 7's and from Lincoln to McDowell). It also depends on what you consider "high-end" and "middle income" housing. I would consider most of the newer units in downtown that are market-rate to be middle to high end. But there really is no way to compete with cheap, suburban cookie-cutter complexes.

There is a program in Seattle that will create subsidized housing for those making $35,000-$50,000 or so because it is an expensive city. The point of living in downtown is to not have to rely on vehicles; which in a city with more amenities than downtown Phoenix would mean you save money even if your rent is higher (no gas, maintenance, insurance, or car note to pay). I know car-free living in downtown isn't really doable for most people at this time, but that doesn't make the land any cheaper.

As of today three units are back on the MLS starting in the 1.1M range. They may have just taken them off for a while so they could create a little buzz when they were re-listed, plus spring is the prime season for buying and selling in Phoenix.

You said it petfectly. Unfortunate and just another way past civic policies have effed us.

This would probably be unwise and too small for development within the downtown footprint. This makes sense in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. 2-4 story buildings would limit opportunity -and density- in the core and wouldn't cover the cost of the land. While some land owners are pricing their vacant lots too high, even if prices were lowered they would still remain expensive compared to what vacant lots in more suburban regions cost. A way to get owners to lower prices in a way that might encourage development is to penalize land-banking practices via taxes or fees.

What do you define as the core vs. the neighborhoods surrounding downtown? You may be shocked to see how far outside downtown the land is already entitled for high rise.

I'd love for someone to push a penalty for land banking. But to do that, you would need a politician who is prepared to find a new job next election cycle.

.

Which others are you referring to? Actually, I can think of one other, but it's not multi-use - which is totally fine, it has a nice look with the surrounding old houses and is a good use of the lot:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i2...ptuadsfare.jpg

Can you remind me of others that are on similarly sized lots? It would be great if they were everywhere.

EDIT: What is that little post/column thing in my picture above, just to the left of the left palm tree by the road?? I never noticed that before... don't tell me it is an old hitching post for a horse. Looks like there is a tiny metal ring on top. If that is true (I highly doubt it is), I'd be astonished that anything like that has been left alone and remains in Downtown Phoenix. Can anyone that lives near there get a closer look?

I love all things urban, but I'm not buying into the theory of the land is just too expensive to build 2-5 story residential structures. Cities nation-wide have been able to build these developments on much more expensive land. Once the local market proves there is strong demand for dense urban residential in-fill, we will see an explosion of development. As of right now, there are better amenities and quality of life outside of DT.

I think the problem is that there is absolutely nothing special (geographically speaking) with living or working in DT Phoenix over other locations in the Valley. What is the selling Point? It doesn't have a better micro-climate than Gilbert or Surprise or Deer Valley. There arent better views of mountains, river valley, parks, bay, ocean etc. It's hard to convince someone to move DT and pay higher rents when the Immediate surrounding neighborhoods are sketchy at best and they'd most likely have to commute to a job and shopping outside of DT anyways. Venturing outside of the 7s or south of the tracks on foot is risky. How many new residents DT would take a stroll through Garfield at night?

The core is between the 7's, Lincoln to McDowell. I'm know there is highrise zoning outside of this...looking up Central is all one would need to do to establish that fact. I am not only talking about highrise development but larger, dense projects. The core should remain a mostly mid-rise and highrise zone. Projects like Alta, Roosevelt Point, and more Roosevelt Squares should be packed into this area, creating a very dense residential zone.

If the politician was from a central/south/west district in Phoenix he would likely not face much resistance but would find support. It would be different for someone who represents N. Central/PV/etc since this is where many land-bankers reside.

As for the sketchiness of downtown, that is mostly a suburban manifestation of what the region used to be. Garfield isn't bad, low-income, but it is mostly stereotyped by outsiders...they see Latinos and run. Areas of Garfield are home to the local artists and they do walk around and ride their bikes after dark...especially after hitting the local bars. Walk north of downtown and you're in Encanto, Willo, etc. Walking further south would be weird only because there is nothing. Downtown offers amenities you can't find in Surprise and Chandler: museums, closer to employment clusters (downtown, midtown, Camelback, Gateway, etc), transit, the universities, historic neighborhoods, etc. What is lacking downtown is the actual amenities that would make it livable like other cities without having to own a car. We need some real shopping. Beyond that, our developers aren't urban-centric and rely on the old model of growth to do business...so they spend their time and money on sprawl. It would be nice for DMB to build a cool, dense, residential neighborhood like Roosevelt Square in downtown but that is not in their business model because they are used to much cheaper land in the suburbs...and would probably ruin the development with some new urbanist buildings not facing the street and built like a fortress.

May be true, but let's say a lot in Phoenix is zoned/entitled for a high-rise. The land banker/owner will put a price on it based on those entitlements. Anyone buying that piece of land to develop it won't pay for a high-rise entitled lot just to build a 2-5 story development on it. They'll want/need to build a high rise to justify the cost. There aren't many high-rise builders, nor the demand, so the lots are sitting forever.

Other cities may have higher priced land, but the zoning/entitlements on the land that smaller projects are getting built (regardless of price) likely only allow those smaller projects.

^^This. I don't disagree with anyone's ultimate goals, but there are a lot of practical obstacles in the way.

If I acquire property now, it is going to be priced for maximum use of the current entitlement (if my property is zoned for high rise and I have assembled the whole block, the price of the land will end up reflecting that as opposed to a 3-story townhouse development). To make the numbers work, you then need to build to that maximum use so you aren't just flushing money into acquiring expensive property. If the acquisition was for a less intense use but later upzoned, I could see that maybe you could make it work with a less intense project, but then you are expecting somebody to purposely devalue their investment, which would be great but highly unlikely. The only quick way to adjust the price down for property too intensely zoned would be through a foreclosure process, but again, because the entitlement is there even the foreclosure auction price becomes artificially inflated. And with Prop 207 having passed 5 years ago or so, you can't down zone without owner consent.

As for other cities, it is hard to address them all in a vacuum. A variety of things could be in play. Some cities could have used eminent domain or perhaps rezoned in some way that Phoenix cannot do because of Prop 207. Perhaps the high land cost was able to be passed on to buyers in a way that the Phoenix market cannot absorb due to low wages. Or the developments could have happened at a time when financing was cheap and easy to get.

Regardless of what part of the City, I just don't believe anyone on the Council now (or in the foreseeable future) would mention, let alone endorse, the imposition of a new tax. And unlike a grocery tax (which hurts working class people more than the wealthy), a tax to stop land banking is directed almost exclusively at those with means, who also happen to be the kind of people who contribute to political campaigns.

Generally speaking, a lot of people talk about what they would like to see development-wise without fully grasping the economics. These properties are typically investments so the owners aren't likely to rob themselves just to benefit the City as a whole (I agree that civic pride is itself a benefit and could lead to tangential benefits they do not perceive but on the whole, this is a P/L formula for them). You cannot discount the effect that the 2008 collapse has had on lending. And Prop 207 really locked Phoenix (and the whole metro area) into whatever entitlements already existed. It's why all these stupid exurbs will happen. The land for all those things (like the Superstition Vistas or whatever way out by Florence) was zoned years ago, and the law prevents you from retracting it now.

I guess people interested in building a quality dense urban environment could form some sort of organization to buy some vacant land and do something with it, but that's not exactly an easy or cheap task.

Screw the Pan-Am games... Lets make this happen.


USOC evaluating 35 cities for potential 2024 bid
Matthew Kitchen Feb 19, 2013, 3:22 PM EST


Andrew Weber-USA TODAY Sports via US PRESSWIRE
The USOC sent letters to 35 mayors Tuesday in order to gauge interest and begin the process of hosting its first Olympics since 2002.

“Our objective in this process is to identify a partner city that can work with us to present a compelling bid to the IOC and that has the right alignment of political, business and community leadership,” USOC CEO Scott Blackmun said in the letter.

“This letter does not guarantee that the USOC will bid for the 2024 Games, but rather is an initial step in evaluating a potential bid.”

The letter detailed the necessary requirements for hosting the Games, including 45,000 hotel rooms, an international airport, public transit, and workforce of more than 200,000 people.

The cities that have already expressed interest include Dallas, Tulsa, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles, which hosted in 1932 and 1984. My vote still goes to Phoenix.

Paris is seen as a favorite to host its third Olympics, but first in a century. Rome, Dubai, Doha, and Durban, South Africa are also strong contenders to host. The final vote won’t take place until 2017.

The USOC failed to secure bids for New York in 2012 and Chicago in 2016, which was blamed on disagreements regarding revenue sharing between the IOC and USOC. Those disagreements have since been patched up through negotiations.

Here’s a full list of the 35 cities that recieved the letter:

Phoenix, Arizona
Los Angeles, California
Sacramento, California
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Denver, Colorado
Washington, D.C.
Jacksonville, Florida
Miami, Florida
Orlando, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Indianapolis, Indiana
Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan
Minneapolis, Minnesota
St. Louis, Missouri
Las Vegas, Nevada
New York, New York
Rochester, New York
Charlotte, North Carolina
Columbus, Ohio
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Portland, Oregon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Memphis, Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Austin, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Houston, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Seattle, Washington

You know, I've been telling people since the London Olympics that Phoenix would be a great city to host. Most people will first say its too hot here but...

we have 2 retractable domes(A/C baby!) and a soon to be covered Sun Devil stadium.

As far as arenas well there is Jobing, ASU wells fargo, US airways center, Grand Canyon has a nice smaller one and of course the old one on the fair grounds.

The funding for Sun Devil stadium will come from the new rio salado district which has Olympic village written all over it...

tempe town lake should be able to handle rowing...

I'm thinking Payson, prescott or flagstaff for marathon and biking (if your thinking that's too far, well there were London Olympic events held in Scottland for gods sake.)

Some of the venues will need a face lift, and we'd need a nice new Aquatic center built, but overall I think Phoenix is closer to getting a future bid than a lot of people might think (still kind of a long shot though) :)