agreed. So we're loosing a few old buildings so a new apartment building can go up. At least they're saving the best ones.

I also find it interesting how people often make comments like "they should build it on the vacant lot across the street" without taking into consideration that the developer doesn't own the vacant lot across the street.

I agree with Kevin too! Whats not to like?

My gripe is a four story building in the city's core. This isn't Bemidji... The parking situation is a major problem to me as well. Parking garages do not need to be attached to EVERY residential development.

They do in Phoenix. I have no problem with the garage, I'd want one if I were to live there. I don't have a problem with the 4 stories either. I just don't like some of the suburban aspects of it like what looks like a ground level pool with courtyards and such plus the closing of Buchanan St.

I realize that it's a city requirement. It is just not conducive to major city urbanity. It will remain a complaint of mine with every single development that tries to market itself as urban with some vast surface lot or garage. This city is not serious about becoming urban. Living in a city means giving up some conveniences that are enjoyed in suburban areas. That includes parking. Americans don't have a constitutional right to a parking space wherever they go. The city has yet to realize that. There's nothing wrong with requiring people to find their own parking.

The fact that this building will be four stories in height is suburban in its own right, never mind how it interacts with the street.

Maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of what I feel downtown should look like....

Downtown Phoenix is not dense enough yet to set policy that denies builders parking garages downtown, period. We could say no garages and then developers will just go elsewhere. For a project to pencil-out, it would require the project to have some on-site parking to make the project viable so lenders will lend. Once there is no space left and density increases, then and only then, will things change. Until then....

Also, not every parcel downtown needs a friggin' highrise! We want people to live downtown and we're getting a pretty decent project in an underserved area. That's the key to a vibrant downtown: A mix of housing styles, income and scale. Glass towers with no nighttime or weekend activity is what leads to dead zones which is what we have a lot of now. A tall building does not a city make. For some, I'm afraid, it's the equivalent of penis envy.

Agreed. My only issue is closing of Buchanan St. This is not in the core of downtown is is South of any existing downtown development. To have four story residential popping up in this area is a good thing. Especially since it's in a location that I didn't ever expect to see any development.

Any yes, sorry, but parking is a must. This is too far from the light rail. It's one thing to not have parking if there is access to public transportation and basic needs like grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, shopping, etc. are within walking distance. That is not the case with this location, or for any part of downtown as of now. No issue with the parking garage as long as it is tastefully done.

Developments like these will lead to more developments, once things start to compound like in Tempe, demand will be there for more and more and higher-rise residential.

Phoenix would be wise to start investigating a trolley like Tempe is. We've seen the light rail spur alot of development, I think a small loop around downtown for a trolley would be a wonderful thing.

This article from today's Business Journal seems fitting given the discussion...

I don't mind on site parking. I do mind visible parking garages and surface lots for every single building. No other major US city does this. None. At the very least, what's the issue with requiring underground parking or a development like Skyline Lofts where the parking spirals up the interior of the building?

Wanting a building taller than four stories does not equate to wanting a high rise. 8-10 floors would be great. Four, though? That's the standard for any apartment anywhere in the Valley. What makes this complex urban? The fact that it's downtown? I understand that the demand, though, may only warrant a four story building. I just wish people would realize that once land is developed, it's developed. The potential for that block to be used for anything else is impossible until the complex is torn day. Are there new four story apartment buildings being built in downtown San Diego? Downtown Austin? Midtown Atlanta? No. Even a grocery store or some sort of retail underneath would enhance the property exponentially. But of course, that's not happening.

I guess I'm being unrealistic about my expectations for urban development here in Phoenix. I'll have to understand that Phoenix's version of urban does not match up with any other major city's definition of urban. Urban in Phoenix is just simply building any sort of apartment/condo complex in the core. I'll move on. There's no reason expressing my wishes for a complex that already has its plans drawn out.

If it makes you feel any better, San Diego and LA have both seen construction of ~6 story buildings in their downtown areas during this recession. We're starting to see much larger building again in the pipeline now in SD. Not sure about LA. Hopefully Phoenix will get some momentum as well.

I think it'd be much easier for disucssion's sake if we all quit the attacks and start acting more respectful to each other's opinion. There is hardly a post that goes by that doesn't sway my thinking just a bit, or at least get my wheels turning in s different direction.

We're all here to achieve a better, denser downtown Phoenix so let's start to objectively look at this ballpark development. I think we all agree that residential in this area would be fantastic, but at the same time, we should also be holding our city and developers to standards that uphold and preserve or historic properties and make the most use of these structures and surrounding land.

Pros: Shortterm
1) 250+ residents in a desolate part of town
2) Nicely designed architecture
3) Adaptive reuse of 1 warehose for office use, and 2 smaller buildings within the property

Pros: Longterm
1) Viability of residential in the the warehouse district
2) Viability of adaptive reuse projects

Cos: Shortterm
1) Abandonment of Buchanan, creating a super block within the few remaining walkable districts in downtown
2) Lack of height
3) 2 smaller historic buildings within the property won't be for public use
4) Missed opportunity for continuous block on Buchnanan featuring residential, retail, commercial, etc
5) Oversized parking structure with no attempt to integrate its use into the object via on street or underground parking, ground level uses or wraps
6) Warehouse restoration strips original identity of building

Cons: Longterm
1) Large acreage dedicated to relatively low-density project (4 over two major blocks

I don't think anyone here is 100% anti-apartments, so isn't there a way we can look at addressing these cons in a way that is least detrimental to the developer's bottom line, instead of simply dismissing us in the name of progress?

I really would love to hear from tar smart folks here what can be done to make the fairly minor changes needed to gain full support.

Cos: Shortterm

1) Abandonment of Buchanan, creating a super block within the few remaining walkable districts in downtown
Create a private pedestrian bridge across Buchanan on level 2 or 3 to connect the north and south builings to the fitness area, multi-level lobby and clubhouse, and outdoor pool.

2) Lack of height
Unfortunately, can't force height unless the units lost from Buchanan could allow for an extra floor.

3) 2 smaller historic buildings within the property won't be for public use
With Buchanan opened, these 2 buildings would now front the street once more, and with some TLC and work connecting the two with a large outdoor patio and bar, a "Ballpark Bar and Grill" could take off. Perhaps more modern retail could be constructed on the east side, or simply a curbside park.

4) Missed opportunity for continuous block on Buchanan featuring residential, retail, commercial, etc.
Solved?

5) Oversized parking structure with no attempt to integrate its use into the object via on street or underground parking, ground level uses or wraps
A few options that I'm not sure are viable:
1- the city could swap a city-owned parking lot or garage nearby in exchange for a mixed use continuation
2- use icnome/tax credits from additional 2 restorations to place most of the garage underground, resulting in one 7-story building
3- promise to use trellis and greenery to cover the garage and include minimum of one retail spot per ___ acre.

6) Warehouse restoration strips original identity of building
Developer should work with the Valley's finest to ensure the integrity of the resoration instead of some generic stucco job.

I'm not certain that pedestrian access through Buchanan is completely cut off--the way it looks is that Buchanan disappears into the garage with the garage entry right across, so there looks to be a lot of opportunity for some sort of cross through. It's not like it's that obnoxious Met where it's entirely walled off on all sides.

Even if Buchanan were completely walled off, it would be a minor inconvenience to the people visiting the railroad wye and 6 vacant parking lots and 2 buildings. /s Even on the longest of scales, Buchanan between Chase Field and 7th St is shit property.

The buildings that are getting razed don't look they can be rehabbed into pedestrian friendly structures, altho the replacement isn't much better there *appears* to be some ground floor retail not originally talked about along the glass frontages in the renderings.

My desires for this projects largely include a doubling or tripling of scale and then figuring out Buchanan, but that's beyond the scope of the economy right now. They will have a hard enough time marketing their 4 story mediocrity given their location as it is.

agreed with the last 2 posts...

yes it could be better, yes it could be taller, but the fact is its not gonna be so all we should be focusing on is the positives. It will bring more residents downtown which will hopefully help spawn some homerun developments.

I don't mind the lack of height when it comes to residential buildings. We just need density.

I'd rather see blocks of 4-8 story residential (similar to European cities) in the immediate vicinity and outskirts of the downtown core, than tall residential towers poking out all around (similar to Vancouver).

Unfortunately this is the kind of losing mentality thats gotten us where we are today.

What if the project knocks down the large northernmost warehouse, tears up Bucanan and then says "oops we're out of money"? Thats a distinct possibility, and if you don't believe me, go ask many of our downtown dirt lots their story.

We can do better. 276 apartments is a very nice thing. We need to get acting like we're just happy to get any old thing though. In most cities, developers are held to certain standards. If we don't start sticking up for our downtown now, there won't be much left when its someday full of projects that look like the Matthew Henson apartment.s

^Exactly. The City needs to develop a sense of self-worth. These shitty developments will not "spawn some homerun developments." They will spawn more shitty developments. If you set the bar low, developers are going to do just enough to meet your low standards.

Agreed. And believe it or not, even some of the most ardent sunbelt sprawlers are starting to utter phrases like "TOD" and "infill." They often use them wrong (calling anything built inside the loop 303 "infill") but its a step in the right direction. I've heard many of them remark how downtown is "really coming along." Hopefully, this is the first step towards them wanting to develop downtown and when they come wanting to develop you've got to hold them to a reasonable standard.

Before we were begging people to do anything downtown, it feels like we're finally getting past that.

hey it could have been worse... at least they didnt use the space for a full on housing subdivision :D

This is often the argument I read about in a city like LA, which is much more densly populated and congested. LA to this day will build large residential projects with an abundance of parking. Why? Because nobody in their right mind would purchase a property in an auto-dependent region without convenient parking.

This will always be the case in Phoenix too, which is a much smaller, less dense of an urban area.