I think other cities have them, but they're more likely to be underground.

So based on the Metrocenter renderings it seems like that's the end of the line for the lightrail. Seems like a missed opportunity since the bridge was the most expensive part of the project. It just seems like it will be expensive to try and expand and snake the line through the development especially if they have to obtain rights of ways or eminent domain buildings to clear space for a future expansion.

I had originally posted this in the low to mid-rise thread, but it seems more appropriate here. I found more information looking at the Fire Dept's review of the project:

Description:
KIVA#: 22-3033
Project Name 360 North Third
Site Address 360 N 3rd Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85003
Zoning DTC ? Van Buren
Site Area (net) 35,250 SF (0.81 acres)
Site Area (gross) 44,650 SF (1.02 acres)
Building Area (gross) Approximately 449,000 GSF
Building Height 365-feet
Number of Stories 31
Unit Count 375
Parking Count 210
Construction Type 1A, Fully Sprinklered

Thank you for the follow up. I was wondering how tall approximately 350 units might be. 550ft would be a bit nicer, maybe in the future that will be reached.

I agree, California recently did away with minimum parking mandates near public transit as most urban cities such as San Francisco and San Jose were doing away with them. Great article below about California passing legislation to do away with parking minimums. Below are some snippets and a link to the full article.

https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-d...nders-approve/

Michael Manville, associate professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, recently presented a paper to UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate about the benefits of removing parking requirements.

“A sizable [amount of] research literature suggests they undermine housing affordability, encourage driving, and discourage walking and public transit use,” states Manville. “Rolling these requirements back is thus a big change, and essential to meeting California’s affordability and sustainability goals.”

On the front lines of possible pivots to new typologies is Mark Oberholzer, principal, AIA, LEED AP at the Los Angeles office of KTGY. He believes the new law “could become a holy grail of workforce housing near transit.” He notes that his office receives 20 to 25 inquiries a year from owners looking to develop small, mid-block parcels. For many of these, mandating parking also requires building a podium to support it, which is often prohibitively expensive.

And as a designer, he’s excited about the prospect of creating “new people-centric buildings” that help revitalize neighborhoods. Previously, parking-structure podiums and subgrade parking tended to dominate design at the street level, often with a small lobby fronting the garage as the only human-oriented space.

“This is not pedestrian-friendly. It doesn’t contribute to the neighborhood, and it’s simply not exciting. But if your ground floor is now free of parking, you can create welcoming ground-floor units, some facing the street. You can have courtyards accessible on the grade level rather than up in the air. In general, it makes the entire building more open, interesting, and inviting.”

And what about those developers retaining parking? How might these designs change? “One solution is to decouple parking from the building and build more efficient parking in the neighborhood, perhaps down the street from the apartments and perhaps aggregating the needs of more than one building.”

A lot of the historical typologies have a specific character. Prior to parking mandates, attractive California courtyard styles helped define neighborhoods at various scales. But it’s not the architectural style that’s important to unleashing new building types; it’s the freedom from imposed parking.

:haha:

Nice roast. I'll have to remember that one.

My take comes from my years in law enforcement. When I was younger, I loved the smell. It used to be so much sweeter. These days, the skunkish nature seems more prominent.

But I'll take that smell all day, every day over the stench of urine and feces that also dominates around some downtown areas.

I don't like the shunky aroma either, but I seldom notice it. Even when I do, it's a small price to pay for the greater degree of urban vitality attained when all floors of a building are active with commercial or residentital activity. Having all floors activated also provides more eyes on the street, potentially decreasing the amount of inappropraite urination and defecation in public places.

Good info. Also, if anyone is tempted to think that eliminating minimum parking requirements is purely an act of California liberalism, it should be noted that Utah is considering the same thing: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/01/...re-walks-utah/

I wonder if all the commercial lenders will agree with the urban planistas and will finance projects without parking, bundled or otherwise.

Doubtful, but one can dream.

That being said the 360 3rd Ave project above is already underparked for Phoenix like a lot of projects that are in the pipeline. The market doesn't need bureaucratic dictation about parking, it should build what it wants to build.

Quite the opposite. This is *undoing* the requirement for parking that the planistas enacted earlier. Now, the market can decide. Want to pay for extra parking? Feel free to propose and pay for it. Methinks that lender will be fine with not building more empty parking, but they'll have the choice.

Parking requirements in Phoenix aren’t going anywhere keep dreaming

Best make your peace with it

It is much closer to happening than you think. There is quite a bit of momentum to eliminate parking requirements in Phoenix, and per sources, numerous bills addressing the issue could be going to the state with bipartisan support this year and over the next couple of years. I have some other sources that have told me that there is growing support in the city council, as well.

^ Yeah I was trying to say the same thing.

Fair enough. If the guv'ment wants to affirm market flexibility (which is what the articles seem to say), then I'm A-OK with that. My experience is the NIMBYism has an outsized effect as well, but let's see what happens.

I agree that parking minimums in downtown areas aren't necessary because for the most part, developers know their residents will demand a certain amount of parking and will build what is needed. Residents with cars will not choose a place if it doesn't have an option to park; it's not like there are realistic long term street parking solutions in most parts of downtown anymore.

Let the market dictate this. Developers know their target tenants. Working on several project in Northern California where large parking facilities do not make sense, and being scrapped. Many of the parking requirements in AZ are over the top so we end up with empty glorified asphalt lots where kids race and do donuts in their supped up Hondas.

Would love to see 550' soon! But we still have plenty of land...happy to see this go forward!

WE GOT A SHOUT OUT: https://azbex.com/planning-developme...be-growing-up/

"According to the high-rise enthusiast site skyscraperpage.com, Phoenix has an inventory of 41 buildings of more than 12 floors. Of those, however, only 12 have been built in the 2000s."

Anti Parking Fans
 

Not sure but maybe some of you like walking around in 120% heat. So you want someone to live in Phoenix without a car or require them to have the car a few blocks from where they live? Do you actually walk long distances in 120% degree heat when you are not working out? Like going to work or to a restaurant? I am in on Light Rail and Electric trolley's but sorry there will never be enough of those to service every area of the city a person would be working or shopping and you would have to have stops like every 1/2 block. Do you presently buy groceries and walk multiple blocks to your condo or apt? Are you people serious?

But there is light rail downtown, which is where most people want there to be less car oriented development, where people should be able to walk a couple blocks. It’s funny how the heat is always used as an excuse to not have walkable area, but never the cold. It is very rare for businesses to close in cold cities like Minneapolis when it is extremely cold and people still walk and go to work. Less people walk in extreme conditions and that is never viewed as an excuse to not have less car oriented development. It is just a less busy day, just like it currently is here when the temperatures get that high in car oriented development.