Here's a few more slides too:

Envisioned pedestrian flow surrounding the development, especially showing the 4th st activation:
https://i.imgur.com/8zd0s26.png

I wasn't able to take a screenshot of the ground floor cutout, but here 2nd floor:
https://i.imgur.com/x05OnUd.png

Level 3, the "bridge" to the North building is 120' wide and is to be considered an exhibition hall as well. Note there's another bridge to the west of the wide hall/bridge and looks like the loading bays will also be connected by a bridge for a total of 3 crossings over Washington (they can't have an underground connection anymore):
https://i.imgur.com/cWqixgV.png

Level 4 and the sky terraces, they want the outdoor component to be a big part of this redevelopment since they expect this to be a big selling point for big conventions over the winter months:
https://i.imgur.com/4IUkLhM.png

Slide 15 showing the 2 towers on the South perimeter are block outs as per max allowed by the FAA height restrictions for the lot and may not be as high.

The residential tower doesn't need to be residential, it could be another hotel.

The entertainment district basically builds on top of this plan so how this connects to it is a TBD.

Here's the map, I added the colored areas for what the council seemed to be going for (the black-dashed rectangle):
https://i.imgur.com/l2EMTkv.png

With the CBD being defined back in 1967 (the area surrounded by the red-dash) and only now getting redrawn... Who knows what the city looks like 50 years from now. This redrawing lets Phoenix CBD have a river/"riverfront" to play with. What the river would look like then, no idea! :shrug:

with the way both footprint center's covered outdoor pavilion and chase field's outdoor plaza are situated, and aside from the random proposals we have seen pop up for the site now and then, i have always had the belief that the parking garage between them was not supposed to be a permanent feature of the area. They are begging to be better connected, and the light rail platform between them needs more room anyways. :tup:

I used to be able to fairly easily name all the projects downtown, now I can barely keep up with new announcements/plan updates coming almost daily. Tempe is on fire too and even Scottsdale has a few cranes up it's sleeves.

It's crazy how the infill has taken off in recent years, having been here for 21 years now there's never been a better time to be a urban/high-rise enthusiast in the valley. Looking forward to seeing many of these new proposals get off the ground soon, especially Astra of course.

Phoenix takes first step to create downtown entertainment district
 

Unfortunate that Hines is no longer interested. The City has probably irked them after this and the Hyatt Regency Garage RFP.

In hindsight, it probably made sense for the City to slow things down and really figure out its long-term vision for the the CC. But Hines is doing really great things in Tempe.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...t/70319272007/

When you burn developers, you pay down the road. Someday Phoenix may learn some lessons.

I think they are building apartments at the old Big Surf location, too bad they couldn’t get in on it as an option!

The Jefferson Hotel: Downtown Phoenix’s Original Garden Spot
 

The article makes it seems that this development is still alive. Does anyone have any insight into this? With the South Central Light Rail extension right in front, Moxy Hotel right across the street, and downtown development being hot right now, I am shocked that this project/lot hasn't made significant progress yet.

https://dtphx.org/2023/06/22/the-jef...l-garden-spot/

It's my understanding, the owner of the parking lot refuses to sell? :shrug:

They own enough of the lot to develop. As for the rest of the block, they should get the mob/hired goons to rough up a certain notorious holdout. Kinda getting tired of that guy downtown and his parking lot empire.

To me, this just reads like canned text from the "development team" to indicate they haven't forgotten about this property they've been sitting on for 8 years.

Last I heard he wanted to build a parking garage there with ground floor retail, seriously hope that never happens. That’s a prime spot for commercial/residential development.

It would be interesting to know the types of deals the lot owner is being offered to still be turning them down.

The guy seems to be a classic example of why land value taxes are a good thing: his empire has been untouched afaict and it wouldn't surprise me if he were the largest private land owner by acres in the downtown area. If he does (or his kids) sell, it'll be when there's nothing left to develop and he'll realize maximum value that only others have produced.

So are you saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?

For years I would have agreed with you. But I really think that was just my selfish desire to have a bigger and better looking city, or at the very least to get rid of all of our empty parcels and parking lots. Now I don't think it would be fair to levy such a tax just to force someone's meager hand to sell to a developer of means.

This dude played his hand right for years and ultimately will win the game for his family at some point. Kind of sucks for us and others in the mean time, but oh well.

I can foresee a response of "but there is a housing crisis!".

:shrug: Oh well. That will have to be figured out in another way besides more taxes on private landownership. Remove density limits, remove some other regulations and unnecessary red tape. Dissolve the RAA and all of these other levels of cooks in the kitchen. Anything before just going to more taxation.

^ Land value taxes wouldn't be more taxes, it'd be just taxing the value of the land instead of improvements to discourage the exact sort of speculation and land banking that has plagued downtown for decades.

Although, tbf, I'd be actually happy to see that guy taxed into bankruptcy.

/\ I get it. But it would essentially act as a new tax. I feel private property rights are more and more important these days. If the guy wants to keep parking lots on his land... sucks, but oh well. Hopefully no one parks there and the maintenance somehow makes it not worth it to him to keep it up and he eventually cashes out to a developer. Better than the govt forcing his hand.

Stringing concepts together like "new tax" or "private property rights" isn't an argument, you're just adding unrelated conservative bogeyman words that don't mean anything.

Libertarians have been advocating LVTs for like 150 years before the urbanists picked up on it, for one, as they argue it's much more fair.

GTFOH with your bogeyman words garbage. You're talking about being happy if someone was taxed in to bankruptcy.

I'll join you in the desire to see more commercial investments that incentivize staying in downtown to spend more money downtown. But I'll never be a fan of using government mandates to suck resources from investors for the sake of ideological solutions to perceived problems. Can we keep Big Brother out of it?

But as long as people want to drive their own vehicles, they will demand parking lots and will be willing to pay more for proximity. If more people used alternatives such as Waymo (big fan), Uber, Lyft, and even Valley Metro, earning revenue from parking lots would alter property development strategies. Let's try expanding Park and Ride lots with Valley Metro to add routes/times for big downtown events.