Motley,

Your blog post mentions environmental issues that caused the City to back away from the plan to make this an administrative building for Arizona Opera. Do those issues still exist and do they influence a decision to demolish vs. preserve? In other words, is it easier or cheaper to knock down a building with environmental issues than to rehabilitate it? I seem to remember, for example, that asbestos was given as a reason for knocking down the Al Beadle office building in Midtown a few years ago.

The City went through various studies of a 7th Street crossing several years ago. The option favored was a pedestrian bridge over the street. I haven't heard anything for quite some time about a possible construction timeline.

https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/...nts/096955.pdf

The former Channel 12 building was recently renovated, with the City's involvement, to serve the Southwest HIV / AIDs center. It's unlikely to be torn down anytime in the near future.

I can answer this one, remediation can be astronomically expensive! If I have to eat 10% of my margin just to keep something because I think it's cool, I'm not doing it... bye bye building. Not sure whether Mr. Motley agrees or not.

There are some markings on the sidewalk on each side of the street that indicate something may be in a pre-construction phase, blue stake markings mostly, but that could mean anything and perhaps I'm just thinking wishfully. 7th Street is under construction between VB and Roosevelt right now and signs indicate it will last until September, not a clue what is happening but I wouldn't be surprised to hear there's some sort of pedestrian crossing coming for the BioMed campus. We have buildings at 9th and Fillmore and 11th Street and Taylor so I would love to see a bridge crossing in that area for students.

The current work on 7th Street is to improve sewer lines in anticipation of the extra capacity that will be needed when the 10-story research building (the one topped off last week) opens. Unfortunately, it is not related to a pedestrian crossing. If the City ever builds a connector between the Children's Museum and the Science Center, it will likely be near the alignment of Adams Street. I do agree, however, that it would be helpful to have another crossing to the north at Taylor or Polk.

It would not be located at Adams as that's the entrance to the park where Bianco and Rose/Crown are located and also the entrance to Renaissance Apartments. The crosswalk at Monroe is always where the discussion of a crossing has been and every meeting I have been involved with has centered around that crosswalk.

That's where the current pavement markings are located, there's some sort of digging that will happen relatively soon at that location but it sounds as though it may be for a sewer.

If you look at the document I linked to earlier -- specifically at the final recommendations near the end -- the proposed pedestrian bridge would be built between Adams and Monroe, but slightly closer to Adams.

I have a two-fold answer.

1. To my knowledge, environmental concerns on this property were blown way out of proportion by the spread of rumors that originated when the city backed out of the AZ Opera purchase. The Singers told the city the property was clean, then tried to informally remediate a small underground waste oil tank in the dead of night. City policy is not to deal with people like that, so they withdrew. [Start rumor machine here.]

2. Even if there are environmental issues, they would have to be remediated exactly the same way if you were remodeling or you were demolishing. It is a net non-issue with regard to preservation.

Depends on the type of environmental issues, no? an underground oil tank is not treated the same as ceilings full asbestos.

That's pretty condescending to mock those who appreciate a historic property in its entirety. It won't be the end of the world the way it's proposed, but it could have more effectively used the space as is and worked around it or blended with it better. It seems if you express the opinion that something historic should be saved (utilized or not) just to get a mediocre replacement is not good urban design. Building for building sake is what got us to where we are today.

Asbestos, lead, LUST, remediation still makes no difference to preservation cost vs demolition. They won't let you demo a building unless it's clean, to prevent spreading contamination.

I am fine with the compromise. They kept the most interesting piece of the building and we are getting a new 19-story tower on Central that fills a gap in the skyline. To me this is a win-win.

Here's how I see this whole situation.

[And this is coming from someone that wishes the entirety of Phoenix's historic areas and buildings could have been saved through the years. I would love it if we were similar to a place like Paris... we could have the whole "Old Town" of Phoenix be preserved (or renovated into new uses), and then a Central Business District with all of our modern towers and skyline business areas separated (maybe down by the Salt River, or by Papago Park), similar to Paris's La Defense.]

The previous owners were being greedy, as are the new owners (although they are at least providing a great minor concession to the preservationists by preserving the best part of the Circles building rather than demolishing it all). To them it's all about money, and rightfully so, it is (or was) their property. I highly doubt any of us would do otherwise.

The community and Mr. Motley (based on his blog post) are also being greedy, it's just a different type of greed. To them, saving as much of the history and architectural significance is like money and profit to the land owners. Plus, perhaps Motley Design Group is upset they didn't have the chance to rehab the whole building (which can also be construed as a money-greed). Although, I love the work the Motley Design Group has done and I hope they continue the good work on other buildings.

If the community and HP lovers (myself included) want to save buildings, then buy them. Don't let them sit and rot, then complain or demand concessions when someone ponies up their own dough and takes on risk to their own livelihood.

Granted, it's not as cut and dry as this sounds.

Thanks for the clarification.

Aaaand the porto is nowhere to be seen lol I see this property (McKinley Row) on a daily basis and although the mounds of dirt have been completely removed, there has been absolutely NO work since then. Wonder what the hold up is? Last I spoke w/ developer they were supposed to break ground back in January.

Roosevelt Point
 

Alcohol license hearing sign up for Roosevelt Point retail vacancy on 4th Street across from Bliss. Ike's Love and Sandwiches is listed as the tenant.

Nice to see all the retail in this building will finally be filled.

It was there for two days and then *poof* it's gone.

This is awesome, I love Ike's! Make the trip out to Mill Ave at times just for their sandwiches :tup:

Ike's is delicious. Seems like a good spot for it.

Too bad it's a big chain but also good thing it's a big chain.

It's another non-local business on Roosevelt to irritate the guys who want local only, but it's also something recognizable to a lot of people and I think it will do well.