Didn't even see the stuff about 1st St posted, altho somebody reported something was going on:

http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/1ststreet.html

http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/1stplan.pdf

Who knew Phoenix could plant a tree downtown?

Its good news, though for a variety of reasons that Sean Sweet (Phx Downtowner) has covered elsewhere the project is a bit disappointing. It was good to see the City respond to community outcry and keep the large Ficus on 1st Street.

I'm just hoping the design and implementation turn out bette than the embarrassing 2nd Avenue streetscape "improvements." I'm glad they're doing rows of desert trees on both sides of the sidewalk in places, thats key to creating proper canopy and providing enough shade.

I have been saying for quite some time that just planting some trees and greenery on the streets in Evans-Churchill would go a long way in making the area look much better. They did this on 2nd Ave and the view is more pleasant from Roosevelt Square looking south: This needs to happen along 3rd/4th and 5th Streets as well...just hope they keep the desert trees to a minimum and plant some big leafy greens (Civic Space Park trees).

P.S. LOL! Hoover, how different perspectives can be!

http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/projects/.../Z-35-06ph.pdf

Anyone know anything about this? The Hearing was scheduled for June 15th.

I'm in favor of large green leafy trees...ie: Ficus over Palos. Or how about Jacarandas? Many streets in arid southern calif are lined with Jacs. Really beautiful when they bloom purple in the spring!

Definitely for some Jacarandas! There are some huge, beautiful Jacs in Encanto. Here is a picture of a Brooklyn street lined with old Jacarandas:

http://vickums.files.wordpress.com/2.../jacaranda.jpg

Pistache also would be great; they turn a beautiful fire red in the autumn. Is there a suggestion "box" or site where we can recommend some improvements for the streetscape to the City?

The State has a list of trees that desert Cities like PHX & Tucson can plant in streetscapes, Ficus & Jacaranda aren't on that list (though Jacaranda probably should be, its pretty low water usage wise). So you're pissing into the wind if you complain to the City about it, they can only do so much. Larger water intensive trees can be planted by private business on patios, parking lots, or in public parks but on streetscapes there's a limit.

"What about Mill Ave!?" you ask. Well those aren't public streets. Those sidewalks are actually owned by like the Tempe Chamber of Commerce or the Mill Ave Merchants Assoc. or someone like that (I forget the exact details) and they aren't technically public sidewalks, thats how they got around it.

Desert trees, Palo Verdes, Mesquites, et cetera can provide effective shade. However more often than not there are too few planted, they're planted too far away from each other, too far from the sidewalk, etc to be effective. Its more of a design and implementation issue than an issue with the tree's themselves. If you think about it the two shadiest places in the Central Business District both have Desert trees, the Municipal Courthouse mesquite basque and the St Mary's plaza.

I am hopeful about the First Street project because from the image it looks like there's spots where whatever Desert Tree they're using will be planted on both sides of the sidewalk, which will work. That will provide enough shade once the trees are mature in order for them to canopy over the sidewalk. Combine that with awnings, arcades and proper architectural planning (as laid out by the Urban Form code) and we should be OK shade wise.

I'd be willing to bet you're talking about 2nd Ave North of Fillmore, right? Because thats the more recent area they've done work on, and I agree it looks pretty good. The palms, grass and desert trees are nice....though they stupidly planted the shade trees closer to the street than the sidewalk, meaning parallel parked cars will get more shade than pedestrians.

The 2nd Ave streetscape work South of Fillmore stinks. Its mostly some trees that have never grown in, WAY overly trimmed bushes and a sea of gravel.

^The answer would then be Pistache (outstanding heat, drought and soil tolerance); they are planted all over Civic Space and they are the trees planted in the center of the new Central Station. Problem with PV's and other desert trees are that they must be intensely planted near each other to be effective shade canopies. Even then they act more like screens than shade because so much sunlight gets through. There just wouldn't be enough room to plant a "bosque" of PV's along sidewalks.

They are also rather short and that would be a pain and an expense to trim properly for the City in order to keep the path unobstructed. PV's tend to break rather easily in monsoon storms and with no buildings to block the wind on 1st my trepidation is that the city will just pull the saplings and forget to plant new ones as they are destroyed. Don't even get me started with the Mesquite and those beans they drop all over the damn place. Not exactly sidewalk friendly if you ask me.

Yes sir; I don't ever run or ride my bike past McKinley west of 1st Ave so not sure what it looks like closer to Van Buren. But as I recall, this is the area where that new venue will be opening up. I didn't even realize the City made changes that far south; like you wrote, the short vegetation contributes to that. As for the trees planted nearer the street, I think the purpose is that as these big, leafy greens grow they will shade not only the sidewalks but the narrow street; making the area that much cooler.

I run at any time of the day depending on my schedule so I can tell you that running through neighborhoods and parks with real trees makes a difference even a few feet away from asphalt and concrete dragons; for instance, Hance Park is a huge relief after running across the overpasses of I-10 at high noon (much more so at 7pm).

Mesquite flour is a superfood that sells for like $10 a pound online. Once I learned that, I've never quite understood the sustainability disconnect that makes the beans as littersome as they can be. You'd think we'd have any number of cottage industries of people planting the trees and collecting the beans, but we don't.

They do in Tucson, but most urbanist in Phoenix seem to be anti desert plants for some reason. They're all in love with their lush grassy yards and non native plants. Its always been disheartening to me that the people that seem to embrace beautiful desert xeriscaping are the sprawlers and the urbanites want to pretend we're Cincinnati. Its never made sense to me.

Hey e'vryone. I'm Glendeasy, I've been reading this blog for a few years now and finally decided to join. Looking fwd to many informative and entertaining discussions in the near future.

Part of the reason is that Central Phoenix was always a "fruitful" place. Not a desert scrubland like Tucson or even NE Phoenix. Phoenix has been a place of irrigation and cropland; including citrus groves and Alamogordo due to the Salt River. Oak and other green trees were much more pervasive in the Salt River Valley than were Palo Verde or cacti like Saguaro which do much better along the highlands and mountains of the desert.

The alluvial plain that is downtown and much of the Central City was not Tucson-like desert with its higher elevation. Hence the historic difference of the cityscape between the two. Phoenix was always meant to be a greener oasis; that is why downtown should be a greener place compared to the rest of the metro area. It will also allow it to become a dense, urban area without the ill effects of intensifying the urban heat island.

What about Sissoo trees? Are they approved by the City?

I put an email into a guy in the parks department who is heading up the Tree & Shade program asking him for that list, if he replies with it I'll be sure to post it.

Welcome!

I gotta be a little blunt here: F the state of AZ!

Hoover, so are you saying that if the city of Phoenix decided to narrow it's own streets that the state of AZ has some sort of authority as to what gets planted on city owned rights of way?

This doesn't make sense.

Disagree, nothing north of I-10 should be considered "downtown".

McDowell does does define the "geographical" northern boundary of downtown. There are shared similarities between the neighborhoods north and south of the 10, which is a modern transgressor on the historic core. Roosevelt, for instance, does not end at the 10 but continues north...

Besides, even within the city defined boundaries of downtown it is a rather small area in a municipality with 519 sq miles of land. Downtown is approximately 1.5 square miles in size from McDowell to Lincoln, 7th Ave to 7th St.

I have heard all of that, I just don't buy it. I-10 or even Roosevelt make much more sense.

There are a few different opinions but it is an exercise in futility. For all intents and purposes, McDowell defines the Midtown/Downtown line otherwise there would be ridiculous arguments over what to call the "in-between". Which will have no historical significance and make a mess (more than the I-10 has) of the historic neighborhoods ("Cultural District", bleeh). It is sad how many don't even know Roosevelt ends nearer McDowell (Kenilworth School is in the Roosevelt Historic Neighborhood) and not at the 10 (a product of the highly transient and transplant population of modern Phoenix); why cut the historic neighborhood in half...If we want to get even more technical and historic, the original downtown boundary was Fillmore; but for modern Phoenix, that is just too small.