Edison was most definitely planned for Central and Lewis. All earlier press referenced the proximity to the Heard Museum, and we all discussed here how there is a small building on-site that would need be demo'd. I have no idea if they purchased another piece of land and switched the project's location, but I feel like that would be an odd thing to do.

It has also grown in height. It was originally only 5 stories - 7 stories is nice to see, regardless of where it ends up. It's too bad we can't get up to 7 stories in the Roosevelt area.

PHXFlyer - I don't think many would disagree with your opinion that Central would fare better with more infill-type projects than office towers. Realistically, there won't be a tower built in Midtown for quite a while, so it's these smaller projects that will define whether Midtown is able to revitalize or whether it will continue to decline.

Overall, I think this "boom" has been more beneficial than the 2007 era. Instead of proposal after proposal of large, pie-in-the-sky projects, we're seeing actionable projects that have already come to life thanks to the focus on adaptive reuse and infill. While I'd love for a 44M tower somewhere in the core, and for Skyline Lofts to be more of the design standard for residential in Evans Churchill, if all of the proposed projects do indeed happen, it will do more for the overall health of downtown and could really transform Evans Churchill/Roosevelt Row. I think we just need to wait and see which actually happen.

I would like to see office development start taking off since that's where we'll likely start seeing towers again. I guess it isn't surprising given Phoenix's problems attracting business, but I would've thought at least 1 or 2 would be in the pipeline. Can't wait for the day that we start seeing some decent buildings go up on West Van Buren.

That's likely to be a few years off still although GPLET's can help to stir the pot.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some mid-rise mixed use projects that include office space, possibly even in the Warehouse District. Mixed use has been real popular in Denver; they add a lot.

By way of example, Denver was looking forward to the first hi-rise office development since the mid 1980's. Hines is scheduled to break ground in May on a 40-story, 600,000 SF office tower which is essentially a copy of a building they did in Calgary. The site is fenced off and preliminary site work has been done. Now it's "rumored" that the project will be postponed. Supposedly it was a "spec" project but it was also rumored they had one energy company lined up. Oil & Gas companies have been slashing their forward year budgets due to crude oil prices. Oh well (if true).

From your linked article:
But Metro Phoenix does have mighty fine freeways. :rolleyes:
To be fair this is a big plus for commerce, the movement of goods and services.

Interestingly, Denver didn't fair much better.

In the case of the Denver article, I think the Business Journal is using inaccurate wording to describe what's going on. The problem isn't necessarily that Denver lacks close-in jobs (if we assume that means jobs centrally located near transit) but instead that more people have chosen to live far from those established employment centers. If so, that's the same problem Phoenix has. It's more of an issue of consumer preference and perceptions of housing affordability than one of job sprawl (although that's an issue in both cities).

Agreed. However, I wish something could be done with our streets to complement this new development. Outside of the immediate downtown core, I just feel that street widths are too great to really contribute to the urban feeling that the city seems to be trying to create. I know this is not a very popular idea, but I wish curbside parking could be restored to some of the more central areas to 1) lessen the need for huge parking lots and parking garages next to every building, 2) to encourage more pedestrian activity of the sidewalks, and 3) to allow the city to take away a vehicle lane to replace with parked cars and bike lanes. It just sticks out to me how many buildings here are designed with their main entrances facing parking lots versus the more traditional urban design of having entrances facing the street. Also, narrower streets tend to cause drivers to slow down, which in a city like this, where every arterial street serves as a freeway with traffic lights, could be very beneficial. I think that could also spur some more neighborhood activity centers, with restaurants and stores, in areas where that scenario is pretty much unthinkable now. I know the city got ride of curbside parking in many areas to maximize the capacity of the streets for moving motor vehicles, but I think it would be nice if the city did something in the core to try to get people out of their cars and on to the sidewalks. Just a thought.

I will take what I can get with more multi story apartments though!

I agree, generally.

I also think partly the data is dated and 2000 does go back well before the "Great Densification" so there's that. Affordability becoming a very big issue in the core and no doubt will create more sprawl going forward I'd think.

per twilightsaga.wikia.comhttp://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2.../YesPlease.gif

I just want to clarify one thing here... I'm PHXflyer, PHXFlyer11 came about two years after me and apparently didn't have many names to choose from so he chose one so similar to mine that I haven't posted since to avoid confusion

Yes, you are correct. I didn't see anyone active in discussions using that username and i didn't bother to look back through two years of posts to see if someone had.

Curbside parking is a VERY popular idea here. Unfortunately, you are absolutely right about the streets downtown. The City has really failed in its mission to create complete streets. The Roosevelt project really can't be considered a success given that they allowed business owners to dictate the design of the public ROW; and, so, completely uneducated people made the decision to remove the parallel parking from the design, leaving the massive 20' sidewalks and bike lanes completely unprotected from traffic.

The next failure is 1st Street as I posted about a few pages back. The City's consultant presented the design for McKinley - Moreland, and it includes 14' wide traffic lanes that expand up to 17' in some places (the highway standard is 12'!), a dedicated left turning lane where traffic counts don't warrant such use of the ROW, NO BIKE LANES, angled parking that gobbles up unnecessary space... complete disaster.

No it isn't. If I were to try to park on Central or Van Buren -- even in the downtown sections, McDowell, Thomas, Osborn, 7th Street or Avenue my car would be rear ended in seconds and I would have traffic in a severe jam. There are a number of downtown and midtown streets with no curbside parking at all. Many of the streets used to have sections that offered curbside parking. You used to be able to park on 7th Street for instance. No more. Outside of a few sections of downtown, curbside parking is an absolute no no. In LA curbside parking is available even on major throughfares (Santa Monica, Wilshire, Sunset, etc.). Why not here?

The city has more to learn about street widths. Why these roads can't be put on a proper diet, with standard lane widths, curb parking, and barrier protected, dual directional bike lanes is a mystery to me. In many cases it would just require restriping and construction of some bulb outs.

By "here," I meant this forum. The City doesn't seem to have a strong stance either way; they bow to whatever recommendation their latest hired consultant gives.

I'm not sure where street parking would make sense where it isn't already in place. Roosevelt is clearly a failure, but you can park on nearly every other street in Evans Churchill. Likewise, Monroe and Adams are the most 'urban' blocks in the core, and have streetside parking. Even parts of Jefferson have parking.

If one day West Van Buren is built up with a decent set of retail, then I agree, that road should be evaluated and made more ped-friendly. And, in an ideal world, both of the 7's would be narrowed with landscaped medians, bike lanes, transit lanes, etc. But, for now, they're seen as mini-highways that move people quickly in and out of downtown.

well this is extremely helpful, from our friends Ryan and Quinn and "This Could be PHX":

http://www.thiscouldbephx.com/mappin...wntown-phoenix

I think your view on the consultants' control over these projects is a bit off. You assume consultant input carries far more weight than it actually does.

Something like complete streets in Phoenix is a political stepping stool. The "vision" for these projects is coming from people unfamiliar with the design of complete streets (which is why you get the discontinuities in their efforts) and the funding is often inadequate to provide the truly necessary improvements.

I'll tell you what does NOT happen. The City does not say, "We want to build a complete street. We will hire you to make that happen for us. Come up with your best ideas, and we'll make it happen."

What DOES happen is complicated and varies with each project, but with something as politically motivated and complete streets, the vision for the projects is most likely coming from someone either on the Council or in City Management, then passed down through a few levels of engineering to a PM who is given $250k to build a $1M project that was "designed" by someone outside the field of engineering who went to Amsterdam once and saw their cool green bike lanes.

Consultants don't get to decide what happens in transportation, for the most part. They are given a directive, and they have to accomplish that directive with very little wiggle room (if any).

Picking up on this I've copied a couple of posts from yesterday's Denver thread, the 2nd a reply to me. Call it "Infill Gone Wild" or maybe "Be careful what you wish for" or "How quickly things can change"
Worth noting is that Metro Phoenix has outgrown Metro Denver by a country mile for a couple of decades prior to the Great Recession. Additionally, Denver is NOT a coastal/gateway city nor is it in Texas. It's in flyover country. Phoenix will do fine in time.

Relative to CPVLIVE's comment, Metro Denver has been held hostage to a supposedly well-intended law passed to protect condo buyers in projects with problems (there had been a couple of notable examples) which had the unintended consequences of halting all condo construction as the only winners were the lawyers which drove developer insurance costs to the sky. Fair to say that at least in this case Colorado/Denver has the exact opposite problem from Arizona/Phoenix (with respect to politics).

In any event Phoenix downtown will have its time to shine.

There were a couple in that This Could be PHX thing I don't remember talking about. But they're also missing a bunch between Filmore/Moreland/Central/7th Street.

Thanks for the info - I obviously oversimplified the process.

I guess I don't understand how Phoenix is set to adapt new complete street guidelines, while at the same time they are "steering" the 1st St consultant into a horrible, auto-centric highway?

The only new project on THIS COULD BE PHX's list looks like Center 8, but those may be the townhomes someone mentioned a while back. They definitely are missing quite a few projects, depending on what criteria (if any) they are using: Barrister Place, Linear Apartments, 2nd and Moreland Condos, 2nd and Portland condos, 4th Street/McKinley, Broadstone Arts District, ArtHaus on 1st, Muse, Broadstone Central, Highland/Central, etc.

Maricopa County population growth No. 2 in nation, but far short of area's historic numbers

Eric Jay Toll- Phoenix Business Journal

Maricopa County had the second-largest population increase in the nation last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The 74,000 new residents in the county was topped only by 89,000 in Harris County (Houston), Texas. The 1.8 percent population gain, however, was less than half pre-recession levels for the county. Maricopa County is closing in on 4.1 million people.

The data differ for the Phoenix metropolitan area. The region, which now includes both Maricopa and Pinal counties, posted a 1.9 percent population increase on gains from the 2.8 percent increase in Pinal County.

Arizona population growth rate hurt by slipping migration

Pinal increased its population by about 12,000, to 402,000, taking the Phoenix metro area population to nearly 4.5 million. The percentage gains put the metro -- historically a top 5 region for population growth -- to a tie for No. 32. But the nearly 85,000 new residents placed the two-county metro at No. 6 for actual number of people added.

What this means is that Arizona’s most populous area is not seeing the growth rates that have historically driven the economy. During previous post-recession periods, the region's population grew between 5 and 6 percent, economist Elliott Pollack, CEO of Elliott D. Pollack and Co., said in last fall’s economic forums. This resulted from faster job recovery and new residents moving to the Valley and buying houses.

Economic recovery driven by residential construction increased Arizona’s gross domestic product by around 6 percent per year. The Great Recession, said Pollack, affected home equity for millions of families across the country, and the slow equity recovery has prevented relocation.

The drop in the Phoenix metro growth rate to under 2 percent has stymied economic growth. Arizona still managed to post a 2.8 percent GDP gain in 2014 – better than 36 other states – but it’s half what is normally expected coming out of a recession in Arizona.

The sluggish recovery is the direct cause of the $1.5 billion, 18-month revenue shortfall legislators grappled with during the current lawmaking session.

Fastest-growing U.S. counties in 2014

Population increase
1.Harris, Texas (Houston) 89,000
2.Maricopa, Ariz. (Phoenix) 74,000
3.Los Angeles, Calif. 63,000
4.San Diego, Calif. 41,000
5.Clark, Nev. (Las Vegas) 40,000
6.Bexar, Texas (San Antonio) 34,000
7.King, Wash. (Seattle) 33,000
8.Dallas, Texas 33,000
9.Riverside, Calif. 32,000
10.Tarrant, Texas (Fort Worth) 31,000

Fastest-growing U.S. metros in 2014

Population increase
1.Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas 156,371
2.Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas 131,217
3.New York-Newark-Jersey City, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. 90,797
4.Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Ga. 88,891
5.Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif. 86,371
6.Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. 84,980
7.Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. 66,561
8.Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Fla. 66,361
9.San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, Calif. 64,406
10.Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Wash. 57,857

Percent Growth

1. The Villages, Fla. 5.4%
2. Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, S.C.-N.C. 3.2%
3. Austin-Round Rock, Texas 3.0%
4. Odessa, Texas 2.9%
4. St. George, Utah 2.9%
6. Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla. 2.7%
6. Bend-Redmond, Ore. 2.7%
8. Greeley, Colo. 2.6%
8. Midland, Texas 2.6%
10. Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, Fla. 2.5%
32. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale 1.9%

LOL - as ANOTHER person on here of our Phoenix forumers who have other users with VERY similar usernames, I can only roll my eyes as your name is IDENTICAL to his but appears you had to actually ad the "11" to the end as the preferred username was taken . . .

Tell me about it. A big problem with initiatives like complete streets is that it's so new that most people in the design field have very little experience to understand what works and what doesn't work in certain application. A complete street is not an exact science at all, and I think that when certain folks within a city's government see it done one way, they assume that THE way it needs to be done for their city without opening the door to other possibilities. That's how you end up with something like 1st St.

And the huge wrench that gets thrown into the complete streets cog on every single project is right-of-way cost, which is why you end up with situations like you mentioned earlier where businesses seemingly control the public right-of-way. Complete streets are awesome, and awfully expensive. For a city like Phoenix that did not plan to have the need for complete streets from the beginning and may or may not even justify the need currently or in the future, it's a difficult proposition to get the council to jump on board with spending boatloads of money on projects that may or may not be necessary in a developing field.

Anyway, I just randomly happened upon this because I have a keen interest in complete streets and I've been a Phoenician all my life. Changes are coming, whether they should or not, and I'm just hoping the direction of those changes is put into the hands of people who know what they're doing (rather than being the pet project of a politician).

Sorry, I'm wordy.