SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Southwest (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=643)
-   -   Phoenix Development News (3) (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=173764)

phoenixwillrise Nov 10, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 4548816)
About the U of P downtown location idea...they could easily rent space at OCPE. I was thinking that ASU could locate offices and classrooms there as well if they need to expand further.

Suffolk University in Boston has classrooms in a highrise on the 28th floor, ASU could do the same (or U of P).

Good Thought, it is a crying shame that the Apollo group who built their high rise in South Phoenix off of I10 couldn have moved in or built downtown.
Where the helll are the planners and the mayor in deals like this? They should be pitching people and yes if possible giving incentives on building downtown. (i.e. the new music instrument museum at 110 and Tatum or 56th whatever, should have been built near the Phoenix Art Museum and Heard Museum to create snynergy.)

oliveurban Nov 10, 2009 3:42 AM

Plaza revamp at Chase Tower--
 
So, I emailed David Noble at the Downtown Phoenix Partnership over the weekend in regard to Chase Tower's outdoor plaza. He didn't have many additional details to report, but did forward these photos of the renovation plans that are currently being displayed in the building's lobby. Gives a somewhat better idea of the project's scope:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...bydisplay2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...bydisplay3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...bydisplay1.jpg

No information appears to be on the landscape design firm's website yet: http://www.floorassociates.com/site/...ssociates.html

gymratmanaz Nov 10, 2009 3:56 AM

Nice find OLIVEURBAN!!!!!!!!! The plans look very nice, like they will be making a desert oasis. I wonder if they will include any water features. Right now it was just a lot of cement with trees stuck in. The plans look like some well thought out pavers, lights, and desert plants with some nice color.

I stopped by tonight and phase 1 is all cleared and they have the black tar paper down. Looks like they are close to putting the pavers in.

I sure hope they do something to make those huge planters look attractive, rather than just big cement basins. Stain them or cover them, but do something with them.

HooverDam Nov 10, 2009 9:00 AM

Very good find on the Chase Tower stuff. Id like the moat to be done away with and maybe some retail wringing a courtyard but Ill take what looks to be an improved public space.

In other news...
http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...oenix1110.html

Quote:

Phoenix makes it easy to go solar at home
1,000 APS customers can lease panels with no up-front costs
3 comments by Ryan Randazzo - Nov. 10, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
A new program will allow about 1,000 Arizona Public Service Co. customers in Phoenix, including many low-income families, to put solar panels on their homes and cut their power bills without paying anything up front.

The city-supported program called Solar Phoenix will help residents take advantage of the sun with leases financed by National Bank of Arizona.

"One of the barriers for residential solar power is the up-front cost and whether people of all income levels can afford that cost," Mayor Phil Gordon said. "We wanted to figure out a way for blue-collar people to use the sun to help the environment and use their own money for things that are more useful in their lives, like food and clothing."


Similar municipal-financing methods have taken off around the country since Berkeley, Calif., announced a city-backed solar program last year, but the Phoenix project is much larger and in a class of its own because of its financing structure.

The program works like this:


• People who want solar panels on their homes will contact SolarCity Corp. of California, which has been offering solar leases in Arizona since April 2008.


• Applicants will be evaluated based on their credit-worthiness, not their income level.


• Qualified applicants will have systems installed on their homes, with no money down. They will pay a monthly lease, based on the size of the system installed.


• SolarCity will guarantee the panels' annual energy production for the 15-year lease.

"At the end of the year, if the system doesn't generate the power we estimated, we are settling up with cash," SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive said.

Customers still will get power from APS at night and when they are using more energy than the panels generate.

Solar-panel systems for an average house can cost $30,000 to $70,000, which can take several years to recover through lower energy bills.

SolarCity guarantees only the amount of power the panels will make, not the amount of money customers will save. However, they say customers' new utility bills plus lease payments should add up to 10-15 percent less than their old utility bills.

Besides the financial benefits, the program will save customers the "brain damage" of dealing with utility, federal and state rebates, because that will all be handled on the back end of the deal by the bank and SolarCity, Rive said.

National Bank of Arizona is spending $25 million to buy the systems from SolarCity and lease them to homeowners, and the Phoenix Industrial Development Authority is putting up $250,000 to protect the bank from people who default on their leases.

Executives at National Bank will collect the APS rebates and 30 percent federal tax credit on the systems.

They expect to recover their $25 million investment within six to seven years through those incentives and by collecting monthly lease payments from participants, bank Executive Vice President Craig Robb said.

"The program has economic viability in addition to being environmentally sound," Robb said.

The bank is reserving $5 million of its investment for low-income customers.

At the end of the lease, customers will have the options of buying their system, extending the lease, upgrading or simply ending their relationship with SolarCity. The leases also can be transferred to new buyers if the home is sold.

Gordon persuaded the city's Industrial Development Authority to put up money to cover defaults and avoid risking any of the city's operating funds.

The development authority also recently lent $250,000 to the new Downtown Phoenix Public Market.

"Solar is another example where we had money in the bank and we could set it aside to help an important project," said Don Keuth, president of the authority's board.

"We think it is a pretty safe bet right now," he said. "Given the market these days, everybody is so cautious. But it wasn't hard for us to do. It just made the right sense."

Last year, Berkeley provided loans for homeowners to install solar-power systems, which homeowners pay back through property taxes. The Berkeley pilot program has 38 participants.

The mayor of Austin announced a program in October called "Energize Austin" that could provide loans to residents also to be paid back through property taxes.

Gordon said the plan in Phoenix is good for the city because rather than have the city issue bonds to cover the costs, National Bank is providing the money and will profit, minimizing the city's risk to the $250,000 provided by the Industrial Development Authority in case of defaults.

"We don't have to worry about it," Gordon said. "We've got the private sector doing it."

The plan also should create economic activity and, importantly, jobs, he said.

Gordon said he talked with officials at Salt River Project, which splits electrical service in the Valley with APS, and said the utility one day may participate as well.
I havent done the math on this not being a homeowner but it sounds good. Anything that gets us more on the Solar boat is probably a good idea. But whats with the City of Phoenix teaming with a California based company for this? Are there really no firms in Phx or at least AZ that could've done this? If so its another example of how Arizona's already fallen woefully behind in the Solar industry and we really need to catch up.

bwonger06 Nov 10, 2009 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4550411)

I havent done the math on this not being a homeowner but it sounds good. Anything that gets us more on the Solar boat is probably a good idea. But whats with the City of Phoenix teaming with a California based company for this? Are there really no firms in Phx or at least AZ that could've done this? If so its another example of how Arizona's already fallen woefully behind in the Solar industry and we really need to catch up.

I think we are probably still the best city in all of the world in terms of solar power. First Solar is probably the biggest player in the world in solar power and they are located in Tempe.

The problem with these guys is why should they fool around with small single family homes when you can go after countries (China).

plinko Nov 10, 2009 6:10 PM

I'm a little confused as to how they got $30-70k for installation costs. WOW is that expensive.

I'd actually prefer to see this type of subsidy go for solar hot water and pool heating first...because the efficiency of such a system is much greater (and needs less panels) than something that's probably only going to generate 15-25% of your electricity anyway.

PHXguyinOKC Nov 10, 2009 10:16 PM

I took a nice little Phoenix adventure today since I'm in town. Started out at Ted's Hotdogs in Tempe, yummmmm. Got on the light rail at the 101/Apache park and ride. The ticket machine was really easy to use and fast... worked just like and ATM. Waited about 5 min for a train and got on.
The train ride was good. We never really stopped at a light, just slowed down for the light to changed. The notifications worked at every station. There was quite a bit of people on the train (I got on around noon). Lots of ASU students use the train and it's good for eye candy. Had a stinky guy get on and sit behind me at one of the washington st stations. Had a transit cop get on and check everyone's tickets in downtown.
Got off at Van Buren and strolled around. The park turned out nice and they are overseeding the grass with Rye... it's looking good. A lot has changed since the last time I was downtown a year ago. I stopped off in the AZ Center for my first time. Bought some stuff to take back to OKC with me. Took a stroll down Taylor St and saw tons of ASU chickies walking by halfway clothed.... very nice. No pictures because I can't find my charger for my camera :(
Took the light rail back without any problems and sped back to Chandler to beat rush hour traffic.

Don B. Nov 10, 2009 11:30 PM

Why can't we as a state mandate that every new home and apartment be installed with at least one or two solar panels at the time of construction? The incremental cost at the time of development would be much less than the cost to retrofit after the fact.

By the way, a friend of mine who lives in Laveen installed 21 solar panels on top of his 3,500 square foot house, which has large sections of flat roof (Territorial style) two years ago. They were about $40,000 total, and rebates cut that cost in half. He now pays no electric bill in the fall, winter and spring, and only pays about $50 to $100 per month in the summer, when his AC usage exceeds the amount of energy generated by the panels. His electric bill before the installation was about $100 per month in the winter and $300 per month in the summer. He estimates that he will recoup his $20k investment in about 10 years total (8 years since he has had this system for 2 years), after that it is pure profit for him in terms of reducing his electric bill.

--don

Vicelord John Nov 10, 2009 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don B. (Post 4551625)
Why can't we as a state mandate that every new home and apartment be installed with at least one or two solar panels at the time of construction? The incremental cost at the time of development would be much less than the cost to retrofit after the fact.

By the way, a friend of mine who lives in Laveen installed 21 solar panels on top of his 3,500 square foot house, which has large sections of flat roof (Territorial style) two years ago. They were about $40,000 total, and rebates cut that cost in half. He now pays no electric bill in the fall, winter and spring, and only pays about $50 to $100 per month in the summer, when his AC usage exceeds the amount of energy generated by the panels. His electric bill before the installation was about $100 per month in the winter and $300 per month in the summer. He estimates that he will recoup his $20k investment in about 10 years total (8 years since he has had this system for 2 years), after that it is pure profit for him in terms of reducing his electric bill.

--don

how do you propose the electricity company makes money if everyone is on solar?

HooverDam Nov 11, 2009 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don B. (Post 4551625)
Why can't we as a state mandate that every new home and apartment be installed with at least one or two solar panels at the time of construction? The incremental cost at the time of development would be much less than the cost to retrofit after the fact.

I think thats coming but in this economy its a tough sell to say "hey we're going to make the initial cost of construction even higher." We talked briefly about it at the General Plan Visioning thing last night and of course the people there were for something like this.

What Id like to see is it phased in on different building types. All new governmental buildings (city, state, county and federal) should have to have solar panels (as well as solar hot water and gray water systems). Next all buildings over a certain size (say anything the side of a large grocery store on up), then apartment/condo complexes and then eventually all new single family homes. Maybe its something you could phase in over the next 10-15 years, but Im not expert so maybe thats too slow or too fast of a time table.

mwadswor Nov 11, 2009 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4551702)
What Id like to see is it phased in on different building types. All new governmental buildings (city, state, county and federal) should have to have solar panels (as well as solar hot water and gray water systems). Next all buildings over a certain size (say anything the side of a large grocery store on up), then apartment/condo complexes and then eventually all new single family homes. Maybe its something you could phase in over the next 10-15 years, but Im not expert so maybe thats too slow or too fast of a time table.

Agreed on all points, although your timetable's too fast. I like it, but being politically realistic it might take 10-15 years of talking about it before a timetable even begins, and I don't think anything like this is being seriously discussed at an official level.

The 2 points I want to emphasize are gray water and apartment/condo complexes. Solar is important here, but water conservation may be even more important. Gray water systems aren't as glamorous as solar panels, but they are something really easy and really effective, and all new buildings with any type of landscaping should have them.

Second, condo and apartment complexes are overlooked in a lot of solar discussions. Between roofs and covered parking, condo and apartment complexes have a lot of large flat spaces that would be perfect for solar. They get overlooked though because short-term tennants obviously aren't going to install them, and they don't save the complex any money because the complex isn't paying the power bill. Sure, it could be a selling point for the complex, but a lot of people shopping for apartments (condos are a bit of a different story) aren't thinking about the utility bills when they're shopping for apartments. You could get away with it on some apartments around ASU where students are particularly environmentally concious/parents are paying the bill, but most apartment hunters are looking for the cheapest possible price.

If you were to put solar panels on a multi-story building like an apartment complex, how do you divide the power/savings? Do you just take the amount of power/money generated by the panels minus maintenance costs and divide it evenly among the residents at the end of the month?

combusean Nov 11, 2009 1:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4551644)
how do you propose the electricity company makes money if everyone is on solar?

Industrial and commercial uses of energy preclude this is as a possibility. The IO data center in Phoenix is covering its roof with solar and expects to cut only a quarter or so of its power consumption.

PhxPavilion Nov 11, 2009 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don B. (Post 4551625)
Why can't we as a state mandate that every new home and apartment be installed with at least one or two solar panels at the time of construction? The incremental cost at the time of development would be much less than the cost to retrofit after the fact.

By the way, a friend of mine who lives in Laveen installed 21 solar panels on top of his 3,500 square foot house, which has large sections of flat roof (Territorial style) two years ago. They were about $40,000 total, and rebates cut that cost in half. He now pays no electric bill in the fall, winter and spring, and only pays about $50 to $100 per month in the summer, when his AC usage exceeds the amount of energy generated by the panels. His electric bill before the installation was about $100 per month in the winter and $300 per month in the summer. He estimates that he will recoup his $20k investment in about 10 years total (8 years since he has had this system for 2 years), after that it is pure profit for him in terms of reducing his electric bill.

--don

That's great and all (I'm a big fan of solar as well) but most panels only have a typical lifespan of around 10 years. By the time he breaks even those panels will be on their last leg. Photo-voltaic panels aren't efficient enough yet to be used effectively on a large scale. Could they be good if costs came down considerably? Yes. When that happens is anyone's best guess but a system like your friend's has been quite expensive for awhile now.

What we should be concentrating on is thermal power stations. These would be relatively easy to make and much more efficient.

mwadswor Nov 11, 2009 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhxPavilion (Post 4553716)
What we should be concentrating on is thermal power stations. These would be relatively easy to make and much more efficient.

And much less susceptible to issues like the sun not shining at the same time as peak power usage.

Vicelord John Nov 11, 2009 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by combusean (Post 4551884)
Industrial and commercial uses of energy preclude this is as a possibility. The IO data center in Phoenix is covering its roof with solar and expects to cut only a quarter or so of its power consumption.

you missed my point. I could have asked how the oil companies would make money if the cars all went to electric, and maybe more people would have got it.

mwadswor Nov 11, 2009 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4553752)
you missed my point. I could have asked how the oil companies would make money if the cars all went to electric, and maybe more people would have got it.

1) energy companies have a lot of lobbying power, but it's not unlimited.

2) you missed his point. Solar panels can provide a substantial amount of power, but with current and forseeable technology they will not be able to fill all of our power needs. Moreover, battery technology is not good enough for most people to go off-grid, and I really see no reason to ever commit the research to make battery technology good enough for everyone to be self-sustaining. We live in a society, we don't live in the jungle, there's no reason to use less efficient/reliable/more expensive methods just because we don't want to rely on our neighbors. There will probably always be a niche for electricity companies, whether it's by creating and transporting electricity primarily by burning fossil fuels (as now), or primarily through renewable resources like wind and solar-thermal. Even if solar panels get way more efficient there will still be a need for electric companies to provide power at night and to maintain the transmission lines to move power from places that have a surplus to places that have a deficit (high rises will never generate as much power per person as suburbs because there is less exterior surface area per person on a high rise).

Finally, solar energy, distributed or otherwise, has the potential to make money for power companies. Electricity gets extremely expensive for the power companies when they surpass what their base load plants can produce and they have to buy power from peak-load (typically natural gas) plants that are significantly more expensive to run. In today's political climate, it is extremely difficult to get new non-renewable base load plants built, which means that this problem is going to get worse in the future. Distributed solar panels may not make money for electric companies, but they can cut the need to use those expensive peak-need plants and increase the profit margin on the electricity that power companies do sell.

Vicelord John Nov 11, 2009 11:29 PM

nevermind, it's wasted breath with you guys.

glynnjamin Nov 12, 2009 12:09 AM

John...I get what you're asking. The answer is that we sell our electricity to other cities. Let's use a simple example to make the point. If it costs $1M to build a coal power plant and then costs $1 for every Kwh produced after that, you have to charge $1+ per Kwh to your customers to pay off your plant and to make a profit. At some point, you will need to build a new plant because of increased demand of the closest city. That's another $1M you have to spend. At this rate, you may never be profitable.
If power companies can pass the cost of construction to the consumer (having the consumer build solar panels), the power company no longer has to build more plants. For the extra energy that every home creates, the power company can pay the homeowner $0.50 per Kwh and turn around and sell it at that same $1+ they were doing before. This means lower overhead costs for the power company, a paid incentive for the homeowner, and cheaper production costs for the power company.
Now you will ask, who's going to buy the electricity if we all have solar panels. To begin, it would take a lot of panels to power the valley in the summer (A/Cs are just not THAT efficient). People would NEED more power. But the real money would come from selling that energy to colder/darker places. Seattle & Denver are dark, dreary, and cold in the winter running their energy costs through the roof while ours stay in the sub-$100 range. The power company would be able to sell that energy to those cities for a wholesale rate somewhere between the $0.50 cost and the $1+ charge. That's money in the bank. Power companies would become more of power brokers.

Vicelord John Nov 12, 2009 12:17 AM

I wasn't asking anything. I was making a point.

You all are so damn literal.

mwadswor Nov 12, 2009 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4553887)
John...I get what you're asking. The answer is that we sell our electricity to other cities. Let's use a simple example to make the point. If it costs $1M to build a coal power plant and then costs $1 for every Kwh produced after that, you have to charge $1+ per Kwh to your customers to pay off your plant and to make a profit. At some point, you will need to build a new plant because of increased demand of the closest city. That's another $1M you have to spend. At this rate, you may never be profitable.
If power companies can pass the cost of construction to the consumer (having the consumer build solar panels), the power company no longer has to build more plants. For the extra energy that every home creates, the power company can pay the homeowner $0.50 per Kwh and turn around and sell it at that same $1+ they were doing before. This means lower overhead costs for the power company, a paid incentive for the homeowner, and cheaper production costs for the power company.
Now you will ask, who's going to buy the electricity if we all have solar panels. To begin, it would take a lot of panels to power the valley in the summer (A/Cs are just not THAT efficient). People would NEED more power. But the real money would come from selling that energy to colder/darker places. Seattle & Denver are dark, dreary, and cold in the winter running their energy costs through the roof while ours stay in the sub-$100 range. The power company would be able to sell that energy to those cities for a wholesale rate somewhere between the $0.50 cost and the $1+ charge. That's money in the bank. Power companies would become more of power brokers.

Thanks. That's what I was going for, but your explanation makes a lot more sense.

Leo the Dog Nov 12, 2009 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHXguyinOKC (Post 4551467)
I took a nice little Phoenix adventure today since I'm in town. Started out at Ted's Hotdogs in Tempe, yummmmm.

Yo, say no more, you just topped my chart with the statement about Ted's. By far, the best place to get a hamburger and hotdog in PHX. I used to hit up that place after playing basketball a couple times a week back-in-the-day. :cheers:

Sonoran_Dweller Nov 13, 2009 5:26 AM

Wow, I have not been on this forum since early August... school is a bitch.

I just wanted to bring up the Greenbuild Conference happening NOW at the PCC. This thing is huge for our city. Have you guys seen how packed the sidewalks are, and even the trains. I know it is only for one week, but it is nice to see things like this happen, just wish it was like this ALL the time.

But is also a great way to showcase our city, for good and bad. There are people from all over the world attending. We should be proud our city is hosting this.

Okay... back to studio...

combusean Nov 13, 2009 6:10 AM

Isnt greenbuild always hosted here?

PHX31 Nov 13, 2009 6:38 AM

I was going to mention the same thing. We went downtown to take some out of towners to the park and we were going to go up to the Hyatt's Compass room for dessert. That was packed and we couldn't get in. Then we went over to the Sheraton and there was a wait there (except for the lounge, which we went in and had dessert). Places we passed were all busy like Greenhouse Grill (or whatever), Seamus, etc. I assumed it was because of some big conference in town, but I was still plesantly surprised with all of the people all over the place downtown.

Sonoran_Dweller Nov 13, 2009 8:01 AM

Greenbuild is the annual conference of the USGBC (United States Green Building Council). Every year it is in a different city. Last year it was in Boston, next year it will be in Chicago. This year it is here, in Phoenix. Greenbuild is not in Phoenix every year, it never has been in Phoenix.

The conference is the reason Al Gore was in town yesterday. The conference has about 25,000 attendees. All of the hotels are booked SOLID. I know, I have a friend in town for the conference, and he could not get anything close to downtown. He had to get a room in Tempe.

ljbuild Nov 13, 2009 9:23 PM

It looks as though the downtown stores may get a boost from customers

seeking " OTHER PLACES TO SHOP"

due to the potential STRIKE thats developing at FRYS & SAFEWAY



However, we wont know the latest until 6pm. tonight ( friday the 13th, 2009)

glynnjamin Nov 13, 2009 9:28 PM

Im starting to understand why everyone else blocks ljbuild

dtnphx Nov 13, 2009 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4557425)
Im starting to understand why everyone else blocks ljbuild

My pupils are dialated from looking at such large type. Not to mention the 12-hours behind in the news cycle feed that ljbuild obviously subscribes to.

Tempe_Duck Nov 13, 2009 9:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4557425)
Im starting to understand why everyone else blocks ljbuild

I have had it with him. How do I block him?

Don B. Nov 13, 2009 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4557425)
Im starting to understand why everyone else blocks ljbuild

ROTFLMAO...

I just skim/skip over his posts.

--don

Don B. Nov 13, 2009 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempe_Duck (Post 4557487)
I have had it with him. How do I block him?

Click on the username of the person you wish to block, then click on the first option from the drop down menu that appears (view public profile). When that page comes up, over on the right side of the blue bar in the middle of the page, you will see the option to ignore that person's posts.

--don

HooverDam Nov 16, 2009 7:20 AM

http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...solar1116.html

Quote:

Solar-panel maker plans HQ in Valley
by Ryan Randazzo - Nov. 15, 2009 09:36 PM
The Arizona Republic
Chinese solar-panel manufacturer Suntech Power Holdings Co. announced Sunday night it would locate a 100,000-square-foot North American headquarters and manufacturing facility in the Valley.

The facility should be running within a year, employing 75 people at first, 150 after a year of operations and 250 or more at full build-out.

Suntech is well-known in solar development, and is likely to take advantage of new state incentives intended to land just such investments. The incentives are part of a broader effort to diversify the state's real estate-dependent economy and attract high-paying jobs.

“This is a great day for Arizona,” Gov. Jan Brewer said. “I've been so determined that we have a business climate that will bring us jobs. We committed to Suntech we will make the transition as easy as possible for them.”

Suntech is deciding between an East Valley and West Valley location for its factory that will make panels that convert sunlight to electricity, said Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. GPEC has been negotiating to convince Suntech to open a facility in Arizona for two years, Broome said, and the decision came down to the Valley or Austin, Texas.

“It's been a while since we won something over Texas,” he said.

Earlier this year, Brewer signed into law legislation that gives tax breaks to companies that open new manufacturing plants or headquarters buildings for renewable-energy companies, which Broome said was “pivotal” to Suntech.

The renewable-energy incentives law offers factories that make renewable-energy equipment up to a 10 percent income-tax credit on capital investment.

Companies that spend at least $25 million also could have their property taxes reclassified, saving them about 80 percent of that tax.

Brewer said Suntech plans a $13 million investment in its first phase and more down the road.

To apply for the incentives, companies must pay at least 25 percent more than the state median wage, with higher wages eligible for higher tax breaks. To be eligible, they also would have to provide health-care coverage and meet other requirements.

“We set the standard very high, and they are willing to do that,” Brewer said. “(The bill) is one of those great things that a lot of people worked on that is going to be a godsend.”

Other locations that didn't make the short list for Suntech's new facility include Nevada, New Mexico, California and sites in the South and Northeast, Broome said.

Texas offers an enterprise zone incentive for manufacturers that would have given Suntech tax relief in that state, making the decision to come to Arizona even more impressive, Broome said.

GPEC began pushing for state incentives for solar companies during the 2008 legislative session.

At that time, nine companies that make solar equipment had passed up the Valley of the Sun in the past year in favor of neighboring states.

From those nine projects alone, Arizona is missed out on more than 3,800 jobs, $2.3 billion in investment and $732 million in state and local revenues during the next decade, according to GPEC.

And in the next year it took to pass the Arizona incentives, several other international solar manufacturers moved to neighboring states.


Arizona not only offers the tax incentives, but also gives Suntech and other solar companies easy access to the booming solar-power market in California, Broome said.

Suntech officials said they plan to grow their U.S. market from the new facility.

“Bringing manufacturing jobs to the U.S. is part of Suntech's vision to grow the solar market in every corner of the world," Suntech's CEO Zhengrong Shi said in a prepared statement. “We are eagerly watching growing markets and see the potential of bringing manufacturing capabilities to other markets where we see the combination of rapid local market growth and manufacturing cost competitiveness.”

The announcement from China coincides with a visit there by President Barack Obama.

Suntech makes solar panels and designs large-scale solar-power plants in China and the United States. It has regional headquarters in China, Switzerland and San Francisco.

Broome declined to name the Phoenix-area cities competing for the Suntech facility.

He said they both are offering other incentives in addition to the state tax breaks.

He also said it would be possible for the company to be up and running within a year because Suntech is likely to take over one of the Valley's vacant semiconductor facilities, which are well-suited to handle solar-panel manufacturing.

“Stay tuned,” Brewer said. “This is just the beginning, I hope.”
Welp thats good news. Anyone wanna take bets on what city they end up on? Id bet Chandler. Its really disgusting how far behind we already are in Solar. Whoever our next governor is (Id bet anything its Terry Goddard) needs to put on the full court press in this area.

gymratmanaz Nov 16, 2009 2:19 PM

AMEN on the solar press!!!!

glynnjamin Nov 17, 2009 4:22 PM

So the SE Corner of 7th Ave & McDowell will have a Smashburger, Ace Hardware, and the Pita Jungle that was supposed to go into Gold Spot.

Vicelord John Nov 17, 2009 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4562731)
So the SE Corner of 7th Ave & McDowell will have a Smashburger, Ace Hardware, and the Pita Jungle that was supposed to go into Gold Spot.

You already dont have much credibility. Where did you hear that?

dtnphx Nov 17, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4562731)
So the SE Corner of 7th Ave & McDowell will have a Smashburger, Ace Hardware, and the Pita Jungle that was supposed to go into Gold Spot.

That's great news. When is this supposed to happen?

glynnjamin Nov 17, 2009 7:32 PM

What did I do to lose credibility? Quote Ben Bethel? While you may not like him, he does know some people and is in with a lot of the downtown crowd. I won't believe a target is coming until I'm standing at the checkout stand but that doesn't mean he has no credibility.

As far as where I heard it, I called today to inquire about available space and the lease terms and he quoted me at $24/sqft which I said was way too high for a that space. Then he said they had Smashburger, Ace, and Pita Jungle going in so it would become a high-traffic area.

Vicelord John Nov 17, 2009 7:54 PM

Usually in commercial real estate, when people start naming lesees to potential tenants, i want to raise the bs flag.

glynnjamin Nov 17, 2009 8:07 PM

What does that have to do with my credibility?

In any event, Smashburger has confirmed that they are going there. Hell, their logo is on the damn sign. It was over a year ago that someone on here said Pita Jungle was going into Gold Spot and that still hasn't happened. It wouldn't surprise me to see them move up the street but I'm not really sure why they would. As far as an Ace goes - downtown needs a hardware store, just wish it was more in town.

The only other piece of information I got from him was that the refurb project would start in January and should be finished by "summer". If the antique place is out by December, maybe there is some truth.

Im just passing the info along.

dtnphx Nov 17, 2009 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glynnjamin (Post 4563165)
What does that have to do with my credibility?

In any event, Smashburger has confirmed that they are going there. Hell, their logo is on the damn sign. It was over a year ago that someone on here said Pita Jungle was going into Gold Spot and that still hasn't happened. It wouldn't surprise me to see them move up the street but I'm not really sure why they would. As far as an Ace goes - downtown needs a hardware store, just wish it was more in town.

The only other piece of information I got from him was that the refurb project would start in January and should be finished by "summer". If the antique place is out by December, maybe there is some truth.

Im just passing the info along.

And thank you for doing so, glynnjamin. Rumors and people passing along info sometimes is dead on and part of forums like this. Don't get sucked into him questioning you or your credability. He questions everybody because he's a pain in the ass. He thinks being contrary to everyone makes him cool. It just makes him a dick.

gymratmanaz Nov 17, 2009 9:29 PM

Here is a scoop. I was told by the architect of OCPE that the lower floors of OCPE will have a boutique hotel, with the upper floors having offices.

plinko Nov 17, 2009 9:36 PM

Not a bad idea, the only thing making it complicated would be the elevators (depending on how they are divided up) and possibly the parking ratios.

*cue John talking about how there aren't any hotel operators looking at downtown hotels in Phoenix right now*

HX_Guy Nov 17, 2009 9:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gymratmanaz (Post 4563312)
Here is a scoop. I was told by the architect of OCPE that the lower floors of OCPE will have a boutique hotel, with the upper floors having offices.

Hmm maybe that's what my source over at RED meant by a hotel
going in on that block and I understood
it as another tower on that block. Maybe we'll find
something out tonight.

HooverDam Nov 17, 2009 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gymratmanaz (Post 4563312)
Here is a scoop. I was told by the architect of OCPE that the lower floors of OCPE will have a boutique hotel, with the upper floors having offices.

Wow that would be kinda disappointing. Additional to the issues Plinko raised would be the lobby space, an office building lobby and a hotel lobby and very different type of spaces. Plus it would likely mean reduced ground floor retail. Plus OCPE just doesnt look or feel like a hotel...I really hope its the current surface lot becoming a hotel like we all thought.

gymratmanaz Nov 17, 2009 11:33 PM

See you in a few HX. I am heading for light rail now..... Call me in a bit.

bwonger06 Nov 18, 2009 2:54 AM

Sounds like BS on the hotel + office combo at OCPE unless we are talking about 7+ years down the road. The downtown office market is already saturated, (empty OCPE, CityScape not full, and Luhrs is still completely empty even though its been on the market for over a year).

gymratmanaz Nov 18, 2009 4:25 AM

bwonger06. I don't even know where to begin with your last statement.

HX_Guy Nov 18, 2009 5:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwonger06 (Post 4563931)
Sounds like BS on the hotel + office combo at OCPE unless we are talking about 7+ years down the road. The downtown office market is already saturated, (empty OCPE, CityScape not full, and Luhrs is still completely empty even though its been on the market for over a year).

How do you expect Cityscape to be full when it's still 6 months from being move-in ready? They are 74% pre-leased and it's not even done being built...you don't think that's pretty damn successful?

bwonger06 Nov 18, 2009 8:43 AM

If you count Wachovia's huge lease (which is on the market right now up for lease) it might be 75% full. CS is really successful in this economy, but it is not the only project out there and should not be an indication of the market, although Gordon says it is over 70% lease.

No bank is going to finance a commercial project for the next two years... period. 7 years was a stretch, but realistically five years is the consensus by any broker in the valley. Look at all the A+ commercial space out there (rent is $30/Sq Ft+) on the market.

New washington & 44th street development: three small tenants. FirstSolar building three tenants. Tempe Gateway: completely empty. Hayden Ferry I & II one of the buildings is only half leased while the other is 70%. Luhrs (over 140,000 sq ft of office space) completely empty. OCPE, so far still completely empty. Ryan Companies Cammelback (185,000 sq ft) not completed but empty. Esplanade (80% filled, considered low for esplanades standards).

Any new development downtown would be competing directly against these properties and until we start seeing these places filling up, we are not going to see a commercial development unless the company wants to go bankrupt. And it also not like occupancy is going to magically go up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gymratmanaz (Post 4564162)
bwonger06. I don't even know where to begin with your last statement.

Do you know something that I do not know?

Don B. Nov 18, 2009 4:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtnphx (Post 4563306)
And thank you for doing so, glynnjamin. Rumors and people passing along info sometimes is dead on and part of forums like this. Don't get sucked into him questioning you or your credability. He questions everybody because he's a pain in the ass. He thinks being contrary to everyone makes him cool. It just makes him a dick.

LMAO...

In other news, Phoenix's growth engine has been silenced (news media claiming zero pop growth since 2007; which I still call as BS...I think we are declining). The question is, for how long?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=175794

--don


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.