The core of the urban village was meant to:

1) Provide a balance of housing units and jobs
2) Create residential, shopping, employment, recreation and public uses
3) Develop a mini downtown, pedestrian-oriented core
4) Provide single-family and multi-family housing in different lot sizes and
densities, including affordable homes to luxury homes
5) Locate schools, parks, shopping and high density uses close together to
minimize the number and length of trips
6) Promote the unique character of each village and strengthen existing
neighborhoods

I don't see how any of the village cores accomplished these goals.

Thomas/Central is no more or less densely developed than the surrounding midtown/central corridor, and was developed as it was by being part of the building boom along Central Ave, not by being designated a village core. Regardless, it's only remotely pedestrian-oriented, and lacks schools, parks, shopping and a unique character.

48th/Ray is a carbon copy of several intersections in that part of town. Awhatukee does not offer any urban, pedestrian-oriented areas, has failed to locate amenities in close proximity, lacks any real business/commercial sector, and has no unique identity.

The Biltmore and much of its surroundings were built prior to the Urban Village designations. Its development was due to a demand for "luxury" urban living and being the closest, urban-esque setting for such.

Anyway, the point is that the urban villages were supposed to develop into distinct neighborhoods with the village core at the center serving as its 'main street' / downtown; I'm sure the vision was more along the lines of San Diego, where Hilcrest, Little Italy and Gaslamp are all distinct and have a mix of residential, business, commerce and public services so that they could theoretically function as their own municipality. Nowhere in Phoenix has that been accomplished; heck, we're still waiting for our first urban grocery store.

I know a little about the Paradise Valley Village as I chaired the planning committee for a couple of years around 1990. The village core is centered on PV Mall. Looking at the list you provided I think we did at least a partial job in accomplishing those goals. I'd give it a C+.

1) Provide a balance of housing units and jobs

There is a reasonable concentration of multifamily housing in the core. Although there were some large commercial office buildings south of the mall on Tatum, there isn't that much in the way of employment other than retail.

2) Create residential, shopping, employment, recreation and public uses

Nothing outstanding.

3) Develop a mini downtown, pedestrian-oriented core

Not great, just a mall and surrounding big box stores.

4) Provide single-family and multi-family housing in different lot sizes and densities, including affordable homes to luxury homes

This is pretty well done. Plenty of one acre horse farms, large lot R1-14 neighborhoods as well as homes by John F. Long, etc.

5) Locate schools, parks, shopping and high density uses close together to minimize the number and length of trips

Fairly well accomplished. Lots of shopping in the core, along with adjacent park and elementary school. The biggest failing was the inability to say NO to big box stores outside the core. For example, we were successful in preventing a K Mart at 56th St and Bell but then they put in a WalMart at Tatum and Bell.

6) Promote the unique character of each village and strengthen existing
neighborhoods

Unfortunately, the village had no unique character, this one was a meaningless platitude.

It could be argued that the things that were successful would have happened anyway.

I worked on the original PV Village Plan. It had a lot of teeth in it, a lot of specificity, and would have done a much better job of achieving the goals. The original thought was that the individual village plans would be incorporated into the General Plan for Phoenix. When the village plans were completed they constituted a very specific (and very good in my opinion) blueprint for Phoenix's future. This scared the crap out of the developers as it would have hindered their ability to do whatever the hell they pleased. They were successful in keeping the village plans out of the general plan. The village plans became "supporting documents" and going forward they were blithely ignored in individual zoning cases.

The Phoenix "planning" model was not San Diego but LA, which by 1970 had intense commercial development in Century City, Wilshire Blvd, LAX, Marina del Rey, et al. In effect, LA's lack of a strong core and adequate transit was gussied up and codified post hoc as the fig leaf called polycentric urbanism. Phoenix also arrived at that dead-end through a failure to nurture its own downtown and grow it organically. This is the ultimate logic of autocentric sprawl. Calling these sub-cores "villages" was a quaint way of saying "we give up".

San Diego's pleasant (sub)urban neighborhoods like Hillcrest and Little Italy are closer now to actual urban reality than anything you see in Phoenix. It helps, of course, that older San Diego has the region's best micro-climate, so intense condo development is more an aspect more of resort-town's growing density, than growing employment hubs. Maybe San Diego is sui generis because of its wonderful weather but you grab success wherever you can find it.

LA is doing heroic work now trying to overlay real TOD in placing like mid-Wilshire, Hollwood, Crenshaw Blvd, Westwood, et al. It's not easy to retrofit sprawl and this process will clearly be long-term and agonizing. Phoenix, by contrast, has to focus on its very few quasi-urban nodes in the hopes of creating enough live urban tissue that the city grows naturally instead of like a brain-dead patient with a feeding tube. You are exactly right about Roosevelt Pointe, although it's hard to blame city government for wanting to nudge the patient with a high-protein shake and anabolic steroids.

Perhaps what has hurt Phoenix the most has been the historic ability to endlessly expand.

Cities that have done the best job in "densification" have been within those cities that have the combination of steadily growing suburban satellite cities, and, growth boundaries that stopped central cities from annexation.

This combination is clear cut in cities like San Diego, LA (yes LA since about 1990), San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas and Fort Worth, Altanta, Charlotte, the Twin Cities, and Washington DC. All of the cities have fair to excellent LRTs, (some with) commuter lines, and bus services. This services enhance TOD developments.

Phoenix is changing quickly, as surrounding cities grow, and, middle class residents flee Phoenix for "safer", less "stressed" communities.

Consequently, the time is rapidly arriving where if Phoenix wants to increase it's tax base, the City will have to increase it's taxable value per unit area. The city, IMO, simply has no choice.*

The real estate development industry in Phoenix took a strong hit in the 2008 Crash and it's aftermath. I believe that the former model that made so many multimillionaires during the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00's, if not dead, has been severely humbled. Consequently, for the first time in generations, those with either money or the ability to get money in Phoenix are looking very seriously at profitable alternative concepts.

(The planning of the first light rail line dates back into the Boom days, hence (many of) the weaknesses of it's design.)

*There is a sense of urgency here, as the average city tax revenue per household is dropping, while the mandatory city share of human resources expenditures expands.

The failings of the urban village model in providing cohesive mini downtowns isn't an intrinsic fault of the village model (altho I much prefer my 126 Neighborhoods plan than 15 villages), it's a fault of the zoning model that was stuck in the time it was created.

Approaching 30 years ago, when most of Phoenix's highrises were built outside of downtown/midtown like around Metrocenter and the Biltmore, we actually in the zoning code encouraged or mandated all sorts of anti-urban bullshit (and still do this today, in fact) like parking requirements, setbacks, and inward facing pedestrian plazas/deadzones. If you look at the Biltmore aerial photos, you can sort of draw a pedestrian pathway in the interior of one mall to the next. This was specifically designed this way, and as absurdly anti-urban as it, it was the norm and is still engrained into the Core Specific Plan. Ironically, we should be gracious that Downtown was forgotten during the 1970s-1990s because if the energy was focused there, we'd see anti-urban nonsense like this (more photos) built en masse.

So it's not like the VPC model failed at creating nodes, it failed at creating nodes to modern New/Old Urbanist standards. Moreover, saying Phoenix somehow "failed" like there's somebody personally responsible in arriving at the VPC model doesn't reflect history--what happened was the simple market reality of an ever-expanding, non-landlocked city and its concentric rings of new sprawl.

Downtown boomed before WW2, Midtown boomed in the 1960s, Alhambra boomed a little later, North Mountain boomed in the 1970s, PV mall and Camelback East boomed in the 1980s, Ahwatukee boomed in the 1990s, Desert View (Desert Ridge), Laveen and North Gateway (that bullshit way up I-17) boomed in the 2000s and Rio Vista will boom in the 2020s, presuming Phoenix is still a desirable place to live that warrants that development then. Changing demographics, white flight, and the standard pattern of moving to Phoenix and buying a new house over the decades has repeatedly left the previous round of sprawl in ruins.

If Phoenix were a land locked city of a much smaller square mileage that incorporated far earlier before the days of autocentrism I'm sure it would have absolutely done everything it can to preserve and grow its existing urban areas--suburban/anti-urban autocentric zoning codes aside. Cities like San Francisco at 46.8 square miles didn't abandon their downtowns because there was no room left to start another node, and all the other neighborhoods within the city proper were planned well before the growth of the automobile.

Maybe when Phoenix is actually built out, again if ever that happens to the Yavapai County line where it finally borders Black Canyon City on the north and indian reservations and other cities on the south and west, Phoenix leaders, movers, and shakers, will give *far* more consideration to what has been built and encourage new infill, a far cry from simply letting the free market (AKA the Central Arizona Homebuilders Association) dictate reality because otherwise they'd simply be passed by, moreso than the city already is. Retreating to the concentric sprawl model, many Valley cities similarly followed the same model and it wasn't until Chandler and Tempe built out did their downtowns become far more important and worthy of every local politician's attention.

Probably a foregone conclusion, but the new 10-story Medical building has been approved: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...ilding-in.html

Yay, development news!

And, on the flip side, I haven't seen details posted on the apartment complex that will be replacing the colorful galleries on McKinley and 4th St.

That block, nearly 100% in place and leased to unique businesses, will be demolished for a 4-story "upscale gated community" aimed at medical professionals. There's also 2 stories of parking, but it's unclear if they're above or below ground.

Regardless, this is another example of the disconnect between the community, government, and developers. With all of the city-owned land in that neighborhood that's been nearly destroyed already, there isn't any way they could have attempted some kind of land swap? Given that Roosevelt Row and First Fridays are the main bloodline of downtown, you'd think they'd exhaust some resources to prevent the death of the event and arts district south of Garfield.

The new development shouldn't shock me, but my jaw dropped at reading the description. At the least, I was expecting an Alta-style development; 6-8 stories, with pockets of retail. I was hoping, though, that we'd finally get a new style of residential development in that neighborhood, and was holding out hope for something like 4-level townhomes forming the podium of a 10-12 story tower. This new UA building is the first project that's even reached 10 stories outside of CityScape since OCPE/Courts Tower. And, with the remaining land pegged for Biomedical or ASU purposes, it's safe to say we won't be seeing anything higher in Evans Churchill. Sadly, I hope the parking is above-ground so that it at least hits 6 stories.

Again, it shouldn't be surprising that a developer who misses the mark so badly when it comes to the height/density of a project would also fail to create a product that is pedestrian-oriented and activates the street on all four of its sides. Gated communities have no place in an urban environment and if that makes it through to construction, they should just remove all links to Urban Form.

Four-12 Story Apartments Proposed near Kierland
 

http://azbex.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/optima1.jpg

http://http://azbex.com/optimas-newe...e-at-kierland/

Please see this thread for new posting guidelines in Phoenix Development News.

Thanks.

Condo market returns to downtown Phoenix
Three condo projects hope to break ground by the end of the year.

Eugene Scott, The Republic | azcentral.com

As the economy recovers, experts say more people are taking a closer look at downtown living.

They like the commute (or lack of). They like walking to nearby restaurants. And they like the increased interest in development in the area.

Experts say people from across the Valley have shown interest. And not only to rent; they want to buy.

In response, at least four condominium projects have popped up or are planned downtown.

"What we look for is positive momentum so we don't have to fully create it," said John Graham, president and CEO of Sunbelt Holdings, which is making its first foray into downtown condo development. "And I think the momentum of positive change and acceptance and maturity is alive and well in downtown Phoenix."

Experts say, however, there are still some concerns about the returning condo market.

"Compared to other markets, Phoenix will remain relatively low but it will be stronger than it has been," said Mark Stapp, director of the Master of Real Estate Development program at Arizona State University. "In the Phoenix metro area, we are maturing and the more dense we become, the more demand you're going to see for 'for sale' higher-density units."

Millennials and Baby Boomers who desire a lifestyle free of yard work and with shared amenities such as pools and clubhouses are driving the market locally and nationally, Stapp said.

About 8,500 people live downtown, but city officials had expected many more to call the area home by now, according to city officials.

In 2004, the Phoenix City Council approved the Downtown Strategic Plan, which identified "downtown living" as a major focus. The recession made meeting the goal of 10,000 new units by 2014 impossible, said Scott Sumners, Phoenix's deputy economic development director. The city has seen an upswing in interest in building projects on city-owned land, however.

"One year ago, we were taking calls, but the level of interest has definitely increased," he said.

Projects planned

Downtown's first high-rise condo project, which changed direction during the recession, has re-entered the market.

The Summit at Copper Square was planned for condos when built in 2007, but the project converted its units into rentals because of the economic downturn. But the project began selling condos recently, and leasing agents say fewer than 20 units out of 198 in the luxury high-rise remain available. Starting prices for a one bedroom are $179,000. Penthouses start at $469,000.

Other projects are in the predevelopment stages, including:.

• Phoenix-based Senexco Arizona Star Holdings is developing a 44-unit project at Second and Moreland streets.

• Madot Ventures is developing a 76-unit project at Central Avenue and Willetta Street.

Drawings for both projects are underway and developers hope to break ground by December at the earliest. Selling prices will range from $200,000 to $400,000.

• Scottsdale-based Sunbelt Holdings plans to break ground on Portland Park, a mixed-use project with 170 condos and retail, by the end of the year. The project, in collaboration with developer Habitat Metro, is the second phase of Portland Place, a high-end condo project to its immediate west. Portland Park will be on Portland Street just west of Central.

Graham said his interest in the market was spurred in part by his kids — Millennials who enjoy living, working and playing in dense urban environments.

"I've spent enough time down there, so now I can understand why they enjoy it and why other people of all walks like it," he said.

National trend

The move to build condos is a continuation of increased interest in living downtown, said Tom Simplot, president and CEO of the Arizona Multihousing Association. The city and private sector often speak of the need for more market-rate housing downtown.

"You may have somebody who previously lived in an apartment who has now decided that that is the lifestyle for them. And they are choosing to now invest in the downtown area," he said. "There's been a lot of dating, now there's a long-term commitment."

Building housing in cities like Phoenix, which still has space for infill development, is one of the top-10 real-estate trends for 2014, according to the Urban Land Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based land-use think tank.

One reason the condo market is returning is because those wanting to own in downtown Phoenix have limited options, Simplot said. It is harder to find a detached single-family home in the urban core than in the suburbs, making a condo the only ownership option for some, he said.

Stapp expects condo development to stretch beyond downtown Phoenix into other urban parts of the city.

"The whole metro Phoenix is moving more towards the infill development," he said. "And when you look at what builders are facing on the periphery, the development opportunities inside the (Loop 101) are considerably better."

Safer but still risky

Some owners saw the downside of buying an urban condo after they purchased units in developments originally intended for condominiums like the Summit and 44 Monroe, the tallest residential high-rise in Phoenix. During the recession, those units significantly decreased in value and most of the units became apartments. But Simplot said those days are past.

"The downtown and midtown market is extremely stable," he said. "There is no longer the fear that if somebody purchases a condo, they will lose their investment because of a falloff in the market."

Despite the risk factor decreasing for owners, condos remain a risky project for developers, Stapp said. Unlike housing communities that can grow over long periods, entire condo projects must be built up-front regardless of interest.

"I worry about it a little bit only in that financing those condo mortgages has been a little tough," he said. "The entire mortgage industry has slowed way down."

In response to that risk, the Urban Land Institute reports that some developers are building rental projects with plans to turn them into condos in the next 12 to 16 months.

I don't remember hearing the one on 2nd and Moreland Streets. That part of north roosevelt row/Evans Churchill is pretty rough, but it has a few things going for it:
-proximity to Roosevelt.
-proximity to Hance Park
-the nice churches right down Moreland on 3th St
-there have been a couple improvements to the area, including that renovation of the mid-century apartment complex, and the recent construction of those decent little condos on Moreland near 7th St (maybe of them).

If the rif-raff dies down and central phoenix interest truly keeps gaining steam, I think that little square of north downtown could quickly turn into a nice little area.

P.S. I feel like the Central/Willetta project has been talked about, but I can't remember any details, does anyone else?

Here's more info on the proposed project at Central and Willetta.

Phoenix council to weigh mixed-use project near light rail
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...mixed-use.html

Thanks, now I remember that one. I was thinking it was next to Artisan/spaghetti factory on that empty lot on the west side of central at first. That's been talked about too, I believe, but years ago.

That's ... really depressing, rather. Same lot as Museum Towers, it seems, where two 40-story plus towers were to rise long ago.

http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/projects/...G_3151copy.jpg

No sense in img'ing the link lest I get anyone's hopes up.

Hey! Wait it minutes!!! This is where old Robb & Stuckey is on Scottsdale Rd & Kierland Boulevard? This is where they used to be. I remember we went to Robb & Stuckey to buy a furniture and etc.

Not really development news, but was driving down Central last night and noticed that Phoenix Corporate Center appears to be getting a new darker-colored paint job.

:hmmm:

Slow on development news, the Street improvements on Roosevelt have started. From Central to 3rd street.

/\What was the final outcome of the design process of the improvements? Did the City finally see the light and do on-street parking?

Yes on the south side; no on the north side. I bike through that stretch of Roosevelt every day as part of my commute, and I haven't seen any signs of construction yet.