How is resorting to "it's their property and they can do what they want with it" a discussion? I think that's common sense and that everyone here quite understands that that's the reality of property rights. What's the point of discussing any development if you're just going to tell us "it's their property and they can do what they want with it" ...?

You clearly have a comprehension problem. I stated specifically in this very thread that I don't believe every historic building needs to be left standing. I couldn't care less about the buildings being demolished for the apartment building on 7th Ave/Fillmore, for example, and only care about 222 E Roosevelt because its supports came up with a viable solution and the developer balked at it. Otherwise, my issues are more with the design of the new buildings in each, not what they took down. There are some historic buildings that should be preserved because of their architectural or historic significance (e.g. the two houses on 2nd Street between Roosevelt and Hance Park or 333 E Portland); and, there are others that should be preserved because of their context - which I feel applies to any and all warehouses remaining south of Jefferson. Individually, most mean nothing, but together, they form one of the only contiguous set of historic building stock in a consolidated area with plenty of external forces that point to the fact that one day, they could be redeveloped into something unique. Others, however, are simply old buildings that because of the City's obsession with the wrecking ball, have lost all meaningful context, and while I would still like to see adaptive reuse or moving the structure as the first 2 solutions, I wouldn't necessarily mind if they were knocked down provided that the new development is beneficial to the growth of the community. For example, I'm fine with the 1-story commercial building at 4th/McKinley being demolished to make way for the Tilton apartment project. The previous building was too far from the core of Roosevelt Row to feel like it was ever connected, had no historical or architectural significance, and the new project brings 100+ residential units to an area that could use an infusion of market rate options and replaces the retail space it displaced by including 10 live/work units that will activate/connect both 4th Street and McKinley.

I also don't have disdain for anyone on this board, especially those who disagree with me on the design of certain new buildings. None resort to "it's their property and they can do what they want," and have valid and respectful responses that I'm happy to hear. Likewise, while yes - I expect every building built in an urban setting to interact with the street on the ground level to some degree (and don't understand why someone wouldn't) - you're wrong once again regarding my feelings on retail. As I have said numerous times, I don't believe every new development needs retail regardless of demand. I've said that certain streets, like Roosevelt for example, should be reserved for mixed use buildings as they represent Phoenix's only chance at building a retail-lined boulevard/main street. Just like I feel a 10-story commercial building isn't appropriate in FQ Story, I don't feel single-use structures along Roosevelt are appropriate. But, projects in the downtown neighborhoods, such as the area between VB and Fillmore, 2nd Ave - 7th Ave? I would never expect or 'demand' retail in any new project.

I apologize for my ignorance but...

You make reference to the previous ownership and I understand the "property" was used for parking but what was the building at 401 So. 3rd street used for? Did they park inside the building? Sorry, sometimes my comprehension is at the level of a fourth grader.

With respect to the ROPE's is this a recent (I assume) action? I could not find any relevant date anywhere. Also, are the two listed buildings on Buchanan Street also intended to be demolished for the apartment project?

What is the process for addressing potentially historic buildings? Does a request have to made by the property owner normally? In this case obviously the pending demise is sufficient I assume.

In my continuing education I did find a very good Wikipedia page that has a long list with photos of Phoenix area historic buildings.

Holy cow, pardner. If the City of Gilbert is your only problem then you got no problems. If you've never made the acquaintance of ALEC (a real sweetheart) perhaps exit2lef might introduce you.

BTW, it might be more constructive to inform the ignorant among us (like me) what the process and reasoning is for addressing "existing structure."

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. What are you asking me to inform you of?

As far as the Ballpark Lofts, the document states the history of the building right in it:
"The Macchiaroli family operated the Pioneer Fruit Company until 1983, when Mike Macchiaroli sold the property to Calloway & Murphy Company. Calloway & Murphy also acquired the adjacent three lots and warehouses from Arizona Pre-Pak and operated out of the distribution center until around 2007. The buildings have been vacant since that time, the open space on the lots used for event parking."

The warehouse on the property was in use until 2007, when it was purchased as part of the proposed Legends Entertainment District. Had LED never happened, the superblock would have never been created that was sold and allowed this new project to happen.

Only two buildings will remain. Gerardo's and El Fresno Grocery on Buchanan. They will be turned into the fitness center and leasing office for the new apartments. So, 2 warehouses will be destroyed, and 2 of the most important historic buildings in the district will be turned into private uses.

Jjs5056... when you state "the document" are you referring to what combusean linked to or some other document?

Given that combusean's link is for three documents how do those relate to the buildings you mention? The names certainly don't match.

The "warehouse" (the building at 401 So. 3rd) was in use until 2007... as what exactly?

Yes, I am referring to the documents that Sean posted, since those were what you replied to in your post. In the very first document is the exact paragraph I copied and pasted. I'm not going to go look for it again to give you the exact page # and paragraph?

You asked what the Pioneer Fruit warehouse was used as. The answer is not only in the document provided, but also in my post. Calloway & Murphy ... operated out of the distribution center until around 2007 I don't know, nor care, what Calloway & Murphy did or do. But, they were using the warehouse for their business operations until 2007, contrary to the claims that the building was vacant for decades. What else do you need?

You then asked if the buildings on Buchanan would be demolished. I gave you the names of the only 2 that will be spared. I don't know if they are referenced in what Sean posted... if the names don't match, use Google. They show up right away under the names I called them.

Jjs5650... I said I could be a little slow.

The "distribution center that they operated out of" was part of the second sentence that states: "Calloway & Murphy also acquired the adjacent three lots and warehouses from Arizona Pre-Pak and operated out of the distribution center until around 2007." Since it's in the same sentence as "also acquired" and "warehouses from Arizona Pre-Pak" how or why would I know that "distribution center" referred back to the previous sentence with Pioneer Fruit Company or 401 So. 3rd street instead of one of the Pre-Pak warehouses? Are you suggesting that none of the Pre-Pak warehouses was a distribution center and I should just know that? Or maybe how is it that you know that?

After some diligent search I found the Gerardo’s Building at 421 S. 3rd Street and Arvizu’s El Fresnal Grocery Store at 310 E. Buchanan Street. Neither of those matches with Colorado Fuel and Iron Building at 305 East Buchanan Street nor the Coe Sales Building at 301 East Buchanan Street referenced in the documents linked to by combusean.

Your turn.

Alright, I give up after this.

The sentence I quoted is preceded by 2 pages worth of history and detail about THE PIONEER FRUIT COMPANY WAREHOUSE, and following this paragraph are a series of photos of THE PIONEER FRUIT COMPANY WAREHOUSE. Thus, it is quite easy to determine that the paragraph is referencing THE PIONEER FRUIT COMPANY WAREHOUSE when it states "the buildings have been since that time."

The Macchiaroli family operated the Pioneer Fruit Company until 1983, when Mike Macchiaroli sold the property to Calloway & Murphy Company. Calloway & Murphy also acquired the adjacent three lots and warehouses from Arizona Pre-Pak and operated out of the distribution center until around 2007. The buildings have been vacant since that time, the open space on the lots used for event parking.

The PIONEER FRUIT COMPANY WAREHOUSE has ghost writing on it that reads Calloway & Murphy. The other Pre-Pak buildings were other additions made to the original structure as detailed earlier in the write-up. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

As for your second point, you once again did not read my post. You didn't have to do a diligent search. I told you to Google El Fresno (which is a typo for Fresnal but still turns up the same images) Grocery and Gerardo's in order to find images of these 2 buildings. I made no reference to the Colorado Fuel and Iron building or Coe Sales building. For all of these, you merely had to scroll down in the documents to see photos?

I don't even know what you are asking anymore. The Pioneer Fruit Company warehouse is being demolished. El Fresnal and Gerardo's are being turned into the leasing office and fitness center. Coe Sales and Colorado Fuel are being demolished. The Graham Paper Company Warehouse south of Coe Sales and Colorado Fuel has already been preserved and leased to tenants for office use.

Given that the quote is from the property in question, I understood the summarization to be that Calloway and Murphy used the the 401 S 3rd St property as a fruit distribution center (it's the only property nearby that has truck docks which leads its use to distribution whereas other properties would be strictly used for warehousing) until 2007, which is consistent with what I remember. After 2007, when Calloway and Murphy left, the new owner used the surface lot as overflow parking, as that's one of the only properties in the area with a substantial amount of surface space that could be reconfigured as off-street parking.

Thanks, that's easy enough to understand.


Jjs5650...
I knew that the plans were to preserve two of the buildings, the buildings that you mentioned. If the three other buildings, The Pioneer Fruit Company and the buildings at 301 and 305 East Buchanan are to be demolished then why did combusean link to ROPE's for the three buildings? Why seek historical designation for buildings that will be torn down? :shrug:

The documents were submitted by a historian with no connection to the development at all. The person submitted the properties likely to prevent them from being demolished. The first page lists the applicant's information.

^ So would I understand correctly from your previous statement that they will be demolished that this is a total waste of ink and time then?

BTW, my original question was whether the two buildings on Buchanan Street were intended to be demolished. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

I don't believe a property can be designated HP without the owner's consent, so yes, this is probably a total waste of time. If this warehouse was going to be saved, the process should have begun in 2009 when Legends Entertainment was granted the PUD that allowed for the demolitions, or at least when Ballpark released their site plan in 2013. At least with Legends, the total package almost made the demolitions worth it.

There are 4 buildings on Buchanan. Since you didn't specify, I assumed you meant the 2 that were on the same lot as the warehouse that was being discussed. Those 2 will NOT be demolished.

^ That helps considerably. It was the source of most of my misunderstanding. While I didn't specify which buildings on Buchanan in my comment I did make reference to the the linked ROPE's which did. :)

THIS

"Arizona snub of federal regs hurt tech companies quest for venture capital"
Mar 23, 2015 by Eric Jay Toll, Phoenix Business Journal
Just one (of many) not millennial friendly policies. A downtown can, actually should thrive from small, creative businesses. While the state/metro area has done some positive things to help, why discourage the free flow of capital. There's a certain irony in that I'd think. The original PBJ article on which Eric created this commentary is HERE.

I know Arizona likes to chase larger deals but... Colorado by example isn't likely to land a State Farm or Apple "Command Center" but their small business environment rocks... but why discourage small creative talent in ways that are unnecessary. That kind of activity creates demand for apartments and office space, not to mention places to play and eat.

^^Maybe you guys could take your endless back and forth to private messages, and save the forum for actual development news and discussion and spare all of us your tit for tat. I've stopped coming to the Phoenix page because it has become overrun with this nonsense.

I quit coming years ago because of these endless arguments and just returned recently and see that nothing has changed.

Man, I used to love lurking on here, but lately it's been nothing but arguing and complaining about how much our downtown/city sucks. Some posters are doing a great job of keeping things interesting( thanks exit2lef!) but come on guys....

Where have all the old commenters gone? And what ever happened to the moderators keeping things on track?

At the very least, take this bickering to the general phoenix discussion. With so many cool projects breaking ground, I would rather have some updates on them rather than why Phoenix sucks.

Agreed. I feel like one poster in particular who seems to post constantly in all Phoenix area forums is the worst offender. It would be nice to see a variety of opinions without constant bickering and back and forth exchanges over a subjective field.