SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 488 of 1072
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

ASU Diablo Oct 28, 2016 9:54 PM
Office redevelopment slated for Jackson Street properties in Warehouse District
 
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...on-street.html

More warehouses getting demo'ed. I'm all up for development but man...I always thought these buildings could've been re purposed into a brewery or some other cool concept. Instead, they are getting demo'ed for boring 2-story office complex. It's the same dental training company that redeveloped Jackson's on Third. However, the building immediately next to Cooperstown will be rehabbed.

Phxguy Oct 29, 2016 12:02 AM
Where's Micheal Levine, aka 'Gatekeeper of the Warehouse District,' when you need him? I thought the mindset of demolishing warehouses was out and rehabbing them was the IN trend. Hopefully the city could convince another means to incorporate the buildings somehow, or as Airomero mused, maybe the Jackson St face could have breweries while, if they own the parking lot behind aforementioned warehouses, could have a single story of parking and two stories of office atop it.

ASUSunDevil Oct 29, 2016 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phxguy (Post 7606605)
or as Airomero mused, maybe the Jackson St face could have breweries
How Downtown (especially the Warehouse District) isn't a brewery destination by now absolutely blows my mind - hopefully it's in the works.

Phxguy Oct 29, 2016 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASUSunDevil (Post 7606614)
How Downtown (especially the Warehouse District) isn't a brewery destination by now absolutely blows my mind - hopefully it's in the works.
What better location than squished between two stadiums (possibly a third) and tens of thousands of bored cubicle workers? Now add the influx of ASU alumni, yuppies, conventioneers, tourists, and new businesses in the next few years...this would be the place I would go drinking Friday night.

plinko Oct 29, 2016 4:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjs5056 (Post 7606005)
The AZCentral story has a large rendering of 3rd Street. There is the existing restaurant end-cap a valet replacing the loading dock. Doesn't take x-ray vision to see that no new storefronts have been added.

exit - There wouldn't be much construction work needed at all, actually. Considering that this is the 4th owner this decade who is making cosmetic changes, I have to think the owners realize there is some issue with the design or else they would leave it be. Instead of wasting money every 4 years, condensing the loading dock by converting 1 of the smaller restaurants into back-of-house space would allow for at least 2 new restaurants to fill in the area where the valet is shown. I'm not asking for them to flip the entire thing out, though that should be the end goal. I'm asking for fairly minor reconfiguration so that it isn't a fortress.

Same with the AMC; adding a marquee and box office outside and moving the entrance to the double glass doors is not a hugely expensive endeavor. They have also already divided the interior AFAIK for the corner of Fillmore/3rd Street, so finding a tenant and adding entrances/windows/etc. should ideally already be in the budget.

They are the ones giving the press flowery language on how these design changes will fix the design flaws we all know about. Why is it not fair to critique those comments?
Because like most planners (armchair or professional?) you have no idea what their current lease agreements are, what their long term cost model is, or where they see the most projected ROI. To you it will always just be flawed. And why? Because it doesn't have retail facing the street, which in planning land is a death knell, but in some cases is 'just the way things are'. AMC could have 10 years left on their lease and could require a substantial reduction if renegotiated due to lack of traffic, lack of other infrastructure improvements, etc. And loading docks are not exactly easy to reconfigure. You have no idea. You just continually wank about how much better you could make it. But like most planners...'cost? Is that even a consideration?' Supposition much?

biggus diggus Oct 29, 2016 5:04 AM
But on Sim City it always works the way I want!

KingLouieLouie76 Oct 29, 2016 11:57 AM
Investors see Chase Field as a teardown — if they can buy it
 
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...down/92908618/

I believe this might be the best case scenario. Especially if they can build a more multi-purpose facility and also some more entertainment and retail surrounding the new stadium.

I just hope the Suns remain in downtown Phoenix themselves obviously to the reports of the contrary.

Buckeye Native 001 Oct 29, 2016 7:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggus diggus (Post 7606774)
But on Sim City it always works the way I want!
I always had to use cheat codes to get the funds I needed to build the cities I wanted.

So in real life, I'd assume that translates into illegal kickbacks with developers and possibly the mafia?

Also, my masters is in a social science, so while I don't know jack shit about urban development, architecture or engineering, this is the question I usually ask myself: "All things considered, is Phoenix being the best Phoenix it can be right now?"

Ditto for Flagstaff, where I've lived since 2009. The answer for Flagstaff is a resounding no. Thankfully, Phoenix is a little more economically diverse.

llamaorama Oct 29, 2016 7:49 PM
It's strange to me how as recently as the 1990's, those retro-modern urban ballparks were heralded as new classics and they would last a long time. Also they represented the alliance between sports teams and cities and would be catalysts for neighborhood development, justifying the large taxpayer investment. But now I guess they are as obsolete as those 1960's megadome ballparks.

At least in this case, it is a private developer spending their own money on a replacement which would also be located downtown, so I can respect that.

biggus diggus Oct 30, 2016 2:23 AM
In my opinion anything trying to be "retro" or a "throw back" will always seem awful in a very short time, this is not specific to buildings, I'm looking at you PT Cruiser.

Buckeye Native 001 Oct 30, 2016 8:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama (Post 7607103)
It's strange to me how as recently as the 1990's, those retro-modern urban ballparks were heralded as new classics and they would last a long time. Also they represented the alliance between sports teams and cities and would be catalysts for neighborhood development, justifying the large taxpayer investment. But now I guess they are as obsolete as those 1960's megadome ballparks.

At least in this case, it is a private developer spending their own money on a replacement which would also be located downtown, so I can respect that.
They damn well better not come to Maricopa County taxpayers begging for handouts if they're going to replace BOB, but it still shocks me that the Diamondbacks are even considering looking into a new park after only being in their current stadium for 18 years. Then again, the Braves are moving into a new park in suburban Atlanta next season and Turner Field opened in 1997...

If a new ballpark is built, I hope seating capacity doesn't exceed 40,000. BOB is a freaking mausoleum and looks/sounds awful when there's only 20,000 fans at a game.

exit2lef Oct 31, 2016 5:46 PM
Interesting perspective on retro ballparks:

"Fenway and Wrigley prove two things: that neighborhoods can develop around ballparks, so long as the neighborhood isn’t torn down for parking and teams don’t need new ballparks every 30 years."

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...t-save-cities/

nickw252 Oct 31, 2016 9:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef (Post 7608320)
Interesting perspective on retro ballparks:

"Fenway and Wrigley prove two things: that neighborhoods can develop around ballparks, so long as the neighborhood isn’t torn down for parking and teams don’t need new ballparks every 30 years."

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...t-save-cities/
The article brings up a lot of good points.

The Diamondback is a perfect example of what not to do when building an urban ballpark. It's big and imposing, surrounded by parking garages, and poorly maintained such that the team wants a new one less than 20 years after it was built.

dtnphx Oct 31, 2016 9:13 PM
Is it me, or am I crazy? Don't answer that. I fail to see that Chase Field is some fetid slum of a stadium. I've gone numerous times and it's impressive as fuck in there. The outside design is a little too fortress-like, but needing a retractable roof in this hell hole requires a less than optimal design. Hell, the Cubs are playing in a stadium built in 1944. Spend some goddamn money updating it and leave it at that. Hey, I got a good idea: field a decent team for a change.

pbenjamin Oct 31, 2016 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtnphx (Post 7608526)
Is it me, or am I crazy? Don't answer that. I fail to see that Chase Field is some fetid slum of a stadium. I've gone numerous times and it's impressive as fuck in there. The outside design is a little too fortress-like, but needing a retractable roof in this hell hole requires a less than optimal design. Hell, the Cubs are playing in a stadium built in 1944. Spend some goddamn money updating it and leave it at that. Hey, I got a good idea: field a decent team for a change.
I assume that's a typo. 1914

We've had season tickets since the place opened. They could spend some money getting rid of some of the upper deck seating, but other than that the place is just fine.

ASUSunDevil Oct 31, 2016 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtnphx (Post 7608526)
Is it me, or am I crazy? Don't answer that. I fail to see that Chase Field is some fetid slum of a stadium. I've gone numerous times and it's impressive as fuck in there. The outside design is a little too fortress-like, but needing a retractable roof in this hell hole requires a less than optimal design. Hell, the Cubs are playing in a stadium built in 1944. Spend some goddamn money updating it and leave it at that. Hey, I got a good idea: field a decent team for a change.
Completely agree, that's why this whole situation seems fishy to me. I've been to quite a few major league ballparks and Chase Field is one of the best. Repair the "guts" of the stadium and reduce to 40k seats. Building a new stadium seems absurd.

On a side note, what the hell happened to the Ballpark Apartments that were in the works?

dtnphx Oct 31, 2016 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASUSunDevil (Post 7608651)
Completely agree, that's why this whole situation seems fishy to me. I've been to quite a few major league ballparks and Chase Field is one of the best. Repair the "guts" of the stadium and reduce to 40k seats. Building a new stadium seems absurd.

On a side note, what the hell happened to the Ballpark Apartments that were in the works?
And supposedly they want it downtown. Where on earth would it go?

Buckeye Native 001 Nov 1, 2016 12:50 AM
Well, yeah I didn't articulate this in my original post, but I'm of the mind that with a few renovations (definitely reduced capacity) that BOB (sorry, it seems like the names of sports and concert venues in Arizona change so much that it's kind of easier for me to just call them by their original names) would be fine.

The ballpark is in good shape structurally (or at least appears to be so), I just hate how cavernous and dead it feels the handful of times I go to games there (that's mostly the front office's fault for fielding such consistently awful teams).

ct424 Nov 2, 2016 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASUSunDevil (Post 7608651)

On a side note, what the hell happened to the Ballpark Apartments that were in the works?
Was down there last week and looked to be at least a little progress. They've done some demolition work and there's fencing up from the tracks down to Buchanan between 3rd and 4th street. Ballpark Apartments was listed on the dust control permits.

PHXFlyer11 Nov 2, 2016 5:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct424 (Post 7609916)
Was down there last week and looked to be at least a little progress. They've done some demolition work and there's fencing up from the tracks down to Buchanan between 3rd and 4th street. Ballpark Apartments was listed on the dust control permits.
Excellent! Thanks for the update. I assumed this was dead. :tup:


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:10 AM.
Viewing Page 488 of 1072
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.