hmmm....They must be filtering down to my ghetto Circle K too, because just yesterday a bunch of them were hitting me up for spare change. I told them all I had was 15 cents to my name (not really the truth), but heck they even wanted that. :no: :haha:

Ramada Inn Redevelopment
 

I think this is terrible news for DT. The city should allow the property to go to auction. Maybe ASU will purchase it, or another private developer. If ASU doesn't take advantage of a great deal then, oh well. Lets build residential rentals. Why should the city buy something that has no plans what-so-ever, only to demolish it and have the "sit and wait" mentality (for up to 5-10 years)? What we're going to end up with is the parking lot they're talking about for Sheraton overflow parking during their events. The city (who owns the Sheraton) knows that parking is a problem there. There is going to be no rush at all to develop this cheap lot for the Sheraton. We are going to have yet another gaping hole in the core of DT, literally a stones throw from Chase/OCPE. Just think of the corner of 1st St and Polk, two corners will be surface parking lots.

When and if ASU decides to bring their school of law to DT, I have no doubt at all that they'll have the money to purchase/build their block. So far, nothing has stopped them yet. They'll either pass more bonds and/or increase tuition.

Is the Catherine Arms building open and occupied? I drive by it 3-4x a week on the way to the Y and I never see anyone coming to or going from it.

Agreed. Why is the city buying land/buildings for ASU in the first place? If ASU wants that property, shouldn't it be buying it itself? I have no doubt that if ASU wants to turn that property into a parking lot, they'll buy it and do just that How many hundred plans have there been to build something on the SE corner of University and Mill? Last time I checked, it's still a parking lot and a Chilis. ASU should be making that decision, though, not the city of Phoenix.

I hadn't heard of plans to move the law school until this article. If this is a serious plan, I think it's a terrible idea. The law scool has a couple of beautiful buildings in Tempe and parking lots around it that it could expand to if it wanted to. The law library isn't even that old, so it would really seem like a complete waste to abandon the building just to build a new one DT.

And the most important reason of all, I like the Tempe campus and it's in biking distance of my apartment, so if this is the plan they need to at least take a few years getting there act together. If I haven't mentioned it before, I start at ASU law in August :cool:

Because they are never home. Always at circle k.

Catherine Arms - It is open and occupied. There are at least 14 different people living in there...I see the same groups of about 5 walking to and from there at different times of the evening.

ASU Law School - I'm not in law and never needed a lawyer but it would seem to me that having the law school downtown would make more sense than Tempe. I mean...aren't all of the courts and lawfirms downtown (or within shot of CenPho?

Looks like there is a seattles best coffee going in at the phelps dodge building. I dont know this for sure but the white sign is the exact shape of their logo.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...a/DSC_2879.jpg

First off about the City buying the Ramada property, the city bought all the land that ASU Downtown currently sits on and helped ASU build that campus. So if you're poo pooing the idea of the City/ASU using that mechanism again, I don't really follow (unless you're against the Downtown Campus which I don't think anyone is). Further the city used left over bond money that was designated for the ASU Downtown campus, the voters approved it, it HAS to be used that way. People always bitch about public spending in times like these but you have to realize certain funds can only be spent for certain things, which is why people hating on 'Her Secret is Patience" price tag and saying it should go to police, fire or whatever else was silly.

mwadswor, Mayor Gordon has been telling Dr Crow for some time to move the Law School downtown and like Glynnjamin said, it does make sense given the proximity to both the courts and downtown lawfirms which I assume ASU students would want internships with. Its odd to think if the law school moved the buildings at ASU would just be 'abandoned', ASU has plenty of programs in old cruddy buildings that Im sure could move into those buildings with some remodels or whatever.

^ The problem is the ASU school of law professors don't want to be downtown. I don't get it personally because the courts are downtown, along with most of the major law firms (if not all), but what do I know?

--don

I was unaware that that was how the rest of the DT campus was purchased and built. In that case, nevermind.

I hadn't heard of any actual plans to do it before this. Gordon says lots of thinks, that doesn't mean they're actual plans. Does anyone know if there is an actual plan, or is it still just speculation?

A library is a unique building that can't really be remodelled into classrooms or offices without great expense and totally underutilizing the building. This is particularly true of the ASU law library because of the open design and various architectural elements in there. It'd be like taking the bioscience building and turning it over to the music school (or vise versa)... it doesn't make sense. No, the building wouldn't be empty, but for all practical purposes it would be abandoned.

So, I think I've posted here before about how it would be dumb for ASU to move its law school downtown. Here, I'll explain why this is so from a (future) law student's perspective.

It seems like I always hear laypeople discussing how moving ASU's law school downtown would confer untoward advantages. This is just not the case. Very few law students do any type of outside work during the school year (at firms, courts, or otherwise). All of this is done during the summer. Additionally, being downtown will not help ASU's job placement, only a higher US news ranking will do that. Many great law schools exist in the middle of nowhere legally speaking, think Michigan in Ann Arbor, Virginia in Charlottesville, Yale in New Haven, Duke in Durham, Cornell in Ithaca, etc. I assure you that it would be easier to get a job in downtown Phoenix from any of these schools than it would be from ASU. Accordingly, the money spent on the move could be better spent on attracting better faculty and giving more scholarships to students with higher numbers to entice them to go to ASU instead of U of A or out of state - both things that would raise the US News ranking. Also, a small part of the US News ranking is - I shit you not - based on library resources. Right now, ASU has a nice big law libary and they would be unlikely to have such a large one downtown.

The best thing to remember is that legal education is completely illogical - unlike business education. You learn no practical skills in law school and proximity to big firms and courts is almost worthless. Because an attorney does not produce any value for his firm until the third year at the earliest and it will be impossible to judge how much business he brings in at a large firm until about his 5-7th year, firms will always care much more about the rank of the school that they hire from than any sort of "on the job training." Even firms' summer programs are essentially one long bevy of wineing and dining with some make-work thrown in.

So, you're in favor of the city buying land, razing it, paving it over, just to have it sit there until some entity, ASU or not, decides to build something?

The city can easily re-direct that money (towards an ASU program or how about park maintenance for decades). They write the rules, they can change the rules. They don't HAVE to bull-doze a block just because they found money.

Im in favor of the city razing a crappy, rotting old building of no historical importance that will be replaced with some better, yes. Even if the Law school doesn't move downtown I'd imagine at some point ASU Downtown is going to need a library of its own to serve its 11K+ perhaps that would be a good place for such a thing.

I dont know why you think it would be "ASU or not" building there. Its bond money designated for ASU, that parcel has been eyed for ASU downtown for a long time and was their old dorms, its going to ASU.

It was a voter approved bond, redirecting the money would be going against what the voters voted for. It can not be 'easily re-directed', I'm not even sure if thats legal...maybe Don knows.

Even if it is legal (which I don't think it is), it's stupid. Nothing makes getting new bonds/taxes approved for a good project more difficult than people being afraid that that money is going to end up getting redirected to a bad project. Why would people vote for a half cent tax increase for transit that they want (for example) if there's precedent for that money just getting swept into the general fund or redirected to anything completely different and the transit that they voted for still going unfunded even though they're paying taxes for it?

I don't think it's legal, and on the off-chance it is, it should never be done because it sets a very bad precedent.

Oh its legal. How many times has the S Mtn. 202 been approved by voters? Or LRT transit? They change voter approved/tax funded plans constantly, redirect money etc.

Nothing, as far as I know, is set in stone with ASU and that particular block. Of course its an excellent location for ASU DT. All I'm saying is, no point in blowing $6 million just bc the city found it, only to demo a block and let it sit. That money could go directly to an ASU DT program, perhaps one that may have cuts coming to it, or like I said, park maintenance to ensure that it remains a beautiful park with lush landscaping.

I don't really have an issue with the Ramada. They were decent dorms - I don't see why they can't be decent affordable apartments for a couple years. Any complaints about lack of parking in dtPhx fall of my deaf ears.

I think the Ramada should be torn down and a 5 story mall like the Water Tower Place should be built.

It's legal. The Arizona Tax Research Association conceded it in the article.

The language of the proposition is clear with their present motives. The lot is within the boundaries and they intend it for future ASU expansion. The Sheraton is paying money as well for the lot and the arrangement will probably be structured as a lease to the downtown hotel corporation that owns the Sheraton. Phoenix and ASU get into these lease arrangements all the time.

If, for example, some time down the line Phoenix RFP's the project and it goes to a private developer not building something ASU related and Phoenix doesn't reimburse the property tax fund adequately, that would be illegal.

Since we have little skyscraper action going on, just an update on smaller projects:

Tom Horne seems to have set up his campaign headquarters inside the 7th Ave & McDowell space that was rumored to be getting a Smashburger/Ace/Chipotle. Obviously he'll be using most of that space until Novemeber which seems to fit the time table we read about concerning the renovation of that complex.

Pie Zano's from Town & Country will be moving to the Luhr's Tower along Jefferson. They will be closing their original location. This is the first new tenant we have heard about in the Luhr's I believe.

Another Smashburger is opening in the old Men's Warehouse/Casual Male XL at Camelback Colonnade on March 10th. This is their third in the valley.

Thanks for the new tidbits. It was getting thin in here, LOL.

I'd also like to add that Pita Jungle has not started any sort of work whatsoever.

Know what else I haven't seen any work on - the Oakville Grocery inside CityScape. And let me say, after visiting the one at SQ, I'm not entirely sure I want it to. I'd rather not see another over-priced specialty grocer where you can't even find milk and sliced bread.

you don't know how to slice your own bread? :shrug:

And you should be able to make your own milk. You're too reliant on people doing things for you. What did we do before bottled milk and sliced bread?

Isn't the Oakville Grocery tiny as well? I've only driven by but it looked like it was about the size if not smaller than the Downtown Public Markets indoor space, which is vastly smaller than the footprint AJs was supposed to fill.

The one at SQ was a pretty decent size...slightly smaller than the trader joes at T&C but it was laid out by a blind person so it felt like it was the size of a circle k. The cheese and meat counter is in the middle of the store, the sandwich/lunch station is in the back, and the registers aren't in the front of the store. It creates three different queues all conjoining and blocking the walkable space. It was a disaster. I was able to spend about 2 mins there and then I had to leave.

They have a ton of wine and specialty drinks. A decent cheese selection, a poor meat selection, and a dry good selection that would only rival the Calabria Deli's grocery section.

There are so many vacant lots near downtown Phoenix. If you were elected mayor, how would you fix that? Would it be possible to tax the hell out of vacant lots to encourage development?

--don

does anyone know the reason why these streets go at an angle as opposed to following the grid?

Was there originally something there or were they planning to build something later that never happened?

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...21887&t=h&z=16

I give up, what is SQ?

@Don - raise taxes on parking lots (tax the income plus the land value), raise taxes on un-developed land, offer tax breaks for community gardens, outlaw surface parking lots w/i copper square, mandate all new buildings must provide shade structures that extend over 70% of the sidewalk, raise the "dust fine", all new buildings greater than 3 stories must have at least 20% of the ground floor devoted to retail, & finally - all buildings must create at least 15% of their own electrical needs through renewable means.

@Jon - what streets?

@pbenjamin - Scottsdale Quarter.

see my post above i edited it with the link that I forgot the first time.

Completely agreed, although I'd add, no new buildings shorter than 3 stories within copper square

You lost me. If you add this requirement you will basically end mid/high-rise construction. The taller the building the smaller the surface area relative to the interior, so the taller the building the more impossible to cover it in enough solar panels (assuming that it isn't shaded by a taller building next door). There isn't a whole lot of wind in Phoenix, any other suggestions for how they're going to produce that much power renewably on site?

I forgot to mention this as well. A contact of mine who owns two successful restaurants in Scottsdale (old town and and Kierland area) is finalizing a lease to open a new restaurant downtown. I can't say a whole lot about it because he said it isn't 100% yet, but it would be in the old Fat Tuesday location at AZ Center.

Supposedly it will be a Mexican concept doing tableside guacamole, central american dishes, and a list of 300+ tequilas. He was adamant he would not be doing tacos, burritos, enchiladas, etc.

:slob: :slob: :slob: KEEP US UPDATED KEEP US UPDATED!!! :slob: :slob: :slob:

@John - this is something different than Verde I assume?

@mwadsworth - I don't think 15% is too much to ask. I also think that, beyond simply building solar panels, this would encourage buildings to use better, greener techniques in construction. There are a lot of missed opportunities for greener development - I just think you need to start forcing places to own up to it. You can't just increase supply, you have to cut demand. Are we "Solar City" or not?

I will keep you updated. I have LOTS of info (pretty good relationaship with the guy) but no permission to share it.

I also know of a bar possibly opening in Tapestry on Central which would be an Art Deco 1930's theme with live big band and dancing along with Collins, Sidecars, etc. It was actually a concept my friend and I put together a couple of years ago and never materialized. Apparently the leasing agent for hte building kept his number and called him with some ridiculously low rate and my friend and his dad want to re-open talks. They are also looking into Orpheum, a space on the NEC of 7th avenue and McDowell, and "some historic building around 3rd street and Camelback"....? They have been over the top successful in a few really weird endeavors and a bar is something they have always wanted to open, so we'll see. AFAIK, the Tapestry deal is all but inked, but the building is not willing to provide any private bathrooms and wants them to pay full price for all improvements and then replace everything back the way it was at the end of the lease... If anyone is really curious, we had floor plans, sketches, and tentative menus already drawn up. Perhaps this belongs in the visionary thread since it is maybe only 75/25 at the moment.

I will not be involved with it this time.

@Glenn, I forgot what Verde is already, but yes this is different.

There is a Circle K there.

northeast sorry. My cardinal directions fail me.

/\Tapestry?? Seems like a 30's themed bar would be cool, but only if in an older building (like the others you mentioned). Show some of the sketches.

Verde is going in on Garfield and 1st Street. I'm friends with one of the partner's brothers and they showed me around the space and told me some of their plans. It sounds like it is going to be pretty cool and relatively unique (have the only tortilla maker of it's kind in the U.S. (or maybe AZ, can't remember)) and they'll have a window from the sidewalk where passers by can watch tortillas being made). Plus the name is "Verde", which means Green in Spanish, because their renovation is being done "green", as in environmentally-friendly. Their plans for First Fridays sound cool too.

sweet. I'm all for a place that does tortillas, but why not go to a mexican place that makes great ones

That's what they'll be.

Don about the dirt lots in Phoenix, at the DVC visioning conference someone mentioned that some city in Canada...Toronto maybe?...has their zoning set up so that if you're plot is zoned for a 20 story building, thats the property taxes you pay. I would love a system like this where the property tax is based more on what you're zoned for, not whats necessarily there. That way there's less of an incentive to buy a lot with historic bungalows thats zoned for higher, knock said bungalows over and then sit on the land.

I'd also like to see some sort of regulation stating that all dirt lots Downtown (and perhaps eventually City wide or at least CenPho wide) must be landscapped, have community gardens, or something. Imagine if every dirt lot Downtown looked like the Mesquite basque in front of the municipal courts building. Thats really all I ask, there doesn't even have to be turf, just fill the lots with Palo Verdes and other low water use trees, toss a few uplights in the ground and provide a couple of benches or see your property tax/dust fine raise dramatically each year you don't do this.

The big problem of course with something like that is security and liability, it would attract more people to the lots and in our lawsuit happy world maybe that could lead to incidents. But maybe if the City or the Downtown Phx Partnership hired a security person to make the rounds it could be doable, that doesn't seem too expensive to pay someone $8/hour to do that or whatever.

You expect people to pay for landscaping and a security guard on an empty lot that brings in no money? Good luck.

oh sweet. For some reason I thought it was anglo owned, and would be some type of place that tried to get too cute with Mexican food, a la gallo blanco.

Speaking of which, gallo blanco was one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever been to.

Well if its a law, yes. They can either do that or pay property taxes that would amount to higher than the cost of landscaping the lot and chipping in a small amount to pay for security.

Personally I think that would just drive people away, though no one would notice the difference. There simply isn't enough demand downtown and along central or those lots wouldn't exist.

Edit: They already pay property taxes on empty lots, interesting enough though the Phoenix Urban Form Project discusses this very topic and suggests the possibility of property taxes doubling if land isn't developed after a year.

There are similar laws or laws creating property taxes based on zoning in other cities, so this isn't some unprecedented idea. If it drives people to sell the property, great! Maybe they'll sell it to someone with the intention of building something on it and not just sitting on it since 1965.

Thats the basis of a good idea, but I wouldn't want developers putting up shanty towns either to avoid a huge tax burden. Thats why I like my idea (not that its an original idea, Ive heard many people say it) give the developer a chance to create a public amenity in lieu of paying the huge tax.

Public gardens, citrus groves, desert tree basques, desert botanical gardens, open green fields, outdoor performance spaces, etc. could all be potential temporary uses they could install to avoid the tax.

Hydrogen fuel cells. Cheaper than you might think and much more efficient than traditional gas turbine generators. It would take up alot of the ground floor area of a building though.

I think it could work if the city came by to inspect it afterwards then gave the developer immunity somehow from anyone looking to sue because of their own stupidity.

It takes a lot of energy to generate hydrogen. Fuel cells are great as mobile power sources but they aren't a good alternative energy source.

Couldn't the developers put up some kind of signs saying "hey idiots you enter this public-private park at your own risk"? I really know nothing about legal stuff like that, maybe someone like Don could answer better.

Plus since it would still be private space technically the security could ask bums to leave which is nice to know the spaces wouldn't be over run by them.

the problem is that you have to post the sign "where it is clearly visible" which would mean you'd have to post it every 15 feet or so. Someone could say they didn't see it. I know for a landowner to protect his rural land from people shooting, he has to post no shooting signs every few feet all around his land, which is why it's legal to shoot on private property as long as you are at least one mile from a residental structure.