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.