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.