If the decision hasnt ultimately been made yet, I do hope they go with Hines proposal. The more height, the better, in my eyes. The city council needs to stop being so short sighted.

What are the changes you want made with Central Station though? 👀

[I can only think the city council simply wants more hotel rooms online by the time Super Bowl weekend is here. Hines said they’re project wouldn’t be complete in time for the Super Bowl, and Berger said they’ll have theirs done in time (even though central and Adams hasn’t started in two years...?).[/QUOTE]]

I think the Berger deadline to break ground on Central and Adams is June 3rd of this year. Not sure how much "behind the scenes" progress has been made, but hopefully the city knows how realistic they are on the plan.

The changes have already been made. Originally it was supposed to be 30 stories and ~300 feet. Student component was 12 stories. The most recent information is that it is now 37 stories and ~420 feet and student housing is at 18 stories.




So I'm hoping something similar happens with the Berger proposal, assuming it is actually the one picked. You can check out the whole discussion on the new specs over in the Central Station thread here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...213639&page=11

Even if groundbreaking does happen in June of this year, what IS a realistic expectation to complete a project like this? The Link went from start to open in 2 years, but that was about the fastest I've ever seen anything that size completed in Phoenix. I have my doubts about Berger being able to deliver theirs in 2½ years in order to be done by the Superbowl. Anyone have any thoughts on a realistic construction timeline?

If the Berger proposal was recommended because of hotel rooms it’s because of the occupancy tax received by the city. The RFP is scored in part by economic return to the city. Has nothing to do with the Super Bowl.

I see in the Berger proposal that the hotel is supposed to be a Hyatt brand, but I couldn't see what Hines hotel was supposed to be or if they had it listed. There is a difference of 48 rooms between the 2 proposals (Hines - 352 and Berger - 400). The Phoenix occupancy tax is 5.3% so without knowing what the 2 hotels would be charging per room night I don't see how it's possible to know which has the greater economic impact or if they'd be close to equal as far as that component goes.

Also Hines projects a total of 2,016 permanent jobs (1,095 direct and 922 indirect/induced) while Berger estimates 335 permanent jobs (no breakdown). It seems that more than 6 times as many permanent jobs would be of more value to the city than the extra 48 hotel rooms, but maybe not since I'm no economist.

As you said earlier this is only a recommendation to the council and hasn't been voted on yet, so who knows what will actually happen? It seems backwards to me that the Phoenix Community and Economic Development Department is negotiating with the proposer before city council approval. This could all be a waste of everyone's time (again as you said) if the council rejects the recommendation and goes with Hines instead.

The entitlement people have ... that 30% figure includes transportation expenses, and somebody in this development would be paying a fraction of that average.

“We’re squeezing out the artists that helped make Roosevelt Row special, instead of making space for them,” Dombrowski says. “It’s all about money, investment, and capital now.”

Oh, is that why we start businesses?

https://images1.phoenixnewtimes.com/...g-nickwood.jpg

Man the Northwest quadrant of downtown is going to be TEEMING with people.

These claims are so exaggerated to begin with. Most development in the Roosevelt Row area is occurring on formerly vacant land. Very little existing housing has been torn down to make way for new buildings, but that doesn't stop the myth of rampant displacement.

Imagine being the guy who is complaining about "big business" running out "independent artists" or anything of that nature. The Roosevelt these people hold in such high regard is the Roosevelt that was full of dirty needles and prostitutes. I remember those days. Grow up, people. Neighborhoods get popular and change pretty frequently, if you want to make sure you're a part of that neighborhood once it changes then BUY property. Have the foresight to buy instead of renting which eventually, no matter where, will make you a victim.

Let’s be honest, any new development downtown is considered “gentrification” now.

Exactly. What’s happening downtown is more urbanization as opposed to gentrification. There weren’t many homes to begin with downtown. Gentrification is what’s happening in places like Brooklyn where there is already a high density of people displaced.

There's also plenty of people who complain from the position that what they're creating has inherent value simply because it's art, and for that reason alone, deserves to be preserved. I don't want to start an argument on the subjectivity of art, but I guess it rubs me the wrong way when people treat it as this untouchable medium of creativity that deserves a wide berth the side of Texas.

Development is inevitable, so at least the projects popping up are trying to stay grounded in the vibe of the neighborhood. We aren't seeing beige apartment buildings and uninspired office complexes like elsewhere in the valley.

The above X article makes me want to call out attention to an article Phoenix New Times published nearly 3 years ago that has similar themes and motives. This article pretty much trashed development in new Downtown Phoenix development and even hinted that it would soon be coming to a halt (that obviously did not happen!). https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...matter-9373448

The Phoenix New Times has worn out it's welcome and just about any new article on development that comes out of it is complete garbage, non-factual and biased towards development. The only thing they are good for is getting an occasional rendering we haven't yet seen.

The Fenix Nu Times is trash journalism if you can even call it journalism. For all the good that organizations have done to improve different areas of town, they've made several attempts to try to discredit them in any way possible without knowing and understanding all of the facts. They're simply incapable of writing a fair, balanced, and accurate story. It's best to just ignore them.

New Times is a stopover for new journalists who are wishing to start a career. I'm not mad at them. The agenda within New Times has always, since the beginning, been a very liberal agenda and has always had an "eat the rich" takeaway for me.

The New Times has done a better job than the Republic of covering many issues over the years. I wouldn't discount the paper entirely. I seldom see factual errors in the New Times, but I definitely see a pattern of reporters being given more liberty to interject their own opinions, and sometimes that results in anti-development bias.

The culture of the New Times is always and has always been about arts and culture. So by its nature new "high end" developments in an area that's been historically grungy and artsy is going to catch their ire.

I agree completely, there is a lot of hyperbole and a lot of editorializing in their articles. One must remember that New Times, and most of its writers, are downtown. I doubt the wages New Times pays a writer are sufficient living wages so my guess is most of these people are working multiple jobs and scraping by, they're letting their situation fester into animosity towards developers because they can't afford to live downtown anymore.

Should have bought something. :shrug: