I think other cities have them, but they're more likely to be underground.

So based on the Metrocenter renderings it seems like that's the end of the line for the lightrail. Seems like a missed opportunity since the bridge was the most expensive part of the project. It just seems like it will be expensive to try and expand and snake the line through the development especially if they have to obtain rights of ways or eminent domain buildings to clear space for a future expansion.

I had originally posted this in the low to mid-rise thread, but it seems more appropriate here. I found more information looking at the Fire Dept's review of the project:

Description:
KIVA#: 22-3033
Project Name 360 North Third
Site Address 360 N 3rd Avenue, Phoenix AZ 85003
Zoning DTC ? Van Buren
Site Area (net) 35,250 SF (0.81 acres)
Site Area (gross) 44,650 SF (1.02 acres)
Building Area (gross) Approximately 449,000 GSF
Building Height 365-feet
Number of Stories 31
Unit Count 375
Parking Count 210
Construction Type 1A, Fully Sprinklered

Thank you for the follow up. I was wondering how tall approximately 350 units might be. 550ft would be a bit nicer, maybe in the future that will be reached.

I agree, California recently did away with minimum parking mandates near public transit as most urban cities such as San Francisco and San Jose were doing away with them. Great article below about California passing legislation to do away with parking minimums. Below are some snippets and a link to the full article.

https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-d...nders-approve/

Michael Manville, associate professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, recently presented a paper to UCLA Ziman Center for Real Estate about the benefits of removing parking requirements.

“A sizable [amount of] research literature suggests they undermine housing affordability, encourage driving, and discourage walking and public transit use,” states Manville. “Rolling these requirements back is thus a big change, and essential to meeting California’s affordability and sustainability goals.”

On the front lines of possible pivots to new typologies is Mark Oberholzer, principal, AIA, LEED AP at the Los Angeles office of KTGY. He believes the new law “could become a holy grail of workforce housing near transit.” He notes that his office receives 20 to 25 inquiries a year from owners looking to develop small, mid-block parcels. For many of these, mandating parking also requires building a podium to support it, which is often prohibitively expensive.

And as a designer, he’s excited about the prospect of creating “new people-centric buildings” that help revitalize neighborhoods. Previously, parking-structure podiums and subgrade parking tended to dominate design at the street level, often with a small lobby fronting the garage as the only human-oriented space.

“This is not pedestrian-friendly. It doesn’t contribute to the neighborhood, and it’s simply not exciting. But if your ground floor is now free of parking, you can create welcoming ground-floor units, some facing the street. You can have courtyards accessible on the grade level rather than up in the air. In general, it makes the entire building more open, interesting, and inviting.”

And what about those developers retaining parking? How might these designs change? “One solution is to decouple parking from the building and build more efficient parking in the neighborhood, perhaps down the street from the apartments and perhaps aggregating the needs of more than one building.”

A lot of the historical typologies have a specific character. Prior to parking mandates, attractive California courtyard styles helped define neighborhoods at various scales. But it’s not the architectural style that’s important to unleashing new building types; it’s the freedom from imposed parking.

:haha:

Nice roast. I'll have to remember that one.

My take comes from my years in law enforcement. When I was younger, I loved the smell. It used to be so much sweeter. These days, the skunkish nature seems more prominent.

But I'll take that smell all day, every day over the stench of urine and feces that also dominates around some downtown areas.

I don't like the shunky aroma either, but I seldom notice it. Even when I do, it's a small price to pay for the greater degree of urban vitality attained when all floors of a building are active with commercial or residentital activity. Having all floors activated also provides more eyes on the street, potentially decreasing the amount of inappropraite urination and defecation in public places.

Good info. Also, if anyone is tempted to think that eliminating minimum parking requirements is purely an act of California liberalism, it should be noted that Utah is considering the same thing: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/01/...re-walks-utah/

I wonder if all the commercial lenders will agree with the urban planistas and will finance projects without parking, bundled or otherwise.

Doubtful, but one can dream.

That being said the 360 3rd Ave project above is already underparked for Phoenix like a lot of projects that are in the pipeline. The market doesn't need bureaucratic dictation about parking, it should build what it wants to build.

Quite the opposite. This is *undoing* the requirement for parking that the planistas enacted earlier. Now, the market can decide. Want to pay for extra parking? Feel free to propose and pay for it. Methinks that lender will be fine with not building more empty parking, but they'll have the choice.

Parking requirements in Phoenix aren’t going anywhere keep dreaming

Best make your peace with it

It is much closer to happening than you think. There is quite a bit of momentum to eliminate parking requirements in Phoenix, and per sources, numerous bills addressing the issue could be going to the state with bipartisan support this year and over the next couple of years. I have some other sources that have told me that there is growing support in the city council, as well.

^ Yeah I was trying to say the same thing.

Fair enough. If the guv'ment wants to affirm market flexibility (which is what the articles seem to say), then I'm A-OK with that. My experience is the NIMBYism has an outsized effect as well, but let's see what happens.

I agree that parking minimums in downtown areas aren't necessary because for the most part, developers know their residents will demand a certain amount of parking and will build what is needed. Residents with cars will not choose a place if it doesn't have an option to park; it's not like there are realistic long term street parking solutions in most parts of downtown anymore.

Let the market dictate this. Developers know their target tenants. Working on several project in Northern California where large parking facilities do not make sense, and being scrapped. Many of the parking requirements in AZ are over the top so we end up with empty glorified asphalt lots where kids race and do donuts in their supped up Hondas.

Would love to see 550' soon! But we still have plenty of land...happy to see this go forward!

WE GOT A SHOUT OUT: https://azbex.com/planning-developme...be-growing-up/

"According to the high-rise enthusiast site skyscraperpage.com, Phoenix has an inventory of 41 buildings of more than 12 floors. Of those, however, only 12 have been built in the 2000s."

Anti Parking Fans
 

Not sure but maybe some of you like walking around in 120% heat. So you want someone to live in Phoenix without a car or require them to have the car a few blocks from where they live? Do you actually walk long distances in 120% degree heat when you are not working out? Like going to work or to a restaurant? I am in on Light Rail and Electric trolley's but sorry there will never be enough of those to service every area of the city a person would be working or shopping and you would have to have stops like every 1/2 block. Do you presently buy groceries and walk multiple blocks to your condo or apt? Are you people serious?

But there is light rail downtown, which is where most people want there to be less car oriented development, where people should be able to walk a couple blocks. It’s funny how the heat is always used as an excuse to not have walkable area, but never the cold. It is very rare for businesses to close in cold cities like Minneapolis when it is extremely cold and people still walk and go to work. Less people walk in extreme conditions and that is never viewed as an excuse to not have less car oriented development. It is just a less busy day, just like it currently is here when the temperatures get that high in car oriented development.

I don't think it has as much to do with getting places downtown, but rather getting other places in the metro. If you want to go for a hike, how are you getting there? How are you getting to Flagstaff with your snowboard? If you need to go to Ikea or the hardware store and bring something home, how is that happening?

Then you will find one of the many buildings that already has parking and live there and commute.

The thing is, developers want to sell/rent units and need to make their new building attractive. If there's not enough parking, they might find it more difficult to find customers in the numbers and price points they are looking for. My guess is most people don't want to be stuck in DT Phoenix.

You do what people do literally everywhere else, rent a car, drive with somebody else, use rideshare, take a shuttle, have things delivered to you, etc. There are plenty of options, and that is the key...options

Almost the entire Phoenix area caters to one type of person - the person that has the ability and desire to drive everywhere. However, Phoenix is a big boy city now and we should ALSO be able to attract and retain people who want to live in an urban environment, and we should be empowering those who are already here who choose not to drive or are unable to drive, to be able to do so here without having to move out of state. Who knows how much young talent has left Phoenix to find jobs and start families elsewhere because it has not historically offered the urban amenities that they need and want. The demand is clearly there.

There are hundreds of square miles of car centric sprawl and car centric housing options to choose from. Downtown, at the very least, does not need to follow.

If the city took away parking minimums, would developers significantly reduce their parking offerings? Or would they continue to provide it anyway because there is demand for it?

Yes, they would almost certainly reduce their parking offerings, especially in urban areas and near transit. Unnecessary required parking adds extraordinary costs to construction, especially for smaller projects, small businesses, or projects on heavily constrained sites, and it is an enormous barrier to delivering affordable housing.

This has been borne out by many of our recent projects in the valley, where we are almost always directed by clients to only do code minimum spaces as a baseline and to seek out every available strategic opportunity to reduce the number of parking spaces even further. They want to build less parking, and we should let them.

Great to hear. So if the developers are for reducing/eliminating parking minimums, and there is consumer demand for units without parking, I wonder what the Phoenix City Council is waiting for? Are they beholden to some entity or constituency we're not thinking of?

Organized nimby groups are a big problem for developers here.

Of all the hackneyed arguments to defend car culture in Phoenix, this is by far the weakest. It's seldom 120 degrees here, and even in the hottest months of summer, it's never above 100 degrees the entire day. Much of the time, the weather is pleasant enough for a brief walk. Regardless, abundant parking often makes conditions worse in terms of summer heat. An asphalt parking lot is so much hotter than a tree-lined sidewalk. Even when parking is in garages, the wide streets needed for induced traffic add to urban heat. No one here is "anti parking." Some parking is needed, but it should be based on true market demand as measured by how many people are willing to pay for it when it is not bundled into rent. Instead, we end up with more parking than needed due to antiquated regulations. In terms of grocery shopping, there are many approaches: using a car (perhaps one shared with others in the household), using rideshare, using a cargo bike, or shopping every few days for smaller loads. No one approach is best, which is why it's good to have choices.

Yep, excess parking is very often a concession to NIMBY groups.

The glass window walls are starting to go up on Palmtower: https://app.oxblue.com/open/clayco/palmtower

I saw them when I was driving by during lunch. The quality is much better than I thought it was going to be. Going to look great.

My spouse and I specifically decided to move to Biltmore due to lack of parking at a complex on Roosevelt Row that we really liked. She reverse commutes to north Scottsdale daily & I WFH, but have a tacoma I use every other week to go to the mountains.

Plus wouldn’t reduction of parking reduce most of these buildings by 30-50’ in height? When appropriate, why not just wrap the 1st parking floors in retail?

Parking isn't connected to height. Buildings can be designed with more housing where the parking was. It sounds like you made the best choice for you. Living nearer to the mountains, and getting more parking to boot. Win-win. As downtown gets denser, it's going to be harder to park all vehicles, much less larger SUVs and trucks. That's city life most places.

AZBEX literally using us as a source https://azbex.com/planning-developme...be-growing-up/

Speaking of this area, has anyone driven by the pre-war building that burned on the backside of this lot? Is it still standing? Would be sad to lose an art deco small commercial store front building, even if it was in disrepair before. But I can't imagine they'll try to save it. From the recent aerial and fairly recent street view it looks nearly completely burned out, but the front is still ok. I guess I'm just glad the old duplex (?) and the New Windsor Hotel next to it didn't catch fire too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4492...7i16384!8i8192

It's on streetview and there's definitely some scorching in back .. the problem is fire often weakens the brickwork. I don't think I've ever seen a fire-damaged brick building actually get rehabilitated.

I wonder what's on hold or canceled in that AZBEX list.

I've driven past a few times since the fire and it looks like a mess (and it wasn't nice before the fire); It doesn't look like it has been well cared for.

It's sad. Phoenix has precious little pre-war buildings let alone blocks left in their original state. From the street view I posted, it's easy to imagine how great it would be if just that half-block could have been preserved and not let fall into disrepair, or somehow be nicely restored/renovated. It's not a glitzy new tower, but it could have been a really cool area with perfect historic street presence.

At first, my mind went immediately to Astra. But then I thought about the Regency Garage RFP. I'm hoping the latter.

360 north 3rd
 

Here's the first renderings of the proposal at 360 N. 3rd Ave. Not sure what kind of colors we can really expect. Looks like lots of glass which will look good.

View all documents on my Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...usp=share_link



https://i.imgur.com/yvEMf10.png



https://i.imgur.com/OYRZP4R.png



https://i.imgur.com/5ttHykK.png

Nothing groundbreaking but it looks pretty good nonetheless. Also good to read that their is an emphasis to continue Taylor through this block. Also in the city emails, there was a mention of Taylor continuing through at "that project on 7th Avenue". Any idea what that could be?

That would have to be a project to replace the old garment factory right?

120 degree heat? C'mon...

If you want real misery, move to a gulf coast location where temps in the 90s are coupled with high humidity. You'll be wishing you were back in Phoenix's 100s real quick.

I live and work downtown and friggin love it. I can go months without driving my personal vehicle anywhere even though it is parked on site. My wife and I walk to the grocery regardless of temperature. We walk multiple blocks to concerts, comedy shows, bars, and restaurants. I traded big city suburban life for this and LOVE IT.

It sure seems like I'm surrounded by others who love it too.

As more people move into downtown, developers will start including major retail to handle the domestics and this will reduce large parking facilities.

Nearby hotel? At that location?

Friendship Inn? New Windsor Hotel? Neither are known for clientele that prefer valet parking.

New hotel yet to be announced?

Perhaps the EV Smart Hotel planned for NWC of 6th Ave/Van Buren? Check out page 1012 of this thread for those renderings.

And on that topic, has there been any movement with this hotel?

I'm actually kind of shocked that 360 3rd included that pedestrian pass through more or less in line with the current "paseo" alignment. I was a little worried about that not coming to fruition but it's such a nice touch when with the last few projects this has become a reality. This wouldn't have been done years ago.

Hyatt Place has a port cochere and did not come with parking, 99% sure it's that.