Moved

wtf - sucks that someone like this has chosen a moniker so similar to my own!

KEVINphx.....and the two of you have such similar opinions. LOL

hahah I actually thought it was you! Wasn't paying close attention. I thought "huh, he took a sudden turn".

Time to re-brand yourself I guess :P

Not sure if this was mentioned a while ago, but mentioning One Lexington in the Tempe thread piqued my interest so I went to One Lexington's site. It turns out One Lexington completely sold out: "All 146 Midtown Condos are gone!" This probably occurred long ago but I haven't been paying attention.

http://www.onelexington.com/

I wonder how the Lofts on Thomas are doing? I went there with a friend who was looking for an apartment about 6 weeks ago and was told that leases aren't being signed as fast as downtown properties but they are doing "steady business." The reserved parking spaces in the back did have cars in the resident lots.

Yes, these were all sold long ago. I've been looking at condos in that building for a year, all on the re-sale market.

I'm not "someone like this." I'm a pretty liberal guy.

But I see this as the government trying to force low-income people into certain neighborhoods. That's not radical opinion. It's just something I think we should be paying attention to, especially since Obama came to Phoenix to tout that very type of government-designed neighborhood. I'm not reading a conspiracy theory into what he said. He was very straightforward about it.

And that is why he made a speech at a high school with one of the highest incomes in the city? You are reading a little too much into stuff. Providing low income housing is not "making Phoenix the mecca of poverty".

Even in the areas north of downtown, which have been building a few low-income housing projects, there is still a good mix of medium, high and low income families. Many studies have been done about mixed income neighborhoods, and overwhelmingly they points towards cities greatly benefiting from this mix.

A lot of buzz downtown today for a Saturday as ASU students moved in. Watching them walking around in such a defined, small portion of downtown made me even more disappointed in the campus-style trend of development that ASU has taken. ASU-only lowrise buildings all clustered together hasn't made as much of an impact on the city as it could have if those buildings were spread out, put into rehabbed historic structures, or put into portions of larger, mixed-use highrises. Le sigh.

In the meantime, The Lofts at McKinley is hardly new, and there have been photos on here before, but as I passed, I was impressed again by its design. As you'll see in my next post in the Roosevelt Point thread, not many developers are getting urban residential right. The fact that these have walk-ups that allow residents to interact with the neighborhood via sidewalk and not have to go through their garage is such a small, but important feature that should be standard for any city residential project.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2887/9...9caa77673c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7338/9...87abb9c979.jpg

The Native American project on 2nd is moving along. From Fillmore, you can see that it makes quite an impact vertically, even though it is no more than 6 stories. Unfortunately, if their other project north on Central is any indication, this won't be done as well as the Lofts on McKinley, as there will likely be little interaction with 2nd aside from a lobby entrance - no retail, no walkups, etc. But, it is a decent height for the neighborhood, built up to the street, fairly dense, and brings in some nice diversity. Though, at this point, I would assume it's probably time to bring in some projects that cater toward a bit more of a higher-income demo, especially if we want retail to be viable.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/9...2ae37ea2c2.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2872/9...1396e456b4.jpg

Finally, passed by the new Vig's location. I wasn't sure if it was, so I asked the workers who confirmed. Not sure if they've done much work as I had never been to Palette or the other past incarnations, but the house and patio look great regardless, so I figured I would post in case there are new features.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7343/9...e227317d9f.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3780/9...f5e1cf4b35.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3818/9...bde7040693.jpg

I won't belabor the point. I just don't think Obama should design the demographic makeup of our neighborhoods. We can handle that ourselves.

What are you talking about? You should just stop while you are behind. The only thing from Obama's speech that I got was that he would consider legislation to aid middle income folk. This would entail helping homeowners "remain in their homes" and to hold banks "accountable" for not helping folks work out solutions to repay loans (modified loans). If he mentioned TOD I completely missed it. To me Obama was touting programs that would help low to moderate income suburban and exurban neighborhoods that were hit hardest.

The Vig Downtown: Jjs, the fence is definitely different. From the front, the exterior doesn't look much different EXCEPT the wood lattice that covered the patio area is gone. The house was expanded and now that exterior patio is more indoor space. That entire south extension is new which is significant. It also looks like they built another covered outdoor dining/patio area detached from the structure: it is barely visible over the fence.

You're still belaboring this point and you say you're a liberal guy, really? Not so much. You sound libertarian with your government-designed neighborhood bullshit. You confuse Transportation-Oriented Development (TOD) and the mix of incomes that come with nearby transist as a government conspiracy of some sort. You seem sour on Obama, mister liberal guy. Must be something about him you just don't like...mmm.

Although I do agree with you on this statement, it was probably not such a good idea to bring Obama into this. I just had a similar argument with many on a Scottsdale light rail line. I definitely feel a lot of people on here are liberal mind set...

(& to those: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, so don't bash me.)

I think maybe Obama's statements was just to pose suggestions for the MSA that he was visiting (as any President would do).

What exactly was he "suggesting" for Phoenix? I don't understand where you are coming up with this. I read the transcript of the President's address and I'm not seeing it. This was President Obama's "thesis statement" and it wasn't Phoenix-specific: "And today, I’ve come to Phoenix to talk about that second, most tangible cornerstone at the heart of middle-class life: the chance to own your own home."

This is the full transcript of his speech:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region...#ixzz2cIVS5mZS

More points he made:
Then he goes on to address the issue of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and how "private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market ... I believe that while our housing system must have a limited government role, private lending should be the backbone of the housing market, including community-based lenders who view their borrowers not as a number, but as a neighbor."

There is not one word in his address about transit, TOD, mixed-income neighborhoods, or poor people. His speech was tailor-made for the middle class.

There are some cars in the parking lot at a few lights are on at night. It looks like there are tenants but it's not full yet. Does anyone know the price range?

Do you think its only a coincidence that he is talking about the housing market here in Phoenix? We got hit by foreclosures hard and we were at the forefront of the economic disaster (not to say there weren't other areas where the housing market crash). Obama's speech is going to be directed more toward the Phoenix and Arizona area than somewhere else. Obviously, there are plenty of other places where the housing market was hit hard, but its not like he's going to come to Phoenix to blab about gay marriage or foreign policy. That's why he traveled the 2,500 miles to Phoenix to give the speech. I don't understand how this is making you so defensive. I'm not saying anything bad about Mr. President. All I said is I agree with KevininPhx's statement (if its true), I'm not bashing Obama. I'm done with this discussion...onto projects...

It was directed towards the nation. Phoenix was one of the hardest hit markets but there are still areas worse off in terms of unemployment and neighborhoods in disrepair and still reeling from the recession: Las Vegas, Detroit, multiple cities in Florida and California, etc.. I'm "defensive" because you two are making absolutely no sense and to be quite honest, I am tired of the attitude against the President (especially in Arizona, like you calling any presidential speech a "blab") so any time I read misinformation I'm going to address it. If you think addressing the issue is being defensive than you are being overly sensitive.

Did anyone attend the Reinvent PHX workshop for the Eastlake-Garfield neighborhood? This should get spitfire and KenvininPhx going:
http://www.downtownphoenixjournal.co...lake-garfield/

Though this had nothing to do with Obama's speech, it is about TOD in underserved neighborhoods with lower income folk. As part of Garfield's redevelopment, I hope they include the local artists who continue to transform Garfield.

I said I agreed with KevininPhx on the issue that our President doesn't have much business in deciding what demographics belong in what areas of our Valley cities (whether I am agreeing on a factual or nonfactual statement, is irrelevant to me). I believe in a good amount of separation between local, state, federal governments. I did not say anything on the TOD subject. Seriously, stop on this issue and move on.

It is obvious that the conversation was lost on you. The reason we were disagreeing with Kevin is simply because he made false statements: especially the part when he wrote that "Obama's...declaration [is] that Phoenix will be a mecca for the country's most impoverished people" and that low-income individuals were being "pushed" into other neighborhoods. You didn't understand what the disagreement was in the first place, instead going on a tangent by stating that the President was "suggesting" Phoenix-specific remedies. That is what I was addressing in terms of your comments.