I rode my bike past that site during lunch. The one-story building that previously housed retail is all gone. Fortunately, site prep for the new apartment building is already underway.

You realize geeks like us who like skyscrapers are the minority, right? :) But, seriously, what soleri is true. The skyscrapers exist in those cities because a demand was cultivated by each of those downtowns becoming attractive places to live and do business. They became attractive because of the kind of urban activity that historic, pedestrian-scaled building stock fosters. The skyscrapers were/are a result of a healthy downtown; a healthy, vibrant downtown is not created by the building of skyscrapers.

Downtown Phoenix couldn't possibly 'flounder' further than where it is currently when it comes to private investment. No new companies have been attracted downtown in decades and the majority of residential proposals are the result of subsidies from government-issued RFPs and/or GPLETs. But, for a number of reasons, that isn't reason enough for the cost of doing business downtown to drop to levels that will all of a sudden start attracting en masse. Because of the poor decisions made by leaders in the past, many of the empty lots are overzoned and simply won't be able to turn a profit until there is demand for high rise development in areas that there likely never will be. In addition, both ASU and Phoenix own a great deal of these lots with plans for development far in the future. What downtown has going for it is that the few pockets that weren't demolished are thriving. It's no coincidence that the only proposals making progress are along Roosevelt Row. As long as the snobs of that community allow this progress to continue, there's hope that one day the momentum will catch on and spread.

As for Tempe, the city set a height limit of 300' so no, AZ's tallest will not be built in Tempe. And, Tempe is proof that skyscrapers aren't necessary to create an urban environment. In fact, their skyscraper district is the most anti-urban portion of its downtown. However, looking at Tempe Town Lake's success and calling for Phoenix to pursue a similar endeavor is exactly why downtown has become the hodge-podge of failed megadevelopments that it has. San Diego's downtown revitalized with the help of a downtown mall, and so Phoenix built Arizona Center. Denver was revitalized with the opening of its downtown baseball stadium, so Phoenix built Chase Field (which isn't a failure but spur nowhere near the adjacent development seen elsewhere). And, so on and so forth. Like these other cities, Tempe isn't succeeding because one singular asset - its lake. It is succeeding because its landlocked borders have forced the city to adopt smart growth planning policies that encourage mass transit, vertical development, and complete streets. It has a defined central core that is the cultural and business heart of the city. It has used public money to improve infrastructure and create amenities like the town lake pedestrian bridge, making downtown a livable environment. It's downtown is adjacent to the nation's largest pool of collegiate talent. All of these things created a vibrant downtown in Tempe long before the towers rose along Town Lake. Town Lake is just an added amenity that has attracted a new wave of development - but Tempe would still have a downtown with a soul even without it.

Thus, if Phoenix wants to follow in Tempe's footsteps, it needs to follow its lead in many more ways than just by emulating Tempe Town Lake. It needs to curb outward growth and focus on infill and vertical development in urban, transit-friendly centers. It needs to invest in complete streets, mass transit, and pedestrian amenities in its downtown. It needs to attract educational institutes that bring more talent to the core for businesses to take advantage of. In tandem with the organic growth occurring in Roosevelt, these initiatives could help create a vibrant, all-around downtown.

Also, while I think Tempe and Scottsdale are beneficial to the Valley as a whole and support their continued success at urbanization, the decentralized job sprawl within the Phoenix boundaries is certainly a major factor in downtown's inability to establish itself as the heart of the region. One major example is the mayor's continued support for a Biomedical Campus near Mayo, when the downtown Biomedical Campus is struggling to attract investment to the point that the city is now relying on an RFP to try and solicit bids. It's those areas that are sucking downtown's energy, not the Tempes and Scottsdales.

Tempe's downtown didn't matter to any of its leaders until the city itself was built out in the mid 1990s--its why their main library is far south of downtown and City Hall was almost not built downtown. The lake is one aspect of downtown Tempe's success, but not the only one, and the city took a huge risk building it that it's still paying for. Similarly, I don't see Phoenix truly caring about its downtown until it too is built out, probably after I've died of old age in 60 years.

You can't look at Tempe's success without taking into account the surrounding stable, verdant neighborhoods and the tens of thousands of students living nearby, many of them without cars. All of that together created a healthy retail and restaurant environment that begat further development--it was Tempe that saw the first true urban living in the Valley in the late 1990s with the residential component of the Brickyard. The Brickyard's residential component was well ahead of its time before the urban living boom that happened within the last 10 years.

Phoenix lives on the other side of this equation--its downtown is largely surrounded by impoverished neighborhoods across the death-defying streets, and there's a car in practically every household.

I also disagree that tall buildings aren't worthy to the perceived success of a neighborhood. My dad who works at ASU is far from an urban geek and has been excited at a skyline being created in Tempe. A friend of mine, also not an urban geek, was profoundly disappointed in downtown Phoenix when he moved here from Pittsburgh based on its anemic skyline as well.

It's all anecdotal, but there's enough examples beyond the people on forums like this that actually care about central cities and skylines.

Exactly re: Tempe.

As far as tall buildings, I (and I know - or at least think - you weren't speaking directly to me) wasn't saying skylines don't have an impact on the general public's perception of a city. I disagree with the notion that the general public would think more highly of Phoenix if it were to build a generic blue glass tower at 501' as opposed to multiple 300'-400' towers that were well-designed. I also disagree that the average person chooses a destination for travel based on the heights of its skyscrapers (that's where I made reference to the people on this board being the exception).

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...h-benefit.html

Do you guys think Grand Ave will ever truly become a walkable, urban section of downtown/Central Phoenix? Assuming the GARP never comes to fruition, I just can't see it happening. Maybe if it were off the eastern side of downtown, but 7th Avenue really isolates it from downtown proper and kills any chance of walkability between the two. Roosevelt Row works because it is directly connected to downtown and light rail, and is essentially its northern gateway off I-10. That allows it to take advantage of drivers, light rail users, as well as downtown residents given its walkability. The adjacent neighborhoods are quiet and vacant to a degree, but not unsafe or sketchy. Grand, OTOH, is far removed from mass transit, has no visibility from downtown, has very little nearby residential to leverage, and is surrounded by blight/areas considered unsafe by many.

In a way, I almost say 'good riddance' especially after reading the last part where the gallery owner laments that the gentrification of Roosevelt is inevitable, using the Jimmy Johns on 7th St as an example. Maybe it's best that all these artists who seem to resist anyone or anything that is different from them migrate to an area destined to be isolated from its surroundings. I think there's enough momentum on Roosevelt, especially if the new residential buildings all get built, that the area would still thrive even if it became more of a restaurant/nightlife/shopping destination vs. a gallery/art/boutique one.

I spend very little time on Grand even though I have a lot of friends who talk about interesting places and events there. As you state, it's somewhat out of the way and inaccessible. The new bike lanes are wonderful to ride, but they don't connect to anything east of 7th Avenue. I agree that as Roosevelt Row is inevitably gentrified, Grand would be a good place for those offended by the changes to find refuge. One final note: I can't believe that Monica Hernandez, acting as a spokesperson for the city, spoke so negatively. -- unless of course she's been quoted out-of-context (hardly unheard of).

Roosevelt Point has gotten its first retail tenant facing Roosevelt? It looks like it should be a barber shop or salon.

Portland: is Portland. It's on the coast. There's water there. "Denver only has mountains." Portland though recovered slowly from the recession but had a nice bounce-back year in 2013 just as Arizona did. That did generate new development but I'd guess no more than in Metro Phoenix. As the 24th largest MSA I'd think it's been proportional to Phoenix.

Seattle: A lot of water up there too. Seattle/Washington have a long history of organically grown Fortune 500 companies. The latest kid on the block is Amazon. By the end of the decade they intend to occupy 8-10 million square feet of office space. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to appreciate the development energy around that. I believe that both Google and Facebook have secured significant blocks of office space as well, at least they wanted to.

Texas: has been handing out business incentives for yeas like it was Halloween candy; upwards of $billion per year. Richard Florida at citylab.com has written extensively about the "folly" of such things including this piece. Texas, of course, doesn't care what Mr. Florida thinks.

Dallas: has become a growing magnet for Fortune 500 companies and as a result a city with growing international influence. Combine the international flights of both Phoenix and Denver and I'd guess you still wouldn't have half of what Dallas has or will have soon. I assume that everyone is familiar with the stories of Austin and Houston.

Becoming so over-built left a really big hangover obviously. IMO one of the biggest drags for Phoenix has been Arizona's politics.

After the Great Recession hit the legislative powers-that-be crawled into a Big Bunker and drew the blinds shut. When they wanted to lash out they blamed the President. Not wise.

I assume that nobody anticipated the great millennial migration to urban areas, especially by those with college degrees. If there's "urban energy" in Birmingham Alabama I guess it can happen anywhere. Probably the biggest difference for Denver is that it has been a fixture as a top five city for attracting millennials for a decade.

Generally speaking Arizona politics has not appealed to millennials. Tempe has been able to overcome this because of ASU etc. Scottsdale to a lesser degree because it's Scottsdale. Phoenix has been hurt the most, clearly.

It's not about being a blue state or a red state. Texas is very red. Just as impressive is Utah which has kicked Colorado's butt when it comes to venture capital investment, at least over the last year.

Given everything that Phoenix has had to overcome I'm impressed with all that is going on.

Thanks for the link. That was a good read. :tup:

One More... LOL.

With respect to the biocience area I think the move for a more open ended RFP is smart.

By comparison, Colorado/Denver/Aurora redeveloped the mile square former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center into a new CU medical school and teaching hospital. Children's also moved there as did other facilities. Over a couple of $billion so far. The last big piece is the over $1 billion clustermess that will be a new VA hospital. Hopefully the research park will still grow, some, but I dunno.

Roughly forty percent of the area was reserved for a bioscience research park. Beyond the first couple of buildings I believe it's been mostly... crickets. CU has managed to parlay their new digs into being a highly rated teaching hospital. They did go out and "buy" some international talent. Children's has always been highly regarded. Then there's the new VA Hospital, oh my. So far it hasn't made a big impact for research.

The big rush into bioscience was well over a decade ago with respect to venture capital. It has long since rushed back into tech. There will always be some of course. It just appears that the traditional favored areas like Mass., the Bay area and a few others remain the popular places to be. The rest of the wannabe's struggle to hold their own including Colorado it would seem.

Phoenix has done an admirable job with what has been done. Not sure how much private capital is out there though. Obviously Mayo carries its own cache; still I wouldn't venture a guess what kind of success that dream may have. Presumably some?

Thanks for the update and good link. It appears that the extra time has allowed the project to be even better. Alliance Res. is a solid builder and it will be fun to follow their progress (once they actually break ground).

You ungrateful idealist. (Sorry, I couldn't resist your invitation) :)

Actually I wouldn't disagree with your sentiment or your good points. With some developers that is just how they do things.

A "SkyHouse" recently broke ground in Denver. Novare Group of Atlanta has about a dozen of their SkyHouse series in different cities, mostly in Texas and the SE. Their 24 story (give or take a story or two) apartment projects all have (the same) parking garage. Still, it is a nice addition.

And now for some development news, or rather, "undevelopment news."

I think we covered this building ... Ballpark Apartments some months ago? My old withered brain isn't as quick as it used to be, but 401 S 3rd St is on the chopping block.

From Vanishing Phoenix's facebook page.

Damn. I know others weren't in support of this project, but I thought it was pretty good since they declined the request to close Buchanan. I am glad this project is alive to add some life, but the tear down of this warehouse for parking is absolute garbage. How much surface is around the warehouse? It'd be great if they had it become a brewery and leased it out. I don't know how much space that leaves for parking then though.

Either way, no way this building should get torn down. Otherwise, I am in support of Ballpark Apartments.

So... it sat empty and boarded up for how many decades and people are now expressing concerning because it's being torn down? It would seem to me that there were plenty of opportunities over the years to purchase and revitalize the property, but they weren't taken. People don't move to the warehouse "district" to be surrounded by vacant buildings. Tear it down and get some use out of the land. I swear, there is a certain segment of this city's population that will whine about anything that is torn down. Let it go.

^^ I recall that project now, especially after refreshing my memory of the site plan. That was proposed over a year ago. I liked the project; let em build it.

What opportunities were there that aren't extremely risky with a low probably of payoff? Not like Phoenix's downtown is thriving like Tempe's or Scottsdale's or hell even Chandler's these days.

The use out of that land underneath the structure is a parking lot. The false dichotomy of the "vacant building" or "subpar project" is constantly espoused on this site. No reason you can't have the apartment project and the historic building other than the lowest-common denominator development that is rampant in the Phoenix area.

Well maybe if we get your way the developers will eventually tear everything down and there won't be any more whining because there because the developers have torn everything down.

Sean,

When the project was first announced, I voiced my objections to it based on quite a few different factors. You responded at the time that the buildings being demolished were nothing worth saving - has that changed just because parking is proposed in its place? The project was always going to have to include parking in some capacity.

I still object to this project because slowly but surely, the "Warehouse District" is losing any and all potential to become a *unique* subdistrict or adjacent neighborhood that complements downtown. Jacksons on 3rd has been converted from a restaurant/destination to a 9-5 business, and the Sun Merc warehouse is going to become a health clinic. Now, more warehouses are being demolished (like the Produce one described here) or turned into non-public uses (such as the pretty great El Fresno's and Gerardo's buildings slated to become the fitness center and leasing office for these apartments).

If there is nothing unique or different about the Warehouse District, and it's instead just a place filled with generic offices and apartments, what is the attraction? What is the point? It simply becomes a southern extension of downtown with less desirable conditions (blight, noise [airplane and rail], lack of services, isolation, perception of lack of safety with no 'eyes on the street' past 5...). Without the charm, history, potential, or excitement that comes with being in an area that has historic building stock being transformed into public uses that activate the area, I guess I just don't get it.

If this was being built solely on vacant land, or was knocking down the same warehouse in an area where structure had no remaining context, then build away. But, that isn't the case.

I don''t consider myself qualified to have an opinion on this specific building.

That said I wouldn't agree particularly with the rest. Not a perfect comparison but in Denver's LoDo district, the residential and office development additions are the hot places to be. These uses and others seem to have enhanced the area, not hurt it.

Currently in the demo and site prep phase of an assembled full block, the Z Block project should be great. Long story short they scraped the history on one half of the block while preserving most (but not all) the history on the other half of the block. Of course some bemoaned losing any of the history. Historical powers-that-be were mostly positive about what WAS saved.

You can see a render of the scraped side HERE and a render of how they are preserving and fitting into their project the other half HERE. The building's height would reflect the allowable limits for LoDo on the first half.

I'm sure you and everyone else who support saving the warehouse district (which, to me, is just a scary, ugly place) are making valid points. But I can't help but be reminded of people trying to save the deserted, dangerous Patriots park, which of course is now CityScape, which was insanely packed for VivaPhx this past weekend.