^In my experience in Phoenix (12 years ago mind you) it's usually either the developer or the City economic development department (in the mayor's office) or a combination thereof (if public funds are involved).

Thanks, do you have any thoughts on their failure to bring in more hotels to meet demand since 2007? Do you think they've failed or that it's a market issue? Is it the usuals- funding, support, etc.?

^You're asking the wrong question. I seriously doubt that the demand actually existed from late 2007 through at least 2010. Pure economics is why the Sheraton was so heavily subsidized, why the Westin came later and why the Monroe tanked.

The market seems to have recovered in those regards and Phoenix does seem to be lacking in those smaller boutique properties. My guess is that most of the developers in the game wanted to see how the Palomar did in their first year before pulling the trigger or exploring anything.

Back to that Ballpark apartment building ...

I did the density numbers on it. If you take the square footage of the two blocks, subtract the 60000 square foot office parcel, you get a residential density of 100 dwelling units/acre before closing Buchanan.

Skyline Lofts is 118/du acre--Ballpark is moderately less dense even with a stand alone above grade parking garage. There are very few apartment projects in Phoenix that are more than 50. 44 monroe on its tiny lost is at 430 du/acre, but you couldn't have four 44 monroes on that block.

Anyone going to the pre-proposal conference tomorrow?

I'll probably make it there. I wonder if anyone representing GARP will be there. Perhaps they'd change their plans again if they could connect to a new and improved Central Station. Although they're probably trying everything in their power to avoid having to cross the light rail line. But connecting a downtown streetcar to a new and improved Central Station makes a lot of sense.

I went. There was almost zero information given and it didn't last very long. There were quite a few people, maybe 40 - 50 in attendance.

No one asked any questions either, so it was basically worthless, we'll just have to see what gets proposed.

One point the lady from the City of Phoenix transit department made was they are open to moving some of the bus stops to adjacent corners off of the site.

In light of our devastated historical building stock...a fantastic ray of hope.
According to this article, Hotel Monroe will open for the 2015 Superbowl!:D

http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article76037.html

Cool! I wonder how they plan to do the "on-site parking".

That's awesome news. They may have another big event to capitalize on also:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/n...-for-2016.html

that's worrisome. I hope it doesn't spell doom for the Steinegger Lodge. That building could be pretty neat.

If this was any other city they'd work out a deal with the Chase Tower garage...lets hope they consider something like that.

I'm sure they'll just knock something down for the requisite parking multilevel parking garage. They certainly can't dig underneath the building for a subterranean garage and the parking garage across 1st St. from the Chase Building is certainly not "on site." Also, won't they have to do some retrofitting to allow people to park to check on out/in or load/unload bags? Maybe they'll just use some of the diagonal parking on Monroe?

Update on this: I found out last night there's about 30-40 subterranean spaces below the building- who knew? I didn't.

They've (the developers) apparently considered knocking down the adjacent lodge (which is from the 1800s and has a lovely Victorian facade that's currently covered w/ that white crap) but it would only gain them about 6-10 parking spots, so hopefully they won't.

I would think the building would have more benefit to them in some aspect (even if renovation would be costly) than gaining 10 parking spaces.

How do you access these parking spaces?

Wow, really? Who knew? Will this meet the city's parking requirements, though? 30-40 spaces for how many rooms?

Maybe the 30-40 parking spaces on-site could be available to hotel guests at a premium, then, the hotel could negotiate something with the Chase parking lot to share parking. They'd meet their parking requirements and keep some of their pickier guests happy with parking they don't have to walk 1 block to get to.

Seems like valet parking using the Chase garage would be a solution.

Its within the downtown code area so I'm pretty sure they can get away with almost no parking.

I'm not sure how you access them. I've been in that alley before (to look at the Lodge) and don't remember a ramp down. But now that I think on it...there maybe have been a closed garage door bay...? I duno, I'd have to check.

As far as the Lodge, its got some structural issues. When the Professional building was built, they dug under the foundation footings of the Lodge. Its West wall is actually falling away towards the Professional building a la the Leaning tower.

That wall (which isn't visible from the street or alley) would likely have to be removed and replaced with a modern wall, not too big of a deal. Additionally, the roof was in tact until the people who were building the Hotel Monroe in 2008-ish started tossing cindar blocks and other construction trash out the window which punched holes in the roof.

Luckily, because the Lodge is on the same parcel as the Professional building and the developers will be getting HP Tax credits, they can't knock down the Lodge. Though they could easily wait 5 years (or however long until the tax credit expires) and then knock the lodge down then.

But I agree, hopefully less than a dozen parking spaces isn't enough to lure a demolition. We have ample photographic evidence of what the facade of that building was. Some of its Victorian features are apparently still in tact behind that silly white junk. Restoring it and turning it into some kind of bar/lounge for the hotel would be a unique attraction in Downtown Phoenix.


Yup, that'd be ideal.

Wasn't The Lodge site proposed as The Sliver Building or something like that? The ASU school had a city skyline model at the School of Sustainability that had all the then proposed developments and that was one of them (although, it was never a real concept). It was to be very tall (20-stories) and on an extremely narrow footplate, hence the name Sliver.