Tempe Development Thread

[skiesthelimit]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

I only skimmed the video of the meeting, but looks like it was over parking ratio issues. Disappointing, I would have hoped we were past disallowing a .3 parking ratio at this point.

If anyone wants to watch:

https://tempe.granicus.com/MediaPlay...meta_id=109070

Ok I just watched this entire bit on Skye. It wasn’t simply due to parking ratio. It was in regards to the level of density the project was providing with lack of accessibility for resident service accessibility i.e. uber, lyft, doordash, moving trucks etc.. the project well surpasses the 175 parking space minimum with 275 total on paper but they will lose some due to the rearrangement of the garbage pickup area/aps yard. All 275 spaces are locked behind a gate and they intend to only provide 1 public space which is on street parking. Additionally in the alleyway which is already congested with big trucks, they intend to have only 1 moving truck loading space for the entire building. These issues will force service traffic onto Myrtle and cause traffic congestion once the building begins to be occupied. They also brought up concern with the adjacent Wells Fargo building project to the west with similar density having a very similar impact and also overworking the alleyway.

Overall, I agree with the remarks and concern for resident services. However, I think this is a very easy fix by simply allowing the first floor or two of the podium to be public parking/resident services. Provide like 5 rideshare/food drop off spots, maybe 10 or so consumer spots and try and rework for loading unloading for moving trucks to occur on the first floor of the podium rather than only in the alleyway.

There was also a push from one of the chairmen to have the site go through the archaeological testing/digging before starting construction that the developers said no to which didn’t help their case lol. I saw both sides where the site had already been built on so the developer did not feel it was necessary however the board’s reasoning was the stipulation never existed at the time of the current structure’s building and they were built at grade whereas this project might uncover some stuff.

They were all mostly in favor of it, but the concerns were too risky given the location thus it failed 4-3. If they take this into account and fix the concerns I could easily see this passing at city council. I still think it’ll pass regardless but don’t be surprised if Marbella or such comes swinging due to traffic concerns lol.

TLDR: big developer plans appropriately big building for downtown with inadequate access for residential services while disregarding cultural presence on site leaves bad taste in DRC mouths.

Also very very very big emphasis from the developer this is NOT intended to be student housing and they seem determined to make it so… however we know how all the other towers claiming the same have gone…

[Ttown5]

Originally Posted by skiesthelimit

Ok I just watched this entire bit on Skye. It wasn’t simply due to parking ratio. It was in regards to the level of density the project was providing with lack of accessibility for resident service accessibility i.e. uber, lyft, doordash, moving trucks etc.. the project well surpasses the 175 parking space minimum with 275 total on paper but they will lose some due to the rearrangement of the garbage pickup area/aps yard. All 275 spaces are locked behind a gate and they intend to only provide 1 public space which is on street parking. Additionally in the alleyway which is already congested with big trucks, they intend to have only 1 moving truck loading space for the entire building. These issues will force service traffic onto Myrtle and cause traffic congestion once the building begins to be occupied. They also brought up concern with the adjacent Wells Fargo building project to the west with similar density having a very similar impact and also overworking the alleyway.

Overall, I agree with the remarks and concern for resident services. However, I think this is a very easy fix by simply allowing the first floor or two of the podium to be public parking/resident services. Provide like 5 rideshare/food drop off spots, maybe 10 or so consumer spots and try and rework for loading unloading for moving trucks to occur on the first floor of the podium rather than only in the alleyway.

There was also a push from one of the chairmen to have the site go through the archaeological testing/digging before starting construction that the developers said no to which didn’t help their case lol. I saw both sides where the site had already been built on so the developer did not feel it was necessary however the board’s reasoning was the stipulation never existed at the time of the current structure’s building and they were built at grade whereas this project might uncover some stuff.

They were all mostly in favor of it, but the concerns were too risky given the location thus it failed 4-3. If they take this into account and fix the concerns I could easily see this passing at city council. I still think it’ll pass regardless but don’t be surprised if Marbella or such comes swinging due to traffic concerns lol.

TLDR: big developer plans appropriately big building for downtown with inadequate access for residential services while disregarding cultural presence on site leaves bad taste in DRC mouths.

Also very very very big emphasis from the developer this is NOT intended to be student housing and they seem determined to make it so… however we know how all the other towers claiming the same have gone…

Looks like, in addition, some of the commissioners were afraid of the density in this area due to the issues regarding the amount of density in this block and the alleyway. One sentiment that I agree with is that there are a lot of similar blocky type high-rises submitted in this area. They were looking for more uniqueness/architectural elements/etc. which I agree with however might not be justifiable for the cost? Will be interesting to see if they come back with something new or if they don't need to do that (I'm not sure how the voting works in this regard, if they need the commissioners approval or not) but if they change the architectural elements and make the building more interesting that would be great.

[azsunsurfer]

Originally Posted by Ttown5

Looks like, in addition, some of the commissioners were afraid of the density in this area due to the issues regarding the amount of density in this block and the alleyway. One sentiment that I agree with is that there are a lot of similar blocky type high-rises submitted in this area. They were looking for more uniqueness/architectural elements/etc. which I agree with however might not be justifiable for the cost? Will be interesting to see if they come back with something new or if they don't need to do that (I'm not sure how the voting works in this regard, if they need the commissioners approval or not) but if they change the architectural elements and make the building more interesting that would be great.

I think that its true that a lot of the buildings in that area look somewhat identical but I believe it's largely due to a) zoning and b) material costs. It's amazing that Tempe now is reaching a point where they can be super selective when reviewing its proposals now that there's so much activity happening in the City.

[Ttown5]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

I think that its true that a lot of the buildings in that area look somewhat identical but I believe it's largely due to a) zoning and b) material costs. It's amazing that Tempe now is reaching a point where they can be super selective when reviewing its proposals now that there's so much activity happening in the City.

One of the commissioners actually said "these types of 100% lot coverage projects are perfect in Manhattan" which was wild to even have the words Manhattan and Tempe in the same sentence when referring to a project being proposed. Does anyone know next steps? I think it will still go to council and this is just a recommendation based off the commissions hearing and can still be passed even without the commissions recommendation for approval. This is a great project that I would actually consider looking to live in downtown. I wish Tempe had more condos... anyone know why there aren't?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Ttown5

One of the commissioners actually said "these types of 100% lot coverage projects are perfect in Manhattan" which was wild to even have the words Manhattan and Tempe in the same sentence when referring to a project being proposed.

I don't know the context, but in local conversations about planning and development, comparisons to NYC are usually a lazy way of saying no to density. "This isn't New York City" has become an annoying, hollow cliche used to resist positive change -- sometimes even in this forum. Of course, Phoenix and its suburbs aren't New York, but you don't have to aspire to be New York to see the value of increase density and urbanization.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I don't know the context, but in local conversations about planning and development, comparisons to NYC are usually a lazy way of saying no to density. "This isn't New York City" has become an annoying, hollow cliche used to resist positive change -- sometimes even in this forum. Of course, Phoenix and its suburbs aren't New York, but you don't have to aspire to be New York to see the value of increase density and urbanization.

Exactly, I don't want the crazy congestion of Manhattan streets either but to imply anything proposed in Tempe right now will lead to anything like a midtown, cross-town commute is a completely laughable.

[combusean]

I can see where they're coming from when all of these podium-parked, boxy towers are kind of the same but there's only so much developers can do with space and height constraints downtown and the market is so obviously geared towards rentals anyways both nationally and locally. I think entire banks going belly up because of their condo exposure in 2009 is fresh in *every* investor's mind.

If they want grassy condo and office towers they can move to somewhere else and time travel while they're at it. The office market is saturated anyways in Tempe.

[halicem]

Originally Posted by combusean

I can see where they're coming from when all of these podium-parked, boxy towers are kind of the same but there's only so much developers can do with space and height constraints downtown and the market is so obviously geared towards rentals anyways both nationally and locally. I think entire banks going belly up because of their condo exposure in 2009 is fresh in *every* investor's mind.

If they want grassy condo and office towers they can move to somewhere else and time travel while they're at it. The office market is saturated anyways in Tempe.

When I was in the market for condos a few years ago, my realtor who specializes in them said it was due to 44 Monroe and Phoenix having to step in to save the project back in '09. So they passed a requirement that if you're bank-financing a condo development, it has to be 50% pre-sold before you get a permit. enHance Park got built because they were developer-financed and they hoped it would instill confidence in buyers so the next phases can get a decent pre-sell but that didn't happen so they just sold off some of the lots. Similar story with the condo that looks like a rental apartment next to One Lexington, 2-phase project for one building and the second phase took forever because of presell troubles.

Mind you not sure if that applies to Tempe as well, or if she was just pulling my leg with her tales!

[combusean]

What realtors will say... wow.

That definitely did not happen with 44 Monroe, that building just didn't sell. It is true that the federal government funded Starwood Capital to take care of the toxic asset and convert it to apartments after its lender Corus Bankshares went into receivership, but the City wasn't involved by then, the building had long since been open.

There is something abut a certain number of pre sales needed to get a public report from the Arizona Department of Real Estate, but that's always been a problem.

I'm certain the cities don't care if a building is condos or apartments. The only time I've ever heard of a city stepping in is when the debris pile of the old Mountain Bell building wasn't cleaned up and they were considering invoking some bond or insurance attached to the demolition, or there was grousing about certain vacant shells in Scottsdale and Chandler being "attractive nuisances" or some other blight but a city's hands are incredibly tied even then. No city in Arizona is going to finish a developers projects for them, that is unprecedented almost anywhere.

enHance park just sold a crappy woodframe product and poorly timed the market anyways. That corner was a tough sell anyways being so off the beaten path and fronting the homeless situation in Deck Park.

I don't know what happened with later phases of One Lexington but it was one of the dozens of condo projects from back then that never got anywhere. A lot of these projects were counting on financing from Mortgages Limited that just wasn't there.

The well designed projects like Portland Park and the ones by Optima couldn't have been sold faster. But I suspect that the experienced developers that have that kind of financing to deliver a quality product at the right time in the market while juggling all the moving parts of condo development are just few and far between. I'm sure some of the better built apartments will be converted to condos when the time is right too.

And, to make this relevant to Tempe, I'm really wondering where these condo buyers are that both want to live in the area and didn't find what they were looking for already beyond the short supply across the market. There's high end glass towers on down with for sale units, they just have to be waited out or bid up like anything else.

[phoenixwillrise]

I thought the main reason condo's are not being built, with few exceptions, is the fact that when you build a condo project you are opening yourself up for class action litigation for poor workmanship which may or may not be valid. Hence banks will not loan money for those projects. As I understand it you are in that position for 10 years so with all the apartments that have come on line in recent years will we not soon see many conversions happening at some point? Any lawyers in the group who could clarify and elaborate?

[xymox]

Originally Posted by phoenixwillrise

I thought the main reason condo's are not being built, with few exceptions, is the fact that when you build a condo project you are opening yourself up for class action litigation for poor workmanship which may or may not be valid. Hence banks will not loan money for those projects. As I understand it you are in that position for 10 years so with all the apartments that have come on line in recent years will we not soon see many conversions happening at some point? Any lawyers in the group who could clarify and elaborate?

I dunno - then I would expect you'd see the trend across the country and in places in Miami, etc where hi-rise condos sell like hot cakes. Is this a nationwide trend?

I think it has to do more with economics. The developers want to make money off the project ASAP - and in a market like ours there's simply not demands to sell out hi-rise condo towers. The only exception has been maybe in Scottsdale and a few other situations. Easier to rent out apartments to college kids - get 100% or close occupancy and sell the building. Then yeah, maybe 10 years later the new owner converts to condos if the market supports it.

[azsunsurfer]

Well the South Pier project has at least two condo towers planned for some of the parcels along the water....seems to make sense? We'll see if they go forward with them or just do apartments instead. I believe they are planned for the later phases though which makes sense if we are heading for a slow down.

[muertecaza]

Looks like the latest redevelopment plan for the congregational church is going to be presented to the historic preservation commission in July:

https://www.tempe.gov/home/showpubli...29596982530000

I'll keep an eye out, should be interesting to see what they plan to do.

[azsunsurfer]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Looks like the latest redevelopment plan for the congregational church is going to be presented to the historic preservation commission in July:

https://www.tempe.gov/home/showpubli...29596982530000

I'll keep an eye out, should be interesting to see what they plan to do.

Is there enough land around it for a tower?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

Is there enough land around it for a tower?

Yes, I think so, but the question will be 'at what cost.' Developer appears to own all the land on the block not owned by/associated with the Islamic mosque. So the church, the parking lots to the south and east, the small commercial building that currently houses the Culdesac offices/leasing center, and the former House of Tricks.

I would be pretty sad to see the House of Tricks building go. (Really want I want is House of Tricks to come back, but that ship has sailed.) If they developed the south parking lot and the commercial building east of it, they'd have over .5 acres, which is similar to some of the high rises off 7th.

If they demoed all or part of the House of Tricks house, they'd have even more room and could connect to the parking lot east of the church.

[azsunsurfer]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Yes, I think so, but the question will be 'at what cost.' Developer appears to own all the land on the block not owned by/associated with the Islamic mosque. So the church, the parking lots to the south and east, the small commercial building that currently houses the Culdesac offices/leasing center, and the former House of Tricks.

I would be pretty sad to see the House of Tricks building go. (Really want I want is House of Tricks to come back, but that ship has sailed.) If they developed the south parking lot and the commercial building east of it, they'd have over .5 acres, which is similar to some of the high rises off 7th.

If they demoed all or part of the House of Tricks house, they'd have even more room and could connect to the parking lot east of the church.

Looking at the church itself, I am not sure if the add-on's to the church building itself are historic or not. I wouldn't be surprised like the Monti's building if they decide to knock down everything but the historic part of the church on the corner and build around it too.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by azsunsurfer

Looking at the church itself, I am not sure if the add-on's to the church building itself are historic or not. I wouldn't be surprised like the Monti's building if they decide to knock down everything but the historic part of the church on the corner and build around it too.

Good point. Same with the old train station where they knocked down the non-historic parts that had been used for the Macayo's. Keeping the main chapel and demoing the other buildings south of the chapel could make for some interesting options, and hopefully make them able to have a good, developable lot without needing to touch the House of Tricks house.

[Mr.RE]

Happy 4th Everyone! Heavy construction equipment and trailers on-site moving dirt at the old packard baseball field. Looks like they are prepping for demolition of that 4th phase.

[Mr.RE]

New 315' highrise planned at 201 E 6th Street for 572 units per the tracker. That area is getting so dense. Hopefully some renderings come soon.

[RichTempe]

Originally Posted by Mr.RE

New 315' highrise planned at 201 E 6th Street for 572 units per the tracker. That area is getting so dense. Hopefully some renderings come soon.

The tracker says 101 E. 6th Street, which is the old Methodist church lot. 201 E. 6th Street is an ASU parking lot across from the mosque to the east.

Did you mistype the address or am I missing something?