[HX_Guy]

Combusean,

Keep in mind that for the $90 million, the city is buying the to-be-built 2,500 space underground parking garage, which in turn (I assume) will be public parking owned by the city. Improvements will also be made to that garage under Patriot's Park as well as new landscaping/streetscaping.

So it's not like the city is just saying "Here's $90 million"...they are actually getting something out of it up front, plus the tax benefits that will follow from sales tax and property taxes.

[combusean]

^ Perhaps ... but, even tho parking is not required in the downtown core, RED would be foolish to build without it--so they're getting reimbursed for what would be an otherwise necessary expense.

[NorthScottsdale]

J15, your the shit. combusean, again, chill out and let it happen. there is plenty of "open space" (i am beginning to hate that term), and it will be very "walkable" (i already hate that term), and it will connect to everything else just fine. cant wait to see this happen! WOOHOO!

[HooverDam]

J15, your the shit. combusean, again, chill out and let it happen. there is plenty of "open space" (i am beginning to hate that term), and it will be very "walkable" (i already hate that term), and it will connect to everything else just fine. cant wait to see this happen! WOOHOO!

Perhaps someone who (presumably) live in North Scottsdale, a bastion for auto centric development and cookie cutter garbage architecture shouldn't be telling one of the most knowledgeable posters on this board whats what.

[HooverDam]

J15, your the shit. combusean, again, chill out and let it happen. there is plenty of "open space" (i am beginning to hate that term), and it will be very "walkable" (i already hate that term), and it will connect to everything else just fine. cant wait to see this happen! WOOHOO!

Perhaps someone who (presumably) live in North Scottsdale, a bastion for auto centric development and cookie cutter garbage architecture shouldn't be telling one of the most posters on this board whats what.;)

[Azndragon837]

I personally won't "chill-out" either and watch this thing happen. RED can do a better job and create one grand open space, much like Sean's proposal on the page before.

I personally do not like the current design. As an Urban Planning student and a Planner, the current design is certainly NOT the best. I hope this issue gets resolved, with a better proposal put-forth by RED.

By the way, you really cannot tell Combusean to "chill-out." He is pretty passionate about urban design. :cool:

-Andrew

[PHX_PD]

This is not a gret city to live in if you're passionate about urban design. I'll admit I live in the suburbs (7th Ave and Northern), but I don't have that much of a problem with the current design. Theres enough open space out here, as long as we're getting 4 new towers plus a restaurant, grocery store, and retail, I say let them build whatever the hell they want. Its not like they're gonna change it now anyway. This is a matter of economics. Making the park bigger would cost RED too much square footage. Probably 90% of you disagree with my simplistic suburban views, but thats my 2 cents.

[PHX602]

I agree, I won't get upset with any plan that they decide to go with. If it wasn't for RED we wouldn't have a AJ's coming downtown, we wouldn't have a PF Changs, and we wouldn't have 4 new multi-use hi rises about to break ground. Don't like what they have planned?:shrug: Tough shit, Go eat PF Changs on Scottsdale and Frank Lloyd Wright, or go grocery shopping at AJ's on Pima and Pinnacle Peak. I'm suprised the developers haven't already bailed out, they can't even get support from residents in Phoenix who want this kind of thing getting built.

[Daltnpapi4u]

It may not be the best looking design but thats what happens when a developer has to change their original plans (which mind you looked so much beter) to make the citizens of this city (most of which will never go down there...) happy. If I was RED I would of bailed out on this a while ago. If it was my project I will build what I want, I shouldnt have to listen to any citizens about what I should design!!!!!!!!

Same thing can be said for the W Phoenix. Look whats happening with that now.......

NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DevdogAZ]

I'm in the middle on this. I love that RED is proposing such a huge development and planning to do so much to revitalize the core, but at the same time I understand the arguments of the other side who say that RED got a full city block for free and needs to make more public use out of it.

I don't have the graphic design software or skills to draw what I have in mind, but I'd like to see the open space split equally between block 77 and whatever the next block east is. The open space would essentially be split down the middle by Central Avenue. The space would essentially be a diamond shape, with the current design of Block 77 remaining mostly as is, but angling the sides of the two towers on the middle block to create a larger space in the middle, almost symmetrical to what's across Central on 77. This would place the pedestrian bridge over Central essentially right in the north middle of the open space and allow it to be used as a stage for large public events. The retail all around that space would be two story, which means that it will be ringed by a second-story walkway all around the site, creating great viewing spaces for any events.

If someone wants to draw up something like that to make it easier to visualize, I'd love to see it.

Edit: Here is a VERY CRUDE representation of what I envision:

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/1651/cityscapesiteparkbm5.jpg

[Downtown_resident]

Why are you guys so OK with mediocrity? Do you think people in other major American cities would be OK with their public squares being replaced by a PF Changs? (And having to pay the developer for it to boot?)

Downtown has a ton of promise right now, and we've made a huge public investment to help get it there. These three blocks downtown are too important to just give away in favor of such an uninspired design. We should expect better.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[Daltnpapi4u]

its a public space that is a major gathering for only homeless people. People are only fighting it because they have nothing else going on for them. Yes there is alot of promise for out downtown but sadly no one else has came in and offered to do what RED is doing. If they would of stuck with their original design which again looked so much better then what they have now. I bet half these people wouldnt of complained to begin with.

[soleri]

Given the difficulty with downtown parking, why not go to a suburban PF Chang's? People usually vote for those places with the easiest parking.

Great downtowns have more than predictable suburban retail and restaurants. This is one of the problems with CityScape. It's not really that urban and its restaurants and stores show this. There are some unique downtown destinations. The new restaurant First will be one. This is what you want. This is what makes downtown downtown.

I think there are ways to create some flex spaces in a project that don't necessarily result in the same 'ol same 'ol. But CityScape would have to be more than a real-estate hustle. It would have to be visionary. It would have to know what creates a real urban pulse, not just some suburban mixed-use project with extra height.

This matters because CityScape in not being planted in some urban playground. This is not Tempe or Scottsdale. Downtown Phoenix is not going to compete with those places by having maybe 10% of what they have. Given this reality, what's going to sell this complex? What will the sales slogan be? "Live in the 'burbs downtown"?

I know cities are not a popular topic in this forum, but exciting cities generate a lot more height than artificial downtowns. If you have a 24/7 area, chances are you won't need city subsidies to get a CityScape off the ground. Tempe would have no problem at all in this way. That's the advantage in having a core with pedestrian scale and old buildings.

This matters because even if CityScape's successfully navigates the permitting and approval process (a given, IMO), it still can't create a market for what it's selling. Yes it can manufacture buzz with brochures and T shirts. No, it can't present an existing 24/7 downtown as a sales point. Believe it or not, people are not stupid. Centerpointe is selling very well because there's already a real city around it. CityScape can only point to itself as a promise of the good things to come.

I'm all in favor of this project, warts and all, if it comes to pass. There's nothing else waiting in the wings, so it's either RED or wait another 10 years. But Cityscape is unlikely to be completed as proposed. Given the opportunity here, we should be asking the tough questions now. Downtown doesn't need another Collier's Center, even if we do get rid of one those vacant blocks.

[PHX602]

We should expect better.

We should expect better? Where the hell were people like you when PSP was proposed? This project isn't going to make or break DT Phoenix, but it's a huge step in the right direction. You can get picky when there's a reason to get picky, like when there's a reason to use a frickin park downtown.

[PHX31]

Again, anything is better than what is existing, and anything is better than the proposals we've already seen (Ambasz's canyon crap was hideous and would have turned the area into a gigantic dead zone, unlike CityScape). It's pretty good and at least tries to promote people spaces, urbanity, etc.

Is CityScape the "Best" design for that particular piece of land and for Phoenix? It's hard to say, especially based on a few crude/preliminary site plans. On top of all of that, who's to say what is "Best" for that land? What one person likes or would want to see built, another person may not.

[kevininlb]

CityScape should be applauded for bringing in PF Changs...and the like. People who visit Phx -- convention center, for instance -- don't have s**t to do. They'll love seeing something familiar. And, besides, Jackson Street is being planned as the very opposite, a unique strip with one-of-a-kind stores/bars, etc. That's something for locals, and CS is something locals can be proud of -- provided it happens -- even if "we" don't go there.

CS, in my opinion, is doing what exactly needs to be done DT. The people down there on weekends are mostly out of towners looking for something to do. Trust me, before I moved here, I was that person...visiting for business and asking concierge after concierge where to go. The reply? "Mill Ave. in Tempe." I would've killed back then for PF Changs.

[HX_Guy]

Given the difficulty with downtown parking, why not go to a suburban PF Chang's? People usually vote for those places with the easiest parking.

Great downtowns have more than predictable suburban retail and restaurants. This is one of the problems with CityScape. It's not really that urban and its restaurants and stores show this. There are some unique downtown destinations. The new restaurant First will be one. This is what you want. This is what makes downtown downtown.

Sure, if you're in the suburbs, I think most people would choose to go to the suburban PF Chang's. But what about the people going to a game or show downtown? Or the people in town for a convention? Or the thousands of people who work downtown and want to have lunch or dinner after work?

Will they all drive to the suburban PF Chang's?

I completely agree that there need to be unique places downtown, but at the same time I think it would be great to have the same things that you find in all the suburbs. After all, who would want to live downtown if they have to drive to Scottsdale or Glendale to go to a restaurant or do some shopping?

[soleri]

^nothing against PF Chang's, but a billion dollar project needs cachet, not a restaurant one normally associates with suburban shopping malls.

The problem is that CityScape is in a downtown in desperate need of definition and identity. It ought to find a way to be urban and not merely safe and predictable. If downtown were already successful, this wouldn't matter. You could have it all, as it were. But downtown Phoenix really doesn't have anything so making it bland and suburban is really not a keen strategy.

This project cannot save downtown by itself and it's unfair of people like me to think it ought to. But I guarantee you it won't work as presently designed, so the question is really moot.

[PHX31]

/\ Actually I don't believe "Downtown Phoenix really doesn't have anything", and I don't think downtown needs to be "saved".

I could go on and on about the great things presently going on for downtown, and make a near endless list of the things coming and under construction that will make it that much better.

For some reason there is the perception by the masses that there's "nothing to do", which we all know is not true, so why do some of the forumers here seem to try to buy into that, or at least say things like that? I've spent every weekend downtown for the past couple months, obviously there's not "nothing to do".

Before you try to point out that downtowns of other cities are "better", let me tell you that is a moot point, and possibly not even true. We're talking about Phoenix, no where else. Really, the only thing missing is shitloads of people (which is the ultimate barometer of a city's health on this forum), and shitloads are missing in Phoenix because of the stereotype.

So, finally, CityScape doesn't need to save Phoenix, I don't even think downtown needs it to be built based on all of the other things currently there and coming. It would be nice, but it's not necessary. So there's no need to nitpick and hinder and make it seem as though if CityScape isn't the best, most perfectly (in your mind) urban place in the city and in the country, and that Phoenix is doomed to rot and shrivel up and blow away in the breeze to hell now that CityScape has a seemingly sub-par design.

(ps. I'm not advocating that no one should care and hope and try to make CityScape better, we all should, but as of now it's is what it is, and who knows, maybe it'll be great. Hell, we on the forum are the minority when it comes to the typical Phoencian, and many of you are saying CityScape is horrible and won't work. Well, maybe that's because of your minority (when it comes to the masses) urban mindset. Maybe if it doesn't appeal to you, it will appeal to the mass amounts of DT Phoenix dissenters and suburbanites and they'll come downtown, bringing that elusive "shitload" of people, which is exactly what you want.)

[soleri]

I appreciate the civil tone in this debate and hope we can keep it that way. I think we need to remember a couple of things, however. One is that disagreement is in itself a good thing. It means we're really thinking, which is what this forum ought to encourage. Too much agreement and discussion itself dead-ends in blather. Also, none of us is going to make or kill this project. I have my own measure of grandiosity but even I know that I'm powerless to impact major real-estate deals.

There's a good reason to worry about project like this, at least from my perspective. I want more than anything for downtown to succeed and for Phoenix to urbanize. It means thinking about what advances that prospect and what hinders it.

We have already have an example in Collier's Center which was originally slated to have four towers. That the Colliers and partnered with RED needs to be kept in mind when pondering this new proposal. You have all the signposts of mixed-use sterility in the Collier's Center: retail plazas away from the street, blank walls, and no interface with the existing city fabric. This stuff matters. Because every superblock and dead zone means less life in downtown not just today but for a long time to come. I agree with PHX31 that this project by itself wouldn't doom Phoenix, but the blocks are singularly important: the 0-0 epicenter of downtown and, for that matter, all of Phoenix.

Because we tend to think in terms of "major moves", we miss the critical factor of fine-grained development downtown. Every great downtown has it: small businesses, buildings, uses, and services that together create an urban fabric. Create enough of this and you have a great place. San Diego, e.g., is lucky to have about a dozen or so blocks in the middle of downtown (Gaslamp) with this kind of density and detail. It makes SD swing.

Cityscape cannot by itself do this for Phoenix and they're under no expectation that they should. But in a downtown singularly devoid of such fine-grained development, we ought to ask if this is the one area where CityScape could possibly imagine something really good. New construction is extremely difficult to achieve these ends, and particularly when it's a huge project like this. I raise the point not because I think they need to redraw their plans but only because it's what downtown Phoenix really needs.

Maybe the Jackson St Entertainment District is better suited for this concern. Maybe they can find the urban pulse that's otherwise missing in downtown. I'd like to see it in CityScape, too. Indeed, I don't think CityScape can succeed without it. Collier's didn't succeed even with the outright gift of city land.

At any rate, I apologize for these long posts and negativity to what most of you like and want to succeed. I would love to be proven wrong by CityScape. I'm not going to protest it or bad-mouth it to the "outside". If it does fail, I won't say "I told you so". I just want to get it off my chest. And I hope this is my last post on the topic for the foreseeable future.

[loftlovr]

Soleri- I appreciate your opinions and I do not mistake it for negativity-
I think you're the biggest Downtown fan of us all-
You've just been around a bit longer and you've seen many of these types of projects fail in their attempts.... Maybe the young blood and the fact many of the people on this board are without long memories is a good thing!
At any rate- I think your thoughts are well supported.

As for my thoughts on Cityscape-
Smaller, nichier, artsier restaurants and retail usually means smaller wallets.
PF Changs, Borders etc may not be what any of us want- but they can survive a dismal year should they have to in the loading phase.
Kierland and Fashion Park and Mill have these places too.....
I wanted something like a Horton Plaza with some Towers.
It falls short.
I don't want to lose RED. I don't want to wait another 10 years for something else to come along. However- I wish RED would have turned the buildings outward a bit more.
What the hell was the pages and pages of rant on their forum if not to express the need of the buildings to face outward?
How hard is that?
I am no architect and I could have done that part right in my design.
That part practically can never be undone- if built as is- and if the 1 tower and small retail portion are all that get built- it could be another Colliers Center.
-I especially don't trust the residential portion right now- As Soleri calls out, "Based off of what demand?"
So maybe I am just restating portions of all of your thoughts....
I am confused.
I don't see why we can't get an interesting Horton Plaza type project.
We have so much to play with here!

I do have faith it will be more than a run of the mill dead beat project when built out...
I even think the AZ Center will be happening soon with all of the ASU students parading about.
-I wish RED could just play with the redesign a bit more, try to get another interesting tenant or two in that park area, maybe create a fitness center or something that plays with the crowd a bit more.... turn some buildings towards the street...

Truth is- it is an important piece of land- we don't need another Colliers.

But I think it has enough juice to be a little more of what we hope for it to be. The projected retail is about triple AZ Centers?
What is there right now is killing me!
-That doesn't mean we should give it to the first developer that shows us their titties.
-But ther should be another solution.

It is not a hard choice for me-

Cityscape as is?
or
Patriots Park as is?

I'll take Cityscape. Sad that is has to be that way- maybe RED will impress us all in the design.
The architect seems pretty bad ass any way....

[HooverDam]

I even think the AZ Center will be happening soon with all of the ASU students parading about.


I agree with most everything you said, except for this. The problem the AZ Center has (other than its inwardness and lame design) is that its basically a large mall full of gift shops. Its like a reasonably priced airport terminal. Obviously, the market its going for is the visitors that are in town for conventions, that for some reason want to buy an ugly cow skull with an Indian feather dangling from it, or some Kokopelli sand art. Hopefully the 'Taylor Street Mall' will have retail more appealing to the ASU students.

[JimInCal]

There are several things that I think may become more apparent with better renderings (3-D models hopefully) and future tenant announcements...

1) If you look around the perimeter of the site plan, there are tables and umbrellas peppered around the entire project, except for the west side, which has the garage exit. This tells me that there is an attempt to engage the surrounding area to a greater extent than what I believe has been decried in the forum. There must be doors and windows on the exterior streets verses the walled-in designs of AZ Center and Collier. The sidewalks in several places around the perimeter look fairly wide, which may allow for some cafe opportunities.

2) There is another large restaurant site on the NW corner, across from Renaissance Square. This is an opportunity for something unique that might not be found anywhere else in Phoenix (Let's hope).

3) The SW corner has 5-6 stories of retail. That is at least somewhat similar to Horton Plaza, with it's several floors of retail. This is definately something different from the basic Phoenix, 2-level shopping mall.

4) Another positive thing that should be stressed is that thousands of commuters will daily pass right by Cityscape on three sides via Light Rail, with a station across the street. These are people going anywhere from the Spectrum Mall area to Mesa's doorstep. This has got to be an incredible advertising opportunity to pull locals and visitors alike to the project and provide the !@*#-load of people previously mentioned for it's success.

The one thing that does disappoint me is the lack of a larger, continuos park space. I suppose to make this financially attractive, the developers want to include as much leaseable space as possible, while situating it in a setting where people want to spend their time and money. They are in this to make money, after all... (Shocking, I know!)

Let's do this again in a few weeks when we have the final design and hopefully, more complete renderigns. ;)

[HX_Guy]

I agree, they do need to bring forward at least some renderings showing the project from different angles, not just an overhead shot. A 3-D model would be even better so we could easily see how much open space there is and how the bridge area will work.

[kevininlb]

:previous: Hey, I just want to comment about there being nothing to do DT, since I am one of those who said that (above). I am a DT supporter, to the point that I go there every weekend even if it means all I do is walk around. The sad fact, which I think we all know, is that there isn't much going on to keep people there (that's really the problem). CityScape, with all its flaws (which I'll agree to even though I sort of disagree), is in one fell swoop plopping a few things in that will keep people there...food, books... I'm in, and all those poor conventioneers walking around wondering where DT is -- when they're standing right in the middle of it -- will at least have something to gravitate to. Now if only those PSP supporters -- are they supporters or just people who like to hear themselves talk -- can go f*** off (sorry, Soleri, that wasn't very civil of me). later.

[Downtown_resident]

We should expect better? Where the hell were people like you when PSP was proposed?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally was in elementary school.

CityScape, with all its flaws (which I'll agree to even though I sort of disagree), is in one fell swoop plopping a few things in that will keep people there...food, books...

I guarantee people said the same thing when the Arizona Center was first being discussed. Instead of food and books AZ Center brought us movies, food, and stores. And it failed. Why? Because it's a suburban development rammed into a downtown setting. Why would anyone drive from Mesa to go do things they could just as easily do at Superstition Springs? I hope I'm wrong, but I think CityScape is destined for many of the same problems.

I could go on and on about the great things presently going on for downtown, and make a near endless list of the things coming and under construction that will make it that much better.


I strongly agree with this point, which is why I think CityScape doesn't need to be built (in this current configuration, anyway). If we really need "hope" for downtown (and we don't), we should pin our hopes on the Jackson St. Entertainment District. Assuming they respect the historic structures in the warehouse district, that project is an example of doing everything right. AND they're not asking us to put up any money for it!

But even if Jackson Street doesn't come to fruition, there are tons of good things happening downtown already. That positive momentum will build on itself; developers will want to do something on these prime city blocks. With that in mind, I'd rather wait 10 years (and I bet it would be a lot sooner) for a top-quality project on Blocks 77, 22, and 23 than rush to build a mediocre one now.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[combusean]

During yesterday's impromptu Parks Board Work Study Session ...

I distributed 10 color copies of my siteplan and the talking points addenda, which I believe were well received. John Chan, director of the Downtown Development Office that has been orchestrating the entire deal, liked what I had, and altho I can't tell if he was being patronising he jokingly suggested that I should work for RED.

He did spend 20 minutes or so during the Session pouring over what I wrote with other suits, and today I got an ASAP communique from Susan Aguire, a Parks Department staffer who requested a copy, mostly because of procedure. She seemed to really like it as well.

From what Susan Aguire told me, it looks like Staff will be asking for more creativity in designing this space. I don't know what that means, or if Parks Board will buckle given the numerous outside interests that want CityScape to happen without further complications. I am less than optimistic that Parks Board will send RED back to the drafting table.

There are other site plans floating around (I've seen one from Studio MA that I'm not totally crazy about) but I believe these will be distributed and presented in some fashion for the February 22nd meeting.

Following savepatriotspark.org's Community Potluck on Sunday (12:00 PM, at Patriots Square), I will be meeting with Mike Ebert (RED's managing partner) on Monday in attempt to find some common ground. Too early to say whether any "deals" will be made, but I think the more we talk, the quicker this situation will resolve itself.

[PHX31]

/\ Awesome... Good luck!

[combusean]

My meeting with Mike Ebert ...

Not bad, all in all. I met him at as office after work on Monday, surprised to see him dressed casually as he just got in from vacation. We talked about many things, listed in no particular order, both involving Patriot's Square and CityScape in general.

I think he "gets it" with regards to urban design, perhaps going out of his way to show me an article in the Urban Land Institute's magazine (covered in yellow stickies) involving how that raising Central Avenue by something like 18" will contribute to their "flexible event space." I have to give him props for showing the creativity they have so far, even if it's left a sour taste.

A subsequent discussion with a DVC member tells me to take this as face value, and we all know that there's nothing sacred in real estate. Caveat emptor.

It was nice to see him take notes.

1) CityScape will not be a suburban project with some height thrown into it. This was cemented with the release of the bookstore tenant, which I swear if I hadn't promised to secrecy I'd be proud to announce it. PF Chang's ostensibly carries a lot of weight in the restaurant industry, and with that announcement several other stores will have their only presence in Arizona in CityScape. There will be retail on "all eight sides," indicating no dead spaces along the thoroughfares. They are trying to cram as many stores as possible in it aside from the main "anchors."

2) The residential component is by Novare (I think), an Atlanta company specialising in value engineering, and as such the entry prices for the CityScape condos will be in the low 200's - 220's. A vast majority of Novare's buyers are in the 25 - 39 age range.

3) CityScape is shooting for LEED certification.

4) They are in negotiations with a "couple" anchor tenants for their office tower.

5) Regarding the park, I re-iterated three basic points:
i) It is more important to have a distinct, contiguous parkland than the 2 acres under the Parks Board guiding principles.
ii) To open up the massing on the south and west sides, preserving viewsheds of the Barrister Building, Luhrs complex, and the old courthouse.
iii) To re-approach the notion of additional height resulting in more contiguous open space for the park, adding value to the entire project.

He seemed to like the idea of swapping the PF Chang's pad with the mixed use tower pad on Block 22, thus opening up the park block somewhat and not impeding as much on the views of the Barrister Building.

In what is honestly a token gesture, they are going to chop a small chunk off the NE pad and condense the staircase on the left. There will be no ownership units on the park block, only apartments and the retail leases. The apartments will include an affordable housing component.

I think that's it. Rumor has it that RED is operating under a deadline of March 17th...i'll see if I can make some sense of this.

Regarding my involvement with savepatriotspark.org, at this point I've essentially resigned from it--Chris's position of no compromise, no private development on the park is one for failure, and I've said about all I can say and I won't support a referendum/iniative. This has been a very, very long 8 months, and the quicker this is done with the happier I will be.

On that note, RED has no Plan B if, say, Parks Board tells them to come back in another month.

[plinko]

1) CityScape will not be a suburban project with some height thrown into it. This was cemented with the release of the bookstore tenant, which I swear if I hadn't promised to secrecy I'd be proud to announce it. PF Chang's ostensibly carries a lot of weight in the restaurant industry, and with that announcement several other stores will have their only presence in Arizona in CityScape. There will be retail on "all eight sides," indicating no dead spaces along the thoroughfares. They are trying to cram as many stores as possible in it aside from the main "anchors."


Changing Hands perhaps? (one can always hope!!!)

Cool that you've gotten involved in a very constructive way. Solutions proposed on logic rather than 'it HAS to be this way' go alot farther.

[combusean]

^ Nope ... I wish. It's a European brand.

[PHX31]

I'm glad you're semi-happier about the situation...

From your points, the ones I strongly agree with are more height, which would give greater visibility/credibility(?)/prestige to the project, and in turn would open up views to Phoenix's great historic architecture in the southwest (Luhr's, barrister, etc.).

You said he "seemed to like the idea" of opening up some views... he liked it, but it's not probable, right? And what did he seem to think about additional height? How did that conversation go?

Thanks

[HX_Guy]

Combusean, thank you for your effort on this project and for the information. Everything I read sounds fantastic...from a new bookstore, which appears may be totally new to the Valley, to prices starting at $200k-$220k, to the 8 sides of retail.

After hearing there is no plan B, I really hope they will have the support they need to move this forward. It would be a shame to lose out on this opportunity.

[JimInCal]

Sean,

Many thanks for your persistance in getting an audience with a principle at RED. I wonder what will be presented at tomorrow's meeting of the Parks & Rec Board. (2-22 @ 6:00PM)

The meeting agenda states: "Item #2-P Discussion and Possible Action on Patriots Park Conceptual Plan (Jim Burke) (15 min.)". Also, the city's Patriot's Square redevelopment site notes the meeting to be a "Presentation to Parks & Recreation Board of final plan." I wonder if there has been sufficient time to make any changes.

I'm sure we are all on pins & needles.

[nbrindley]

Well, it starting to sound more promising. When I first saw the new design, it just made me think of Desert Ridge with a few towers, but it sounds like it will end up being a more unique destination. While I would still like to see more a park-like space in the development, I definitely would rather see Cityscape be built than not.

[HX_Guy]

CityScape fills a need
Feb. 22, 2007 12:00 AM

If Patriots Square was a thriving and appealing urban park, there would be no discussion about making it part of a private development, even one so ambitious and promising as CityScape in downtown Phoenix.

But it's not.

If Patriots Square were truly a living park, children would be playing there. Teenagers would be throwing Frisbees, elderly couples would be out strolling, and college students studying.

But it's not.

If Patriots Square was really a town square, why would Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon - a downtown booster if there ever was one - call for bulldozing it?

Back in 2004, in his first State of the City address, Gordon said:

"Patriots Square is no longer adequate for Phoenix. The canopies were meant for projecting laser shows - but there are no lasers. The grass and other foliage are limited due to watering restrictions - water leaks into the multi-level parking structure below the park. It simply lacks the sparkle and excitement we need in our Town Square . . . As a vibrant park, it's a bust."

That is the reality the Phoenix Parks Board faces tonight as it continues its deliberations over the $900 million mixed-use retail development proposed by a consortium led by Scottsdale-based RED Development. The development would span more than three square blocks in downtown Phoenix.

It is not a decision the board members sought. In fact, it is a curious provision within the city charter that gives the Parks Board, not the City Council, the final say on this important project. It was probably written to take the politics out of the parks system.

That's ironic, because there have been few local issues as controversial and hard-fought as the CityScape project. Opponents are adamant that the city is ceding a public amenity - open space - to a private developer. That Patriots Square will become less of a public park than a private amenity.

Yet, it's not an amenity now. It's an eyesore, a forbidding one, a park that people now avoid rather than walk through, especially at night.

That is the argument residents of the nearby Orpheum Lofts make in supporting CityScape as a stunning addition to the downtown, the new heart of the city, with people, activity, commerce, residences, restaurants and ample room for outdoor events. A place that enriches, not diminishes, the community around it.

David Staciokas, president of the Orpheum Lofts Homeowners Association, commends the developers for listening to their concerns and hopes for the site. After attending most of the "stakeholders" meetings over the past months, Staciokas wants the promise of CityScape to be fulfilled, turning a lifeless, under-utilized and blighted area into a "stunning, iconic place."

There is a call for a broader expanse of land on the northwest corner of the development, at First Avenue and Washington Street, as an entrance to the park. The parks board must weigh the options, understanding that CityScape is primarily a private development project and less a park.

In a sense, the decision has already been made - by two decades of disrepair. Patriots Square is not the town center. The parks department has no money to preserve or upgrade that land, or even repair the parking garage underneath. If CityScape is scrapped, or fails, there is no Plan B for preserving Patriots Square.

The new CityScape will be to the north, developed by both the city and Arizona State University, and will be centered at Van Buren Street, north to the old post office.

In turn, CityScape offers the largest-ever private investment in downtown Phoenix, a vote of confidence in the downtown's future, a welcome boost after years and billions of public investments.

True enough, CityScape doesn't look like a public park.

But it does look like something Phoenix needs even more - excitement, people, a reason to be here, live here and stay here.

[HooverDam]

CityScape fills a need
Feb. 22, 2007 12:00 AM
The new CityScape will be to the north, developed by both the city and Arizona State University, and will be centered at Van Buren Street, north to the old post office.


I assume the author means the new park. Speaking of the author, who is it, and where did this come from? AzCentral I assume.

[loftlovr]

I just looked everywhere for it....

[vertex]

It's the Republic's editorial (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/) for today.

[JimInCal]

Is anyone planning on attending the meeting today @ 6:00? The agenda is short and vague. I suppose that is purposeful, leaving it open-ended in case RED needs more time to make changes (Hoping Sean's recent input infuenced them!)

[DevdogAZ]

I'm not going to be able to make the meeting, but I'll be anxiously awaiting news here in the CS thread. Hopefully those of you who are going and pop in and give us some news as soon as it's over.

[combusean]

Approved, 5 - 2.

[HX_Guy]

As Sean pointed out...the conceptual master plan passed 5-2 and I've got to say FINALLY! I'm glad this whole process is over and that in the end it went in favor of the project. The meeting tonight lasted 4 hours with 63 speakers and over 200 people in attendance.

There were some small changes made since the original plan, I photoshopped the original picture to show the changes.

I'm glad they added a bigger grassy area in the center as well as where they had the stairs, since the stairs just would have have not that appealing of a view from across the street.
I don't understand why they cut off the eastern part of the restaurant (3000 sq ft, which is a decent amount) instead of cutting it off the western end and making that small grassy area a bit bigger.

Original plan:
http://www.nitnelav.com/MasterPlan.jpg

New plan:
http://www.nitnelav.com/MasterPlanRevised.jpg

I'm wondering where everything goes from here? I guess they need to make final specific plans, then submit for permits...and then finally they can start some digging?

[HX_Guy]

Downtown Phoenix project earns approval
Kellie Hwang
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 22, 2007 11:31 PM

The battle for Patriots Square reached a milestone Thursday night.

Supporters of the $900 million mixed-use retail project to be built in downtown Phoenix rejoiced when the members of the Phoenix Parks Board approved the design, 5 to 2.

The group in opposition was not pleased, but did not feel defeat.
advertisement




"After the decision I want to ask, how conceptual is the conceptual plan that was approved tonight by the board tonight?" said Chris Ibarra, co-organizer of the savepatriotspark.org group. "The plan definitely needs reworking as some members of the board pointed out, and we are all going to hold them to that."

Hundreds showed up for the meeting, filling up all the seats of City Council and forcing overflow into the basement, where the proceedings were televised. More than 60 individuals lined up to speak for or against the plan.

Supporters of CityScape wore green buttons reading "YES" in bold white lettering, while several opponents flashed signs reading "Save Our Square" and dressed in devil costumes ridiculing RED Development, the company overseeing the project.

Those opposing the plan were upset because it essentially takes Patriots Square and stretches it over three city blocks. The outcome is a 5-acre strip that will house restaurants, a grocery store, offices, condominiums, and an outdoor event space.

"We thought it would be a new city around the park, "said Alex Votichenko. "It has become a public space issue and this plan uses the park for privatization, which is not right."

Former councilman Calvin Goode spoke in support of the plan, reminding the public that there will be room for further changes, that the plan isn't final.

After the last meeting members of the board voted to send the plan back to the designers of Red Development. Officials came back with several changes they said addressed the public concerns, including creating more of a sense of open space.

Specifically, the restaurant west of the Washington Street and Central Avenue was reduced by one-third in the plan, and the staircase leading up to it was completely eliminated from the plan. Red designers also removed a kiosk that was slated to sit inside of the park.

"We wanted to make sure that there is more access to main intersections, with signage and landscaping," said John Bacon, a spokesman for Red Development. "The changes will allow visitors to have a better sense of where the commercial starts and where it stops."

Thursday night's decision now gives developers full reign to really focus on the plan, and add specific elements to the space including landscaping, water, and shade structures. Jay Thorne of RED Development is ready to continue moving ahead.

"There is a lot more design work to be done, and a lot of work to do. We can now really get started on that work. The process tonight gave us direction about what we still need to do."

[loftlovr]

Hallelujah!

[PhxDT]

Sean has been writing a lot in this thread...and I was at the meeting. You came down hard and condemned RED Development....Why? You seemed quite positive with your comments here. Your walking and talking dont match

[Daltnpapi4u]

Well the important thing is they are going to tear down that ugly thing!!!!!!!!! When is construction suppose to start?

:banana:

[HX_Guy]

From everything I've heard, groundbreak should be in the summer...so we've got a while to go.

[HX_Guy]

An email reply I got from John Bacon on my question of "Whats next?"...

Parking garage and program elements for the park will be priorities. Designers are working on new renderings now, but not sure how soon they will have them…hopefully not too long.

[PHX]

Does anyone know what buildings are being built in phase 1?

[HX_Guy]

Phase I includes the Patriot's Square block, so the AJ's, resturant, bookstore, retail and the residential/hotel tower at the least.

[PHX31]

I don't see the residential/hotel tower located on the Patriot's Square block... how many stories is this "required" building planned to be?

Does anyone know what type of trees they have proposed to plant??? Please tell me it isn't those scraggly desert types. We need leaves and shade in this area desperately.

[HX_Guy]

The residential/hotel shows 37 stories in the initial design.

http://www.nitnelav.com/CityScapeNew1.JPG

[DevdogAZ]

I don't see the residential/hotel tower located on the Patriot's Square block... how many stories is this "required" building planned to be?

Does anyone know what type of trees they have proposed to plant??? Please tell me it isn't those scraggly desert types. We need leaves and shade in this area desperately.

Tower 1 (the hotel/residential tower) is in the SE corner of the easternmost block. It's at the corner of 2nd Street and Jefferson, just west across the street from the Hard Rock Cafe. This is the only tower that RED is guaranteeing will be built. They'll work on this tower and the retail on the PSP block, and then the other three towers will come as demand dictates. It could be a decade before the whole thing is built out, if ever.

But because of the deal between RED and the city, the park block will be in Phase 1, including the upgrade to the parking structure and the AJs.

[PHX602]

Great, so the only building they are required to build is now 17 stories? I don't like the sound of this all of a sudden.http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1551/dohye2.gif

[Edit] I can't tell if it says 17 or 37 for the hotel.

[PHX31]

OK, so is it the Hotel (SE corner) or the Residential/Retail (NE corner) on the eastern most block that is guaranteed to be built? One is 37 stories, the other is 17 (?) stories. The previous posts seem to be conflicting.

The only thing that is clear is that PSP block (western most) is also guaranteed to be built.

[DevdogAZ]

Look back at post #133 in this thread. It has a close up of that section of the project and it's clearly 37 stories.

[HooverDam]

Tower 1 (the hotel/residential tower) is in the SE corner of the easternmost block. It's at the corner of 2nd Street and Jefferson, just west across the street from the Hard Rock Cafe. This is the only tower that RED is guaranteeing will be built. They'll work on this tower and the retail on the PSP block, and then the other three towers will come as demand dictates. It could be a decade before the whole thing is built out, if ever.

But because of the deal between RED and the city, the park block will be in Phase 1, including the upgrade to the parking structure and the AJs.

Demand currently seems to be dictating a need for a new Class A office tower, so I'd bet that gets built. If "mixed use" ends up meaning a lot of office, that could end up happening as well. The only tower I wouldn't be too sure about is the residential tower on the NE corner.

[nbrindley]

isn't the 2000 car garage part of phase 1 as well?

[DevdogAZ]

^^^ Probably. If I remember correctly, the garage is part of the deal for getting block 77 (PSP). Also, if the garage is under the hotel block, they'd have to build it before building Tower 1 (the hotel tower).

[JAHOPL]

"It has a close up of that section of the project and it's clearly 37 stories."

It's 37 but because of the fuzziness in the picture it does look like 17 from a distance.

Jeff

[combusean]

Sean has been writing a lot in this thread...and I was at the meeting. You came down hard and condemned RED Development....Why? You seemed quite positive with your comments here. Your walking and talking dont match

OK ... one, I was nervous, and two, I grandstand a bit. For board hearings I try and get my point made.

Please excuse the following self-serving reflection on the preceding eight months:

Check back to the Phoenix Development News in the Archives where the meat of my comments on this subject are. There are things about CityScape I like which I reported on after I met with Mike, but there are things about it that still irritate me. Most of it boils down to the fact that what CityScape proposes is not a park, and that Patriots Square needs a proper burial at this point, but the City is stuck maintaining it anyway. Phoenix is betting the farm on CityScape, and as the finer points of the development agreement unfold we will know just how big it is. If it is not successful, the City, like so many others in this game, will have no Plan B. Remember, RED gets the check on opening day. Will 30 years fund $100 million? Let's hope.

I didn't come down so much on RED as I belatedly tried to slam the whole process, starting from the City Council effectively sealing the meat and potatoes of the retail development on Block 77 and leaving the Parks Board to do the dirty work. Had I understood the ramifications of the development agreement earlier, I would not have spoken in support of CityScape at Council--not that it would have done any good--but it would've altered the direction of the campaign considerably.

I asked Parks Board to say no to up-or-down decisions, as this was played out to be. I understand that RED is under deadlines, but the only one the rumor mill could produce--March 17th--or any other was not substantiated following my conversations with John Bacon.

I asked Parks Board to say no to the lack of creativity. CityScape has a chance to redeem itself, too little to late, in the way they treat the roofs of the Block 77 retail--if you can walk around on the roof amidst an organic garden, for example, that would be awesome. To his credit, Mike agreed and said they have to do "something" with the roofs, and their flexible event space will work well, but it's not a park. But it's a sore start.

If the agreement Council approved could have been revisited--yeah right--this would have done fantastically well with another month through the public process, however, absent that I wonder what dragging this out further would have done as Downtown Voices Coalition called for.

Needless to say, this was doomed from the beginning. It was class warfare at its finest. RED hosted wine and cheese parties at the Orpheum Lofts (why they were so heralded through this I'll never understand) and the SPP.org camp brought out the homeless in full force, even where it wasn't necessary and discredited the cause. Talking heads from the Phoenix Community Alliance and others volleyed back in ways just as tasteless.

No plan or compromise the Parks Board could have approved to the ordinance, ie, with private development on the park, would have satisfied most in savepatriotspark.org, and it was this position that caused me to bail from the organization. After reading Chris Ibarra's "My Turn (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/phoenixopinions/articles/0216phx-ibarra0216Z3.html)" (written on my laptop in my room, on the last of dozens of long nights) right up there with a counter-argument (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/phoenixopinions/articles/0216phx-greenberg0216Z3.html) from an Orpheum Loftie's with the "Keep Phoenix Funky" grabber, I saw the bitter realities of the hell I had spawned so eloquently bullet-pointed out in the "Special CityScape Issue" from Copper Square/Downtown Phoenix Partnership's newsletter.

I pushed hard for that compromise, releasing a plan in the final days. I lobbied DVC to no avail. Yeah, we could maybe get around to someday calling up a student landscape architect, or we can get behind something, anything while we have time and be relevant to the discussion.

The decision was still up in the air as I drudged to the last meeting, not wearing a tie for once because at that point, I was apathetic to the results and major problems at my day job didn't help either. My hopes were raised as the meeting progressed until who else but Calvin C. Goode--80-odd years old, the next building over is named after him--stands up and speaks in favor of CityScape. Burning out sucks.

You know, I've never felt threatened walking home after dark downtown. Crackheads, homeless, gang-bangers, panhandlers, I can deal with, but a pissed-off Phoenix NIMBY? Hell no. One of the co-organisers, in full of view of cops everywhere, not once, not twice, but three times gets in my face and accuses me of selling out, threatening my personal safety. Given his family background, I believed him.

Yeah, maybe I can see part of his point--I didn't care enough to send a last newsletter, maybe more turnout could have got a swing vote or two, and that's my demon. But you'd have to have crawled under a rock to not know about this meeting as it was all over the place in every other outlet, in addition to the website.

How I sold out between what I said and how it went down is unreal; but in this town where there is no gray area between the BANANA's, NIMBY's, and CAVE's on one side and wealthy zoning attorneys, landsharks, and greedy developers on another, attempting to forge any sort of compromise is selling out.

I am bewildered by the dogged, moral-driven persistence of those on both sides--from Chris's tired arguments revolving around the park in current form to RED's investors so willing to tear the fucker up. I wish I called Mike earlier--he gave me his card but SPP.org didn't have anything to say to him tho I reached hard to find reasons. I cofounded, named, funded, webmastered, and directed the lion's share of SavePatriotsPark.org, hoping as it grew to drive it to an amicable compromise between the warring parties.

How naive. SPP.org continues to hunt for a smoking gun, anything to stop this thing. RED hosts another wine and cheese party. I can take solace in the design changes thus far. There is no compromise in this town's vocabulary. That's gotta change.

[PHX31]

I just have one question:

Where the fuck were all of the NIMBYs and HP people and people that say they want to "save" important elements of Phoenix when the dozens upon dozens of beautiful homes, hotels, theaters, offices, warehouses, etc., were all razed for the empty lots we have now?

Did past failures awake the sleeping giant that are the NIMBYs and (bad) preservationists?

[DevdogAZ]

I think the whole NIMBY phenomenon is relatively new. Sure, there have always been people opposed to a strip club next to the school, or a porn shop next to the church, but for the general public to get involved with the design of commercial buildings, etc. is something that (at least IMO) is a relatively recent phenomenon. My guess is that it's probably due to the aging hippies who protested the Vietnam War and now have a little money, so they want to find something to protest against to rekindle that 60's passion.

People didn't used to care about development, at least not here in Arizona, because it was a relatively rural state with comparatively few residents. Growth was a source of pride. As the Valley has grown and stretched to a 90-minute drive from one side to the other, people like Talton have begun preaching against sprawl and have found a few people to listen.

[soleri]

I just have one question:

Where the fuck were all of the NIMBYs and HP people and people that say they want to "save" important elements of Phoenix when the dozens upon dozens of beautiful homes, hotels, theaters, offices, warehouses, etc., were all razed for the empty lots we have now?

Did past failures awake the sleeping giant that are the NIMBYs and (bad) preservationists?

Having lived through the gutting of downtown Phoenix in the 60s and 70s, I can tell you why so few protested. We were fast asleep. This is hardly remarkable. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot".

The ethos of that period was that "progress" would take care of everything. Don't ask questions and don't get excited. Developers not only know best, they're successful and rich. This is how American cities - not just Phoenix - sacrificed their urban fabric for the substitute pleasures of lifeless buildings and sterile plazas. The perspective was inevitable since we no longer viewed cities organically but as so much visual stimuli coming through our windshields at 30mph. But to really appreciate cities, you have to be walking. There's no such thing as a good downtown where everyone drives.

It's why so many in this forum love tall buildings and yet hate cities. A real city will have a complex and rich variety of uses and inhabitants. Someone like Chris Ibarra talks authoritatively about this since his view is at the level of the street and not the boardroom. In my opinion, you need both an Ibarra and a Phil Gordon. You want to pay close attention to the details of real urban life and not just the way a skyline looks from one angle or another. You want to know how it all fits together into something alive and vibrant.

A Jon Talton knows this from having lived longer than two decades and having lived in a variety of other cities besides his native Phoenix. Experience does matter. His perspective is irritating to those whose certitude comes in day-glo colors and Trump-figure fealty. Like Talton, I'm old enough to remember downtown when it really worked. I wish I could go back in time when it was being killed by thoughtlessness and optimism and somehow stop it. But you live and learn. There's no way I can translate my experience to younger minds that have only known one downtown, which since it's always been bad, MUST be getting better.

It is getting better, but so marginally and so slowly that I wonder how you can avoid asking tough questions. A city with a million and a half people has only 81 skyscrapers. This is not the fault of NIMBYs. This is the fault of a degraded urban form where horizontal growth preempts the need for height. We opt for cheap growth and end up looking like Amarillo on growth hormones. And still, denial reigns.

[HooverDam]

Oh bologna. Talton's attitude is frustrating because the guy is a prick. First off, lets be honest, he's a lousy writer. Besides the fact that he's a broken record and repeats himself endlessly, his articles aren't exactly gripping now are they? Each paragraph seems like the previous one just phrased differently. Not liking Talton has nothing to do with being young and ignorant, it has to do with him being a lousy columnist. Furthermore, he's the archetypal, "I know better than the general populous"/"there ought to be a law" yuppie that I can't stand.

Secondly, no one on this forum "loves skyscrapers but hates cities." Just because people aren't in lock step with a 'progressive' agenda every step of the way, or don't hold bitter grudges against unsuccessful developers who have long since gone away doesn't mean they "hate cities." Remember (I don't know how often I have to tell this to people on the 'left') DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS. You don't always have the right answer (shocking), other people are probably just as smart, or smarter than you and have different solutions to things.

Finally, things are getting better all the time. Downtown has more life than it has in a quarter century, and its getting better at an extremely rapid rate. If things aren't moving fast enough for you- I understand, I'm impatient too and wish Phoenix was what we all hoped for by tomorrow morning. But do I want to go back? Hell no. My step Dad moved to Phoenix in 1954 and has never told me about this halcyon downtown people seem to opine for. He has told me about a downtown where you couldn't see a ball game, a downtown where he couldn't eat with his black friend, a downtown so homogenous you'd think it was Salt Lake. I'm sure there were things "back in the day" that were better, but thats gone, so lets all quite glorifying the good old days and start thinking about tomorrow.

Really, the bright future is what I love about being in Phoenix. I lived in St Louis for four years and have been to dozens of other cities, and I've never been somewhere so focused on tomorrow. True, Phoenix probably doesn't appreciate or recognize its past as much as it should. However, I've never been to a place thats so full of hope, optimism and good will and thats what I love it here.

[soleri]

Oh bologna.
Secondly, no one on this forum "loves skyscrapers but hates cities." Just because people aren't in lock step with a 'progressive' agenda every step of the way, or don't hold bitter grudges against unsuccessful developers who have long since gone away doesn't mean they "hate cities." Remember (I don't know how often I have to tell this to people on the 'left') DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS. You don't always have the right answer (shocking), other people are probably just as smart, or smarter than you and have different solutions to things.
.

You sound like a sore winner. Phoenix is exactly the kind of city the libertarian right extols: low density, autocentric, sprawling, and environmentally unsustainable. You guys won. People like me and Talton lost.

We believe the things we do not to be unpopular among libertarians but because we examine the urban form to see what works and what doesn't. Usually Portland is portrayed as the anti-Phoenix, a place reviled by the right since it focuses growth on the core rather than the periphery. A city with about 1/3 of Phoenix's population has 101 skyscrapers as opposed to Phoenix's 81.

Portland's focus on the core makes it America's greatest medium-sized city. It has great transit and even great suburbs. If you could get by the constant drizzle, it's a place we'd all love to live in. The downtown has better retail than the entire Biltmore area of Phoenix.

Our difference here is not what we want - a lively 24/7 downtown Phoenix - but the way to get there. My point is demonstrably true, if only by looking outside your window. Endless sprawl makes downtowns weaker. It makes cities much worse, not to mention boring. Only by actually looking at cities organically and consciously nurturing the core do downtowns become strong. Portland made the decision 35 years ago and is reaping the rewards. Phoenix still thinks it can have it all and ends up with crumbs.

I know. I must be an elitist for pointing out the obvious. Bad liberals! If we only behaved ourselves then everyone could get to choose, which in the libertarian world-view entails a nice low-density city where you have to own a car. Most people are comfortable with this "choice" made for them by the real-estate industial complex. Some of us are not.

[HooverDam]

Wow, I don't know where to start but I'll give it a go:

which in the libertarian world-view entails a nice low-density city where you have to own a car

No, in a 'libertarian world-view' everyone gets to do their own thing. People can vote with their feet. Those who want suburbs and sprawl can have that, and those who want density can have that to. Its important to let people choose for themselves- even if they make bad decisions.

I'm not arguing with you that sprawl sucks, I hate it. I have a friend who lives on 83rd avenue and Deer Valley- I rib him constantly about living so far out. But if thats what makes him happy, who am I to act like a huge prick and come down on him like I know what's best?

You are right, Talton and I do have different views of how to create a great downtown. People like John Talton promote force, an arrogant attitude, and high taxation. People like me are for trying to peaceful convince people that city living is a better alternative. I realize that in a city the size of Phoenix, the pie is getting bigger every day, and we don't have to have just city or just suburbs- at the rate we're growing, one day we can be great in both categories.

Do you ever wonder why the general populace hates Talton? Its because he's extremely negative and acts like he's smarter than his reader- thats not a recipe for success. John Talton is the Terrell Owens of local newspapermen. Remember the old saying, "a spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar."

[combusean]

Talton is limited by his editorial constraints. He is a rogue journalist--imagine that--in the lifeless Arizona Republic. Talton in the New Times? In a paper with a reading level past junior high, he might be elevated past cheerleading blather, and I'm sure he's intelligent enough for the job.

I don't think a city can exist--sprawl or not--in a pure libertarian world, at least certainly not as a microcosm amidst today's landscape. If anything, a libertarian city would be atypically dense, with shit land values the norm. Acquiring ROW for transportation infrastructure would be a endless high-stakes legal nightmare between various land owners and companies. To that party's credit, however, there would be an innate desire to stretch limited resources to the extent possible--but if Phoenix were a true libertarian city, it would be a haphazardly dense ghost town five times the size of LA after sprawling deep into what is currently state and federal land, finally drying out 20 years ago.

The city is where everything comes into play, and the public processes, however broken they may be, are well suited to keep the metro sustainable. Phoenix's downtown will perhaps suffer until the city finally sprawls north to the Yavapai county line, but there's light on the horizon.

The new north sprawl will attempt to balance enormous swaths of land designated as mixed use with open spaces reflecting scenic development-unfriendly topography like floodplains and mountain foothills. Elements of that pattern will likely continue on the other side of the 17 in the same fashion, smashing with currently unincorporated communities, rounding off Phoenix's eventual build out. The City is learning, too slow, too late.

Back in the central city, zoning entitlements and light rail will continue to extract value from dead space, the other half of what it takes for a city to go up. While we get excited about skyscrapers planned for downtown's pockmarks, very ordinary projects, rising from the wreckage of the general crud that dominates the landscape today will be Phoenix's new norm. Does a 4-story apartment or condo block here or there really help? In Phoenix's densest square mile, 15,600+ people are packed into a wide range of short housing in an area split by the 17 and cornered by light rail. This will only be repeated.

Razings will be commonplace, and anything's fair game--stucco apartments, strip malls, outdated industrial buildings, historic properties, single family homes, whatever. We didn't care years ago because historic preservation didn't exist--nothing was old enough. Nobody had the foresight to preserve perfect examples of nascent history and architecture. Today we are left to pick from the ruins.

This is going on now in north Tempe and south Scottsdale, where relatively sane land values in built out cities herald a wide range of dense development on downtown outskirts. Today we think of the dated, old sprawling crud simply in the way of--there's that word again--progress. It's exactly what we thought in the 50's. Will future Phoenicians think every last office park is worth saving? If we cannot learn from past fights, it is inevitable as long as the solid yes/no question of new growth is hammered out one project at a time after grueling inherently adverserial public battles.

CityScape brought out the unendingly diametric points of view in everybody, and the arguing will likely get worse as the city covers new ground. We care today because we must look inward for new growth. A constantly changing cityscape, born from difficult zoning hearings and unending construction for a new level of streets, transit, and capacity will be the the only alternative to Mesacide.

[JimInCal]

I find value in all of the thoughtful, heart-felt comments made in the last few posts. We need to make room for the perspectives of one another and consider the merits of each opinion in an open-minded manor. There is much food for thought in all of them...thank you guys! Back to Cityscape more specifically. When I was in town last week I took quite a few photos around the city government district. I like the west plaza of the Historic City Hall. It has a nice, grassy area with trees and public art. I also love the Phx Municipal Courts building with its forest of palo verdes and even the hi-rise city hall has grown on me. These will be neighbors of Cityscape, down Washington and Jefferson. Here is a few shots of that area and where Cityscape will be built. It sounds like RED has received innumerable suggestions. Hopefully, they will cull through them and work with their architects and designers to create a project that we can all point to with pride and respect. I'm glad they are making comments that the design process is still in a fluid state. I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome.

Cityscape will rise to fill this view.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6510/p2180101fo0.jpg

The beauties on Jefferson, directly south of the Cityscape site.
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/3401/p2180098to6.jpg

Another view from the west that will be filled.
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/7239/p2180099ty1.jpg

The seldom seen west facade of the Historic City Hall with its grassy plaza.
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7112/p2180102sk3.jpg

Phoenix Bird sculpture in the same plaza.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3994/p2180104sh5.jpg

Gorgeous facade, fountain and light fixtures on the north side of the Historic City Hall. I had never gone on this side before. What a treasure this building is!
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6402/p2180110ji5.jpg

New City Hall, looking east from the roof of the city parking garage.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7071/p2180095sz0.jpg

[PHX31]

great pics JiminCal... I've never seen that Phoenix bird sculpture, it looks quite cool/nice.

[soleri]

Here's an op-ed piece by the Republic's movement conservative Doug MacEachern. Like most righties (I'll give Bob Robb a pass here), he ignores the whole issue of public subsidies for private projects in order to slay an imaginary dragon. If you want to make political hay out of opposition to a specific proposal, it might be a good idea to look at the huge public investment - ballparks, arenas, convention centers, bioreseach labs, transit, hotels, etc. - that makes downtown what it is. But MacEachern avoids that issue altogether while emphasizing the private investment that would theoretically be there at build-out. No problem. I think private investment is critical. I'm certainly not unwilling to use public money to achieve a desirable public outcome: a functional core. At any rate, here's MacEachern's take. I don't disagree with all of it, just the idea that we should all shut up and let the money guys make the decisions.

CityScape foes are a frustrating, silly group
Feb. 25, 2007 12:00 AM
Doug MacEachern

I don't believe I've ever seen Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon at the end of his rope before.

But there he was . . . legs metaphorically dangling and eyes literally rolling.

Gordon, in a meeting on the downtown CityScape development project, was exasperated. At wits' end.

He was fighting his instincts, which tell him to take citizen concerns seriously, no matter how preposterous they may sound. But the opposition to CityScape - well organized, armed with Web sites and lapel buttons and bereft of reason - finally found his limits. Fighting CityScape to keep that brickyard abomination called Patriots Square intact was just too much.

No Phoenix issue is more perfectly suited to exasperate even the most patient among us than the fight over the downtown CityScape project.

The fact that it has gotten the necessary green lights is almost beside the point. The Phoenix Parks Board (which has the final say over disposition of the city's parks, even faux parks like Patriots) voted 5-2 on Thursday evening to approve the $900 million CityScape design.

The ultimate outcome was a given. It would have been just too insane for any responsible board to side with the dissenters and say no. The exhausting process to get to Thursday's decision, however, should not have been a given. It should not be this difficult for the inner core of a city the size of Phoenix to gain this kind of value.

The message that the CityScape debate has sent to developers curious about investing in downtown Phoenix? Either arrive with limitless patience and the resources to buck weeks or months of frustrating delay or go scrape the desert, instead.

Really, nothing better explains the absurdity of egalitarianism gone mad than the resistance to CityScape, the greatest infusion of private investment into downtown Phoenix ever.

Nothing better explains why developers prefer scraping clean the desert periphery in the suburbs than enduring the torture of instantly organized activists opposed to virtually every infill project in the already developed urban core.

It is the perfect juxtaposition of something very good - that being a huge infusion of private investment into a region that has seen nothing like it in almost 30 years - with something really wretched, which is Patriots Square.

The debate reached its nadir when opponents extended their reservations beyond the usual "sop to developers" language, an argument that under more-reasonable circumstances can have great merit.

Yes, the city has spent enormous sums, haplessly, to make Patriots Square a viable, attractive place. If that investment had not produced a baking brickyard on top and a scary, concrete rainforest of a parking garage below, the investment argument would have a lot more substance to it.

The opposition did not stop there. On various Internet blogs (and, indeed, in the numerous earlier public forums), the opponents argued that CityScape's design is just too suburban for them.

I'm not entirely sure what this means, other than demonstrating that people do enjoy pretending to be urban designers and architects.

But the discussion got silliest when it came to the most fundamental discussion of all: the question of private property vs. public property. And, really, that is the heart of the debate.

Time and again, opponents have argued against the essential nature of CityScape, a project on three square downtown Phoenix blocks, including one square block that is Patriots Square. Oppo-leader Alex Votichenko expressed it best earlier this month at a public hearing on the project's design: "What I see here is not a public park. I see taxpayer-funded landscaping."

Well, no. There's a bit more than that. Like the promise of downtown life. But since development opponents are so fervent in their hostility to the idea of people making money from these deals, they would just as soon keep the forbidding brickyard as it is, thank you very much.



Reach the author at doug.maceachern@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8883.

[Downtown_resident]

If letting the developers and the politicos have their way had given us a great downtown the way it did in Chicago, for instance, MacEachern might have a point. But the strongest evidence against "leaving downtown to the pros" is downtown Phoenix itself. The megaprojects (Chase Field, US Airways, Arizona Center, Dodge Theater, etc.) that these guys have foisted upon us for decades simply haven't given us a 24/7, pedestrian-friendly, vibrant downtown. So why the hell should we defer to their vision?

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[alexjon]

Everyone wants to keep this park, but they complain about a lack of pedestrians... that's just... dumb.

People are not going to come downtown to sit in a park and look at buildings, they're going to go to the restaurants and shops that are all clustered conveniently in one central location-- something Phoenix is devoid of.

There is no nightlife in downtown Phoenix, it's just a sprawled out mess. I'd much rather have a P.F. Chang's and crowds of people than a smug monument to "sticking it to the rich developers".

[HX_Guy]

The megaprojects (Chase Field, US Airways, Arizona Center, Dodge Theater, etc.) that these guys have foisted upon us for decades simply haven't given us a 24/7, pedestrian-friendly, vibrant downtown. So why the hell should we defer to their vision?

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

Maybe this project isn't any different then the rest, but there is a big difference in the timing.

Arizona Center didn't save downtown. Mercado didn't save downtown. Chase Field and US Airways Center also didn't...and neither did Dodge Theatre...

...if you look at them as individual projects.

I see a lot of people putting everything on one project but I'm not understanding why not many are looking at the big picture.

To me, these are all part of a puzzle that is coming together. Like a puzzle, you have a few pieces in place and it doesn't look like much, but the more you add, the more complete the picture starts to look. CityScape might not be the savior, but it will be another piece in place.

[DevdogAZ]

The problem with all of those other projects is that they required people to drive from the suburbs to enjoy them. This means that by the time the event they drove in for is over, they have at least a 30 minute drive ahead of them and so they make a beeline to get out of Dodge.

As HX Guy said, timing is everything. CityScape is coming online at a time when there will be an unprecedented influx of residents and tourists who will be living or staying downtown, and there won't be a need for them to flee the core as soon as an event is over.

One project, or group of projects, is not enough to make a downtown vibrant if it doesn't bring people permanently. This is why current projects like the Convention Center, the Sheraton, Summit, and 44 Monroe will go a long way toward changing the nature of DT and helping to make all those previous projects more successful.

[JimInCal]

:previous: HX, I must agree with you here. I see the other projects more as infrastructure. The big component that has been missing is residential. Cityscape, 44 Monroe, The Summit, Copperpointe, Orpheum Tower, The Jet Apartments, etc. will bring people to the core. People who want to live downtown will want to patronize the amenities that are near them...restaurants, shopping, movies (AZ Center needs a kick in the pants and this will help), live theater, art galeries, concerts, sporting events, strolling through park areas, going to class (hello ASU), etc...

With Light Rail coming on board next year, the new residents will be able to travel around DT very easily and visitors will have another option in getting to downtown that avoids having to find a parking space.

I have made the same puzzle analogy in the past. The big, infrastructure pieces are in place, with light rail and the expanded Civic Center/Hotel coming on board. I don't know why some have a difficult time seeing how the critical mass is assembling and gaining momentum. It seems obvious to me. The fine-grain development will grow along with the major projects as residents and a growing number of visitors drive the market to fulfil their needs and wants ...things as mundane as a grocery or drug store (there are 3 grocery stores now planned for the core), and extravagances like the Monroe Hotel's wine bar and top-floor nightclub. All will add to the snowball that has been making its way slowly down the hill but is now gaining speed and size as it progresses. Isn't this obvious???

[HX_Guy]

Residents living in the core will make a huge impact but I think the increasing variety will help as well. Just one place will get old...you can only go to the same restaurant or bar so many times before you want a change. Piece by piece it's coming together.

I went and saw George Lopez on Friday night...before the show I had a beer and appetizer at Nick's 101 Bistro, then got a ride on one of those bike things to the show...then went to Pizzaria Bianco after the show. It was nice and occupied quite a few hours...downtown was actually a destination and a place to spend a good amount of time, not just go there, do one thing, and then go home. Adding more restaurants, more stores, more people will only help and bring even more variety and options.

[Downtown_resident]

To me, these are all part of a puzzle that is coming together. Like a puzzle, you have a few pieces in place and it doesn't look like much, but the more you add, the more complete the picture starts to look. CityScape might not be the savior, but it will be another piece in place.

I agree with the approach you are advocating: city-building, piece-by-piece. I think that's how it should work. Unfortunately the approach Phoenix has tried for the past four decades has been the "silver-bullet" method-- building a megaproject in the hopes that it singlehandedly will bring back downtown. That was the approach in all the projects I named above, and it's the same mentality that underlies CityScape, hence the three-block megablock style of development.

The piece-by-piece approach is working here as well; it just takes more time to realize its benefits, and the city has failed to notice. I'd argue that the piece-by-piece approach is working in the northern downtown area-- the health of the Roosevelt neighborhood helped give life to Roosevelt Square, which helped beget Fillmore Lofts and Artisan Lofts, which helped beget Portland Place, and, next, the GS3 Condos and the Solomon Tower. Likewise with the commercial/restaurant/entertainment sector-- Modified Arts gave Fate a reason to be downtown, then Fate's success helped give rise to Matt's, which spawned The Roosevelt, and gave hope for Cibo and Carly's, and so on. Underlying all of this was the success of First Fridays.

Unfortunately the city is still locked into its desperation/"silver bullet" mentality. Instead of noting the development of parts of downtown and realizing that-- I think-- success is just around the corner, the city continues to panic and give millions to suburban developers to build PF Chang's anchored-megablocks. It's too bad. With 44 Monroe, Orpheum Lofts, light rail and the Jackson Street Retail District coming on line I bet we could have held out and found a creative solution to be able to rejuvenate and preserve Patriots Park and develop the parking lots on Blocks 22 and 23. Unfortunately, we may never know.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com

[NorthScottsdale]

i think, while we are all sitting here trying to figure out how to "create" a lively downtown, it is already been getting created. i have to agree with HX guy, pieces of the puzzle are coming together. I was downtown last night, i went to a party with some of my ASU buddies and met up with some of the people that we know that go to ASU downtown. We hung out around 4th avenue and jackson, and it was great. there was more than 100 people there, afterwards a bunch of us went to alice cooperstown and had a few drinks there. a couple years ago, i would never have dreamed of going downtown for anything.
like HX guy said, its coming slowly, but its already becoming created. and cityscape wont "make of break" downtown. it is the smaller projects (new bars, restaurants, new retail) that are popping up here and there that are going to attract the most people. And obviously the condo towers will bring hundreds of new residents downtown, so that will help out tremendously as well

[DevdogAZ]

Unfortunately the city is still locked into its desperation/"silver bullet" mentality. Instead of noting the development of parts of downtown and realizing that-- I think-- success is just around the corner, the city continues to panic and give millions to suburban developers to build PF Chang's anchored-megablocks. It's too bad. With 44 Monroe, Orpheum Lofts, light rail and the Jackson Street Retail District coming on line I bet we could have held out and found a creative solution to be able to rejuvenate and preserve Patriots Park and develop the parking lots on Blocks 22 and 23. Unfortunately, we may never know.

http://downtownphoenix.blogspot.com
While I agree that the transformation of DT will not be complete without the small, unique, homegrown retailers and projects, I don't understand the disdain for the large ones. Why all the hate towards CityScape? Do you really think that anyone besides a huge developer with mega-block type plans could afford the land on Blocks 22 and 23 to be able to make anything of them? There is a place for P.F. Changs just like there is a place for the other unique places. They are not mutually exclusive and they CAN coexist.

And while I agree that the current plans for Block 77 are uninspired, they're certainly better than what's there now. What is it about PSP that made people want to "preserve" it? It's ugly, non-functional, and run down. We can argue all day about the best use for that block, but you'll never get everyone to agree and the bottom line is that someone is going to update it and make it more usable.

[HooverDam]

What is it about PSP that made people want to "preserve" it?

I could be wrong here, since I'm not a SavePSP kind of guy but....

I don't think anyone anywhere wanted to save the 'park' the way it is now. Some people wanted it at least brought back to "what it once was" (which from what I hear wasn't much either, but I'm too young to know). But mostly, I think a lot of the opposition was from left leaning (don't mean that negatively) people who are highly opposed to the idea of giving 'public' land to a private developer. From the 3 or 4 meetings I attended, thats the same vibe I kept getting. Some of the SavePSP seemed to hold borderline Marxist/all private property is bad type view points, so if thats where you're coming from, obviously the situation w/ PSP is going to piss you off.

[HX_Guy]

Here is the rendering showing the park space.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e7/joelcontreras/Pics7/d9017392-211b-4c.jpg

[sundevilgrad]

I'm guessing that those are the pedestrian bridges over Central Ave., right? I think it looks pretty cool, even if it's only a glorified shopping plaza. It's still a hell of a lot better than what's there now! I do like the grass, and it looks like they've gotten the hint about shade trees.

[DevdogAZ]

I'm guessing that those are the pedestrian bridges over Central Ave., right? I think it looks pretty cool, even if it's only a glorified shopping plaza. It's still a hell of a lot better than what's there now! I do like the grass, and it looks like they've gotten the hint about shade trees.

I only see one pedestrian bridge over Central, which will be on the north side of the block.

[sundevilgrad]

You are correct. For some reason I thought the people up close were on a bridge, but it's just a balcony

[kevininlb]

:previous: I'll preface by saying i'm no fan of PSP and totally support CityScape. But i have to say, I sort of understand what the PSP supporters are saying about this not really being a park. It sort of reminds me of the short-lived trend in NYC (and probably elsewhere in the 1970s, I think) where big huge buildings were built with park-type areas out front. These things never really took off and I remember way back, when I was growing up in NYC, that there was a lot of talk on news shows about how these areas -- the word is escaping me, oh maybe "plaza" -- sat empty outside of lunch hour. Anyway, I love the rendering and totally support something other than the current PSP.

[CANUC]

Obviously much better than what’s currently there but damn that really is nothing more than a plaza. Is it me or didn’t the site plans seem to have more focal points like water features and ‘art opportunities’? I know it’s a very pre-lim rendering but from the site plan it seemed to have more variation in elevations and public staging areas. Also I’m assuming that is Central Avenue through the middle. If so what’s up with lack of shade? It looks like the trees ran away from the side walks they even have one of their own drawn humans squinting into the 120 degree sun. Oh well hope it gets off the ground soon.

[soleri]

Whether or not this "park" is intended to look like this rendering, there's something fascinating about the starkness of it. I assume the shadowy high-rises in the background are the Wells Fargo and Renaissance towers so the vantage point is east of Central looking west. I'm not sure any of this will really work but I'm reminded of the Disney animated feature The Incredibles where the "city" was cartoonishly midcentury modern. Obviously you'd have more real-world details than what's depicted. Still, the severe modernism here is almost a pleasure.

[phxatty]

I like it. The space is limited, and it needs to be supported by retail or it will just become a place for homeless to collect. That sounds bad, and I don't mean to be insensitive, but that is what PSP is now.

[JI5]

CityScape foes are a frustrating, silly group

Doug McEarchen, Arizona Republic

Feb. 25, 2007 12:00 AM

I don't believe I've ever seen Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon at the end of his rope before.

But there he was . . . legs metaphorically dangling and eyes literally rolling.

Gordon, in a meeting on the downtown CityScape development project, was exasperated. At wits' end.


He was fighting his instincts, which tell him to take citizen concerns seriously, no matter how preposterous they may sound. But the opposition to CityScape - well organized, armed with Web sites and lapel buttons and bereft of reason - finally found his limits. Fighting CityScape to keep that brickyard abomination called Patriots Square intact was just too much.

No Phoenix issue is more perfectly suited to exasperate even the most patient among us than the fight over the downtown CityScape project.

The fact that it has gotten the necessary green lights is almost beside the point. The Phoenix Parks Board (which has the final say over disposition of the city's parks, even faux parks like Patriots) voted 5-2 on Thursday evening to approve the $900 million CityScape design.

The ultimate outcome was a given. It would have been just too insane for any responsible board to side with the dissenters and say no. The exhausting process to get to Thursday's decision, however, should not have been a given. It should not be this difficult for the inner core of a city the size of Phoenix to gain this kind of value.

The message that the CityScape debate has sent to developers curious about investing in downtown Phoenix? Either arrive with limitless patience and the resources to buck weeks or months of frustrating delay or go scrape the desert, instead.

Really, nothing better explains the absurdity of egalitarianism gone mad than the resistance to CityScape, the greatest infusion of private investment into downtown Phoenix ever.

Nothing better explains why developers prefer scraping clean the desert periphery in the suburbs than enduring the torture of instantly organized activists opposed to virtually every infill project in the already developed urban core.

It is the perfect juxtaposition of something very good - that being a huge infusion of private investment into a region that has seen nothing like it in almost 30 years - with something really wretched, which is Patriots Square.

The debate reached its nadir when opponents extended their reservations beyond the usual "sop to developers" language, an argument that under more-reasonable circumstances can have great merit.

Yes, the city has spent enormous sums, haplessly, to make Patriots Square a viable, attractive place. If that investment had not produced a baking brickyard on top and a scary, concrete rainforest of a parking garage below, the investment argument would have a lot more substance to it.

The opposition did not stop there. On various Internet blogs (and, indeed, in the numerous earlier public forums), the opponents argued that CityScape's design is just too suburban for them.

I'm not entirely sure what this means, other than demonstrating that people do enjoy pretending to be urban designers and architects.

But the discussion got silliest when it came to the most fundamental discussion of all: the question of private property vs. public property. And, really, that is the heart of the debate.

Time and again, opponents have argued against the essential nature of CityScape, a project on three square downtown Phoenix blocks, including one square block that is Patriots Square. Oppo-leader Alex Votichenko expressed it best earlier this month at a public hearing on the project's design: "What I see here is not a public park. I see taxpayer-funded landscaping."

Well, no. There's a bit more than that. Like the promise of downtown life. But since development opponents are so fervent in their hostility to the idea of people making money from these deals, they would just as soon keep the forbidding brickyard as it is, thank you very much.

[loftlovr]

That is actually hillarious!
What a good article-

[HooverDam]

I'm not thrilled with the design either, but the Save PSP group shot themselves in the foot with their bizarre tactics. Dressing up in costumes, mocking the mayor, calling a developer the Devil, acting as is all private interests are evil and I'm sure carrying hundreds of copies of Howard Zinn books in your book bag is not a great way to be taken seriously. They came across as kids who missed out on arts and crafts class and are now trying to make up for it.

[Upward]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e7/joelcontreras/Pics7/d9017392-211b-4c.jpg

That actually looks decent!

[HX_Guy]

Here are a couple emails I exchanged with John...

I wanted to see if any new updates are available on the project.

Sounds like we hope to break ground in July if all goes well. We have an update meeting later this week where I should get some more info.

Any word on new renderings?

April-May timeframe from what I’m told.

[Vicelord John]

There were surveyors in the park and the empty parking lot yesterday taking measurements and shit. Not sure if they were in relation to the cityscape or the train.

[sundevilgrad]

Wow, Cityscape has become eerily silent. I thought maybe they would be knee-deep in permitting, but the Phoenix Development permitting website doesn't show any recent updates. I've been downtown for 2 Diamondbacks games and 1 Suns game in the last week and each time I've parked at PSP. Other than Light Rail construction there isn't much of anything going on. It seems like they're going to have an awfully hard time getting to ground breaking in July at this pace.

Does anyone have any kind of news on this?

[wrendog]

This is the first time I have looked at this thread.. Seems VERY similar to the City Creek Center in SLC..

[HX_Guy]

This is an email just received...

"Nothing new of any magnitude to report. Working diligently on the parking garage and overall design."

[kevininlb]

:previous: I have nothing to report, as a way of prefacing what I'm about to say. I met Mayor Gordon last week -- at a convention in Scottsdale (which was billed as being in "phoenix" ... ???) -- and had like 2 seconds to say "hello." I said, "Okay, I moved to Phoenix last year, love it, but we really need CityScape and Jackson Street Entertainment District." He sort of laughed and said "they'll happen," before walking down a Queen-Elizabeth-type of meet-and-greet line. I know, that means nothing. But the whole thing was sort of funny and, in some way, reassuring.