[HX_Guy]

I often hear downtown Phoenix being compared to Denver and San Diego, not as they all are today, but how they used to be in relation to how Phoenix is today. I know nothing about either cities.

- How close were both cities to how Phoenix is today before they had their
downtown revivals?
- What was it that sparked their revivals? Was it a single project or the
culmination of multiple projects that all came together over a few years?
- How close is what is happening in downtown Phoenix today following what
happened in those cities?

These questions are all brought about from a trip I took to San Francisco a week ago. I know, it's not either Denver or San Diego, which I assume San Francisco is a huge leap from even those two...but from Phoenix, it's light years away and it really puts Phoenix in perspective. I don't remotely imagine Phoenix will ever compare to a city like San Francisco, but if we could at least be 1/4 of the way there it would be an achievement.

[PHX31]

I think the revitalization that San Diego and Denver went through is nearly impossible for Phoenix. While they were both seemingly in the doldrums and decaying a decade or two ago, when they started their revitalization they still had a vast stock (especially compared to Phoenix) of turn of the century and early century great buildings. Phoenix has nothing near these two, so I doubt DT Phoenix will ever become like DT San Diego or DT Denver.

But, that's not to say that it can't become as active. With the large tracts of empty lots in downtown and northern downtown, the right developments over a large area (with the right mix of scale, retail, residential, entertainment, etc.) could make for a great setting, especially if a good brand of functional and unique modern architecture is implemented (think blocks buildings of similar function and look to the mixed-use modern looking 3-story building recently completed on the north side of McDowell at about 4th St (? - the triangluar angled one).

But, I don't know that land costs or even the zoning or the leadership and direction of the city will allow it to ever happen for Phoenix.

The two strips of Phoenix that may some day come semi-close to DT San Diego or DT Denver might just be the JSED or, someday, Grand Avenue.

[loftlovr]

Having visited Downtown Denver recently and being a Gaslamp regular- I can comment-

Those cities would be the end result of taking Kierland, Biltmore area, Downtown and Midtown Phoenix and Downtown Tempe in your forearms and squeezing together until you couldn't squeeze no more!

Denver has this amazing mercantile district and 16th street mall trolley-system that is incredible. It is amazing how "sectioned off" that Downtown is (civic area/ government, warehouse, entertainment areas etc) -kind of like how Manhattan is.
Downtown San Diego on weekend nights feels like Vegas. People everywhere- bumper to bumper traffic and zero parking.

Both of those cities have a 15 year head-start on us.
Both have about 10 times (literally) of the interesting red brick/ warehouse style/ old churches and goverment structures and tasteful MCM buildings.
San Diego also has a clutter of extremely tall highrises, both Office and residential.
Both have that 24/7 vibe that doesn't exist here.
They probably have 10 times the amount of nightlife options too with bars and clubs.

Still, there is something to be said about having the "blank canvas" we have here.
It is fun watching and rooting- the thing is- it will probably take 5-10 yrs and not 2 like we all hope.
We have amazing potential with JSED, Cityscape, ASU and the BioMedical district. After lightrail I expect a surge of buildings to sprout up surrounding and when the residential market comes back hopefully many of these vacant lots will fill with mixed-use projects.

The street level is what needs to improve here. There is no connection.
We need the Urbanform project to happen soon!

There are very few vacant lots in Denver or SD's core.
When people from dense cities visit Downtown Phx they are always wowed at the fact that only half our lots are seemingly filled.
ASU is helping out huge with that and will more than likely continue. (look at Tempe)

We have rehashed what we have done wrong as a city (and by City I mean our prior elected officials) and we know what needs to happen with the chicken and the egg syndrome. (people, retail, markets, entertainment, office etc) It is happening slowly.

One problem I see is for example the love- hate for projects like PRD-845. I think it would be cool to see a bunch of those popping up around Downtown. (most like 215 McKinley and Portland Place albeit) A lot of people I talk to refer to PRD-845 as that "moster that doesn't fit in". I think that is the whole point, contrast!

Downtown San Diego was a worn down porn district as little back as the mid 80's I believe. The navy men would come in and go to stripclubs and smut shops and that was it! I think Horton Plaza was what started Gaslamps' come-back. But the way their zoning was, and with so many cool buildings to renovate and not many of them torn down- it was easy to make their boom happen.

Both of those cities do not need shade structures because the buildings are so dense it creates a natural corridor of shade on the streets. It is tough to imagine here!

We can't complain with the current activity level.... We just need to be some-what patient. (but not tolerant)
We as a City have to fight to make this happen!

[denveraztec]

No city will ever be like San Francisco, or Denver/Phoenix/San Diego for that matter. Denver and San Francisco felt the impact of the Gold and Silver rushes in the 1800s and tons of old money came from the east coast as well as from Europe. It is often said that only San Francisco has more victorian homes still standing then Denver. It is also said, and I think the same, that the people in San Diego are as laid back as they are in Denver. But I could see striving to have similarities to what is working for each city.

I have been to all four numerous times and to answer your questions:

Denver had/has a ton of historic warehouses in it's lower region, most were vacant until all the major sports arenas relocated there (I just posted some pics of this area on the SSP City photograph forum). Now those warehouse are worth millions and everyone wants to live in them. With Phoenix moving a few of their staduims downtown, it will see more development there but it may not be significant growth with residential structures as Phoenicians consistently want to move away from downtown. Phoenix also does not have a large number of warehouses around the new arenas that folks would want to move into, but some nice development is happening on Roosevelt. San Diego also felt a boost with Petco Field, but they overbuilt with their condos and now are having the same issues that Miami has with vacancies, not as large but similar.

Denver has always had several neighborhoods surrounding its core and this was well before folks began moving down there (Curtis Park/Capitol Hill/Highlands/Baker - to name a few). With the movement of large entertainment venues there, it enticed Colorado residents to want to live there. Additionally, the Denver voter is like no other in the country. We constantly approve bond issues for improving our city structures and transportation. We have the most agressive light-rail plan in the country and that pride is spreading to our burbs. How many cities actually have a Mayor that is constantly courted to run for higher offices, such as Governor and eventually a President. Our city planers and government officials really listen to our citizens and though not everything is peachy consistently, the fall out is almost always the best decision for the city.

Phoenix has the ability to spread out their structures, which can be nice, but it has also hurt the city by not having a true dense core that is elicits walkability. Phoencians are going to have to change their mindset about living further and further away from the core if the downtown is really going to be vitalized. How that is to happen would require the massive amount of call centers there to relocte from the burbs to downtown. That is one of your top industries along with tourism.

Personally, I like the ease of finding parking anywhere in Phoenix, the people are friendly when it is below 100, your highways are only slick if it rains, the natural setting is unique and awesome and you have great Mexican food! Phoenix should not want to be like any other city and should remain unique. Tap into what is appealing about that city to so many from around the world. You are the 5th largest in the country and there is a reason for it and it can't be because folks want to live in the burbs. You have a good solid six months that people should be out and about but there are few outdoor cafes? Host more conventions other then golf and senior events. Winter Grand Prix, Superbowl, College Bowls, things that can happen there that cannot in winter type cities. Denver has the largest outdoor free skateboard park and water park in the country. These should be in Phoenix with the amount of people you have and the weather. What really needs to happen is for the city government to work closer with the citizens and the citizens need to accept that the conveniences of moving further out may not actually be a convenience. Tempe is doing it right with their downtown, why? Our Governor and Mayor went after the Democratic National Convention and got it, they wanted a new airport/convention center/central library/art museum/light-rail system - and got it, they want the Olymics to come here and with their professionalism and dedication, we will eventually get it. Phoenix is experiencing new growth and not sure how to handle it, but discussions like this and finding out what works elsewhere and implementing it there is a great start.
:cheers:

[denveraztec]

Here are a couple of links to my photos of LoDo and the Golden Triangle areas of Denver:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143312

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143912

And my perspective of Phoenix:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=141386

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=141843

LoftLovr has it right, be patient but not tolerant! Speak up and be involved in what you believe your city should be and can become!:tup:

[Top Of The Park]

...I would add, both Denver and Phoenix had a good supply of older brick buildings in the 50's. In the 60's Denver created DURA, Downtown Urban Renewal Authority, which initially depleted at least 18 square blocks of these older buildings to be replaced by various high rises and whatnot. It never happened to the extent they wanted and many of these blocks became surface parking lots. There are still a few left as it has taken 40 years to fill them. Luckily they didn't bulldose the lower downtown area and Denver had roughly half of what they might have had. Almost all have been restored.

Going back to the 70's I drove for Continental Trailways and got to see plenty of Denver and Phoenix. As far as skyscrapers there wasn't much difference in the two. When oil shale production became a very big thing, Denver started building a lot of new buildings in the late 70's and early 80's before the bottom fell out... many sat empty for years. It is only recently that the vacancy rate has gone under 10%. Denver has always had viable close in neighborhoods. Denver started adding infill in the 90's and hasn't quit.

I have been to Phoenix a dozen times in the last 10 years. I love the smell of the desert, spring training, the foilage, the restaurants, the people. The 3 cities mentioned will never develope in like manner... ever. Phoenix has many new project proposals to go with the ongoing ones. It is doing what it needs to do with light rail and downtown stadiums. St. Louis used to be a pretty run down, dangerous place. Now a dozen rears later, you wouldn't know the place. Phoenix has it's own wonderful identity that I hope never changes.

[HooverDam]

I think in a way this comparative analysis really points out why if Phoenix is to become a good urban environment (or at least, part of the Valley), it will certainly be a "21st Century City." While there are some good opportunities in Phoenix to redo older warehouses and turn them into retail and condos (though most of them are very short, so condo opportunities seem limited) there are far more empty dirt lots and surface parking lots. Phoenix is never going to look like an old industrial city thats been rehabbed and reenergized. Phoenix's only hope in my estimation is to try to fill its empty space w/ cutting edge, modern architecture.

There's probably no other city in America that has the chance to put as much brand new, LEED certified, unique modern architecture in its core as Phoenix. While I'm not a huge fan of PRD845 in particular, I do like the idea of it, and what it was going for. I'd love to see dozens more projects like it through out the core.

Another problem that Downtown Phoenix has is that unlike say Denver which always had solid neighborhoods surrounding its core, downtown Phoenix is surrounded by blight. While most people on this board don't worry about going into Garfield, the University Park neighborhood or Grand Ave, thats not true of most Phoenicians. So in order for downtown to become successful, 'we' have to not only revitalize downtown, but its surrounding areas. Lets be honest, where is the nearest area to downtown that most average folks would consider 'nice'? Probably Encanto and Willo, which are separated from downtown by the I-10 and about 2 miles, too far to walk to downtown.

Sadly, since Phoenix didn't choose Jack Swillings suggested city site (near modern day Washington/44th St), downtown Phoenix is unable to capitalize on the things that make Phoenix unique- desert mountains, hiking trails, buttes and arroyos. Imagine if our downtown core was where say Phoenix Municipal Stadium currently is, with the Papago Buttes surrounding it and the river just to the south- it would amazing. Instead downtowns actual location is just a flat, dusty, dull area.

Furthermore 'we' have done a poor job with the natural environment in the Central City. Driving up the 7s or Central you see a lot of palms and other non native plants- where the hell are the saguaros? Drive out to say Frank Lloyd Wright and 100th st and their medians and sidewalks are beautiful, full of agave, saguaros, prickly pear, et cetera. It looks like Arizona, whereas a lot the Central City looks like a poor mans version of L.A.

I wish every Central City street that has either a suicide lane or turn lane that runs the length of the street would be replaced w/ desert-scaped medians. They do this so well out in the far NE 'burbs (where most of my friends live, so I've been able to see it quite a bit) and it looks amazing. Imagine how much better Roosevelt St would look between 7th st and Central if that (mostly) useless turn lane was full of desert life in the heart of the city. Of course you'd leave cut outs for turn lanes to keep traffic going, but there seems to me no reason to have it run the length of the street. A lot of our core also has these really unique set back sidewalks with spaces for plants, but instead their mostly filled with dirt and some withering palms. Again, if these were filled with barrel cactus, palo verdes, agaves and the like it would really make our core unique.

The Sonoran desert is one of the most unique and beautiful areas of the Earth in my opinion and we've done a terrible job of taking advantage of that in our Central Core. This dates back to our early history when Anglo settlers lead campaigns to push back the desert and copy both architecture and landscaping trends of the East coast, its something we're just now starting to change.

Modern architecture looks great w/ sonoran desert landscaping, and I think an extensive marriage of those two things will be Central Phoenix's savior if its ever to have one.

[loftlovr]

Very cool thread HX_Guy-

Interesting to find out Denver had the "Downtown Urban Renewal" Authority...
WTF? These maniacs should be round up and slapped in their old age!

This happened in Phoenix first with our local politicians green lighting bulldozers to rid many of our gems (Fox theater, Hotel Adams and Hotel Luhrs too... to name a few) and then by razing half of our existing inventory of red brick warehouses for BOB. (I know it had to be done- it is just sad).
Imagine 50 warehouses still in tact- it would be more like LoDo....
(But we needed BOB to create reasons to come Downtown).

Ah well- lets focus on the future!

[enjo13]

My perspective:

I live in downtown Denver, but I've spent a LOT of time in both San Francisco and Phoenix.

I think that Denver's version of revitilization is very much achievable pretty much anywhere. Denver has a huge advantage in the form of its people. They have elected leadership that is EXTREMELY center focused. For quite some time (since the early 80's really) they have worked with the people of Denver to consistently upgrade the center city. They've built pretty much every cultural center either directly in or very close to the urban core. We have all 3 major sports venues downtown. We have a huge performing arts center, convention center, art museums, and a ton of civic buildings all within blocks of each other.

This has been supplemented with a consistent focus on mass transit as a means of transporting people to the core.

The end result is that the people of Denver almost always come downtown to do much of anything. Sure there are exceptions, but for most living in Denver means that your going to visit Downtown on a regular basis. This center-focus has been key, as it's created the environment where programs like FastTracks can happen. In a few short years visiting our core is going to be quick and easy using mass transit for a majority of residents.

This is in sharp contrast to other places I've lived, such as Dallas. There the cultural amenities are spread out all over the place. We rarely visited downtown, and even when we did it was stop and go. We'd eat in Addision, drive to a hockey game, and retreat as quickly as possible.

To me it's this consistent focus on the center city that has been key to Denvers resurgence. That's what can be emulated by cities like Phoenix. By consistently focusing on the core, over a long period of time, Phoenix can achieve incredible things. With the population and technology economy of that city, I'm confident it could be a great urban place to live. The problem is you have to convince your fellow citizens of that... that's the trick.

[mhays]

I agree that a blank slate can have advantages. It's easy to amass large amounts of land for projects. As the downtown-living trend continues, housing can be added very easily in large numbers if the market is deep enough. Same with university buildings and pretty much anything else.

My guess is there's a pent-up demand for more urban living options in Phoenix. That would include people who moved there because they were asked to but who don't subscribe to the Phoenix land-use or lifestyle norms.

I'm way behind on how much university presence is actually happening, but that can be a huge driver. A branch campus can add people at odd hours and help fill the slow times. I hear transit is getting better. Some housing and commercial space is getting built. The best news is that all of these things make the place more viable for the next wave.

My only caveats are that DT Phoenix doesn't have a special topographic feature to look at or sit next to, and a pedestrian-oriented lifestyle would be difficult due to the heat. An agressive street tree program and good architecture would help both.

I hear modern architecture mentioned here. Personally I'd favor a big share of raditional designs mixed with modern.

[1Post2]

I really don't think Denver can give too much credit to the stadiums, even coors field. Downtown's resurgence started in LoDo, and has been picking up momentum since well before 1995. Denver was lucky enough to have a large section of downtown warehouses and brick buildings left largely intact...and what was a bohemian, seedy area 20 years ago has slowly incubated the wealth that now makes it the zip code with the highest average personal income in the city. All the ancillary infill is simply the result of a renewed interest in the area.

Certainly, the stadiums, bars, and night spots have helped put downtown on the map for the casual citizen, and there's a great deal to be said for them. It seems that a good portion of younger people have access to downtown high on their list when considering where to live, which has undeniable impact. Nevertheless, the urban husbandry that has renewed an existing building stock has been key. in areas where the old building stock was destroyed, say in east downtown in the area we are now calling arapahoe square, revitalization has been much slower and more reluctant, and there's much more ground to cover (...with buildings, of course).

going back to the 'blank canvas' concept with phoenix...there really is some potential there, despite all the gaping holes. the phoenix metro certainly has much more money flowing around it than denver, and more people to boot. phoenix can never follow the slower, more organic revitalization that Denver began through its existing building stock, but if the interest takes hold and a market develops, it's like mhays said. the possibilities are huge.

[IdahoMountainBoy]

Just a quick question on the expansion of downtown Phoenix from an outsider. Is there an imposed height limit on downtown and midtown there? I drove from Sedona to Sky Harbor two weeks ago and was surprised how proximate the airport is to the CBD.

Anyway, if there is, that shouldn't be a problem as San Diego has overcome the same issue and Denver successfully (in the long run) relocated theirs 13 years ago.

[MitchCPC]

Ever been to a Lodo bar around 11 pm on a nice summer night? People overflowing into the streets, tons of bike gangs down there doing tricks everywhere it's crazy. I imagine this summer it will really be nuts with more people going to see the Rockies play, that will really help the bars and restaurants down there.

Was there ever a thread started about Denver placing an Olympic bid? If not can somebody tell me more? What about Chicago in 2016?

[MitchCPC]

I need some coffee Chicago doesn't have mountains! duh... could there be a summer and winter Olympics in the same country back to back like that though?

[EngiNerd]

I believe we would be going for the 2018 winter Olympics. I think 2014 has already been selected and is going to be some place in Russia. If Chicago does get the summer 2016 Olympics, I doubt they would also allow the 2018 Olympics to be held in the States as well.

[ski82]

I believe we would be going for the 2018 winter Olympics. I think 2014 has already been selected and is going to be some place in Russia. If Chicago does get the summer 2016 Olympics, I doubt they would also allow the 2018 Olympics to be held in the States as well.

Found this article dated October 2007 as a source for wikipedia.

http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?category=1&id=1191338604

You'd think, with the deadline for a bid being a year away, that there would be more of a public effort at this point. I dunno, maybe thats just the way it works. Also, it will be interesting to see what role 1976 plays. While many have moved past that, I could see a good number of people who actually vote on the thing as being snobby and unforgiving of the situation.

Either way, I think it would be fantastic for Denver to land the games. SLC did a fantastic job in 02 and I'd love to see Denver to get the chance to showcase the region once again. After seeing SLC being an absolute party, I can't imagine what Denver would be like! Where would you guys want Olympic Village?

[PhxSprawler]

This is a great thread. I have only visited Denver a couple of times, and only went downtown for the Mint (I was under 21 and with the parents both times!)

In San Diego, I have spent quite a bit of time in the downtown area to walk around, eat, and enjoy the nightlife- before, during, and after its transition. It always has seemed to be interesting and safe enough to walk around, explore, and get to know the area. Today, it seems even better with its desirable condos and improved shopping.

Enjo13 nailed it in saying there needs to be cultural activities to draw people to downtown. I have often gone through a list of what has made me personally visit downtown areas. It seems to me that Denver and San Diego have added and improved upon all of these downtown needs simultaneously to promote re-birth:

1. Places to Work
2. Places to live
3. Nearly all desirable hotel locations are in the central city.
4. Many live performing arts (Comedy shops, large venues)
5. World-class art/history/science museums
6. Ample shopping
7. Night life
8. Always people on the street (often drunk, high, or homeless at 3 a.m., but nonetheless)
9. Some tourist trap (The arch in St. Louis, ESB & Statue of Liberty in NY, the Mint in Denver, the Space Needle in Seattle, the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, etc.)
10. Sporting Events
11. Transportation Hubs
12. Unique natural landscape
13. Richness of shops, parks, and memorials of sorts to keep exploration interesting and promote walk-ability.
14. Availability of drug stores and convenience stores
15. Recurring events (New Year’s Eve Celebrations, parades, festivals)

I am sure this list is incomplete by many standards, but in my opinion, it seems Phoenix is taking the right steps in becoming a blossoming downtown.

We could even compare the redevelopment to Tempe, which seems to be pumping vitality into its downtown core even faster than Phoenix in many ways. I know San Diego has the Pacific Beach area among several other districts competing for population, and Denver has the not-so-close Boulder, but does anyone have a take on how suburban and/or non-central competition hindered the re-birth of San Diego and Denver?

[MitchCPC]

I think it would be in Vail without a doubt, all the construction they are doing up there. I imagine most of the events would go on there and Beaver Creek with their famous downhill courses.

[ljbuild]

I often hear downtown Phoenix being compared to Denver and San Diego, not as they all are today, but how they used to be in relation to how Phoenix is today. I know nothing about either cities.

- How close were both cities to how Phoenix is today before they had their
downtown revivals?
- What was it that sparked their revivals? Was it a single project or the
culmination of multiple projects that all came together over a few years?
- How close is what is happening in downtown Phoenix today following what
happened in those cities?

These questions are all brought about from a trip I took to San Francisco a week ago. I know, it's not either Denver or San Diego, which I assume San Francisco is a huge leap from even those two...but from Phoenix, it's light years away and it really puts Phoenix in perspective. I don't remotely imagine Phoenix will ever compare to a city like San Francisco, but if we could at least be 1/4 of the way there it would be an achievement.

Just to add to that,
as long as there are "SUN-MERC" Dumb-asses, Phoenix will always be behind.
look what happend to the "W-HOTEL" . And they (a different patch of sun-merc like dumbasses) also tried to get in the way of cityscape to save a "CONCRETE PILE OF RUBBLE" called patriots park.:slob: :slob:
San diego and Denver dont have these idiots influencing their progre

[denveraztec]

Just to add to that,
as long as there are "SUN-MERC" Dumb-asses, Phoenix will always be behind.
look what happend to the "W-HOTEL" . And they (a different patch of sun-merc like dumbasses) also tried to get in the way of cityscape to save a "CONCRETE PILE OF RUBBLE" called patriots park.:slob: :slob:
San diego and Denver dont have these idiots influencing their progre

What is SUN-MERC?

[HooverDam]

What is SUN-MERC?

The Sun Mercantile building is a historic brick warehouse adjacent to the US Airways Center (where the Suns play). Its the last surviving building of a China town that once existed in Phoenix. Suns owner Robert Sarver had plans for a "W" Hotel directly north of it, and the hotel would sort of cantilever over the Sun Merc. However, this plan also called for the removal of the roof of the building (which isn't visible from the street, its a flat roof) and the wooden trusses that supported it inside. Some local Asian Historic preservations got up in arms and took the project to court, it got delayed, the market flattened out and the project never happened.

Sadly, the whole thing could've been avoided had they chosen a different design for the hotel done by local architecture legend Will Bruder (who did the Phoenix Central Library). His design looked a lot cooler and didn't interfere w/ the Sun Merc at all.

[soleri]

What is SUN-MERC?

The Sun Merc is an old brick warehouse, one of the few remaining in downtown. The owner of the Phoenix Suns wanted to build a W Hotel and condo project, part of which would be literally on top of this warehouse. The preservationists went beserk and filed a lawsuit. The project never happened. It's a myth to suggest it didn't happen because of the lawsuit - the DT market for luxury condos is too soft and the developer couldn't make it pencil out.

I'm going to disagree to a certain extent about the "blank slate" advantages of downtown Phoenix. Given a choice, it's always better to have a real city in place rather than empty lots. For one thing, you don't have the high costs of new construction, which are hostile to the kind of businesses you want downtown. The small cafes, the bistros, the one-of-a-kind boutiques really need the cheaper leases that old buildings allow. Ideally, you can have a mix of unique and corporate retail, but if it's only corporate, downtown will be a tougher sell. You can find chain restaurants and retail anywhere in metro Phoenix. Why hassle the parking downtown when you can go to any strip mall and find the same thing?

MHays experience in Seattle shows how blank slates do work. But downtown Seattle is extraordinarily vibrant. A Belltown becomes hot because it feeds off downtown's energy and essentially extends downtown northward. They weren't reinventing the wheel here since the infrastructure of amenities, transportation, and urban culture already existed. For Phoenix, this is an ongoing work in progress made more difficult by the lack of a pre-existing dense core. We're throwing a lot of elements on a bare canvas hoping to create a work of art. But it's not a given that the magic will happen. We hope so, but there's only so much we can do with mega-projects and a new university.

[PHX31]

/\ I think you are discounting the unique, locally owned businesses that are infiltrating Phoenix currently. Assuming Roosevelt is an extension of downtown (somewhat connected via central avenue and 3rd street in the way of older building stock still in place, definitely connected via light rail soon), there are many boutiques, cafes, bars, galleries, businesses, etc. that have sprout up in the area. It would be 100 times easier to progress if Phoenix hadn't destroyed the rest of its built environment, but what is left is actually highly used and the unique, home-grown stuff is in place and coming.

Just some examples: The Roosevelt, Kitchen Sink Studios, Bunky Botique, Modified Arts, The Lost Leaf, that coffee shop near the lost leaf (can't think of the name), Circles, Amsterdam, the list goes on.

[HooverDam]

Soleri, you seem like a natural pessimist, and I'm a natural optimist, so perhaps we'll never agree. But the way you just discount a 'new university' in your last sentence seems crazy to me. How can you not be excited about eventually 15K students spending part of their week downtown, and perhaps up to 4K living there. Look what having a college has done to Tempe. Furthermore every college town/area I've ever been to always has great vitality.

I think you're probably right that its easier if you have old building stock that you can rehab though. For the reasons you mentioned (i.e. its cheaper), but also because its been done more often. Phoenix is going to have to blaze its own trail in a way, there aren't a lot of models out there for Phoenix to follow in my estimation. Where else is there a desert climate, blank slate,with a previously undense core? Dubai I guess, but thats not really a model we can follow.

[Phxbyrd211]

JOHN ELWAY,

At a time when Denver's downtown hadn't yet started coming back there was #7 keeping the whole nation interested in Denver and keeping people coming to the city. No one man has had as big an influence.

[denveraztec]

Thank you for explaining Sun-Merc! As others have comment, Phoenix has the amount of people and the space to make great things happen. So the resources are there, it is changing the thinking from sprawl to core that needs to happen. We just moved our offices from the Metro Center out further north to off of, I think, either Bell or Thunderbird and I-17. Reason was that it was due to the crime in the Metro Center shopping area. I asked why we did not move downtown and the other Mangers there laughed at me. I asked what was so funny and they brought up parking and lack of places to eat. They said there were more restaurants like Wild Flower in the strip malls and they wanted to park their cars where they could occasionally see them from the building during working hours. Those that live way on the other end of town in Awatukee and others in Arrowhead agreed, even though this was a longer commute for them. I asked many questions to try to elicit them to think outside the box and how downtown could help by moving there. They seemed to come around a bit until we got in the cost and size of what was available there verses the Thunderbird site. The debate was over at that point.

Local governments really need to offer incentives to small and large business to locate themselves in the core. Downtown Denver had large retail but lost it to the Cherry Creek shopping Center area (about 3 miles southeast) during our local economic lull of the late 80s and early 90s. It never returned, but small retail is surviving. We have had great luck with local government from Mayor Pena stating, "imagine a great city" back in 82 and now Mayor Hickenlooper trying to draw in international business. We, as citizens, have found that if it does not work - then get involved to change it. Attending city council meetings or zoning discussions helps, but also follow up with calls, e-mails and letters to politicians.

It was a struggle to get the Denver voter to change their thinking, but once they saw a new airport, a new library and museums, they began to realize the bond approvals are necessary. Phoenix has some wonder public institutions, like the library on Central. If such places that have that kind of success and attention are heighten when new development is proposed, more will follow. The growth there is happening at an incredibly fast rate and no reason local government cannot tap into finding out where everyone is coming from and find out what worked in those cities they came from. Interjecting the positive elements will become easier once you have something people can reference. You know folks in Dubai took a look at the EPS in NYC or Petra Towers in Kuala Lumpur and said that is what we want, but better. Phoenix has that ability and if government is holding it back, then let them know they can and will be replaced in the next election. That has always worked here in Denver. If you cannot do the job as Mayor or Governor, you will be replaced and your history will be noted.

[Phxbyrd211]

Dtec,

I'm sorry to say some of those managers sound like idiots. They may be very good at what they do but probably are happy eating at Fridays, shopping at Sam's club and taking their daughters to Hana Montana. That may work for some but not me. I live not far from where your new office is and like being next to the mountain but hell if I'm going to work off the I-17. Unless I own the building the office is in I'm not going to be satisfied in a soul-less Office Space work environment. Money is not everything to me. If I'm not in a central core of some city then I'm keeping my options open.

[denveraztec]

I so agree Phxbyrd211! I had the Managers convinced to move DT in PHX but it was the cost of the space that was the deciding factor. They are very conservative folks who like their SUVs and home theaters. Heck, even when they come to Denver they find hotels in the burbs and I have to drive them downtown to experience the restaurants. They love it but say they would never be able to work and/or live in such a busy environment. I often want to shake them really hard because they don't realize what they have done to the home values in the core and how they have hurt businesses as a whole by move further away from downtown Phoenix. Since I don't live there, my influence is limited.

[soleri]

Hoover Dam, I am a pessimist although 50-some years of living in the least urban large city in America can do that to you. The past 25 years have heralded one salvation after another for downtown. Only later do we discover that the Elixir du Jour hasn't quite revived the patient. And the reasons are simple: cities are organic. They're difficult to invent out of whole cloth for that reason. We're fighting two battles in Phoenix: one to impose an urban template on the empty lots and blight of central Phoenix, and the second, to make the city function on its own, less-than-urban terms. It's a see-saw kind of experience for that reason. It helps explain why some of our primary jewels in the downtown crown are the historic neighborhoods, despite their suburban scale.

Libertarians generally want the market alone to decide our typology, and for that reason, Phoenix is even more prone to spin its wealth to the far periphery. We're not going to solve that problem anytime soon. It's not that downtown hasn't gotten better, but it still mainly a niche neighborhood, and one that is very slow to respond to the huge infusions of government subsidies.

Look at downtown LA, which like ours lost its pre-eminent role as the regional center of a large metroplex. It's very impressive on its own terms and has a wonderful stock of older buildings being retrofitted for condos. It's also a much larger employment center than ours. But for all those virtues, it's also a work in progress, and it's far from being a 24/7 regional core. Los Angeles turned its back on downtown back in the 60s, just like Phoenix did. It sprawled dizzingly because that was the American Dream. The high was sweet in its heyday but the hangover has been long and difficult.

There are a few good portents for downtown Phoenix. ASU is one, light rail is another. We don't yet know what they'll do because Phoenix is sui generis. We're hoping the students will create a market for night-life and some hipster retail. I'm happy that there's some stuff in and around downtown that PHX31listed but it's kind of scraggly. What we want to see are entire streetscapes and districts with this stuff. Mill Avenue illustrates the point best. People are hungry for urban energy but the infrastructure has to be in place. Phoenix is busy creating some of the elements necessary for genuine urbanism and you'll know it's succeeding when the private market takes over. That's the acid test; you'll know downtown has made it when business will move there without being bribed with subsidies and tax breaks.

[Phxbyrd211]

You're about the closest thing we have to a hero around here Dtec. I mean that with all sincerity. You actually tried to make a difference despite failing in the end. If we had a thousand guys like you who put their money where their mouth is Phoenix would be in incredible shape. If you have occasion to move offices again let me suggest perhaps looking a little outside the central core to make a suggestion. You would still reap many of the benefits but some of these folks here need baby steps if you catch my drift.

[denveraztec]

Good suggestion Phxbyrd211! I should have consulted a few of you forumers in my debating attempts. I believe the lease is for 5 years, so I will have the chance again to change the location.

[Phxbyrd211]

Let us know the next time you are coming into town as we might be having a meet-up that same weekend.:cheers:

[Top Of The Park]

I was just looking at Don's photos of Phoenix from the air and noticed downtown Phoenix seems to have two distinct areas of high rises. Is light rail going to connect them and are there plans for buildings in between? It would seem there is the potential there for having one of the longest downtowns anywhere.

Also I know two of the three sports facilities are downtown. Is that where your convention center is and is it used a lot? Having a downtown campus for ASU is really good. Auraria, made up of Metropolitan State, University of Colorado and a third bring 40,000 to 50,000 students downtown daily to downtown Denver.

[Phxbyrd211]

When I think of long downtowns I always think of Toronto.

[PhxSprawler]

I was just looking at Don's photos of Phoenix from the air and noticed downtown Phoenix seems to have two distinct areas of high rises. Is light rail going to connect them and are there plans for buildings in between? It would seem there is the potential there for having one of the longest downtowns anywhere.


The two areas you are seeing are downtown and midtown. Light Rail pass right through the middle (on Central) and connect both areas. It is possible these two districts will connect with high rises, with a few gaps for some historic neighborhoods and parks. The midtown area has the potential for higher skyscrapers, where our downtown is more limited in height by the airport. It is destined to be a great central core, but the question is "when"?

[Phxbyrd211]

when you look at the overhead shots you really see what a beast 7th st. is. I sure wish I could get some high rises on there and incorporate it into the central core.

[combusean]

ljbuild, you have a lot to learn about this city. Phoenix honchos have a horrid track record of projects that functionally address the street, currently witnessed by the variances for the new ASU nursing building's blank walls and empty facades. That was CityScape's early days. Today, even RED agrees that the plans released after we made noise about CityScape were a vast improvement over what they initially came up with. After having personally funded about 90% of the Save Patriots' Park total campaign costs, reading RED spokesman John Bacon's comments in Kontakt Magazine made my money well spent. It solidified the fact that while the campaign "lost," downtown and myself still won out even if the people I worked with do not feel the same. With regards to the W, if it were a real project, it would be under construction or open for business now.

If Phoenix is to develop properly, there have to be disagreements about propositions and projects. Cheerleading and other forms of writing developers the blank check has failed us time and time again.

Anyways, I'm not particularly well traveled but I have been to many of the cities mentioned in this thread and would like to add to the great discussion here via a few broad points.

Infrastructure/central city amenities: Denver's LoDo works well because on either side of that district you have Pepsi Center and Coors Field, tho from what I remember about Denver it was a couple warehouse venues, maybe owned by Hickenlooper that started to finish the job.

In Phoenix, the big box type venues should have been built on downtown's periphery but are instead thrown right in the mix which screws with the pedestrian scale. But as they are lined up they do buffer the warehouse district somewhat from the core which isn't to our advantage today but later on it will be. Things like the Central Library seem a little north and out of the way, but that building's proximity to Hance Park will begin to make sense as the areas to the south develop northward.

The public right of way: First, let's look at the average downtown-sized block. We have our share of superblocks in and around the core but what's done is done--small blocks do wonders for the pedestrian. 300' on either side here is still kind of long, but it's about 300x500' for downtown Denver, 600' for Salt Lake City, tho not quite as good as San Diego which looks like 200x300'. We also seem to have an advantage wherein the width of the roads will generally leave a lot of flexibility for improvements such as trees in the median, wider sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.

BTW, I do like trees in the median but they can be a pain in the ass if not done correctly and you're driving around. Islands in the median combined with access to the surrounding lots necessitate slamming on the brakes and moving to the left, screwing up a lot of traffic flow--see Scottsdale Rd north of the river. Then again, if we were forced to make three rights to make a left it would probably be worth it.

How land is owned and developed privately: Like most of the points here apropos to Phoenix, this helps and hurts us. An average lot size of 50 x 150' give or take isn't that much wider than other cities altho we're a tad on the high end. Where we screwed up, however, is that rather than having houses fill up the lot width we cranked up the side setbacks which I think hurts the neighborhoods' walkability more than a generous front setback might. In other cities where you might have 35' to 40' width, the houses are about 6' apart if that. Here, it's probably closer to 20 feet or so. It's frustrating going to Southern California and seeing the grand old homes and multiplexes like the ones on Roosevelt St just west of Central built both en masse and close together.

However, the lot size helps us because where it might take 3 lots to redevelop something in another city, we can get away with 2 for the same approximate street frontage. Moreover, the single lots here combined with the allies (the public ROW between the streets) are friendlier toward small-scale development like 8-plexes after you account for parking. This is absolutely key after you also account for the patchwork of land ownership. Take another city where you might have a house next to a vacant lot. There, you might have to buy both to redevelop and deal with your neighbor's speculation. Altho an overabundance of highrise zoning seriously encourages holding out here, areas where there isn't that kind of height are ripe for this kind of infill.

Aside from an average downtown-sized lot, there are enough large parcels around the central city that give us an amazing variety of redevelopment options. A theoretical example would be the Union Pacific railyards east of 7th St. I speculate that they could be downsized or eliminated if the enormous Picacho switching yard is built. That's, what, 200, 300 acres of misery right next to downtown? Further east, the current County hospital shares a plot that big with the State mental home, and both of those need to be torn down and replaced elsewhere.

Sotelo, a condo development under construction in Tempe today, hints at Phoenix's simple power tomorrow: A multi-acre, single-use, sprawling, ratty commercial/warehouse site becomes a moderately dense residential community. One owner to sell, one building to be razed, one development to be built, 170 units to be sold. At 4 stories, it's short enough to be done allllll over Phoenix.

But Sotelo's suburban qualities are not likely to be duplicated often. Phoenix is working on a zoning "toolbox" of sorts that will give developers lots of possibilities they don't have today for building urban, and as far as I can tell also make building suburban less of a good idea for everybody else.

Urban Residential (UR) projects stick ground floor retail and residences up to 75'. Altho the other two are more important, the UR is my baby as a simple suggestion sparked a lengthy text amendment process which should be finally approved in March. Planners are also working on Mixed Use 1, 2, and 3 districts which allow 60', 100', and 140' of height respectively tho I wonder why they didn't do it 3 years ago when I told them to. Last to be hashed out is the Planned Unit Development district--PUD--that will let developers write their own standards with regards to setbacks, height, etc but in a more open and accountable public process than rezoning today, so no more backdoor variances later on if things change after the community buys in.

Downtown's districts: One of downtown's issues today is that it is not developing as a cohesive single entity. It may be one when it's done, I don't know. In the meantime, it's probably not supposed to and the redevelopment area is big enough. The reinvestment area includes seven distinct neighborhoods listed here from the north and east: Evans-Churchill, Roosevelt, biotech, ASU, the rest of the core itself, the warehouse district, and Grant Park. I am not aware of a downtown that attempts to cram so much into one spot, so who knows whether it's too "full." It could succeed or fail on that metric alone.

The City cannot renege on its promise separating Evans-Churchill's art venues from the biotech campus at Garfield St. Poorly scaled height has to hold the line outside of the warehouse district and the Evans-Churchill and Roosevelt neighborhoods to keep the Downtown Core, Central Corridor, and other future rail-aligned parts of the city functioning. Concepts like these are going to irk developers left and right, but what gets built has to respect all these different elements if downtown is to succeed. More on this in the next bold point.

Government: Within the core itself, bounded by 3rd Ave to 7th St, the railroad tracks to Fillmore, making about 1/4th of the entire redevelopment area, a special property tax about 50% more than what you'd otherwise pay fuels the quasi-public Downtown Phoenix Partnership's heavily pro-development, no-questions-asked agenda. Its aspects hark back to the closed-government "Phoenix 40" that especially compared to today held a serious amount of power in the city.

In the 60's through the 80's when that political machine was in force, Downtown declined considerably and Midtown developed while Phoenix sprawled to the north. It's unfortunate that Phoenix's share of the skyscraper boom that other cities experienced didn't do a damn thing for the street level or downtown despite tripling the net length of the skyline. But the curious alignment of density and height down Central compared to the rest of the city made light rail that much more of a worthwhile endeavor, and downtown will be at the absolute nexus of whatever regional rail system we end up with.

Anyways, a lot of these ivory tower folks from the Phoenix 40 are back downtown--names might be different but I doubt the agenda has changed much. There's a lot of arrogant, non community-minded focus still on the individual projects' profit or ideals rather than the elements that connect it all together. In terms of the above seven districts' borders, a careful balance has to be met in drawing solid black lines and having ones that are light gray or non-existent.

Another remnant of the Phoenix 40 is in the Planning Commission today, whose members are appointed at large. In a more perfect city, we might have large planning regions and districts like how the 126 Neighborhoods of Phoenix (http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/126_neighborhoods_of_phoenix.png) map is sorted and some process wherein the regional planning commissioners would actually account to somebody.

I note that Denver, San Diego, and many other large cities each have around 100 discrete and contiguous areas that assist the city government in planning and are generally recognized by residents as genuine, bona fide neighborhoods. Today, we have 15 blobs that barely register as common parts of the city to the average Phoenician, let alone neighborhoods. As a result, most Phoenicians will say what arterial intersection they live near rather than the neighborhood for which they're a part. I think this goes hand in hand with a city that is suffering from an apathetic auto-oriented identity crisis.

Downtown won't succeed perfectly if people don't know what or where downtown is and what or where it's not. We do a pretty crappy job of identifying downtown's scope and role in terms of the entire city besides that central square mile or two where things are built. But maybe building things is all it really takes, given that we've had our fair share of market studies and plans that never went anywhere.

We're still reeling from our recent history of Even Mecham and Fife Symington governors and Skip Rimsza as mayor. Mecham and Symington ruined the state's national reputation in the recession that followed the S&L bust when we needed all the help we could get. Rimsza presided over the Garage Mahal's construction and most of the awful superblocks downtown today tho Phoenix has probably had worse people holding the reigns. But compared to our crappy history and current remnants of the Phoenix 40 in the DPP and Planning Commission, I can say this: today, our government is fairly responsive/open, stable, and probably not corrupted.

I say probably because I still don't know how the costs of the Sheraton went up $50 million almost over night and how that may or may not have culminated with the city finance director's suicide a couple years ago. This story was barely investigated or reported.

The 20 year effect: As it's been pointed out, it looks like it took about 20 years for San Diego and Denver to actually thrive. I'm not sure where Phoenix is on this path. My best guess puts us a bit less than half way there, starting with about when Roosevelt Square was built and the light rail was approved by voters. It could really get going in 2009 with damn near everything opening at once and be shortened to maybe a 10 year effect.

Internationalizing, but through nature: A downtown Phoenix on the scale of Downtown Denver or San Diego would do the trick over time. But a highspeed commuter rail/bullet train connecting the Grand Canyon to Flagstaff to Prescott to Wickenburg to Phoenix to Tucson to the Saguaros to the Mexican border would make us a world destination as soon as it opened--the state's climate and topographic extremes could be negotiated within a couple hours. You could ski and swim before lunch! In the meantime, we do an OK job of capitalizing on our ecosystem. We cherish the deserts and forests but they're not the #1 reason we're all here. And we're losing the Grand Canyon to Las Vegas.

Brown and blighted to green and thriving: I am saving these two for last because right now we don't have anything going for us in this department and it's the single most important step for putting people on the street. Today, the dustiness of Phoenix's blight is really a double whammy against us. Somehow the desert that defines luxury in North Scottsdale is the same desert that defines the 'hood outside of downtown. The vacant lots here are always dirt, in Denver, grass grows on them so they don't look like shit. As an outsider, I wouldn't know some Los Angeles neighborhoods are as downtrodden as they are--they're still green. Urban Form may give us a good plan to getting that pedestrian and green space, but its actual construction is not funded yet and I'm not sure how Phoenix will bypass the eminent domain restrictions enacted by voters through Proposition 207.

[HooverDam]

^Great post as always Sean. I especially agree w/ your last point. When I was in St Louis, I'd wander into neighborhoods and later my (local) friends would be like "you were where!?" I didn't realize they were bad areas because they had lots of big trees, and these beautiful old brick buildings.

In Phoenix, I know I'm getting into the hood when the trees start disappearing. Whether they be desert/low water usage trees or not, notice how directly landscaping denotes a good area versus a bad area in Phoenix. The bad areas are like moonscapes with abandoned strip malls on them.

I do wish Phoenix and/or MAG could try for something like LA's http://www.milliontreesla.org project. Perhaps if LA has success with it, Phoenix may try to copy it (good lord knows we don't have the leadership to try something like that on our own).

I also really hope the YourLand project succeeds, it may end up being a big coup for the city. Phoenix has so many abandoned or partially abandoned strip centers, that are set way back from the street with these huge empty parking lots. Many times it even happens in nice areas, i.e. the empty Target on Camelback/7th st and the empty grocery store on Bethany Home and 16th St. Perhaps YourLands redevelopment will spark ideas for things to do with these old centers. As it stands currently, what could even be done w/ that old Target center? Its a huge building that would probably need to be subdivided for smaller businesses and there's way too much surface parking. In my dream world something would get developed on the parking lot, and the shell of the Target would get turned into covered parking.

VVV I can certainly understand that. Thats why I think in things like medians, and other areas where the city is footing the landscaping bill it would be best to go with trees like Palo Verdes which (I assume, since they are native) have less maintenance cost. I'm certainly no tree expert but I'm sure there are trees that require relatively little maintenance, and those should be the ones planted. Also, I'd imagine saguaros, agaves,creosote bushes, et al don't require much if any maintenance, you see them in the far northern exurbs a lot and I think they add to the aesthetic value and and of course to property value.

[PHX31]

Regarding the issue of trees... We all know the benefits of shade in Phoenix in the summer, and we all understand how landscaping and trees can affect the value (actual value, and perceived "aesthetic" value - ie, Hoover's St. louis story). But an underlying issue that I think most of us tree-supporters fail to think about is the maintenance issue of trees and landscaping.

I was in a meeting with a developer, talking about a proposed roundabout at an undisclosed location. The developer is footing the bill for building the roundabout in place of the existing traditional intersection in the government agency's right of way. The issue of landscaped areas within portions of the roundabout came about, and someone mentioned planting several trees (which serve a dual purpose for the roundabout, which I won't get in to). Without even second thought, the developer shot down the idea. Based on so much of his past experience, he knew the agency would rather have some type of hardscape because they wouldn't want to take on the additional responsibility of the maintenance issues and costs associated with trees.

It sucks that there isn't enough money out there, or maybe that places are too cheap, to always and proactively plant tons of trees. But the maintenance issues make some sense.

[PhxPavilion]

I was just looking at Don's photos of Phoenix from the air and noticed downtown Phoenix seems to have two distinct areas of high rises. Is light rail going to connect them and are there plans for buildings in between? It would seem there is the potential there for having one of the longest downtowns anywhere.

Also I know two of the three sports facilities are downtown. Is that where your convention center is and is it used a lot? Having a downtown campus for ASU is really good. Auraria, made up of Metropolitan State, University of Colorado and a third bring 40,000 to 50,000 students downtown daily to downtown Denver.

Phoenix is di-sected by Central Avenue where roads to the east become streets and those to the west become avenues which is the grid design of greater Phoenix. The true downtown core, as some would put it, is the section of towers to the south surrounding Central, the towers to the north are mostly along central and that is considered midtown. The light rail will indeed be traveling on Central that entire way so it will connect both sections. I agree, this should help the two greatly and maybe they will eventually merge into one large downtown. There have been quite a few proposals for towers that would begin to fill in the emptiness that currently exists, so things are changing but it will take some time.

[Phxbyrd211]

First of all lets not be hard on ljbuild as I believe he's or main GAP-fill advocate, a cause I whole-heartily support.

When you mention the large in-fill areas it struck a major cord as I've always thought the state hospital should be moved out of the city. That we now hear the county hospital could move at least some of their facilities is even better since a larger parcel could conceivably be put together. My opinion is the state should move somewhere less urban for several reasons. For one, a mental hospital (or prison for that matter) is not appropriate for an area you wish to redevelop and lure professionals and empty-nesters to move into. Second, it might really help out a community like Casa Grande or Wikenburg to have the jobs and services of a large state facility. And third I think the patients would benefit from a more peaceful setting than SE Phoenix. One wonders what could be done with such a large lot and the first thing that comes to mind is another college.

What type of project would suit the rail yards? It would require a feat of planning that this city has seldom seen.

What I liked most about Yourland was that it was supposed to include a small concert space that maybe was going to be attached to a coffee or wine bar? Is that still part of the plan?

I hope the white elephant at 7th st. and camelback can become a mixed-use mid-rise project with rear parking as you suggest. If light rail moves east on Camelback and north on 7th st. then that corner could become quite powerful.

Finally I don't really believe that Sarver never intended to go ahead with his W project. The coming of the Super Bowl, NBA all-star game and likely MLB All-star game would have been too much for a developer to pass up had the economy stayed strong.

[HX_Guy]

The true downtown core, as some would put it, is the section of towers to the south surrounding Central, the towers to the north are mostly along central and that is considered midtown. The light rail will indeed be traveling on Central that entire way so it will connect both sections. I agree, this should help the two greatly and maybe they will eventually merge into one large downtown. There have been quite a few proposals for towers that would begin to fill in the emptiness that currently exists, so things are changing but it will take some time.

The problem is that the towers on north Central are not urban in any way, they are all setback from the street with landscaping between the sidewalk and the building, plus the entrances are all off the side and not from the street. It looks good as far as the skyline, but that's about all it's good for.

[Phxbyrd211]

There are some places like Fez, the George, Pane Bianco and Thiger that attempt to combat that to name a few.

[PhxPavilion]

The problem is that the towers on north Central are not urban in any way, they are all setback from the street with landscaping between the sidewalk and the building, plus the entrances are all off the side and not from the street. It looks good as far as the skyline, but that's about all it's good for.

That could change with more development, at least the central coridor is more urban than the surrounding suburban.

[combusean]

First of all lets not be hard on ljbuild as I believe he's or main GAP-fill advocate, a cause I whole-heartily support.

I was mostly directing the points listed to the open discussion, I hope that didn't come across as lecturing him. But let me make this clear: the only people holding bad blood over this decision that I know of are him and the NIMBY's. Seems to put things into perspective.

When you mention the large in-fill areas it struck a major cord as I've always thought the state hospital should be moved out of the city. That we now hear the county hospital could move at least some of their facilities is even better since a larger parcel could conceivably be put together. My opinion is the state should move somewhere less urban for several reasons. For one, a mental hospital (or prison for that matter) is not appropriate for an area you wish to redevelop and lure professionals and empty-nesters to move into. Second, it might really help out a community like Casa Grande or Wikenburg to have the jobs and services of a large state facility. And third I think the patients would benefit from a more peaceful setting than SE Phoenix. One wonders what could be done with such a large lot and the first thing that
comes to mind is another college.


I hadn't given much thought to the decision what would go around the county hospital other than a Stapleton-type development but a college there makes an incredible amount of sense. A medium sized, likely private liberal arts college might balance out the high-tech concentrations two miles east and west. It wouldn't compete much with Gateway CC or ASU downtown, altho main campus might be in a run for their money. Let's hope ASU could see their place in the grand scheme of the central city's "Opportunity Corridor" to endorse such an undertaking.

While prisons and asylums are never happy places and don't make good historic preservation cases, a rehabbed mental home would make for a rather interesting setting for such a college.

What type of project would suit the rail yards? It would require a feat of planning that this city has seldom seen.

A logical extension of the Jackson Street Entertainment District, but in a different sense. This puts a new perspective on that whole process. I can't quite lament the warehouse district's "all at once" gentrification given the magnitude of the project and its proximity to downtown.

In the former railyards, even if some/all tracks were removed, noise and other "nuisances" would be a part of day to day life at that development--the airport is right there. But I don't think artists/craftsmen/industrialists would mind. What if the city could just finally lighten the fuck up and "dezone" it. Nobody lives there today so the conditions can be laid out in advance. You can do what you want within your property without things like council and other bureaucratic approval for the most mundane pointless things. The market will decide parking and density. No more "loud party" bullshit. Turn off any implied aesthetic in the public process and enforce only building, public, and aviation safety. ROW improvements? If people can still walk and drive to some standard, have at it.

I hope the white elephant at 7th st. and camelback can become a mixed-use mid-rise project with rear parking as you suggest. If light rail moves east on Camelback and north on 7th st. then that corner could become quite powerful.

East on Camelback too--cut and cover for the stretch east of 32nd Stish to just west of downtown Scottsdale and you have the Arcadia NIMBYs buy-in if they bury the power lines too.

Finally I don't really believe that Sarver never intended to go ahead with his W project. The coming of the Super Bowl, NBA all-star game and likely MLB All-star game would have been too much for a developer to pass up had the economy stayed strong.

The timing of those events and others were also most likely the reason Sarver did not want to negotiate. Maybe he got greedy when money flowed and inked a private deal that was contingent on the flex space and programming, and that source of funding as well as potential others dried up as both the market fizzled and the case dragged on. Bruder's design could have been more expensive and not have satisfied basic requirements hammered out too early on in the development process to get out of the trenches.

He should have known what he was getting into.

[HooverDam]

I hadn't given much thought to the decision what would go around the county hospital other than a Stapleton-type development but a college there makes an incredible amount of sense. A medium sized, likely private liberal arts college might balance out the high-tech concentrations two miles east and west. It wouldn't compete much with Gateway CC or ASU downtown, altho main campus might be in a run for their money. Let's hope ASU could see their place in the grand scheme of the central city's "Opportunity Corridor" to endorse such an undertaking.


Id kill for a private, secular liberal arts college anywhere in Central Phoenix. The Valleys higher education opportunities are severely lacking.

[sad face]

In my opinion Phoenix has the best skyline.:)

[sad face]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/PhoenixDowntown.jpg//770px-PhoenixDowntown.jpg
Does this look boring to you.:D

[PhxPavilion]

It does look good from aerial views but that's about it. Sprawl is no good for pedestrians, especially when there is no shade in 110 degree weather.

[tempedude]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/PhoenixDowntown.jpg//770px-PhoenixDowntown.jpg
Does this look boring to you.:D

that pic is way outdated...not shown is 44 Monroe...the Summit..the Sheraton..ASU dorms..and OCPE(under construction)...etc

[UrbanSky]

In my opinion Phoenix has the best skyline.:)

I would definitely take you to task on that statement...but hey, we all have our own opinions. That is a cool shot of Phoenix though.

[IdahoMountainBoy]

[QUOTE
Does this look boring to you.:D[/QUOTE]

No, not boring. It looks like a decentralized Century City.

[Fidel Castrobot]

*yawn* :sleep:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/PhoenixDowntown.jpg//770px-PhoenixDowntown.jpg
Does this look boring to you.:D

[Top Of The Park]

...no matter how subtle. Phoenix is doing plenty of things very well now....which is fantastic. All great cities are borrowing from other cities...using the ideas that work. :cool:

[sad face]

I didn't notice that it was outdated so here are buildings not shown in picture.

http://phoenixcityliving.typepad.com/phoenix_city_living/images/2007/08/01/sheraton_downtown_phoenix_2.jpg

http://www.visitphoenix.com/assets/whatsnew/sheraton_day_hi.jpg
Sheraton Phoenix

http://www.weknowurban.com/highrise-loft-buildings/Phoenix/Phoenix-Downtown-Midtown/44-Monroe-High-Rise/44-Monroe.jpg

http://www.sonorancity.com/sonoran_city_news/images/2007/07/07/phoenix_020.jpg
44 Monroe

http://www.loveurbanliving.com/rental_floor_plan/summit__yel250.jpg

Except for Summit at Copper Square completed this year.