^ Agreed. "Better than the empty parking lot" is the lowest standard you can have for downtown's growth. Arguably, it's not even a standard--I'd almost rather have a parking lot left unbuilt as an option for better growth in the future instead of building anti-urban crap today.

Additionally, the issue was the giant (3/4) garage frontages, and massive setbacks on Van Buren and Monroe. That just does not promote an active street scene in ANY way.

Well, to be fair, that huge set-back and garage facade would be covered by the second phase of the project. I don't really understand why the developer didn't release renderings or plans that clearly marked this was a two phase project. It would probably address a lot of the concerns that we all have about it.

If CityScape is teaching us anything, it is that not all second phases are doomed to fail. So I am sure some of us would be more open to the current renderings if we could see that the next phase would include retail and wrap the garage nicely. Lets face it, it makes more sense to have retail facing VanBuren than Monroe.

I understand your point, but generally, second phases usually don't pan out. Commercial real estate comes in cycles. If this building were approved tomorrow it wouldn't open for at least another 2 years. Then, with all intentions to build a second phase; the economy collapses again. Now, you have a permanent or long-term building with a garage facing Van Buren. If you don't believe me on the second phase projects rarely happen, just think of The Viad Tower, The punchcard building at Central and Osborn, Colliers Center, Cityscape scale down and release of third parcel, Arizona Center, Hayden Ferry, etc.

Yea, I don't buy that CityScape's residential tower proves anything. That entire project changed courses so many times and was scaled back so much. Didn't the project require a certain amount of hotel and residential units be completed at first to even qualify it for the financial benefits it received from the city?

One needs to look no further than the concrete pad at Colliers, multiple grassy knolls at Arizona Center, parking at OCPE, and so on.. to see that second phase rarely turn out.

In addition, articles mentioned that there weren't even plans for the grass setback on VB; rather, that the setback was left for "future, possible residential development," I believe. Some articles even made it seem like they were planning to sell that piece of land off.

Nothing indicated that these future developments were likely to happen, or likely to happen within a decent timeframe.

I would rather a less-glamorous, mixed use project take up only half the plot and actually face one of the streets- preferably VB with spots for a large-scale retail tenant and smaller spots for businesses that could complement Crescent Ballroom. Something like a Buffalo Exchange or Kohl's, with an art gallery or music store next-door would seem to fit into the area demographics, and push development forward by getting a large retail tenant on VB, in hopes of finally getting the ball rolling (since that area is zoned for large retail, as Hoover points out frequently).

The last thing that part of town needs is more parking garages fronting the streets, no matter show "temporary that is." VB and Adams are just decimated by these deadzones west of Central.