plus the way that grass area is situated, it doesn't leave any room to build another building with retail or anything later.

It's a complete fucking abortion.

I think it's a great looking building
 

Vicelord, I can understand partially what you are saying, but if you look at other cities like Chicago, this is very common. Look at the Trump Tower, Watertower place, Willis Tower etc. I happen to think this building is one of the best looking modern projects this city has seen. I am happy to see it in another area of downtown. I'm sure it will spur other development in those surrounding blocks. It beats the empty surface lot there now.

I remember one time there was a guy who signed onto this site and his first post was pimping a piece of shit project, turned out he was the developer............ :shrug:

No, I am not the developer.

What would you like to see there? The folks who ran this city in the 60's and 70's decided historical buildings were garbage and tore them down. Now developers are starting to come back and infill these ugly surface lots and dirt lots. Class A space is running low and I would bet this building looks TEN times better than the Collier building across from Cityscape. Same old boring design they used on the BOA building.

The building in question could easily fit in a half block while maintaining zero setbacks.

This isn't Denver Tech Center, it's downtown.

That design is only slightly better than the surface parking that is currently there. A big parking garage facing 3 streets, including the busiest (VB), it takes up the whole city block, and the big pointless grass front yard. This is like the skyscraper equivalent of a snout-house. I'm sure this is just an early rendering though and it will get better.

Why aren't the parking podium and building integrated? More expensive to construct and thus the developer won't spend the money? I can't think of any new building built in the past 20 years that has a separate parking garage.

That is a giant waste of space... I hope they get integrated into one building... above ground would make it cheaper to construct and also make the tower taller and more prominent/visible. May make it more marketable.

EDIT: OK, I now see that it is kind of integrated. But that has to be the biggest parking garage in the entire city (dedicated to a single tower, garage mahal, etc. not included).

Downtown Phoenix is beyond the point of having to just be happy anyone is developing here. Yes we need more office towers, and Class A office space is great. But does that mean we should accept a very poorly design project like this? No. You wouldn't see this built in Chicago, NYC, LA or even Denver, so why is it OK in Phoenix?

When engaging in this discussion, just ignore how the tower looks, its fine. Its not an iconic building, but its not a boring ugly beige thing like Colliers BofA tower either. I'd be happy to have it on my skyline, and the blue will compliment the Chase Tower, OCPE and 44 Monroe quite well. I bet it'll look really nice from Civic Space Park.

Look at how the site is laid out though, its a mess and it doesn't seem like there should be any argument/discussion on this point. Lets go over the mistakes it makes:

1. Why is it facing Monroe and not VB?
If you're not going develop a project large enough to front both Monroe and VB, then VB should be the obvious front facade of the project. VB has much more potential as a walkable, urban street, hopefully lined with retail.

The East half of VB downtown already sees some of the most pedestrians due to the Herberger, Sheraton, Ch 12 window thingy, AZ Center, St Marys, people walking to the Convention Center, etc. We need to expand that now onto West VB.

Monroe in that area has a huge parking garage and the blank walls of the Qwest building to contend with. Its unlikely that West Monroe will ever become a major urban, walkable street. It should be thought of and classified as a secondary street that cyclists can use to avoid heavier traffic and such.

2. Why such a giant parking structure?
The projects site brags about how near it is to transit, but then plans to plop a huge parking garage in the middle of Downtown. Obviously we're not to the point (and likely never will be) that towers in Downtown can be built with zero parking, but that thing is a monstrosity.

3. Where's the multiple uses?
Doesn't the Urban Form Code tell people they need to have buildings with multiple uses? Where's the retail? Hotels? Living space? etc. I don't think one tower needs to be all things to all people, but it should at least have some freakin' ground floor retail.


On a related note, I emailed a VERY NICELY worded response to the developer outlining my concerns and how they might be able to make the project the best thing going downtown. Unsurprisingly instead of a thoughtful response of "oh geeze, I hadn't thought of those things" I got this back:

"Mr.Novak,excuse me but who are you and what is your interest?"

Until we get developers who really "get it" our Downtown is going to continue to suck.

you did not actually get that back verbatim.....

Yep! thats just copy and pasted.

Did you respond back? I'd be interested to hear the back and forth (if there is any more).

yeah you could have some fun with that one

I did respond, yes. Here's my response....which I realize now, shouldve been more pithy. I have a tendency to be long winded :( Brevity is the soul of wit..gotta remind myself that.

I think my line about a "C-" project was probably a bit harsh. Ah well. Already hit send!

You have more restraint than I.

Would have been nice if you offered more ideas to show your constructiveness.

Oh I did, I outlined what they could do better in my initial email. IE a smaller parking podium, incorporating retail, taking up less of the lot, not having blank walls on 3 sides, etc.

Hmm...here are my thoughts on this...

I have to say I really like how the building looks. It's certainly much more interesting than any other building we have downtownI would say. I am not a fan of the big parking garage and I would that it rather it faced Van Buren but I can see why they went the way they did.

They really should of kept the parking garage to just half of the block, leaving the other half for future development. To get the amount of parking they want though, that would of meant a taller parking structure which would have meant more money. I know we all want them to build less parking but I can guarantee that potential companies looking at this building will want parking and probably the more, the better.

The Van Buren vs Monroe frontage I think has to do with two things, the address and the surrounding area. Look at the aerial image...if the building faced VB, it would face a car repair shop along with surface parking on three sides. I'm just guessing but this wouldn't be very attractive to potential companies. As for the address...do you guys remember what 1CPE did? They changed their address from E. Van Buren St. to N. Central Ave.
This developer might feel the same, that having an address of 200 W. Van Buren St. may not ring quite right with people and therefore they are electing to place the building on Monroe. It's petty, and just a guess, but it could be one of the reasons behind it.

I know we all wish that we had these builders that cared about the city and not just their product that unfortunately that isn't the case it seems. These builders are doing this to make money, they build the building, sell it, lease it whatever and move on. They aren't doing this for the good of the city.

Back to the building itself, the Fact Sheet PDF off their site says the building will be 13' floor to floor slab height, and it looks to be 22 floors, but the lobby is a bit taller so probably in the 295'-300' range for the height.

http://nitnelav.com/gollub/gollub4.jpg

http://nitnelav.com/gollub/gollub1.jpg

http://nitnelav.com/gollub/gollub2.jpg

http://nitnelav.com/gollub/gollub3.jpg

I'm late to the game and had a long response all set to post and realized it's exactly what Hoover said on post #66. Well said Hoover. Sorry I don't have more input, but what else can be said. This same company has an entire block in Chicago, but the difference is that the Hancock tower stands on it. We get 23 stories and a parking garage. Too bad Phoenix didn't learn from Wells Fargo tower because this new project is the same, just 30 years later.

The silver lining: The Urban Form Code is now fully implemented and is law. From the renderings this tower basically flies in the face of the Urban Form Code. So if the developers are in love with this design and unwilling to modify it extensively we'll get to see exactly how much teeth the City is willing to put into the Urban Form Code.

I'm going to take a guess here and say we are going to see a lot of applications for variances. :P

This tower is shit. I can't believe this is being proposed here. It's like the architects didn't do any design for the site and are recycling a suburban project.

I alerted Downtown Voices to this thing and I'll write a letter to the mayor and planning departments in a bit. If this thing gets its variances and gets built I will have lost all faith in the public process.