Phoenix CityScape Thread

[wissundevil06]

Very nice and well written article. This project alone will forsure spark a development boom downtown! Fingers crossed atleast

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

CityScape backers' persistence pays off

Oct. 26, 2007 09:45 AM
It is both ironic and interesting that the original town site of Phoenix, the parcel surrounding Central Avenue and Washington Street, home to the first commercial buildings in the city, is now the focus of a commercial rebirth downtown.

For most of the past 50 years, those core blocks have been an eyesore, a microcosm of the Phoenix downtown itself: abandoned, lifeless, underutilized, home only to transients. Scores of city officials tried to breathe new energy and purpose into the area. Over the years, countless developers and businesses considered the site where George Luhrs, John Y.T. Smith and Edward Irvine put down roots more than a century ago. And decided not to risk it.

The area deteriorated, then stayed dormant since the 1960s.
advertisement


Until now.

CityScape's developers and financial backers are putting up to $900 million on this project, the largest of its kind in Phoenix history. They are betting on a future for the downtown no one else - other than the city's elected officials - has been willing to invest.

Nor was CityScape easy to put together. It involved several owners, multiple partners, painstaking, laborious negotiations to acquire the land and the careful recruitment of solid, serious tenants.

The development is a commercial one, with office space, retail, hotels and upscale (not luxury) residential. It is neither a shopping mall nor a central park.

Nor should it be.

What it is, however, is no less than the most comprehensive commitment to the Phoenix downtown by a private developer. Not world class - we overuse that word anyway - but an exciting, signature project that will infuse new life, new jobs, new activity and new people into an area that has been in desperate need of all of that.

In the past five years, one by one, a new downtown has been forming. Residential condos, apartments and student dormitories are under construction. All have lamented the lack of a downtown grocery. AJ's Fine Foods will be the most welcome downtown arrival since . . . well . . . the Phoenix Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks.

For decades, city fathers longed for a third large downtown hotel to attract larger national conventions. Alas, in their long frustration, they decided to build one themselves. CityScape holds the promise of two specialized, "boutique" hotels in the next five years, adding 400 rooms.

The core office tenant is Wachovia, the nation's fourth-largest bank and a giant in securities and investment brokerage, having recently acquired A.G. Edwards. Wachovia will be the signature tenant in a 600,000-square-foot office building on Washington Street between Central and First Street.

Some folks were hoping for a "destination place," unique, distinctive and "world class," a development that would define the Phoenix skyline.

This is not that. In a sense, it probably is something more. It is an affirmation in the city's future, that the recent energy, growth and investment in the downtown make it ripe for a project of this scope and expense. Not Tempe. Not Scottsdale. Not Desert Ridge. Not the Camelback Corridor. But Downtown.

That in itself is a development worth recognizing and cheering.

Sounds like an incredibly promising move for Downtown, and something to look forward to if I end up moving back to Phoenix.

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by Archdevil

I disagree! Really who would this apply to? Bums? Protestors? Is anyone going to shy away from entering a park that is surrounded by retail? I don't think they need to put some grand entrance that says "Public", seems obvious to me. This Joel Nilsson sounds like one of the people that were originaly against this project to begin with, just trying to stir up trouble again.

The only thing they need to do to make the public space inviting and utilized is ensure that the retailers that ring the park area (AJ's, a bookstore, a restaurant) are the types of places people will go/shop. If people are going to these establishments, they'll "discover" the open space and it will be utilized just fine. If the retail is dead, the open space will be dead too, and become a hang out for bums, just like PSP was. Putting up some kind of "Grand Entrance" isn't going to get people inside. It's the retailers and the presence of people that's going to get more people inside.

[combusean]

Since this park thing, I've been thinking that it's called "open space" precisely because you don't have people falling all over you when you're trying to relax.

Granted, that doesn't mean sterile nasty concrete plazas like the usual fare, but it also doesn't mean cramming every last square inch of space all over downtown with people. But, ya know, if we did--that'd be a great problem to have.

[HX_Guy]

Video done by Channel 12/AZCentral with John Bacon talking about the project...and he mentions 385' for the Wachovia tower!

http://www.azcentral.com/phpAPP/mult...tyscapetourweb

[AZ KID]

Wow great find HX Guy

[PHX_PD]

Not a whole lot of new info here, but a good overview of the situation with the FAA:

High-rise project raises FAA worries

510-foot Phoenix tower would be tallest building in Arizona

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 10, 2007 12:00 AM

FAA officials say building heights proposed for a $900 million Phoenix development are too tall and could interfere with aircraft flying over downtown.

"The structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation," FAA analyst Robert van Haastert wrote in an October letter to Scottsdale-based RED Development, which is building CityScape in downtown Phoenix.

If further analysis confirms the FAA's initial findings, RED could be denied a building permit for the project, city officials said.

CityScape, which will take over Patriots Square, broke ground last month to bring shopping, a hotel, residents and 2,500 jobs to downtown.

Four towers are ultimately planned for the project, covering First Avenue to Second Street from Washington to Jefferson streets.

The development would include a 375-foot office building and a larger hotel and condominium tower that, if built at 510 feet, would be the largest building in Arizona. Two other towers could be added later.

An initial FAA analysis this summer said no building at CityScape should be taller than 355 feet. Otherwise, the agency said, the towers would "punch up" into the established buffer between buildings and aircraft flying to and from Sky Harbor International Airport.

The FAA requires a certain amount of open airspace around planes as they take off and land. CityScape would enter that airspace for two of Sky Harbor's runways if built to current specifications, the FAA said.

The developers and Phoenix, which runs the airport, dispute the FAA's findings. They say buildings taller than 355 feet pose no hazard to aviation. An analysis of downtown Phoenix's topography completed last year by the city Aviation Department showed that taller buildings were appropriate for the site, said Jane Morris, deputy aviation director.

Both Phoenix and RED played down the significance of the FAA notice, saying many downtown projects received similar letters but ultimately worked out agreements with the federal agency.

"We don't have any real concern over it," said Jeff Moloznik, development manager for RED. "We just look at it as part of the normal development process."

In downtown Phoenix, the Sheraton Hotel and aborted W Hotel both were labeled "presumed hazards" before ultimately getting approval from the FAA, the city said.

"Every tall building near an airport is a presumed hazard," said David Krietor, a deputy city manager who oversees aviation. "Basically, in the FAA parlance, that means 'we don't know enough about the project.' "

The FAA disputed that characterization, saying its analysis of the CityScape structures raised legitimate concerns.

"We've made a preliminary conclusion that a structure of this height, in that location, would pose a hazard to air navigation," Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman, said.

RED and the FAA are now exchanging land-survey information in an effort to resolve the conflict. If the FAA cannot be convinced that CityScape is safe, the agency might pressure RED to reduce the height of its towers.

RED officials say the towers will likely be shorter than planned anyway because of lower demand in the residential market. But they still intend to build higher than 355 feet.

CityScape's first phase is scheduled to open in late 2009 with anchor tenants including the financial-services firm Wachovia Corp., P.F. Chang's China Bistro and AJ's Fine Foods.

In 2010, the 250-room Hotel Palomar plans to open on the site.

The project's first phase would include 1,200 residential units.

CityScape is supported by more than $120 million in incentives from Phoenix. The city will spend $96.5 million to purchase the development's underground parking garage and to repair an existing garage.

Phoenix also will waive property taxes on the project for eight years, an incentive worth an estimated $26 million.

Krietor said he was confident the city's analysis of the property would convince the FAA that CityScape is safe to build.

"We have not had a project yet where our analysis was not proven to be accurate, where it wasn't determined to not be a hazard," he said.

[somethingfast]

^ This is outrageous imho. The FAA cannot make such unreasonable threats of a city about buildings. They are acting like thugs. I just don't see how this is such an issue for Phoenix when San Diego has taller buildings and the plans fly CLOSER to them. It just seems there's always so much stacked against anyone who wants to build anything in DT. No the f**k wonder nobody ever builds anything there. Absurd. FAA, go fly a kite. I mean, we're talking about 27 feet difference between Chase and these buildings. Do you think the FAA was crying wolf way back in 1973???? I think not.

[Don B.]

^ I tend to agree with you, somethingfast, but remember that Cityscape is two blocks closer to the flight paths than Chase Tower.

I'm sure Phoenix, the FAA and the developer will get this worked out.

As much as we want a new tallest (One Central Park East certainly could have been it), tall buildings do not make a great downtown. Many European cities have shorter downtowns but they are hopping. San Diego's downtown is great and their tallest is only 17 feet taller than ours. As long as Cityscape still happens, even if it ends up being only 450' for the tallest tower in the project, I can live with that.

--don

[tempedude]

Just a minor detail. The reporter said that 2 buildings are to be built first and then the other 2 added later. Didn't the developer say at the unveiling that Wachovia tower would start first, then they would start on the Palomar hotel/condo tower(think I have the name right without going to look it up lol) and the Twelve Hotel/condo tower at the same time around mid 2008?

Anyway ultimately I think Cityscape will overcome this little bump and will be built as planned. Look if the Sheraton and the (sniff sniff..I miss you) W Hotel were approved then so will Cityscape.

And, this is basically old news anyway. Lawd I hate government red tape.

[kevininlb]

What I'm bummed about is that RED is saying they're going shorter regardless of the FAA. Key disappointing phrase: RED officials say the towers will likely be shorter than planned anyway...

[somethingfast]

Maybe the city of Phoenix should encourage developers to build tallies a bit farther north of Chase? Incentivize them without going crazy. There's no good reason why Phoenix being the 5th largest city in the US should not have a new tallest by now. Don, I agree that tall buildings don't necessarily mean a good downtown but Phoenix definitely has an identity problem and, like it or not, is sorta the laughing stock of the nation if not the world in terms of DT "impressiveness" relative to size. A new tallest would help. Phoenix is about to take its lumps with the RE downfall and I think it needs this more than ever. The FAA needs to back off and stop sounding the alarms.

[Don B.]

^ Well, Phoenix really isn't the 5th largest city in the U.S. That's using the arbitrary city limits definition. Metro areas numbers are far more meaningful and in that aspect, Phoenix is more like the 12th or 13th largest city in the U.S.

As an example, no one who knows cities would ever consider Phoenix larger than Boston or Philadelphia. Both cities have massive belts of suburbs and are really much larger (not to mention much older) than Phoenix. To wit:

Arbitrary city limit populations:

1. Phoenix: 600 square miles - 1.53 million
2. Philadelphia: 139 square miles - 1.45 million
3. Boston: 38 square miles - 580,000

Metro area populations:

1. Philadelphia: 6.3 million
2. Boston: 5.4 million
3. Phoenix: 4.3 million

Put another way, Philadelphia is two Tucson metro areas bigger than Phoenix.

That being said, yes Phoenix could use some 600 or 700 foot towers for her size. For example, my hometown of Kansas City (less than half the size of Phoenix's 4.3 million in the metro area) has four skyscrapers taller than Phoenix's tallest, the tallest being One Kansas City Place, built in the late 1980s and 630 feet tall.

Let's just not confuse taller buildings with having a great downtown.

--don

[Tfom]

I think we all wanted a new tallest because they are cool. Like Kevinlb I think the most dissapointing thing is what RED said about market conditions. Why not build a taller hotel then. That's one area that doesn't seem to have a demand problem right now. I think the 355' thing is kind of silly and nothing to worry about, considering Bank of America is 360'. Someone is just covering their ass.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ I tend to agree with you, somethingfast, but remember that Cityscape is two blocks closer to the flight paths than Chase Tower.


--don

Yes, but also remember that the W Hotel was yet another block further south and almost 3 blocks further east toward to the runways then where CityScape would go, and that got the ok for 450'.

I think at a minimum CityScape will get the ok for the same heigh, 450', which it sounds like they want to minimize it to anyway. The original renderings showed a 45 story tower and the newest only have 37...keeping things proportionate, if 45 stories meant 510', then 37 means only about 420'.

[kevininlb]

Originally Posted by Don B.

^ Well, Phoenix really isn't the 5th largest city in the U.S. That's using the arbitrary city limits definition. Metro areas numbers are far more meaningful and in that aspect, Phoenix is more like the 12th or 13th largest city in the U.S.

As an example, no one who knows cities would ever consider Phoenix larger than Boston or Philadelphia. Both cities have massive belts of suburbs and are really much larger (not to mention much older) than Phoenix. To wit:

Arbitrary city limit populations:

1. Phoenix: 600 square miles - 1.53 million
2. Philadelphia: 139 square miles - 1.45 million
3. Boston: 38 square miles - 580,000

Metro area populations:

1. Philadelphia: 6.3 million
2. Boston: 5.4 million
3. Phoenix: 4.3 million

Put another way, Philadelphia is two Tucson metro areas bigger than Phoenix.

That being said, yes Phoenix could use some 600 or 700 foot towers for her size. For example, my hometown of Kansas City (less than half the size of Phoenix's 4.3 million in the metro area) has four skyscrapers taller than Phoenix's tallest, the tallest being One Kansas City Place, built in the late 1980s and 630 feet tall.

Let's just not confuse taller buildings with having a great downtown.

--don

You know, Don, I understand your point. But this whole argument -- often cited when Phoenix's population comes up -- really doesn't hold much weight. Look at the top 10 cities and Phoenix's geographic size isn't exactly grossly out of whack (L.A., for example). These are 2000 census figures, so slighty outdated, but still... Anyway, what's the real measure...metro? Okay...anyone have square miles per metro? I suspect the Philly metro is bigger than Phoenix in square miles but not sure.

Municipality State 2000 Population 2000 Land Area in Square Miles
New York city New York 8,008,278 303.3
Los Angeles city California 3,694,820 469.1
Chicago city Illinois 2,896,016 227.1
Houston city Texas 1,953,631 579.5
Philadelphia city Pennsylvania 1,517,550 135.1
Phoenix city Arizona 1,321,045 474.9
San Diego city California 1,223,400 324.4
Dallas city Texas 1,188,580 342.6
San Antonio city Texas 1,144,646 407.6
Detroit city Michigan 951,270 138.8

[JimInCal]

I for one will be disappointed if Cityscape trims the height of the hotel/condo tower. Sure; height doesn't necessarily make a great downtown, but 510' really isn't all that high comparatively speaking. A new tallest is more a symbol of Phoenix finally starting to come of age as a real city, counter to its reputation as a mass of suburbia with a weak central core.

I know that the condo market is weak today, but does anyone really know what it will be like when the initial tower comes on line in 2-3 years? Economic prognostication is an inexact science at best. I wish RED had the juevos to take the risk, assuming they can maneuver thru the FAA crap, to just make the statement with the 44-story tower.

Being the tallest building in AZ in itself can be a great marketing tool to woo potential buyers. The location is incredible: light rail on three sides, two major league sports venues within a short walk, a vastly expanding convention center, a major entertainment district about to pop, an unprescedented mix of amenities at your doorstep, major employers in government, banking and education a stone's throw away...need I go on. I don't buy "the weak market" excuse. LET'S HAVE SOME VISION, FOR A CHANGE!

[tempedude]

Hallelujah!!! amen

[PHX NATIVE 929]

Pretty unimpressive journalism by the AZ Republic on this one. Not only did they present this "news" in mid-November that HX reported to us weeks ago (I believe from an FAA website(?)), but the paper also fails to tell us when the issue is expected to be resolved. Whether or not this issue will cause any construction delays would probably also be worth mentioning.

[HX_Guy]

I stumbled across the FAA report on October 3rd and they are just now reporting on it. I wouldn't be surprised if a resolution is already in the works and the AZ Republic doesn't even know about it yet...they already misreported the phases of the project, what's to say anything else they are reporting has any credibility?