Phoenix CityScape Thread

[Vicelord John]

you guys are too picky. I don't care what cityscape ends up being, as long as its shit I can walk to. My local circle K I cant even walk to cause the neighborhood between me and it is scary so I welcome anything nice.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by John_Vandercook

you guys are too picky. I don't care what cityscape ends up being, as long as its shit I can walk to. My local circle K I cant even walk to cause the neighborhood between me and it is scary so I welcome anything nice.

I think a lot us are just so excited about it that we want it to be perfect.I want friends visiting from placed like San Diego and San Francisco to visit it and think "wow, this is neat and unique I wish my city had something like it."

[vertex]

Folks, I like most of these suggestions, especially when it comes to creating more contiguous open space. But as I understand it, the parking garage under the current PSP was supposed to be preserved. Is that going to prohibit some of the taller towers from being built on the western block?

[sundevilgrad]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

I think you are right, but I think that just comes with a downtown as it increases its density. Really is 44 Monroe going to have a ton of great views? A lot of its occupants will just be staring at another building across the street.

Check out Vancouver, B.C. if you ever get a chance. 30-40 years ago they made a consicious decision to create urban density, eliminate sprawl, yet still keep the incredible views of the water and the North Shore Mountains. They have done an amazing job. There aren't any supertalls, no super blocks (like the cavernous urban canyons you find in NYC), and almost all of the highrises have beautiful views.

It can be done, you just need to plan accordingly.

[soleri]

I was in Vancouver last month and this was the view from my hotel window. The government does demand "view cones" in which there must be some gaps between high-rises. Usually, this translates to some partial open views for most condo dwellers.

44 Monroe is odd that, given the huge amount of available land in and around downtown, it's being built nearly flush to the US Bank Building. There will be views off to the east and west, but none directly south. The views to the north, however, will be open and unobstructed. Everyone else, however, will get to enjoy a canyon like effect on 1st Avenue, if only for three blocks.

[HX_Guy]

That building there in the middle of your picture actually resembles 44 Monroe quite a bit, dont you think?

[HooverDam]

Back to Combuseans rendering for a second.....I assume you've emailed this RED/the city parks board?

Also, at the meeting on the 22nd, is this something you'd be able to present? I've only been to a few city meetings, so I don't know all the silly rules. Would you be able to explain to people what a HUGE improvement your design is, or would they just tell you to sit down and shut up?

[HX_Guy]

I'm a bit confused about the meeting on Feb. 22nd.

On the city's website, it says: Presentation to Parks and Recreation Board for final plan

On CityScape's website, it says: Parks Board Meeting - Patriot’s Square Agenda Item for approval

So it's a presentation and also a vote at the same time? Will they be presenting the same presentation the public got on Feb. 8th? It would seem like a waste of time if it's just a presentation of the same, I'm sure everyone has already seen the plans, no need to present them again.

Also, I wonder if after this last public meeting, any changes were made to the plan? If not, then why did they even hold the meeting with the public and didn't just go direct for the vote?

[combusean]

My second concern is that I don't think the bridge across Washington could really be used as a stage. Its just a bit too awkwardly aligned with the park. What is pad B was a bit taller, and it had a stage hanging over central a bit that directly faced the park? Or perhaps a stage area on the south side of my proposed retail where the yellow trees are?

If you look just north of the retail promenade, there's a big patio that serves as another retail lineage between and in front of Tower L and R. The steps go down from about the center of tower L to the NW entrance of Block 77. Anything in that salmon color is above ground by about 16 feet, that pale orange color is ground floor.

I don't know what goes in that south green side. Maybe a fountain in the center that was more flat than tall could easily double as a soundbooth/camera stage for event space (people who are booking events will look for these little things). At the time I made it, I figured it would be a blank slate for future improvements to fine tune it, but stressing temporary uses and avoiding larger structures that would impede on the events space and view corridors. Thus, it's really a design for CityScape, not Patriots Square, and a .0 release at that. The point of my doing this was to show them that the public space could be vital to their entire project and should not be an afterthought. How the park part looks should be left to the ostensibly competent Parks Department.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

I assume you've emailed this RED/the city parks board?

Also, at the meeting on the 22nd, is this something you'd be able to present? I've only been to a few city meetings, so I don't know all the silly rules. Would you be able to explain to people what a HUGE improvement your design is, or would they just tell you to sit down and shut up?

I have not sent it out yet.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by vertex

Folks, I like most of these suggestions, especially when it comes to creating more contiguous open space. But as I understand it, the parking garage under the current PSP was supposed to be preserved. Is that going to prohibit some of the taller towers from being built on the western block?

You are correct (I didn't spend any time really thinking about that either when I did this yesterday), and I'm certain that much of the layout of the proposed buildings is based on where columns and shear walls are below and thus drives some of the decision making. This is at its most basic level about economics after all. I honestly didn't think much about the existing garage when I moved the office tower over. I figured that it required so much reconfiguration anyway that you'd essentially have to do a lot of patchworking within the existing structure (that's going to have to happen anyway).

Most of you guys are far more familiar with the history and site plan of this project than I am (I don't follow it much and don't live there any more), and after seeing what Combusean posted I totally agree with it. I still think you're going to have some dead spots along either Central or 1st Street for service access on that middle block (or both! It has to go somewhere), and I still think too much of the plan is elevated to a second level for no reason.

I maintain that on the 1st to 2nd Street block that the hotel vehicle entry should be moved to 2nd and that the alley street gets blocked off as a cul de sac with back of house retail along 1st.

The only other comment I have on Sean's plan is that the footprints he has shown for Towers L and R (20 stories) are far too small to be economical. Likely they'd have to get fatter (pushing into the public space more) and be joined into a single tower above the pedestrian connection (pictures Rowe's Wharf in Boston).

I also still think the overall plan doesn't address the issue of 2 sided retail, building service access, the lite rail stations or USAC very well.

As far as the park...it would be nice if it ends up somewhere along the lines of Yerba Buena Gardens in SF.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by combusean

Anything in that salmon color is above ground by about 16 feet, that pale orange color is ground floor.

Ah, I'm a bit color blind, so I didn't even see the difference. But now that you've pointed it out I can notice it.

[HX_Guy]

Plan for park touches nerve
Residents criticize Patriots Square redesign

Ginger D. Richardson
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 12, 2007 12:00 AM
The fight for Patriots Square is getting just a little ugly.

After months of public discussion, developers of a proposed $900 million mixed-use retail project in downtown Phoenix have unveiled a new plan for the oft-maligned town square.

Unfortunately for them, the design was met with a healthy dose of skepticism and, in many cases, outright anger at a recent public forum.
advertisement


One man said the proposal was "embarrassing," and another called the public process to redesign the park a "complete waste of time."

Most just expressed bitter disappointment during the two-hour hearing.

"What I see here is not a public park," said longtime Phoenix resident Alex Votichenko. "I see taxpayer-funded landscaping."

The controversy started last fall, when Phoenix announced that it had reached a blockbuster agreement with Scottsdale-based RED Development to bring new shopping opportunities, condominiums and office space to the downtown core. Plans call for the project, called CityScape, to stretch across three city blocks, including the Patriots Square site.

The development deal has been cheered by the city, residents and the business community because it would provide downtown Phoenix with an AJ's Fine Foods, the area's first grocery store in almost 25 years, and promises to infuse an underused part of the city's core with an immediate injection of vibrant entertainment and nightlife opportunities.

"This . . . will meet the needs of the community for a vibrant urban park," said Brian Kearney, president and chief executive officer of the Downtown Phoenix Partnership.

"In no way are we turning this public area over to private developers for their own benefit."

But a vocal group of opponents still oppose the plan because it essentially takes the 2.2-acre public park and spreads the open space over the entire development site.

The newest redesign, which includes about 5 acres of open space, was supposed to serve as a compromise.

It features shade and other landscaping, informal outdoor seating areas, three or four locations for public art, a half-dozen water features and an event plaza for large gatherings.

"We will work hard to deliver a project and a park that we can all be proud of," said Mike Ebert, RED Development's managing partner. "This is our sincere effort to find an appropriate balance to make the park successful."

But opponents don't like that the proposed design concentrates the bulk of the open space in the interior of the development site and that the project's retail components, which also include a P.F. Chang's China Bistro, block street access to the park areas. They say the new proposal takes away their public gathering space and turns it into a retail courtyard.

"I didn't like Patriots park when it was first built," said David Therrien, a longtime downtown Phoenix resident.

"But that's no excuse for corporate theft. This is essentially a long hallway into a P.F. Chang's.

"This is a great opportunity to build a park that Phoenix can be proud of," Therrien added. "But this project doesn't even come close."

There were a handful of residents who attended the public forum that spoke in favor of the plan, but they were greatly outnumbered by those who spoke in opposition.

Those CityScape proponents lauded RED Development's efforts. They say that the park's current design, which features an underground parking garage and a prominent white canopy, is soulless, and does little to improve downtown Phoenix's vitality.

"If Patriots park is the heart of the city, I don't think it reflects a very healthy image," said Scott Davis, who lives downtown.

"It's not a very attractive place, and there is no reason to be there or go there."

Phoenix's Parks and Recreation Board is scheduled to vote on the proposed redesign on Feb. 22.

It's not yet clear whether Thursday's public hearing will result in any changes to the proposed layout of the CityScape project and the associated park space.

But John Bacon, a RED Development spokesman, said that developers would consider those public comments that "were applicable to the design of the park."

"We'll look at those that were specific to see how it can be enhanced," he said.

[vertex]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Plan for park touches nerve
Residents criticize Patriots Square redesign

Ginger D. Richardson
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 12, 2007 12:00 AM
The fight for Patriots Square is getting just a little ugly.

After months of public discussion, developers of a proposed $900 million mixed-use retail project in downtown Phoenix have unveiled a new plan for the oft-maligned town square.

But John Bacon, a RED Development spokesman, said that developers would consider those public comments that "were applicable to the design of the park."

"We'll look at those that were specific to see how it can be enhanced," he said.

This is just developer-speak for "We will leave the buildings exactly as they are. We 'might' take another look at the area already designated as public space".

[HX_Guy]

This whole thing sure is starting to draw a lot of attention. They are obviously talking about it in the paper, but I also heard them talk about it on talk radio. They mentioned the meeting that will be held on Feb. 22nd. That should been an interested meeting with a lot of people in attendance due to all the publicity now.

[DevdogAZ]

I'm really excited for this project, simply because there's nothing there now and this will be a great infusion of energy into the core. However, I'm not at all excited about the design they released. I would like to see something three-dimensional, that shows more of how the open space would be utilized, but from what I can tell, it's simply going to be a front porch for retail stores. If the AJ's opens onto the park, then it looks ugly from the street. If it opens onto the street, then it turns it's back to the park. If it opens on both sides, it creates some very difficult interior design issues, and makes it hard to design a service entrance.

I think it would be cool to see some sort of walk-through food court somewhere on the site. Someplace where people in all the surrounding buildings can converge for lunch and for drinks after work. Maybe something along the lines of the food court at Fanueil Hall in Boston, only a little more upscale, with actual restaurants rather than simply vendor spaces. It would be cool if something like this opened onto the street, preferrably close to a LR stop, and as you pass through it to the other side, you open onto the park space with multiple outdoor seating/eating areas.

As for service entrances, perhaps they can design all of these buildings to have underground service through elevators so that there won't be any side of the buildings that is the "back." It still poses the problem for retailers of having two entrances to the store on both sides of the building, but it makes the stores more inviting.

Has anyone been to The Gateway in SLC? It's a new retail mall that was finished just in time for the 2002 Olympics. It's similar to Kierland Commons, but has two levels of shopping on both sides. I think something like that, with multi-use buildings rising above them would be pretty cool, provided there is a way to turn the retail on the ground floor to both the interior and exterior of the project, and provided the retail promenade could then open onto a functional public space. Here's a pic of The Gateway:

[HX_Guy]

I'm actually getting a little nervous about this whole thing. If the board does not approve this design, will RED still pursue this or just say "Screw this!"...and then we're still left with some surface lots.

I've gotta say that I wish the developers would have put a real effort into makes the changes that people wanted and expected. As I've said before, I'm sure even the supports of this project, including myself, were pretty shocked by the new design...I think we all expected something else.

Combusean's design is nice, but I think it's a little unrealistic. I do think they could take some things from that and make this all work.
The AJs could very easily be put into the residential tower, which would free up a lot of space. You could even leave everything else where it is in their design, make the area where AJs was into a grassy area bordered by Central and Jefferson...and I think that would please a lot of people.

[soleri]

^CityScape is politically wired to the local power structure so a negative vote by the Parks board would be meaningless. As long as the Mayor and Council support this, these meetings tend to be pro forma. The only thing that could possibly change the terrain would be a huge public outcry. This being Phoenix, that's unlikely.

CityScape's success depends on market conditions. I don't think there are any more rabbits to pull out of a hat. But given the way this is being pressed in the media and City Hall, you gotta wonder.

[combusean]

I'd like to think traditional design economics come into play, but for what all they're worth, there's a lot of money into it, so they need to be pushed to make it work.

You do what malls do ... one big hallway in the center, fattening up the tower, make the patio public, whatever. Maybe it's not something with a semitruck loading dock, but this is the city, land is expensive, and there is always a possibility.

There are many on savepatriotspark.org who woudn't be at all sad to see RED shrivel up and die, the wasteland remaining a wasteland. But that's not my kind of "victory." I'm certain everyone wants a way out, maybe my plan is it, maybe it's not. But I hope it's at least a start.

[NorthScottsdale]

personally, i think there already is way too much open space downtown, so why worry about a park that nobody has ever used anyway? the so-called "retail patio's" will have a lot more people there than patriots square park ever had. isnt this what we wanted? density? why not just tear out a parking lot in one of those empty lots a little north and put a park there? this is 2 pages of complaining and griping now. i think that this is the best project phoenix has on the board by far. no matter what designs you draw up, RED isnt going to use it, that much is obvious. they are sticking to their plan. if i draw up a plan i think i like, and send it to them, they wont really care about it. just chill out and let this thing happen... bueno?

[JI5]

/\ /\ /\ agreed. we should be happy that anybody dares to put any capital into our long-neglected core.