HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 8, 2015, 7:24 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 529
i don't doubt that is going to be value-engineered. and that's the nature of the beast in this part of the country...is what it is. the monroe building looks cheap and this will too i'm sure. i just don't understand...where is the sense of reaching for *something* here in arizona? i mean, why the hell NOT add an extra 10 feet or even 27 feet and be the 2nd tallest? surely, the FAA is not an issue here...i just don't get it. mediocrity begets mediocrity. i know we're not supposed to expect quality AND quantity...God forbid...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 8, 2015, 11:43 PM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoboy61 View Post
Yeah, the 1989 highrise is the CenturyLink building near Central and Thomas. This will be taller than One South Church (tallest building in Tucson) by 60 feet.
I've often wondered, if someone in Tucson made a semi-realistic proposal for a new tallest in the state if that wouldn't get PHX developers off their butts to build over 500. I'm sure they'd hate the tallest being in Tucson. Or maybe they don't care about that kind of thing like we do at all...

Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
i don't doubt that is going to be value-engineered. and that's the nature of the beast in this part of the country...is what it is. the monroe building looks cheap and this will too i'm sure. i just don't understand...where is the sense of reaching for *something* here in arizona? i mean, why the hell NOT add an extra 10 feet or even 27 feet and be the 2nd tallest? surely, the FAA is not an issue here...i just don't get it. mediocrity begets mediocrity. i know we're not supposed to expect quality AND quantity...God forbid...
most developers are either A. Dumb, B. Lazy or C. a combination of A and B.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 9, 2015, 12:45 AM
poconoboy61 poconoboy61 is offline
skyscrapers!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooverDam View Post
I've often wondered, if someone in Tucson made a semi-realistic proposal for a new tallest in the state if that wouldn't get PHX developers off their butts to build over 500. I'm sure they'd hate the tallest being in Tucson. Or maybe they don't care about that kind of thing like we do at all...
I don't think Phoenix developers are too worried about Tucson building a new tallest. If the economy of Phoenix can't support a building over 500 feet, Tucson's economy certainly cannot support a building that tall. What's interesting is that Tucson's tallest was actually supposed to be joined by a twin tower several years after the current tower was constructed. The developer ran out of money while during construction, leaving only the foundation of the building. There was mural developed on the foundation that is still there. Off-topic tidbit, but interesting nevertheless.

In any case, Tucson hasn't seen construction of a new highrise office building since at least the early 1990s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 9, 2015, 1:12 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 529
a new tallest doesn't have to have purely economical function. creatively, a new tallest, whether in tucson or phoenix (yeah, nothing of the sort will ever happen in tucson -- let's be realistic here), could incorporate purely aesthetic elements such as a spire or observation tower or even solar panels (let's think outside the box!). 20 stories of mixed-use (300') and 200' feet of something else...why not? i know we're in the land of make believe now but it doesn't have to be that way. for the record, i think it would be awesome if tucson built an observation tower similar to space needle. amazing 360 mountain views. why not a hotel/observation tower near the convention center? so little imagination or bravado in this state...(sigh)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 11, 2015, 12:56 AM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,706
Height for the sake of height is meaningless, and provides no value to a city. What is the benefit of additional residents when the surrounding built environment creates a hostile pedestrian environment of garage ramps, loading docks, and bus pullouts?

I'd rather it be chopped in half in exchange for a design that actually encourages its residents to engage with the environment around them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 11, 2015, 12:51 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 529
^ i don't see where you're connecting what i said with your statements about disconnecting people from buildings, etc. "height for height's sake" is pointless? maybe you should tell that to the good people of Paris, Toronto, Seattle, Tokyo and our nation's capital. Perhaps nice views and "reach for the stars" bravado aren't enough? Perhaps the Washington Monument should have stopped at the current one-half the height of the Monument itself and be happy with 277.5 feet? in what i'm proposing, height *IS* the point. and for some purposes (this) it's totally valid. man, reactionary has its limits, folks...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 11, 2015, 5:49 PM
gymratmanaz gymratmanaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,679
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 11, 2015, 8:03 PM
KevininPhx KevininPhx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjs5056 View Post
Height for the sake of height is meaningless, and provides no value to a city.
You make statements like they are facts. That's not a fact. For years, people said that about Kuala Lumpur, Dubai and downtown NYC with the original World Trade Center. Those cities had extremely tall, mostly empty buildings surrounded by nothing. Which, over time, have filled up and surrounding them are hundreds of thousands of people, loads of towers and public transportation. If a developer built a 500-foot building right in downtown Phoenix, it would fill up and other buildings would go up around it. That's how it works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 11, 2015, 8:37 PM
PHXFlyer11 PHXFlyer11 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevininPhx View Post
Which, over time, have filled up and surrounding them are hundreds of thousands of people, loads of towers and public transportation. If a developer built a 500-foot building right in downtown Phoenix, it would fill up and other buildings would go up around it. That's how it works.
I agree with this philosophy quite a bit. I think Phoenix, more so than Tempe, was hurt big time by the recession as it pertains to momentum downtown.

While we may not love every development, one thing is true with every new development -- there is now less developable land remaining. This over time drives up values. The more you must pay for the land, the more density you need to pack it with to earn a return and make development economical.

So I'm willing to live with less than ideal developments knowing that it will contribute to better developments in the future. I think Tempe is proving this out as we speak with the Mill+Rio/Monti's/100Mill towers and the proposed 7th st mixed use project.

In addition, more humans need more retail, restaurants, hotels, etc. which requires more humans. More humans then need more housing. It's a snowball effect that was unfortunately greatly damaged during the last recession, but you can feel it picking up more and more momentum now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 5:36 AM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevininPhx View Post
You make statements like they are facts. That's not a fact. For years, people said that about Kuala Lumpur, Dubai and downtown NYC with the original World Trade Center. Those cities had extremely tall, mostly empty buildings surrounded by nothing. Which, over time, have filled up and surrounding them are hundreds of thousands of people, loads of towers and public transportation. If a developer built a 500-foot building right in downtown Phoenix, it would fill up and other buildings would go up around it. That's how it works.
Somethingfast - my comment wasn't directed at you; essentially, my feeling is just that additional height on this thing wouldn't make it any less of a wasted opportunity.

Kevin - I think it's obvious by now to most people that my rants aren't facts. The places you list have completely different built environments, different ways of life, and many other factors (stronger economies, natural city boundaries forcing vertical construction, etc.). I never said a 500-foot tower wouldn't fill up; I said that this particular tower built at 500+ feet wouldn't any more value to the city than it does in its current form. This tower has been built to isolate itself as much as possible from any interaction with the surrounding city, while also creating an entire block's worth of dead space. Downtown only benefits if those residents get out of their tower, walk the streets of downtown, purchase goods downtown, etc. This design is just pure shit in that regard. And, I disagree that one 500 foot tower would encourage additional developments of that size. If that were the case, why hasn't Chase inspired such projects in 30+ years? It's been a decade since OCPE and CityScape were announced... and not a single high-rise has been proposed outside of this RFP.

PHYFlyer11 - Tempe, a suburban college town, that has experienced rapid urban growth within the last decade or so, has made FAR fewer mistakes to the detriment of its downtown. Yes, there are a few projects that could've been better, but for the most part, each project within that time period has added new demographics to the city's population, jobs to its economy, and has filled in a hole somewhere within the urban fabric of the city. Phoenix has had decades to learn from their mistakes.. they even implemented Urban Form which specifically prohibits projects like this from being built. This isn't a small mistake; it's taking a valuable piece of land - land you admit is running out - and using the majority of it for parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 1:42 AM
gymratmanaz gymratmanaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,679
GREAT NEWS!!!!! I talked to a friend of mine who designed a number of buildings downtown. He has been talking to the Central Station designer. He told me this morning that the design for Central Station now includes a grocery store. They have not determined which brand but there will be one on ground floor!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 1:45 AM
PHXFlyer11 PHXFlyer11 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by gymratmanaz View Post
GREAT NEWS!!!!! I talked to a friend of mine who designed a number of buildings downtown. He has been talking to the Central Station designer. He told me this morning that the design for Central Station now includes a grocery store. They have not determined which brand but there will be one on ground floor!!!!!!!!!!
You better not be teasing us, that would be the cruelest of all jokes! I really hope this breaks ground soon. The sky line will really be making progress with Central Station, Portland on the Park and the Luhrs Marriot!

He did happen to tell you when they are going to break ground, did he???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 1:56 AM
HX_Guy HX_Guy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,080
Would be good if it was a Sprouts. I think a Sprouts would do great downtown, and their stores are smaller than a normal grocery store...plus they're a local Phoenix company, so it would just make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 5:18 AM
poconoboy61 poconoboy61 is offline
skyscrapers!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoboy61 View Post
At least Central Station will have ground level retail and maybe a grocery store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gymratmanaz View Post
GREAT NEWS!!!!! I talked to a friend of mine who designed a number of buildings downtown. He has been talking to the Central Station designer. He told me this morning that the design for Central Station now includes a grocery store. They have not determined which brand but there will be one on ground floor!!!!!!!!!!
I'm glad that someone else has heard this too. I spoke to an insider with the project back in March who claimed that the developer was dedicating space for a grocery store.

I hope it's an urban Fry's. If I wanted to go to Fry's when I lived downtown, I had to go 7th Avenue and Camelback or 20th Street and Highland. Downtown dwellers shouldn't have to drive or take the light rail to access one of this state's primary grocery stores. We don't need any "specialty" grocery stores that will shut down within weeks of opening due to lack of business. The last thing I would have wanted living downtown was some small, overpriced grocery store with a bunch of gourmet items that I had no use for. Open a basic, full service grocery store and let Sprouts come when there's more demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 12:13 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is online now
self-important urbanista
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,948
Sprouts is a moderately priced grocery store with an emphasis on fresh produce. I don't think it's too upscale or gourmet for Downtown. I do, however, think it's too suburban for Downtown. Sprouts may be locally based, but its headquarters is located in exurban CityNorth. While Sprouts stores are generally smaller than mainstream groceries like Safeway, the company does not have an urban format store in the way that Walmart and Target do. I haven't heard of an urban Fry's format, but if that exists, it's probably a strong candidate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 3:22 PM
HX_Guy HX_Guy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoboy61 View Post
I'm glad that someone else has heard this too. I spoke to an insider with the project back in March who claimed that the developer was dedicating space for a grocery store.

I hope it's an urban Fry's. If I wanted to go to Fry's when I lived downtown, I had to go 7th Avenue and Camelback or 20th Street and Highland. Downtown dwellers shouldn't have to drive or take the light rail to access one of this state's primary grocery stores. We don't need any "specialty" grocery stores that will shut down within weeks of opening due to lack of business. The last thing I would have wanted living downtown was some small, overpriced grocery store with a bunch of gourmet items that I had no use for. Open a basic, full service grocery store and let Sprouts come when there's more demand.
Have you actually been to a Sprouts? It's pretty full on grocery store to me, pretty normal priced...maybe even discounted priced on produce, and has basically everything you could need.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 5:27 PM
gymratmanaz gymratmanaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,679
My source is very reliable. He mentioned something about a dedicated pad for the grocery store. They have not decided on which one, but he said the existence of it is certain and in their newest plan. Fall groundbreaking still seems to be the plan too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 5:47 PM
poconoboy61 poconoboy61 is offline
skyscrapers!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post
Sprouts is a moderately priced grocery store with an emphasis on fresh produce. I don't think it's too upscale or gourmet for Downtown. I do, however, think it's too suburban for Downtown. Sprouts may be locally based, but its headquarters is located in exurban CityNorth. While Sprouts stores are generally smaller than mainstream groceries like Safeway, the company does not have an urban format store in the way that Walmart and Target do. I haven't heard of an urban Fry's format, but if that exists, it's probably a strong candidate.
It is moderately priced. I was more referring to not wanting to see some off brand supermarket that has limited, overpriced products. Scottsdale was supposed to build the Fry's first "urban" store at Indian School and Miller to replace that raggedy store that's there now. Plans clearly either fell through or are on hold.

I'm pretty sure any grocer could modify their standard store design to fit an urban profile.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy View Post
Have you actually been to a Sprouts? It's pretty full on grocery store to me, pretty normal priced...maybe even discounted priced on produce, and has basically everything you could need.
I have. It is a grocery store that specializes in natural foods. It is not the place to go for basic groceries. There are plenty of basic items that you cannot find at Sprouts because it does not carry them. If I want a bag of Doritos or a case of soda, Sprouts is not the place to go. Sprouts specializes in meat, produce, seafood, and natural foods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 5:54 PM
poconoboy61 poconoboy61 is offline
skyscrapers!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by gymratmanaz View Post
Fall groundbreaking still seems to be the plan too.
The original plan was late summer with the developer wanting to get started as soon as possible after receiving clearance from the Federal Transit Administration. The developer supposedly recently sold a property and had more than enough cash on hand to carry forward with Central Station.

Let's hope this isn't the start of a bunch of project delays that end up resulting in nothing happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2015, 7:04 PM
KevininPhx KevininPhx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoboy61 View Post
It is moderately priced. I was more referring to not wanting to see some off brand supermarket that has limited, overpriced products. Scottsdale was supposed to build the Fry's first "urban" store at Indian School and Miller to replace that raggedy store that's there now. Plans clearly either fell through or are on hold.

I'm pretty sure any grocer could modify their standard store design to fit an urban profile.




I have. It is a grocery store that specializes in natural foods. It is not the place to go for basic groceries. There are plenty of basic items that you cannot find at Sprouts because it does not carry them. If I want a bag of Doritos or a case of soda, Sprouts is not the place to go. Sprouts specializes in meat, produce, seafood, and natural foods.

I don't know, I'm always perplexed by people wanting a grocery store downtown. I'm not opposed to it. But I have lived in several large cities that did not have a grocery store in the downtown area. Specialty stores, yes. Farmers market-type stores, yeah. Grocery stores, nope. Not sure why but the two don't seem to go together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.