Phoenix CityScape Thread - Page 55

AZ KID · #**1081** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 11:43 PM**

I was snooping around the oeaaa site and i found this on Cityscape.https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/WebBlobServlet It was issued 11/20/07. It is different from the previous Determination posted on this forum a while back... It looks like they are doing further tests that might allow the height of 510 feet.

HX_Guy · #**1082** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 12:31 AM**

Here is the correct link:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...erID=100863501

sundevilgrad · #**1083** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 12:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZ KID

I was snooping around the oeaaa site and i found this on Cityscape.https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/WebBlobServlet It was issued 11/20/07. It is different from the previous Determination posted on this forum a while back... It looks like they are doing further tests that might allow the height of 510 feet.

The link isn't working (or it's directing to a blank page)...

AZ KID · #**1084** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 4:28 AM**

Thanks HX Guy thats what i was trying to post

Tfom · #**1085** Posted **Dec 11, 2007, 4:37 AM**

Since I have an interest in aviation I have done a little research on this. Should you wish to read what it all really means in layman's term's I did my best to break it down below. If you want it all in a nutshell here you go: The initial statement we all read didn't mean a whole lot and we won't know anything for sure until some FAA guy who spends all day pouring over a huge book of regulations issues a determination so we should all probably avoid being up all night about it.

For the long version, if you should care.

I have tried my best to read through this stuff to understand it and here is what I have found. The link mentioned refers to FAR Part 77 which states that cityscape exceeds those standards on four occasions. One of those is that it exceeds 500 ft. So any structure over 500 feet in the U.S. is going to violate that. This obviously occurs a lot, but when a structure is not close to an airport it can be quickly dismissed as no hazard and on it goes. In the case of Cityscape that wouldn't be the case because of it's proximity to the airport. I looked at the specifics of FAR part 77 and the Cityscape plan was essentially guaranteed to get the decision that it did. When I looked back, the exact words of the FAA were that it was "presumed to be a hazard to air navigation." This is very different than what would have to take place to actually derail the project. Cityscape has to undergo an aeronautical study which is what the link below refers to. It does not, unfortunately, indicate one way or the other what their determination will be. The link simply is a public notice as to the reason of the study which is required under the FAA statutes. So unfortunately we won't really know anything for sure for awhile. I tried to look at the regulations on how they determine ultimately if something is a hazard but it was a GIGANTIC document.

On a positive note
Most of the areas in which Cityscape violated part 77 are also violated by Bank of America Tower. The one I know for sure it did not is obviously the height of 500 ft, but this appears to be the least important of the violations since it isn't a penetration into existing airspace.

On a negative side
If the FAA determines it is a hazard with the study the building won't be built above the allowed height. A building in San Diego was actually judicially ordered to deconstruct 20 ft because it exceeded the hazard height the FAA had given it.

In bureaucratic legalize

FAA HANDBOOK 7400.2 - This document, titled "Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters," contains procedures and guidelines for analyzing aeronautical operating conditions and determining the effects of existing or proposed objects that exceed FAR Part 77 (see also) standards. Objects that exceed FAR Part 77 standards are subject to an aeronautical review and are presumed to be hazards to air navigation unless an aeronautical review determines otherwise. However, once an aeronautical review is initiated, FAR Part 77 standards are no longer the basis for determining whether or not an object would be a hazard. Other criteria, including operational, procedural, and electronic requirements, are used to determine if the object in question would be a hazard to air navigation. The outcome of an FAA aeronautical review is either a "Determination of No Hazard" or "Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation."

HX_Guy · #**1086** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 1:38 AM**

You guys ready for a shocker?

Permit# SE-T464495 Issue Date Expires 12/11/09
Permit Description DUCT BANK & PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE COLUMNS
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE
Description/Scope of Work: COMMERCIAL REMODEL
SCOPE OF WORK: BLDG STRUC ELEC CIVIL
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMO RAMPS TO PARKING GARAGE (ALONG CENTRAL) DEMO C.I.P. WALL AND CONCRETE SLAB. CONSTRUCT 2 SUPPORTING COLUMNS FOR PED BRIDGE, CONSTRUCT DUCT BANK WITH PVC DUCTS FOR ELECTRICAL UTILITIES.

This is an actual issued building permit for the items described, not just some thing filed for approval or other nonsense. It looks like they might actually start to do some real work!

As of today, nothing much was going on at the site, but hopefully soon, especially with this permit issued.

HooverDam · #**1087** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 2:03 AM**

Thanks for the updates in all the threads HX_Guy.

When you think about yourself do you think "I'm awesome" or do you think "I'm totally awesome"?

loftlovr · #**1088** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 3:47 AM**

^

I have actually seen him walking the streets chanting, I'm awesome"... while taking cool photos and scoping out new permits.

PHX_PD · #**1089** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Permit# SE-T464495 Issue Date Expires 12/11/09
Permit Description DUCT BANK & PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE COLUMNS
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE
Description/Scope of Work: COMMERCIAL REMODEL
SCOPE OF WORK: BLDG STRUC ELEC CIVIL
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMO RAMPS TO PARKING GARAGE (ALONG CENTRAL) DEMO C.I.P. WALL AND CONCRETE SLAB. CONSTRUCT 2 SUPPORTING COLUMNS FOR PED BRIDGE, CONSTRUCT DUCT BANK WITH PVC DUCTS FOR ELECTRICAL UTILITIES.

That exact permit was already issued 2 months ago. Check back to post 848 in this thread. The only difference is the permit # and expiration date. I wonder what caused them to re-issue it.

Quote:

Permit# LPRR-0704615 Issue Date 10/17/07 Expires: 10/16/08
Permit Description CITYSCAPE
Project 06-5309 CITYSCAPE

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMO RAMPS TO PARKING GARAGE (ALONG CENTRAL) DEMO C.I.P. WALL AND CONCRETE SLAB. CONSTRUCT 2 SUPPORTING COLUMNS FOR PED BRIDGE, CONSTRUCT DUCT BANK WITH PVC DUCTS FOR ELECTRICAL UTILITIES.

combusean · #**1090** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 3:00 PM**

^ The permits are different. LPRR stands for Large Plan Review/Remodel, and is classified by the city as a "Plan Review" permit. SE is Structural/Electric, which is actually classified as a "Building" permit.

It looks like the real deal and not something they missed the deadline for and had to refile.

tempedude · #**1091** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by combusean

^ The permits are different. LPRR stands for Large Plan Review/Remodel, and is classified by the city as a "Plan Review" permit. SE is Structural/Electric, which is actually classified as a "Building" permit.

It looks like the real deal and not something they missed the deadline for and had to refile.

THE REAL DEAL.....for real? I hope so. The best Christmas present ever would be for this thing to get moving and off the ground before or by the end of the year.

HX_Guy · #**1092** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHX_PD

That exact permit was already issued 2 months ago. Check back to post 848 in this thread. The only difference is the permit # and expiration date. I wonder what caused them to re-issue it.

As was mentioned by Combusean, the LPRR- was the review part of it and the SE- is the actual building part of the permitting.

I wonder if these ped. bridge columns are below or above ground?

Don B. · #**1093** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 5:14 PM**

^ Pedestrian bridges usually are above ground (hence the term "bridge"), and I seem to recall on the renderings here that the bridge was on the second story above ground.

--don

HX_Guy · #**1094** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 5:18 PM**

Thank you Mr. Obvious.

What I meant was...I wonder if this portion of the support columns are below or above ground. Since there is the parking garage underneath, and the rest of the work seems to be talking about below grade stuff, ie parking ramps, wall, slab. It's possible that there need to be support columns built inside the garage itself that will then continue above ground.

PHX31 · #**1095** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 5:41 PM**

Has anyone noticed if PSP is still open?

HX_Guy · #**1096** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 5:46 PM**

As of yesterday about 4:00 PM, it was still open.

gymratmanaz · #**1097** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 6:13 PM**

as of last night after the Suns game it was open...SUNS WIN!!!...sorry i had to.

andrewkfromaz · #**1098** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 6:22 PM**

Found something: a Request For Qualifications for the PARKING STRUCTURE!

RFQ: CityScape Parking Structure (CMAR) RED 200700925121 v1

Washington St/Jefferson St, Central & 1st St Block 22
Phoenix, AZ 85004 USA
AZ(MARICOPA)
Action stage: GC Bidding, Request for Qualifications

Bid date: 12/14/2007 @ 12:00 PM MST

Valuation: M

First issue bid stage IND: Y.

Subcontract method: Owner-Bldr/Dev (Pr)

Project delivery system: Construction Management at Risk

Owner class: Private

DR break away from: 200600786449

Key Contacts and Bid Documents
Submit bids to: Owner-Bldr/Dev (Pr)
Owner-Builder/Developer(Private): RED Development, Scott Rehorn (Partner), 6263 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 330 Scottsdale, AZ 85250-5417 (USA) , Phone:480-947-7772, Fax:480-947-7997, E-mail:red@reddevelopment.com, http://www.reddevelopment.com
Alan Torvie
Plans(Architect Plans)By: Owner-Bldr/Dev (Pr)
Notes: GCSC07
Addenda IND: N
Plan IND: N
Spec IND: N
Plan available IND: N

Structural Details
Structural information: 1 Building/ 1 Story above grade / 5 Stories below grade / 600,000 Total square / Building Frame: Reinforced Concrete

Additional features: 1300 space parking garage - & related site improvements

Project Overview
Project type: Parking Garage.
Report type: Project
Sub project count: 0
First publish date: 12/05/2007
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge
Type of Work: New Project
Status: Developer Requesting Statements of Qualifications for Design Assist & CM At Risk Services by December 14 at 12 NOON (MST)

Status project delivery
system: Construction Management at Risk

Publish date: 12/05/2007

If they're only now looking for a CMAR (Construction Manager At Risk), they're pretty far behind. The notable thing is that this is for building the new parking structure, or at least part of it. I wonder who'll respond to the RFQ.

andrewkfromaz · #**1099** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 6:26 PM**

And finally - looks like the same thing, only for the renovation of the existing garage:

RFQ: CityScape Block 77 & 22 Garage Improvements 200700926344 v1

Washington St/Jefferson St, 2nd St & 1st Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004 USA
AZ(MARICOPA)
Action stage: Pre-Design

Bid date: 12/14/2007 @ 12:00 PM MST

Valuation: N

Project delivery system: Construction Management at Risk

Owner class: Private

DR break away from: 200600786449

Key Contacts and Bid Documents
Submit bids to: Owner-Bldr/Dev (Pr)
Owner-Builder/Developer(Private): RED Development, Scott Rehorn (Partner), 6263 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 330 Scottsdale, AZ 85250-5417 (USA) , Phone:480-947-7772, Fax:480-947-7997, E-mail:red@reddevelopment.com, http://www.reddevelopment.com
Alan Torvie
Notes: GCSC07 - ALL INQUIRIES TO THE DEVELOPER PLEASE - See DR# 200700925121 for RFQ for CM at Risk Services for Block 22 Garage

Additional features: Block 77 (existing Patriot's Park & 5 level below grade parking garage) Improvements to subsurface garage - reconstruct - reconfigure - structural repairs - water intrusion damage repairs - vertical transportation improvements - new elec service - lighting - ventilation improvements - finishes - surface sitework improvements - Block 22 new parking garage - 5 level below grade structure (see 200700925121)

Project Overview
Project type: Parking Garage. Sidewalk/Parking Lot.
Report type: Project
Sub project count: 0
First publish date: 12/06/2007
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge
Type of Work: Alterations
Status: Developer Seeking Qualified Architectural firm for Public Improvement Components no later than December 14 at 12 NOON (MST)

Status project delivery
system: Construction Management at Risk

Publish date: 12/06/2007

HX_Guy · #**1100** Posted **Dec 13, 2007, 6:38 PM**

"Structural information: 1 Building/ 1 Story above grade / 5 Stories below grade / 600,000 Total square / Building Frame: Reinforced Concrete"

1 Story above grade on Block 22? That is the block where the towers are to be built...how does this 1 story build play into it? Is it the ground floor for the whole thing? I sure as hell hope they won't be doing pads for future towers as in the case with Colliers Center.

Also, what is the CMAR (Construction Manager At Risk)? I havn't heard this term before.