HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #11621  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 6:20 PM
fawd fawd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
This is a choice bc we have the attitude of "we'll taking anything!"
You're about to spin off this planet, I love it!


Here is the reality. 2017 has been a rush to the DT rental residential marketplace. It has been first come, first serve... literally. If you're a developer, and you're not B23, Link, Stewart, Palmcourt, Central Park East, Derby, Colliers etc - sorry you missed the boat. Market has become saturated and it makes little financial sense for others to build at this time. (Look at that list though, holy cow what a year!)

It's a cycle. Supply meets demand. Marketplace ruminates for a few years. Then the next cycle begins!



Here are my personal predictions for 2018-19:

1) I'm not confident we'll see another ready-to-be-built high-rise rental residential project in 2018. Again, supply will meet demand upon completion of the projects already in development. Developers money will, frankly, be better invested elsewhere at this time. Really hope I'm wrong!

2) Same with DT high-rise hotels. Completion of the AC Marriott at Arizona Center and there are enough hotel rooms for downtown to accommodate demand 95% of the year. Would be surprised if we see another start construction in 2018-19.

3) All that being said, it's not doom and gloom! There ARE a few exceptions to look forward to. Keep an eye out on Central Station. As a public/private project with the city retaining ownership of the land, my guess is this particular parcel will have some hefty financial incentives for the developer. We're going to likely see a cool, multi-use development here that would otherwise have not been possible without the unique public/private situation.

4) Barrister. While this is residential - it's not rentals! Developers will be keeping a close eye on this project. If we see these units get bought up soon after they become available - look out!

5) Block 23. If you think for 2 seconds that other developers aren't watching vacancy rates of the office portion... you're very mistaken. If this 'cool' and 'new' creative space (generally a first for DT) becomes in demand - oh boy!

6) Wouldn't surprise me if a multi-use development pop up... That would be a safer investment than a hotel-only. Or residential-only. etc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11622  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 7:34 PM
biggus diggus biggus diggus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,280
fawd has given a very accurate assessment of what's to come (and not to come) in 2018.
__________________
Please excuse the brevity, auto corrected words, and occasionally incoherent sentences as I'm usually posting from my phone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11623  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 9:58 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Parkmerced, San Francisco, California
Posts: 5,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitnessPower View Post
I agree, a lot of people here have the mindsets of a metro with a 500k population. This metro is booming and is getting to the point to where it could it could easily support a 600+ ft tower. Hell it doesn't even have to be an office tower, Austin's tallest is a 683ft residential skyscraper. The real obstacle is getting the FAA to play ball.
This notion that Phoenix would compromise operations at the airport which is both a cash cow and one of the largest economic drivers in the state for a highrise that the market has repeatedly demonstrated it can't build is completely detached from reality.

The height limit downtown would be an issue if there were more than one 45-year-old tower sort of approaching it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11624  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 10:41 PM
Socalzonie Socalzonie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 27
Personally, I am glad we arent seeing something 600-700ft proposed. It would simply make most of
our "highrise" inventory look even stubbier. Lets get some more mass first. I would much rather see gaps filled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11625  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 11:03 PM
RonnieFoos RonnieFoos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socalzonie View Post
Personally, I am glad we arent seeing something 600-700ft proposed. It would simply make most of
our "highrise" inventory look even stubbier. Lets get some more mass first. I would much rather see gaps filled.
Agreed. We are easily getting 6-10 high-rises from 250' to 350'...Maybe a few more if they work out before the market flatlines. Anyone wishing for 1 tall 700' building over several buildings averaging out at 300' doesn't know what makes a Downtown great. The previously mentioned towers at OKC and Mobile were developed by local or state operations and not private developers in the hopes it would have given their Downtowns a new image and a much needed boost for economic activity. It hasn't happened...at least not on the level it is happening here.

Anyone that has approached OKC knows all you see for miles is 1 tall building and you don't see the rest of the skyline until you are within 2 miles. It looks lame. I don't want Phoenix to look like that. Wait until we have the need for a few 500+ towers and a 600+ tower would fit better. 700 feet is just not going to happen until they move Sky Harbor
__________________
Ronnie Garrett
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?memberID=205
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11626  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 1:00 AM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socalzonie View Post
Personally, I am glad we arent seeing something 600-700ft proposed. It would simply make most of
our "highrise" inventory look even stubbier. Lets get some more mass first. I would much rather see gaps filled.
You're an insane f**king idiot, sorry. Who the hell would rather see some stubby "density" over a true landmark focal point?!!!! (smh) Give the people cake if they want it lol. Whatevs...millenial psychology on display here...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11627  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 1:02 AM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieFoos View Post
Agreed. We are easily getting 6-10 high-rises from 250' to 350'...Maybe a few more if they work out before the market flatlines. Anyone wishing for 1 tall 700' building over several buildings averaging out at 300' doesn't know what makes a Downtown great. The previously mentioned towers at OKC and Mobile were developed by local or state operations and not private developers in the hopes it would have given their Downtowns a new image and a much needed boost for economic activity. It hasn't happened...at least not on the level it is happening here.

Anyone that has approached OKC knows all you see for miles is 1 tall building and you don't see the rest of the skyline until you are within 2 miles. It looks lame. I don't want Phoenix to look like that. Wait until we have the need for a few 500+ towers and a 600+ tower would fit better. 700 feet is just not going to happen until they move Sky Harbor
Get your facts right...I believe OKC has several 400+ footers downtown AFTER the Devon Energy shard of beauty (and it IS beautiful in a way no <500' could be). Yes, I've driven by it and it's fucking magnificent. I'd take it ANY day over (4) 300' footers. Dear Lord...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11628  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 1:09 AM
biggus diggus biggus diggus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,280
Somethingfast have you been hitting the bottle a little early? That was pretty rude.
__________________
Please excuse the brevity, auto corrected words, and occasionally incoherent sentences as I'm usually posting from my phone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11629  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 2:38 AM
RonnieFoos RonnieFoos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
Get your facts right...I believe OKC has several 400+ footers downtown AFTER the Devon Energy shard of beauty (and it IS beautiful in a way no <500' could be). Yes, I've driven by it and it's fucking magnificent. I'd take it ANY day over (4) 300' footers. Dear Lord...
No, get YOUR facts straight. OKC has built ONE 400+ footer since the Devon tower and it was just completed a few months ago. Devom tower is one of my favorite towers, but it is severly out of place in OKC. Don't argue something you are wrong about..
__________________
Ronnie Garrett
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?memberID=205
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11630  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 4:11 AM
Socalzonie Socalzonie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
You're an insane f**king idiot, sorry. Who the hell would rather see some stubby "density" over a true landmark focal point?!!!!....
Uh, that would be me. Sorry that is so difficult for you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11631  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 5:25 AM
FitnessPower FitnessPower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 33
While I will admit that the OKC building is a little out of place, overall that skyline is better with it than two 400ft buildings would be in it's place.

Instead of 6 to 10 300 footers, I would rather see 4 to 8 300footers along with a much needed 650ft skyline anchor highrise!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11632  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 6:50 AM
Renz Renz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socalzonie View Post
Uh, that would be me. Sorry that is so difficult for you.
Here as well . Traversing through a downtown with density is much more interesting than looking up at one building and saying "wow that's tall" and moving on. OKC is actually a perfect example of a dull downtown compared to San Diego, a well known city that hasn't yet passed the 500 mark but has lots to show for because of it's density. What a true city needs is density before height.

Last edited by Renz; Jan 14, 2018 at 10:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11633  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:35 AM
fawd fawd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
You're an insane f**king idiot, sorry. Who the hell would rather see some stubby "density" over a true landmark focal point?!!!! (smh) Give the people cake if they want it lol. Whatevs...millenial psychology on display here...
Perfect!

Your credibility went to...

Cheers!!!


Last edited by fawd; Jan 14, 2018 at 10:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11634  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:38 AM
fawd fawd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
Who the hell would rather see some stubby "density" over a true landmark focal point?!!!!
*raises hand*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11635  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 3:24 PM
gymratmanaz gymratmanaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Please sir, can we have both? LOL "Hand raised here too!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11636  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 4:31 PM
exit2lef exit2lef is offline
self-important urbanista
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by gymratmanaz View Post
Please sir, can we have both? LOL "Hand raised here too!"
Exactly. I welcome density. I welcome height. Right now, we're getting some of both. I hope for more in 2018 and beyond. My ultimate dream would be something here to make this kind of list in the future:

https://www.curbed.com/2018/1/11/168...s-hudson-yards
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11637  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 7:19 PM
PHX-DUDE-MAN PHX-DUDE-MAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef View Post
Exactly. I welcome density. I welcome height. Right now, we're getting some of both. I hope for more in 2018 and beyond. My ultimate dream would be something here to make this kind of list in the future:

https://www.curbed.com/2018/1/11/168...s-hudson-yards
I agree, the logical sequence for any city should be density before height. The logical reason to build higher is because things are too dense to build outward. I like that Phoenix has in-filled so much within the last decade. I would love to see height but I believe our time is coming very soon. And like was stated on this forum, we are getting a little bit of both right now which is awesome! Look at New York City, it was very dense before it had to start building high. OKC Devon Tower looks awkward in that downtown core. Phoenix is shaping up very nicely, I just wish it would happen faster.

(Sorry guys, I chime in here every now and then, I like reading your posts and gathering information from here. My name is Matt Tracy btw. I'm a Phoenix native and love this city.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11638  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:46 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieFoos View Post
No, get YOUR facts straight. OKC has built ONE 400+ footer since the Devon tower and it was just completed a few months ago. Devom tower is one of my favorite towers, but it is severly out of place in OKC. Don't argue something you are wrong about..
No, you get YOUR facts right - I didn't say "since" I said OKC had more 400+ buildings than Phoenix BEFORE Devon dwarfed them. 5 400+ footers with Devon now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Oklahoma_City

Read it and weep. We are THAT pathetic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11639  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:48 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 481
And as for the density vs. height argument...would you prefer our downtown (relatively non-dense and super short) or LA's (relatively non-dense and tall)??? Case closed. We suck. Long way from not sucking compared to peer cites. Grow a skyscraping set dudes...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11640  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 10:48 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingfast View Post
You're an insane f**king idiot, sorry. Who the hell would rather see some stubby "density" over a true landmark focal point?!!!! (smh) Give the people cake if they want it lol. Whatevs...millenial psychology on display here...
I will rather have no tall buildings and a dense city like DC or anything in Europe. Huge buildings look good for photographs and nice views but the magic of what makes cities cool happens in the first 2-3 floors, everything above just adds more people
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 7:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.