New tallest building FINALLY coming to Phoenix! (Mesa, Scottsdale: foreclosures, mortgages)

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Well, I said in November of last year (on this very same thread) that the project would probably be scaled back:



And why wouldn't it be scaled back? Just about everything in Phoenix that is proposed regarding more height eventually faces setbacks, delays, or scrapping from the books entirely. Why break a trend? The Chase Tower has been the tallest in Phoenix for almost 40 years, and looks likely to remain the tallest in the near future. It seems that nothing can ever exceed its height ... like it's some kind of a sacred monument.

Some of this can be blamed on the current state of the economy and the housing market ... but most of the restrictions in height can be attributed to the bureaucrats from the FAA, as well as the NIMBYs, naysayers, and transplants with the "keep Phoenix flat" mentality (such as Miami Boy among many others). It's pathetic that the nation's fifth largest city can't have a skyline to be proud of.

Uhh, miamiMAN, thank you very much.

You're right, I am glad that this project was scaled back. Phoenix doesn't need to go vertical just for the sake of having nice, tall shiny office buildings. There should be a need for every foot of office space built in this city. There was a thread either or here or SkyscraperPage, which I follow every now and then, indicating that there is an office vacancy rate in downtown Phoenix of almost 20%. Someone tell me why that space can't be filled in before new office buildings are put up? Should we just leave the uninhabited space in the older buildings to fall apart? I don't think so.

A lot of posters on here and on SSP seem to want to have tall buildings for bragging rights and nothing else. If you are that desperate to see skyscrapers, move to LA, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, NY, etc. As I have said before, Phoenix is unapologetically suburban. Don't try to change what it is already etched into our landscape. There are a number of headquarters and regional offices in Phoenix that are NOT located in downtown Phoenix for numerous reasons. Many of those companies have not expressed a pressing desire to move downtown, otherwise they would have done so.

For example, the reason that Philadelphia's tallest, the Comcast building, was constructed in Philadelphia was because the company wanted a new tower for their headquarters, same with Bank of America in Charlotte and Atlanta.

Additionally, I do have to admit that I would not be eager to see more skyscrapers in Phoenix. I live in the Valley partly because of the fact that although we're in a major metropolitan area, we don't have to deal with the feeling that people are constantly on top of each other. There is a lot of space, which if you've ever lived in many of the East Coast cities or San Francisco proper, you learn to appreciate.

[HX_Guy]

Wow. Where do I start with this one?

First of all, downtown Phoenix has the lowest office vacancy of any major employment center in the Phoenix area, currently at 13%, which may or may not include the uptown area...but I'm lead to believe it does include it because a report out last year said the vacancy rate was down to around the 5% range and that is pretty much unheard of. Uptown was quite a bit higher, so I think the 13% includes both downtown and uptown.
The Scottsdale Airpart area has the second lowest vacancy at 17%.

Why not fill in that 13% (or 5%) in downtown before building more? Because that vacancy is not contiguous space, something that big companies want and need. Right now you may have 10,000 sq ft in one building...7,000 sq ft in another, 20,000 sq ft in another etc. Big companies need a lot of space...take Wachovia which has committed to the Cityscape tower...they are taking three floors which is over 60,000 sq ft. No other building in downtown may have have much space available on 3 continuous floors. On top of that, there are different classes of office space. Most big companies now want Class A office space...that 13% vacancy is a mix of Class A and B.

Now do you see why sometimes there is need to build new towers when the current ones are not 100% full?

What are these "numerous reasons" that HQ and regional offices in Phoenix have for not being downtown? I'm willing to bet the biggest is the price of land...it's much much cheaper to build out in the burbs then it is in downtown. Others may need a more spread out platform then a highrise provides...but I'm still willing to bet the #1 reason by far is the cost of land.

Phoenix is suburban...AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. You will admit that Phoenix does have a downtown, right? There are plenty of dusty, empty lots, right? If they build say...5-10 new towers...do you have to go live in one of them? Does your family? Does anyone you know have to move to downtown?

The answer is no.

But...why not have the option for people who do? Why do people like yourself, you are so against more skyscrapers in Phoenix, feel like they or people who want that are imposing on your lifestyle? You can live out in Chandler, Gilbert, Surprise, Peoria, Anthem, whatever...and you wouldn't even know that new towers are being built...it would not change your life or anyone around you whatsoever.

That's the part I don't get...can you clear it up a bit for me? Maybe I'll understand it finally.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by miamiman

You're right, I am glad that this project was scaled back. Phoenix doesn't need to go vertical just for the sake of having nice, tall shiny office buildings. There should be a need for every foot of office space built in this city. There was a thread either or here or SkyscraperPage, which I follow every now and then, indicating that there is an office vacancy rate in downtown Phoenix of almost 20%. Someone tell me why that space can't be filled in before new office buildings are put up? Should we just leave the uninhabited space in the older buildings to fall apart? I don't think so.

The downtown vacancy rate was much higher than 20% in the 1990s, which was during the time when the demand was for more sprawling development in the outer suburban areas. (Funny how NIMBYs didn't protest the excessive suburban sprawl.) But like it or not, times have changed since 10 or 15 years ago. The market is now demanding more centralized locations, whether it be living, entertainment, or office space. Vacancy rates vary from month to month and year to year ... but the last I heard, the rate of vacancy in downtown and along Central Avenue was much lower than 20%. That's the lowest it has been in several decades!

Originally Posted by miamiman

A lot of posters on here and on SSP seem to want to have tall buildings for bragging rights and nothing else. If you are that desperate to see skyscrapers, move to LA, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, NY, etc. As I have said before, Phoenix is unapologetically suburban. Don't try to change what it is already etched into our landscape.

First, a city's skyline helps define the reputation of the entire metro area. Granted, a true world class city consists of many amenities besides just tall buildings ... but the skyline is the first thing people see. Whether you agree or not, appearance is important. Skyscrapers are a sign of success, and the success of the area is dependent on the people who populate the city ... which at this point, doesn't say too much about the people who choose to move to Phoenix, sorry to say.

Phoenix is my native home, and there are many aspects about this place which I like. At one time, the city was making strides in vertical development during the 1970s & '80s when the population was about half of what it is today. But since we're now the nation's fifth largest city, it's quite embarrassing as a native to showcase such a small downtown ... and it's quite frustrating to have to deal with the NIMBY/protectionist/anti capitalist attitude which this place seems to attract. Sadly, many of these NIMBY types are transplants, like you.

Quite frankly, I highly resent transients moving here and telling the natives & long term residents to "MOVE". The majoirty of natives who I've met want to see more of an active central core, including skyscrapers. I say that if you don't like the progress we're trying to make, you can move! We were here first.

[fcorrales80]

Valley Native and HX Guy; I am in agreement. Many natives of Phoenix, including many in my family, have moved downtown or to a central location because of ease of commute and hundreds of dollars saved on gas monthly. While it is not for everyone, many people, and many who have come to not like the suburban lifestyle chose to move downtown because of convenience.

While it would be cool to have a huge ultra-high skyscraper in Phoenix, I don't think it is necessary. Many cities, Europe foremost with cities like Madrid, Paris, London, Berlin, etc. do not have ultra high skyscrapers BUT very dense urban centers. I believe the tallest building in Spain is the Torre Caja in Madrid at 45 floors and 820ft. and is a relatively new building and this is true of most of Europe. The tallest in Europe is in Moscow (Naberezhnaya Tower) at 881ft. My point is that density is more important than huge skyscrapers because most people in dense cities live in midrise buildings and the like. However, Phoenix's mayor has expressed his desire to attract the momentum and interest in building North America's tallest building in Phoenix. It is highly unlikely that we will build the world's tallest building in the U.S. because the land and material to make such a tower is scarce. Also, Dubai, the city with the world's largest tower is able to construct such a building because of one man's desire to do so and billions of dollars in disposable oil money to throw at such a project.

It seems that Phoenix downtown's proximity to the airport has a "dwarfing" effect. Since the height restriction of 700' extends from Van Buren to Indian School, building taller than that is a challenge. The ability to build higher is there, but the number of buildings that will exceed that height will be limited because airspace concern is a real issue even though technology has improved. I believe CityScape lowered its height limit in order to fast-track construction and to alleviate tension between the city and the FAA for future projects that will be higher north of Van Buren (which is in the City's downtown plan). Also, the residential towers to be constructed next to the Collier Center will happen in Phase II. I believe one reason they decided to do this is because of the current state of the real estate market. Another is the general cost of construction and...funny enough, a lack of tower cranes in supply for construction of skyscrapers. However, the plan to build 1000 units in a 2 block section of downtown is huge and instrumental in completing CityScape and creating the environment they envision.

[ShaunChgo]

Hmm.. 44 stories.. That's only about 55 stories shorter than a couple of our buildings in downtown Chicago (Sears Tower, Trump Tower, John Hancock), etc. This is great news though. I plan to move back to the Phoenix area and I can't wait to see the new development which Downtown really needs!

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Wow. Where do I start with this one?

First of all, downtown Phoenix has the lowest office vacancy of any major employment center in the Phoenix area, currently at 13%, which may or may not include the uptown area...but I'm lead to believe it does include it because a report out last year said the vacancy rate was down to around the 5% range and that is pretty much unheard of. Uptown was quite a bit higher, so I think the 13% includes both downtown and uptown.
The Scottsdale Airpart area has the second lowest vacancy at 17%.

Why not fill in that 13% (or 5%) in downtown before building more? Because that vacancy is not contiguous space, something that big companies want and need. Right now you may have 10,000 sq ft in one building...7,000 sq ft in another, 20,000 sq ft in another etc. Big companies need a lot of space...take Wachovia which has committed to the Cityscape tower...they are taking three floors which is over 60,000 sq ft. No other building in downtown may have have much space available on 3 continuous floors. On top of that, there are different classes of office space. Most big companies now want Class A office space...that 13% vacancy is a mix of Class A and B.

Now do you see why sometimes there is need to build new towers when the current ones are not 100% full?

As I said in my last post, a lot of times large companies commit to a building before it is even constructed. The reason the Comcast tower in Philly was constructed, the reason many of the bank buildings in Atlanta and Charlotte were constructed is because those banks needed space for their headquarters. Those buildings were NOT constructed before anyone had signed on to occupy them. They were built with the knowledge that when constructed they WOULD be filled up partially or wholly by certain companies.

I understand that the office space in Phoenix is not contiguous, and that it would be pretty inefficient for a large comapny to have to split its headquarters in three or four buildings. However, like I said before, none of the headquarters in the Valley seem to be bursting at the seams to head downtown. It would be a TREMENDOUS waste of money to construct a highrise with the hopes that some of the companies scattered throughout the Valley and the country would relocate to DT Phoenix. What if the high-rise was built, and there were no tenants? In the current real estate market that could be a strong possibility. No developer in their right mind would invest tons of money into a high-rise with so much uncertainty. You want the chicken to come before the egg, and it just really can't work that way.

It's good that the office vacancy percentage in Phoenix is one of the lowest of any major city. We should be proud of the fact that we have just the right amount office space. There's no need to put in 500' and 600' buildings only to see that vacancy rate climb.

No thanks.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

What are these "numerous reasons" that HQ and regional offices in Phoenix have for not being downtown? I'm willing to bet the biggest is the price of land...it's much much cheaper to build out in the burbs then it is in downtown. Others may need a more spread out platform then a highrise provides...but I'm still willing to bet the #1 reason by far is the cost of land.

Ease of transportation (near airports or major freeways), space to expand (not in DT Phoenix), lower cost for office space, etc. Cost is big factor, not to be overlooked. Metro Phoenix has a lot of undeveloped, cheap land on the periphery. With that, what would be the incentive for locating downtown?

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Phoenix is suburban...AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THAT. You will admit that Phoenix does have a downtown, right? There are plenty of dusty, empty lots, right? If they build say...5-10 new towers...do you have to go live in one of them? Does your family? Does anyone you know have to move to downtown?

The answer is no.

People are trying to change it by proposing the unnecessary towers that are being scaled back or axed. Also by making comments like "Phoenix is the 5th largest city, our skyline should reflect that." That sounds like people trying to change Phoenix into what it is not. We're not in some competition. Phoenix has been suburban for DECADES. The skyline has been paltry in comparison to other cities since the city's inception. It's not suddenly going to change. So why expect it to and get mad when it doesn't?

But...why not have the option for people who do? Why do people like yourself, you are so against more skyscrapers in Phoenix, feel like they or people who want that are imposing on your lifestyle? You can live out in Chandler, Gilbert, Surprise, Peoria, Anthem, whatever...and you wouldn't even know that new towers are being built...it would not change your life or anyone around you whatsoever.

That's the part I don't get...can you clear it up a bit for me? Maybe I'll understand it finally. [/quote]

My response was based on office space. As long as there is demand for people, I don't care about about high-rise residential towers being built. Some people like living like canned tuna on top of each other. I have spent far too much time in cities where there was no option but to live in that matter, I wouldn't want to do it. I have NEVER complained that people living in high-rise towers infringes on my lifestyle. The fact of the matter is that I like Phoenix the way it is. I don't see why people insist on changing Phoenix when there are SO many other cities that can support their immense desire for all things urban.

Keep Phoenix's skyline small.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

The downtown vacancy rate was much higher than 20% in the 1990s, which was during the time when the demand was for more sprawling development in the outer suburban areas. (Funny how NIMBYs didn't protest the excessive suburban sprawl.) But like it or not, times have changed since 10 or 15 years ago. The market is now demanding more centralized locations, whether it be living, entertainment, or office space. Vacancy rates vary from month to month and year to year ... but the last I heard, the rate of vacancy in downtown and along Central Avenue was much lower than 20%. That's the lowest it has been in several decades!

The market really hasn't changed all that much. I don't know any cities in which more people are moving downtown than to the suburbs. While the trend of people moving to urban areas might be picking up, especially in some cities, the American drive of a 3-car garage in a lawn is still alive and kicking.

Gas prices might have slowed some people down, but by no means are the streets emptying rapidly of cars. The real estate market might be in the tubes, but people aren't avoiding moving to the distant suburbs.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

First, a city's skyline helps define the reputation of the entire metro area. Granted, a true world class city consists of many amenities besides just tall buildings ... but the skyline is the first thing people see. Whether you agree or not, appearance is important. Skyscrapers are a sign of success, and the success of the area is dependent on the people who populate the city ... which at this point, doesn't say too much about the people who choose to move to Phoenix, sorry to say.

Who cares what the reputation of Phoenix is. The fact is we don't need skyscrapers people traveling through the Valley on our freeways or landing at Sky Harbor are more impressed. Phoenix is what it is. Say we had two 1,000 foot skyscapers. What good would that do? The Valley would be just as sprawltastic, parts of South Phoenix and Maryvale would be just as rundown and ghetto looking as they are now, we would still have terrible public transportation, and we would still only have one decent (I mean that very loosely) four-year university. There are many other reasonable avenues to try and "fix" Phoenix before changing the skyline.

Skyscrapers are a sign of economic vitality, I will admit. However, they are a sign of economic vitality because they show that a city has a major presence of industry. As far as I'm concerned, an abundance of office parks does the same. Phoenix is full of those.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Phoenix is my native home, and there are many aspects about this place which I like. At one time, the city was making strides in vertical development during the 1970s & '80s when the population was about half of what it is today. But since we're now the nation's fifth largest city, it's quite embarrassing as a native to showcase such a small downtown ... and it's quite frustrating to have to deal with the NIMBY/protectionist/anti capitalist attitude which this place seems to attract. Sadly, many of these NIMBY types are transplants, like you.

You act like your family were never transplants, either . Just because you were born and raised here doesn't mean you hold some monopoly over what goes on here. I am sure your family moved here for some purpose. If there reasoning for moving here was being threatened, I am sure that they would've had something to say, too.

Maybe you should try and lure major companies here yourself. The reason there was a building boom in the 70s and 80s was due to lower relative land costs downtown and also a movement of regional offices and headquarters to Phoenix. NIMBYs didn't stop those companies from building downtown. If they wanted to be in a high-rise, why wouldn't they go to an unincorporated area with less stringent zoning regulations and construct one?

So many people moved to Phoenix because it was everything East Coast and Midwest cities were not: congested, polluted, dirty, and dreary. Why are we striving to turn Phoenix into Los Angeles East?

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Quite frankly, I highly resent transients moving here and telling the natives & long term residents to "MOVE". The majoirty of natives who I've met want to see more of an active central core, including skyscrapers. I say that if you don't like the progress we're trying to make, you can move! We were here first.

I resent natives thinking they hold a monopoly over the city because they were born here. You don't. So because YOU don't like what Phoenix is, I should leave? That makes sense. If you don't like what Phoenix is, you have four options, complain incessantly, try to do something about it, accept it, or move. Simple as that.

Transients are people who live in an area for a brief amount of time before moving. They are usually homeless or close to it. I live in North Scottsdale. I am nowhere close to being homeless. I have no desire of moving. Until I do, I am a resident, not a transient. Sorry.

[HX_Guy]

You continue to contradict yourself.

You say "I don't care about high-rise residential towers being built" and "I have NEVER complained that people living in high-rise towers infringes on my lifestyle" and then you end it with...

"Keep Phoenix's skyline small."

Again...why keep it small if you don't care? Why keep it small if that's not what people want? If you want small...live in Anthem. If people want an urban lifestyle, they could live in downtown Phoenix. It shouldn't affect you in any way, shape, or form...yet you still say to keep the skyline small.

Out of your list of why a company would (or should) build in the suburbs instead of downtown...only two make sense, cost and ability to expand.
But ease of transportation (airports, freeways)...are you kidding me?
Downtown is about 5 miles from the airport. It's surrounded by the I-10 and I-17. It is a mass transit hub. How much more ease of transportation could you have? Then...you're very centrally located...so if you live in Peoria or Gilbert, it's about 30 minutes commute. If your HQ is located in Gilbert...it's fine for the Gilbert resident, but the Peoria resident has to travel at 1 hour.

Still though...you still haven't addresses how building towers in downtown would change Phoenix. You said "People are trying to change it by proposing the unnecessary towers"...necessary or not, that's up for debate...but how would say 10 new towers in downtown affect someone living at say Scottsdale Rd and Deer Valley Rd in the suburbs? How would it affect you?

The only answer I can think of is that you're afraid that giving people and companies these options (new residential and office towers) would sway them to move away from the suburbs into downtown, therefore diminishing the suburban lifestyle. If that is the case however, then I guess there is a need, right?

It would be a TREMENDOUS waste of money to construct a highrise with the hopes that some of the companies scattered throughout the Valley and the country would relocate to DT Phoenix. What if the high-rise was built, and there were no tenants?

TREMENDOUS waste of YOUR money? Doubtful, so what's it to you? What if one was built and it was mostly empty...again, why would it concern you? It would be bad for the developer...but why would you lose any sleep over it?

The need is there (shown by the low vacancy rate) which is why there is currently one tower being built with no signed anchor tenants yet (One Central Park East tower...26 floors, 383 ft.) and the Cityscape office tower (27 floors, 385 ft.) which has Wachovia and a large law firm as anchor tenants already signed up...so that meets your criteria of building once there is demand.

[mfrerkes]

I've never quite understood the whole skyscraper fetish. Skyscrapers are no substitute for quality of life, and effectively add nothing to that equation. If they did, Dubai and Hong Kong would be the best places to live in the world, and anybody with common sense knows that they're not.

So Phoenix doesn't have a New York-Chicago-Atlanta type of skyline. Big deal! New York, Chicago, and Atlanta don't have the amount of growth Phoenix does. As an outsider (I live in Iowa) looking in, it seems Phoenix has alot of reasons to be considered a great place to live even in the absence of 1,000-foot skyscrapers.

People in Des Moines think the city is hot sh*t because it has a 630-foot building. Omaha brags about having the tallest building between Minneapolis and Denver. I think that kind of boasting actually makes them look like big hick towns, instead of the cosmopolitan hubs they want everyone to acknowledge. Hopefully Phoenix won't fall into that same trap.

[HX_Guy]

Personally, while I like tall skyscrapers, that isn't really what I wish downtown Phoenix could have and would be. I live city life, I like people walking the sidewalks and cafes where you can sit next to people walking by...I like people watching, I like not having to use a car for everything...I like things within a walking distance, whether it be a grocery store, drug store, movie theatre or restaurant. Thats the type of things I'd like to see in downtown Phoenix. I'd be happy if the streets had life and everything was under 10 stories...thats ok by me.
Hell, Kierland Commons is one of my favorite places in Phoenix becuase it gives you that feeling...the only problem with it is that it's not big enough, you turn the corner and you're back to suburbia.