Astra Phoenix slated to be the city's "new tallest" (Chandler: houses, gyms)

[locolife]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

If this happens, I hope they do a better job than with the Stewart, which has had all sort of issues.

Also, it would be somewhat unusual to have the city's tallest building be a residential tower. That distinction usually goes to an office building, often a bank headquarters. Those days may have passed due to remote working and suburban offices locations, so my guess is that other cities may eventually see their tallest buildings be residential as well.

Agree with that this becoming a more common theme for tallest buildings, Astra is mixed use with hotel, residential and office components. And this is definitely growing among new tallest buildings across the country. Here is a list of proposed new tallest buildings among some cities, it's from the Wiki Page which is far from complete as Astra for example doesn't appear on there. But gives a sense of where things are headed.

- LA, LA Grand Hotel, Hotel
- Denver, 650 N 17th Street, Mixed Use
- Miami, Empire World Towers, Residential
- Newark NJ, Four Corners Millennium Tower, Mixed Use
- Portland, Twin Towers, Mixed Use
- Providence, Hope Point Tower, Residential
- Seattle, 4/C, Mixed Use
- Las Vegas, Fountainbleau, Hotel (of course)
- Detroit, Renaissance Center, Hotel (already built)

[Maroon197]

I'd be happy with more density via infill with midrise buildings. I think the vibe with midrise development is often more welcoming than with tall superstructures.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Maroon197

I'd be happy with more density via infill with midrise buildings. I think the vibe with midrise development is often more welcoming than with tall superstructures.

Ideally, I'd like to see both: a few towers around 50 stories in the downtown core and a lot more midrise development along the light rail corridor. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd go with the midrises, though. Washington D.C. and most European cities show how a city can be dense and walkable even without much of skyline.

[walker1962]

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

Those four cities are coastal that can design their runways so that many flights land and take off over an undeveloped body of water, rather than over the city.

I agree with you but neither is happening.

Except there Airports are hemmed in by significant development. its too late to reorient runways. It took Atlanta 5 years to add a 5th runway nd that's for a facility maybe miles south of downtown.

[walker1962]

Originally Posted by locolife

Agree with that this becoming a more common theme for tallest buildings, Astra is mixed use with hotel, residential and office components. And this is definitely growing among new tallest buildings across the country. Here is a list of proposed new tallest buildings among some cities, it's from the Wiki Page which is far from complete as Astra for example doesn't appear on there. But gives a sense of where things are headed.

- LA, LA Grand Hotel, Hotel
- Denver, 650 N 17th Street, Mixed Use
- Miami, Empire World Towers, Residential
- Newark NJ, Four Corners Millennium Tower, Mixed Use
- Portland, Twin Towers, Mixed Use
- Providence, Hope Point Tower, Residential
- Seattle, 4/C, Mixed Use
- Las Vegas, Fountainbleau, Hotel (of course)
- Detroit, Renaissance Center, Hotel (already built)

Add Austin's new 6th nd Guadalupe tower, 66 stories or 847 feet, just finished its halfway point, which is the commercial component of the building.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...ial-phase.html

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by Prickly Pear

333 N. 2nd Ave is behind the downtown YMCA, halfway inbetween Filmore and Van Buren on the east side of 2nd Ave. Given that they are unlikely to take out any of the buildings on the west side of 1st Ave like the YMCA (because many are already high rises), it will be a pretty long and narrow building rather than a traditional square like many others. Especially since the alley needs to be preserved and 2nd avenue has larger setbacks than Central Ave where the Stewart was built.



The real question is why did we allow Phoenix to expand Sky Harbor instead of moving our big international airport to Goodyear or Mesa Gateway? The amount of historic neighborhoods that have been bulldozed and the hinderances it has put on our more urban areas including Tempe has been criminal. Every other major city has moved it's international airport and structured it so it didn't interfere with the city and for extremely good reasons. Airports are often SUPERFUND sites, cause extreme noise and light pollution, worsens air quality, amongst other things.



The FAA height restrictions affect DT Tempe, and Midtown Phoenix. Again, worst decision this state and metro has ever made if you ask me. Slightly before not using the canals as a waterfront type of opportunity.

Personally, I would have preferred Skyharbor get moved somewhere south of the metro area, west of I-10 and east of SH-347 but I think its designated for Gila tribal land. So its out of the question.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by locolife

Yep, this is a repeating narrative about Phoenix's downtown issues, I agree our city leaders made a lot of mistakes in the past and part of it is being the country's youngest big city that grew up in the auto era. You can't change history but you can change now and DT PHX is night and day from where it was just 5-10 years ago and light years from where it was when I moved here about 20 years ago. Friday night after the Suns game we could not get into almost any my favorite bars, everyone had lines out of the door. We tried Valley Bar, Bitter/Twisted, Melinda's Alley, Hannys, Majerles, The Whining Pig, Kettle Black, Cornish Pasty we're all packed and had people queued up in line. We finally got into Seemus McCaffrey's after about a 15ish minute wait.

As we walked around I looked at all the new development occurring, something like 3,000 additional apartments in development now, and thought how much more is to come as these buildings fill up with residents. If you read the article the news on Astra moving ahead is due to the developer having great success with their last downtown PHX tower called the Stewart, Empire sold that project in September which is catalyst for Astra kicking off. The Stewart is 95% occupied.

While downtown has made significant strides, it's not anywhere close to being "light years" better compared to 20 years ago. It's still busy during the weekdays, and when there are concerts, games, or other events, but that's about it. Case in point: I went downtown on a weekend last summer just to see if there was any activity. The streets & businesses were practically empty, and I posted some photos on another thread to prove my point.

In order to honestly say that the changes are "night & day" or "light years" compared to a past time, there would have to actually be activity during all times of the year ... not just during working hours or when there are events. Also, more businesses would be moving in instead of moving out (JP Morgan Chase as one prime example), and there would be newer highrises that are taller than the former Chase Tower. None of this has occurred.

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Ideally, I'd like to see both: a few towers around 50 stories in the downtown core and a lot more midrise development along the light rail corridor. If I had to choose one over the other, I'd go with the midrises, though. Washington D.C. and most European cities show how a city can be dense and walkable even without much of skyline.

Washington, D.C. has ridiculous height restrictions to the point where anything taller than the Washington Monument is built in the northern VA suburbs. Aside from D.C, Phoenix, and San Jose, all major U.S. cities have notable skyscrapers over 40 stories, and skylines to be proud of. That has been an American tradition for nearly a century. Even some European cities have tall skylines. The rest of them can do their own thing. This is the U.S., not Europe!

In Phoenix, people like to use Sky Harbor's centralized location as a reason for why the skyline has limited height, but I call b.s. on that. San Diego's airport is close to downtown, and they have a decent skyline despite their restrictions. McCarran Airport in Vegas is a stone's throw from the Strip, but that hasn't stopped the mega resorts from reaching 50 stories or more.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Personally, I would have preferred Skyharbor get moved somewhere south of the metro area, west of I-10 and east of SH-347 but I think its designated for Gila tribal land. So its out of the question.

No. Traffic bottleneck and for what purpose

Having it connected to the light rail system is an asset

[BIG CATS]

47 stories is nothing to get excited over. Id say we need more 15-20 storied buildings, densely clustered, to give the downtown a more downtown feel. Looking at downtown from the SW or SE it looks ok, but then you look at it on the 10 East of downtown, and its so sparse looking its sad.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

No. Traffic bottleneck and for what purpose

Having it connected to the light rail system is an asset

It makes no sense to have major airports being so far away from the city. I can understand smaller reliever airports being in a distant location (Mesa Gateway as an example) ... or international airports serving a large metroplex situated between two notable cities (DFW). I like Sky Harbor's location, and it would be absolutely stupid to have Phoenix's international airport out in no man's land.

What I'm against is the FAA being so intrusive about buildings' height. Downtown & midtown could easily have 60 & 70 story towers without being a danger to aircraft. I think it's really more of a NIMBY issue. If skyscrapers of significant height were proposed, you can bet that loud protests and/or lawsuits would erupt over somebody's mountain views, etc.

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

47 stories is nothing to get excited over. Id say we need more 15-20 storied buildings, densely clustered, to give the downtown a more downtown feel. Looking at downtown from the SW or SE it looks ok, but then you look at it on the 10 East of downtown, and its so sparse looking its sad.

15 to 20 stories are OK for filler development, but the majority of the inner core should certainly be taller. As far as density, downtown Phoenix is much more dense than it was just 10 years ago because of an increase in 15 to 20 story buildings. If you really want the central core to have more of a "downtown feel", there needs to be development of significant height (over 40 stories, and preferably 50+ stories, including an iconic observation tower).