Flashy signs are great, but let's not get carried away

The recent announcement that 50-foot electronic billboards will soon loom over the southern portion of downtown Phoenix is fine, but a couple boosters went way overboard in their praise of the move.

"The point is...to really put some excitement on Jefferson Street," claimed Judd Norris, the guy who's going to head up the billboard district.

Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos went him one better.

"It's going to activate downtown. That was one of the best ideas I had all year."

I don't have a problem with the signs, at least conceptually. But these guys are wildly delusional that a few bright signs are going to liven up Jefferson, let alone rejuvenate downtown. You need housing, restaurants, shops and offices to do that. It helps if they face the street, too. Too bad the city helped kill part of Jefferson when they approved the inward-facing CityScape project, which turns the back end of CVS and Oakville Grocery to Jefferson between Central and First Street.

Saying the right things but doing the wrong things at CityScape

With CityScape's grand opening looming, the Republic ran a story featuring this amazing quote from RED Development's Jeff Moloznik:

"I think what separates CityScape from Arizona Center is that when you do
take the wrapping paper off and our tenants are open, people will really see an
engaged street front," Moloznik said. "If you want to have retail on this site,
it has to be facing the street."

With all due respect, what in the world is he talking about? Anyone with two eyes can see that CityScape mostly turns its back to the street. In that regard, at best the development is a marginal improvement on the Arizona Center.

Working counter-clockwise from the west side of CityScape's primary retail block at Central Avenue and Washington Street, the west side features an entry to the parking garage, a teeny little auxiliary door for Five Guys, and a back door for CVS at the southwest corner.

The south side is more of the same-- from west to east you have the CVS back door, a blank wall with some measly posters and windows, another parking garage entrance, and on the east side an entry for Oakville Grocery.

The east side is open as you look across the concrete jungle that a very few people still call "Patriot's Park" to the true front doors of CVS and Lucky Strike (recessed far away from the street in true suburban fashion).

And the north side features a secondary building that has no entrances facing the street.

I'm sorry, but a couple token windows and back doors do not "engage" the street. A walk down the street of virtually any major urban center in the world would illustrate the difference. Either RED is being disingenuous or, more likely, this is more proof that they're suburban developers that simply didn't have a clue about building an urban structure.

CVS, lose the booze

Cruising on the light rail next to the backside of CityScape (yes, as predicted CityScape turns its back to the light rail stop and the Luhrs buildings in true suburban fashion) one can see that the soon-to-open CVS store seeks a liquor license. Again, CityScape and its tenants demonstrate a profound lack of understanding for their downtown environment. The last thing downtown Phoenix or the poor souls struggling with addiction need is another place to purchase single-serving alcoholic beverages. CityScape’s CVS should follow the lead of its sister store at Central and McDowell as well as some of the Circle K stores nearby and abandon its pursuit of a liquor license.

CityScape = Collier Center

Anyone disagree that by January 2011, CityScape will only comprise two blocks of (mediocre) retail and a single high-rise? (A carbon copy of the Collier Center, as I originally suggested in February 2007?)

Granted, this is a position on which I'd like to be wrong. But the signs all point one way-- the most telling coming a few months ago when the project's developer, RED Develoment, split the incentives in its development agreement so that it could receive half of the promised millions from the city even if it only built one tower at CityScape. Right now, RED is saying that it's building the office tower on the block on the east side of Central and Washington streets, but that the hotel/condo tower will follow in a few months.

We'll see. Any project that depends on condo development in a significant way is probably DOA in this market. And the need for hotel rooms downtown will be significantly blunted by the opening of the city-owned Sheraton.

In any event, the Arizona Republic needs to stop exaggerating the scale of this project. I've seen story after story-- one ran today-- that refers to CityScape as a "sprawling, $900 million project spread out over three blocks." Again, while I'd love to be wrong, this project is not going to spread over three blocks-- my understanding is the project partner that was to develop the block between First and Second streets has already dropped out; it's definitely not going to amount to the $900M touted by the developer in order to gain city approval.

Ultimately, I don't care all that much whether one tower or two is built, although I'd prefer two. My hope was to finally get a project in downtown Phoenix that engages the street with quality retail. My expectations all along have been very low on that front, so if CityScape only ends up producing one more downtown tower, I won't be much more heartbroken. It's too bad. Much as I'd like, I just can't get excited about this project.

Where was my byline?

Maybe I'm seeing something that wasn't there, but the opening paragraphs of the Arizona Republic's cover story on downtown sounded a lot like something I wrote about six weeks ago. Here's what I mean:

On February 25, in my post 'The Old Guard Reacts in the Wake of CityScape,' I wrote, '...Every few years some developer comes along with a project that is going to "save" downtown but fails in that colossal task. In the seventies, it was the civic plaza convention center. In the late 1980's, after the Boston Globe called downtown Phoenix a "surreal nightmare," we tried to save it with the Mercado and Arizona Center. In the nineties, it was US Airways Arena and Chase Field...CityScape is just the latest variation in a series of megaprojects billed as the downtown savior.'

On April 8, the Republic ran a story called 'Multiple projects key to downtown's revival.' It opens like this: 'First it was the Phoenix Civic Plaza. Then it was the Arizona Center. Later it was the sporting venues - America West Arena and Bank One Ballpark - that were to provide the spark. More recently, it was a new Arizona State University campus that was ballyhooed. It seems every few years - for the past three or four decades - city boosters anointed one venture or another as the savior of downtown Phoenix. But each time, the project's actual impact has fallen far short of the lofty projections.'

Maybe I'm mistaken-- but it seems like there are a lot of similarities here-- the use of a list that names the civic plaza, the Arizona Center, the arena and ballpark; the use of the same word, "savior," to describe the projects; and of course the overall thesis are pretty much the same.

Anyway, I'm not mad. The notion that downtown Phoenix tries to reinvent itself every so often through some "silver bullet" megaproject was hardly novel when I wrote it. And I also know that someone can read something, forget it, and then weeks or months later, the subject of the reading comes back into one's mind and the person innocently uses it as their own thoughts. My only beef is, hey, if you liked the concept, give me a byline, or quote me!

CityScape aftermath

The Parks Board voted 5-2 to adopt the conceptual master plan for CityScape. My initial reaction and observation following last night's meeting:


A lightweight board. "New York might have Central Park, but New York also has a lot of other things that I wouldn't want," said Parks Board member Laura Bell in casting her vote to turn over the park to RED. Huh?! Even CityScape supporters would have to admit the board's comments in electing to abdicate their roles as stewards of a park to the private sector were pretty much insipid. Jim Holway was the lone bright spot among that dismal crew.

Class warfare. The young professionals in the room, many of them residents of the Orpheum Lofts, generally supported CityScape (while in general the opposition was older and less well-to-do). I don't get it- haven't any of these young professionals lived in other cities? Don't they realize that trading away the public park for a PF Changs doesn't make our city better, it just makes it generic?

Nobody buys RED's "park." In its presentation on CityScape, RED Development tried to make the claim that the little grassy spot in the middle of the AJ's/B. Dalton's/PF Chang's complex was Patriot's Park. They even tried to say that 20,000 people could attend an event there (even though their diagrams showed half those people would be unable to see the "stage" because their view would be blocked by PF Chang's). But nobody who spoke on behalf of the project tried to defend RED's ploy. Aside from the developers, even the supporters of CityScape seem to concede that Patriot's Square is gone.


Streetside Retail? It's hard to say whether there will be streetside retail. Yes, one of the development team pledged in the meeting that all parts of the project will have street-fronting retail. But earlier in the presentation one of the RED guys mentioned only "retail along Washington and Jefferson." Holway brought up the fact that RED hadn't received any commitment from the proposed tenants to have street-facing retail. And RED's own plan points out "street side retail" only on the new east-west street, and nowhere else in the project (see below). Hopefully-- at least-- there will be street-fronting stores.

Summary. In all, this was no surprise. It's Phoenix! The developers generally rule the day. But they did have to make some concessions. And maybe the people in attendance-- who seemed so desperate for new development-- will get over their civic inferiority complex and not be so desperate the next time a developer proposes some crappy deal to the city.