Suns may want to tear down historic Phoenix buildings

[HooverDam]

A story from the excellent Vanishing Phoenix blog:

MADISON & ST. JAMES HOTELS: DOWNTOWN LANDMARKS OR SOON-TO-BE HISTORY?

September 10, 2012 by Connor Descheemaker

On August 30, a demolition permit was issued for property along Madison Street containing two of the Warehouse District’s oldest buildings, the Madison and St. James Hotels.

The two buildings, bought by Suns Legacy Partners LLC (owners of the NBA’s Phoenix Suns) in 2005 for a rumored $7 million, have sat vacant for over a decade after being in constant use as hotels since early in the 20th century.

In regards to official plans following the demolition, Suns Legacy Partners did not comment in time for this story.

According to Acting Historic Preservation Officer Michelle Dodds, there are no legal means available to prevent the buildings’ teardown, as “neither structure is [listed] on the local [historic property] register. Had they been listed, they would have three days with the Historic Preservation Office to approve or deny [the demolition].”

In 1990, the St. James was proposed to be added to the City of Phoenix Historic Property Register, a measure which failed due to opposition from the Hotel’s property owners. Then in 2000, both buildings were put up for inclusion on the register. The measure failed though, again due to opposition from the property owners.

Both proposals took place prior to the passage of Prop 207 in 2006 which, according to Dodds, effectively prevents the City from declaring private property as historic without the full support from owner.

Only the St. James Hotel, known for its now-catawampus wooden shades and long-dimmed neon sign, is on the National Register of Historic Places, though the honor is largely ceremonial.

Up to this point, the permit’s issuance has gone unreported due to uncertainties regarding the owners’ plans for the property.

Brendan Mahoney, Senior Policy Advisor in the Mayor’s Office, said of the issue “In a big city, the mere fact that someone applies for a permit doesn’t mean it will filter up higher [in the government].”

But, due to the buildings’ perceived historic value, rumors and news spread more quickly. Mahoney articulated that, upon hearing the news, Mayor Greg Stanton “called up the owners, asking ‘Why are you doing this? What are your goals? What is your motivation?’” in trying to gain an understanding as to the Suns’ decision.

The Mayor asked the Suns to agree to a brief, monthlong moratorium on demolishing the buildings, to which they agreed, allowing the City assess its resources and hear from the community on what to do with the two former hotels.

–

The Madison and St. James Hotels each have long and storied histories, mirroring the boom and bust of downtown Phoenix: First growing to prominence following the arrival of trains at Union Station; falling into disrepair with the exodus of residents and travelers in the city’s core; closing and facing an uncertain fate with the arrival of new investment and the destruction of many nearby historic structures.

The Madison Hotel was built in 1909, reflecting a simple “20th Century Commercial” style in the words of the Arizona State Historic Property Inventory.

Currently, the Madison is one of very few pre-statehood buildings left in the state, and one of even fewer in the Warehouse District.

Though the building was constructed of brick, relatively early in its history the façade was covered with stucco, giving it a more plain appearance in the face of downtown’s more ornate architecture of the day.

According to an Arizona Republic article from 1939, the Hotel was run by Mrs. Elizabeth Lauver and her husband Clinton from its inception. Elizabeth herself was noted for being “prominent in activities at the First Presbyterian Church”, contrary to the Madison’s later reputation as a notorious flophouse.

Next door, the Hotel St. James was built in 1929, arriving six years after the completion of Union Station to welcome travelers from across the country.

The St. James was designed by Lloyd LeRaine Pike, a well-regarded local architect of the day, and built by the A.F. Wasielewski Construction Company. The latter was especially notable, as the same company was responsible for the construction of the Luhrs Tower, Brophy College Preparatory School and St. Mary’s School.

The building’s presence on the National Register of Historic Places is likely related to its more ornate design, reflecting a Spanish Colonial influence.

An Arizona Republican notice from 1929 announcing the Hotel’s construction explains the developers’ plans for the building, highlighting its 50 rooms and proposed roof garden.

Although each hotel began with good intentions, their final decades were riddled with scandal and danger.

Longtime Warehouse District advocate, preservationist and property owner Michael Levine spoke most candidly of the Madison and St. James’ later years, noting “they seemed to pull a dead body out of [the hotels] almost every day. Every week there were stories.”

To many eyes today, the two buildings are largely unremarkable compared to more opulent structures like the Luhrs Tower and Building. In fact, “The only reason they didn’t get demolished is because they were making money,” according to Levine, charging $8 for a half a day, and $10 for a full day to drifters, transients, druggies and all manner of undesirables.

However, with so few original structures remaining in the historic Warehouse District, some argue that the hotels’ mere presence is enough reason for preservation. In the words of Levine, “[Those] buildings [were] a witness, for better or for worse, to everything…It’s not high architecture, but it’s part of Arizona’s history.”

From the construction of U.S. Airways Center, Chase Field and CityScape, to the destruction of Barrow Furniture, the Luhrs Hotel and Madison Street Studios, the Madison and St. James have remained in place.

And now, with the demolition permit approved, they could be no longer.

Mahoney says the Mayor’s Office is currently examining the City’s resources, “meeting again [this] Tuesday with members of the community to come up with solutions to meet the Suns’ needs.”

Of the overall process, Mahoney notes that “For brainstorming purposes, the best way to start is with a relatively small group and identify key pillars, [then] turn it over to a big group and refine those pillars.”

Due to the interests of the property owners, Levine says of the situation, “The only way to really save [the buildings] is if you come up with a creative solution.”

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Robert Sarver he tore down the fun'n'gun Suns, now he's trying to tear down Historic Phoenix- what a guy!

Now, I'd like to cut something off at the pass, I know some knuckle dragger is going to come into the thread and post "those buildings aren't that special!" or "whats so historic about those buildings!?" And if we lived in New York City, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC or heck even LA, you'd maybe have a point.

However, this is Phoenix. We sadly have tore down far far too much of our historic building stock. Because Phoenix didn't really become a 'city' until the 1950s, we have a very small building stock thats pre WW2. The Madison is pre statehood- there are VERY FEW of those buildings still standing.

Additionally, these buildings are at an extremely important location in Downtown. They are the gateway to the Warehouse district South of USAC, and if revitalized would serve to connect the area where Cooperstown, Coach and Willies and the Deuce are located to the more central part of Downtown where you find Cityscape, the bars and clubs along Washington, etc.

Before the economy tanked, there were plans to turn the warehouse district south of USAC into the Jackson Street Entertainment District, an area similar to Denver's LoDo if you're familiar with that. That can still happen, but we need these buildings to serve as urban connectors.

On a semi related note: The Suns have an outclass in US Airways Center in 5 years where they can claim the arena is 'obsolete'. I have it on the highest authority in PHX City Hall that the Suns are already known to be looking at this clause, and may even threaten a move to somewhere like San Diego to extract what they want out of PHX.

Apparently, the Suns have discussed knocking down more historic warehouses to build a future arena. That of course is very frustrating considering the sensible plan would be to play at Jobing.com for a season while a new arena was built on the site of USAC, its an ideal location. So that's something to keep your eye on.

Anyway, I just thought this should be brought to the attention of Suns fans so we all are fully aware of what a crap head Mr Sarver is. As there are updates on this issue I'll post them if there's interest.

But please, if you have any interactions with the Suns, even if its just the ticket office for renewals, I encourage you to mention you don't want the Suns knocking down Phoenix and turning it into a parking lot.

 

[Chaplin]

...and yet, they still sit empty and have been for years. At some point, the downtown area needs to update and part of that is removing buildings like this. If there was some sort of historical context to these buildings, then fine, but simply because they are old doesn't work. I'm sure there have been dozens of "plans" to revitalize the area, but sounds to me like nothing has ever gone past the discussion phase, and that's probably being generous.

What's your plan for revitalization? Save all these empty eyesores and make them into a destination (which isn't even close to happening) or have the rightful owners tear them down and have the possibility of a more modern and much faster revitalization? It's a tough call, but in the end, if tearing down these two empty buildings with very little historical significance a) keeps the Suns in Phoenix, and b) creates an opportunity for a viable revitalization, then why would you be so up in arms against it?

 

[Dback Jon]

If Sarver threatens to move the Suns, the city should claim eminant domain on HIM.


Current season ticket holders should begin to boycott unless he signs a lease extension.

 

[HooverDam]

...and yet, they still sit empty and have been for years.

At some point, the downtown area needs to update and part of that is removing buildings like this. If there was some sort of historical context to these buildings, then fine, but simply because they are old doesn't work. I'm sure there have been dozens of "plans" to revitalize the area, but sounds to me like nothing has ever gone past the discussion phase, and that's probably being generous.
What's your plan for revitalization? Save all these empty eyesores and make them into a destination (which isn't even close to happening) or have the rightful owners tear them down and have the possibility of a more modern and much faster revitalization? It's a tough call, but in the end, if tearing down these two empty buildings with very little historical significance a) keeps the Suns in Phoenix, and b) creates an opportunity for a viable revitalization, then why would you be so up in arms against it?[/QUOTE]

Chap, you're usually a smart guy, but wow are you way off here. Which in part is why I was hesitant to post it on a sports forum in the first place, as I figured many folks (including yourself obviously) aren't too familiar with the importance of Historic preservation.

Lets go over your points one by one and discuss why they are silly at best:

...and yet, they still sit empty and have been for years.

Buildings sat empty along Roosevelt Street for years, many became de facto homeless flop houses, some were ***** houses, flop houses, etc. In the late 80s/early 90s, artists started to move in, and now Roosevelt Row is one of the most vibrant, exciting and upcoming parts of PHX. During the 'season' (oct-may) they have festivals and fun stuff going on there nearly every weekend.

If in 1985 we as a City would've said "these buildings are eye sores, not particular large or historic, just old, lets knock them all over!" none of the great things that are happening today would be possible.

What's your plan for revitalization?

Me specifically? I've got many, I'll be meeting with the Mayor sometime soon to discuss them.

It's a tough call, but in the end, if tearing down these two empty buildings with very little historical significance

Very little significance? One of these buildings is pre statehood, that alone makes it significant. The City has multiple times tried to add them to their historic registry, so obviously the people who are experts in the field of historic preservation disagree with your assessment.

b) creates an opportunity for a viable revitalization, then why would you be so up in arms against it?

This is a complete fallacy based on the outdated and wrong concept of 'urban renewal'. Urban renewal was all the rage in the 60s-80s, but today its mostly a relic of the past. The idea that old buildings should be just forgotten, destroyed and then we'd have all this open land to develop new glistening skyscrapers filled with modern conveniences just doesn't happen.

Take a quick look at an satellite view of Downtown PHX on Google Maps. See all those dirt and empty lots? They used to be full of warehouses, bungalows, etc. Phoenix wasn't developed with an empty core, that started in the 70s.

If tearing down buildings and making was a successful way to spur new development, it would've happened by now. Its been nearly 50 years since the empty lots in Downtown PHX started to pop up, its clearly not a sound strategy.

In fact, quite the opposite is a sound strategy. If you're interested in the topic, I'd highly recommend reading "Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs. Its an easy read and is the primer everyone should read if they're interest in Cities on any level.

In "Death and Life" Ms Jacobs outlines how important it is for Cities to have a stock of inexpensive older buildings. These are the buildings that 'urban pioneers' can move into, fix up, and begin to gentrify. Young people, artists, and those who want to take a chance on a once forgotten area like Downtown can't afford to buy an empty lot, hire an architect, do new construction, etc.

Old buildings are also important because they're the physical manifestation in a Cities pride in itself and its history. To knock down a perfectly fine, quite nice building that could be rehabbed is a shame, and shows no sense of self worth.

Reusing buildings is also the ultimate 'green building'. Renovating an existing structure has far less impact on the environment than demolition and building new.

And lets not forget that asphalt parking lots are one of the #1 contributors to the urban heat island, a phenomenon thats raised night time temperatures in Phoenix about 10 degrees. Creating dense, walkable environments with shade, green roofs, etc. means more open space can be preserved (i.e. less sprawl) and that in the long run helps combat the urban heat island.

Lets also not forget PHX is woefully low in the number of Downtown hotel rooms when we compare ourselves to cities we compete with for conventions like Denver or San Diego. PHX now has a gorgeous new convention center, but the bottle neck is a huge lack of downtown hotel rooms. If the Madison & St James were rehabilitated they could make for great historic boutique hotels, something along the lines of these.

Plus your whole argument falls flat on its face when you say making this a parking lot opens it up for future development. Future development isn't the plan, the plan is a surface parking lot, something we don't need in Downtown.

 

[Budden]

Um, am I missing something? Because I checked the following website, and it appears as though Sarver has already done this:

http://www.nba.com/suns/roster/2012

 

[Black Jesus]

Tear those buildings down! Downtown Phoenix needs to be revitalized, so people don't have to live and go out in areas like Old Town or Glendale.

Those buildings are not architectural feats, and the mini-mart looks like it belongs in Tijuana or Nogales.

If you want to keep the hotel building, fine, but completely restore the inside and make it into something very nice and modern.

Saving something because it is old is not okay. There is a lot of stuff that should stay in the past.

 

[HooverDam]

Tear those buildings down! Downtown Phoenix needs to be revitalized, so people don't have to live and go out in areas like Old Town or Glendale.

Those buildings are not architectural feats, and the mini-mart looks like it belongs in Tijuana or Nogales.

If you want to keep the hotel building, fine, but completely restore the inside and make it into something very nice and modern.

Saving something because it is old is not okay. There is a lot of stuff that should stay in the past.

Congrats on amazing ignorance!

 

[JCSunsfan]

Congrats on amazing ignorance!

Wisdom, not ignorance. Keep the best of the past--those two buildings do not qualify.

 

[slinslin]

Those buildings looks like ruins.

 

[HooverDam]

Wisdom, not ignorance. Keep the best of the past--those two buildings do not qualify.

1. What makes you qualified to be the judge on what qualifies and doesn't? Are you an expert in architecture? urban planning? historic preservation? Have you studied any of those fields in any way?

2. Where has this culture of "tear it down it doesn't seem that special to me!!!!" crap gotten Phoenix? Wouldn't we have a more vibrant City if we had more affordable buildings to rehab. Look at Denvers LoDo as an example of a formula to be followed.

The fact that I have to explain this sort of things to adults is mind boggling. It's things like this that keep the stereotype of sports fans being dumb jock block heads going.

Those buildings looks like ruins.

Yup, they're in bad shape. But so were lots of old buildings before being rehabbed. Ever see what Majerles looked like at one time? Those are actually the oldest commercial buildings in PHX right there along Washington.

At one time they were part of "the Deuce". An area full of vice crime, certainly the most blighted in the City. Would we have been better off to tear them down and have more parking lots? Or are we happy that we have Majerles, and nightclubs, and offices and such?

Keep in mind, all studies have shown Downtown currently has an EXCESS of parking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 spaces.

 

[Chaplin]

Chap, you're usually a smart guy, but wow are you way off here. Which in part is why I was hesitant to post it on a sports forum in the first place, as I figured many folks (including yourself obviously) aren't too familiar with the importance of Historic preservation.

Lets go over your points one by one and discuss why they are silly at best:



Buildings sat empty along Roosevelt Street for years, many became de facto homeless flop houses, some were ***** houses, flop houses, etc. In the late 80s/early 90s, artists started to move in, and now Roosevelt Row is one of the most vibrant, exciting and upcoming parts of PHX. During the 'season' (oct-may) they have festivals and fun stuff going on there nearly every weekend.

If in 1985 we as a City would've said "these buildings are eye sores, not particular large or historic, just old, lets knock them all over!" none of the great things that are happening today would be possible.



Me specifically? I've got many, I'll be meeting with the Mayor sometime soon to discuss them.



Very little significance? One of these buildings is pre statehood, that alone makes it significant. The City has multiple times tried to add them to their historic registry, so obviously the people who are experts in the field of historic preservation disagree with your assessment.



This is a complete fallacy based on the outdated and wrong concept of 'urban renewal'. Urban renewal was all the rage in the 60s-80s, but today its mostly a relic of the past. The idea that old buildings should be just forgotten, destroyed and then we'd have all this open land to develop new glistening skyscrapers filled with modern conveniences just doesn't happen.

Take a quick look at an satellite view of Downtown PHX on Google Maps. See all those dirt and empty lots? They used to be full of warehouses, bungalows, etc. Phoenix wasn't developed with an empty core, that started in the 70s.

If tearing down buildings and making was a successful way to spur new development, it would've happened by now. Its been nearly 50 years since the empty lots in Downtown PHX started to pop up, its clearly not a sound strategy.

In fact, quite the opposite is a sound strategy. If you're interested in the topic, I'd highly recommend reading "Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs. Its an easy read and is the primer everyone should read if they're interest in Cities on any level.

In "Death and Life" Ms Jacobs outlines how important it is for Cities to have a stock of inexpensive older buildings. These are the buildings that 'urban pioneers' can move into, fix up, and begin to gentrify. Young people, artists, and those who want to take a chance on a once forgotten area like Downtown can't afford to buy an empty lot, hire an architect, do new construction, etc.

Old buildings are also important because they're the physical manifestation in a Cities pride in itself and its history. To knock down a perfectly fine, quite nice building that could be rehabbed is a shame, and shows no sense of self worth.

Reusing buildings is also the ultimate 'green building'. Renovating an existing structure has far less impact on the environment than demolition and building new.

And lets not forget that asphalt parking lots are one of the #1 contributors to the urban heat island, a phenomenon thats raised night time temperatures in Phoenix about 10 degrees. Creating dense, walkable environments with shade, green roofs, etc. means more open space can be preserved (i.e. less sprawl) and that in the long run helps combat the urban heat island.

Lets also not forget PHX is woefully low in the number of Downtown hotel rooms when we compare ourselves to cities we compete with for conventions like Denver or San Diego. PHX now has a gorgeous new convention center, but the bottle neck is a huge lack of downtown hotel rooms. If the Madison & St James were rehabilitated they could make for great historic boutique hotels, something along the lines of these.

Plus your whole argument falls flat on its face when you say making this a parking lot opens it up for future development. Future development isn't the plan, the plan is a surface parking lot, something we don't need in Downtown.

The article you quoted said NOTHING about parking lots. Why didn't you quote that it's going to be a parking lot? I actually was quite interested in what the Suns were planning to do with the land, but the article only speculates that it may have to do with getting a new arena for the team. Basically calling me stupid simply because I didn't assume it's going to a parking lot is uncalled for. Not sure why you decided to get personal.

 

[Chaplin]

1. What makes you qualified to be the judge on what qualifies and doesn't? Are you an expert in architecture? urban planning? historic preservation? Have you studied any of those fields in any way?

2. Where has this culture of "tear it down it doesn't seem that special to me!!!!" crap gotten Phoenix? Wouldn't we have a more vibrant City if we had more affordable buildings to rehab. Look at Denvers LoDo as an example of a formula to be followed.

The fact that I have to explain this sort of things to adults is mind boggling. It's things like this that keep the stereotype of sports fans being dumb jock block heads going.



Yup, they're in bad shape. But so were lots of old buildings before being rehabbed. Ever see what Majerles looked like at one time? Those are actually the oldest commercial buildings in PHX right there along Washington.

At one time they were part of "the Deuce". An area full of vice crime, certainly the most blighted in the City. Would we have been better off to tear them down and have more parking lots? Or are we happy that we have Majerles, and nightclubs, and offices and such?

Keep in mind, all studies have shown Downtown currently has an EXCESS of parking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 spaces.

Again, where are you getting that there is going to be a parking lot there? Be against the demolition of the buildings, but stop making stuff up and attacking posters.

 

[HooverDam]

The article you quoted said NOTHING about parking lots. Why didn't you quote that it's going to be a parking lot? I actually was quite interested in what the Suns were planning to do with the land, but the article only speculates that it may have to do with getting a new arena for the team. Basically calling me stupid simply because I didn't assume it's going to a parking lot is uncalled for. Not sure why you decided to get personal.

Sorry I thought it mentioned the VIP parking lot, I read the article when it was first posted and didn't re-read it.

The Suns want a "VIP"/valet parking lot there. They're currently using 1st St for this purpose, which is actually against City code, but the City is looking the other way because they want to be supportive of the Suns/stuff going on downtown.

Last I've heard the City is offering the Suns some parking space in the Barrister building area, or also the idea of closing down Madison on game nights and turning that small section of street in front of the Madison and St James hotels into parking while the buildings aren't used.

I don't see anywhere that I got personal with you or called you stupid. In fact, I called you smart! You're clearly not knowledgeable on the topic of historic preservation, but that doesn't make you stupid, it just means you're unaware. Which is fine, lots of people are unaware of lots of topics, I'm certainly no different. I just find it frustrating when people don't know much about a topic but decide to speak on it.

Again, where are you getting that there is going to be a parking lot there? Be against the demolition of the buildings, but stop making stuff up and attacking posters.

Thats the Suns plan. I thought the article mentioned it, I see now it doesn't. Now I'm letting you know: the plan is for a VIP parking lot. You'll notice the article is dated September 10th, I'm not sure if it was known when that was written that a VIP lot was the plan. That has since come out though and is a well known fact at City Hall and within the local downtown community.

I'm not "attacking" anyone. I'm simply stating facts and being frustrated that people in Phoenix continue to support the tear down culture thats left our Center city as probably the worst of any big city in the nation.

 

[Chaplin]

Sorry I thought it mentioned the VIP parking lot, I read the article when it was first posted and didn't re-read it.

The Suns want a "VIP"/valet parking lot there. They're currently using 1st St for this purpose, which is actually against City code, but the City is looking the other way because they want to be supportive of the Suns/stuff going on downtown.

Last I've heard the City is offering the Suns some parking space in the Barrister building area, or also the idea of closing down Madison on game nights and turning that small section of street in front of the Madison and St James hotels into parking while the buildings aren't used.

I don't see anywhere that I got personal with you or called you stupid. You're clearly not knowledgeable on the topic of historic preservation, but that doesn't make you stupid, it just means you're unaware. Which is fine, lots of people are unaware of lots of topics, I'm certainly no different. I just find it frustrating when people don't know much about a topic but decide to speak on it.



Thats the Suns plan. I thought the article mentioned it, I see it doesn't. Now I'm letting you know: the plan is for a VIP parking lot.

I'm not "attacking" anyone. I'm simply stating facts and being frustrated that people in Phoenix continue to support the tear down culture thats left our Center city as probably the worst of any big city in the nation.

Ok, that changes a lot. If they were tearing the buildings down to say, build an outdoor shopping/restaurant complex, then I'd be for it--based on what these buildings represent. I would still be in favor of such a plan if it were to happen in the future.

A parking lot doesn't seem like a great plan in the long run (for revitalization), but I'm not sure what else you can do. If the buildings aren't deemed "historical" and it looks like the odds are against that, you have a landowner doing what they want with the land. Legally, there's nothing against that. Seems to me what you're talking about is the ethical responsibilities and repercussions of the current plan.

 

[HooverDam]

A parking lot doesn't seem like a great plan in the long run (for revitalization), but I'm not sure what else you can do. If the buildings aren't deemed "historical" and it looks like the odds are against that, you have a landowner doing what they want with the land. Legally, there's nothing against that. Seems to me what you're talking about is the ethical responsibilities and repercussions of the current plan.

There's some things the City can do, but the Prop 207 law that passed a few years back hampers what can be done. Unfortunately Prop 207 is a law thats had a lot of negative unintended consequences, it passed easily mostly due to good marketing and a clever name.

The main thing the City can do is offer parking somewhere else, i.e. on Madison, the Barrister building, etc. Additionally the City can push back demolition permits in various ways, add landmark status to the buildings, etc.

Basically the most effective thing the City can do, which they're already doing, is have the Mayor call Sarver and say "hey what are you doing? Maybe this isn't the best idea". The 2nd best thing is for the community (you, me, everyone) to tell the Suns in any interactions we may have with them "hey maybe no more parking lots in Downtown for a while, OK?"

E: I think there might have been something in the Republic about the parking lot being the plan. But due to AzCentrals new pay scheme I cant go back and look, so I don't have a source. You'll all have to trust me on that one I guess---sorry!

 

[slinslin]

Yup, they're in bad shape. But so were lots of old buildings before being rehabbed. Ever see what Majerles looked like at one time? Those are actually the oldest commercial buildings in PHX right there along Washington.

At one time they were part of "the Deuce". An area full of vice crime, certainly the most blighted in the City. Would we have been better off to tear them down and have more parking lots? Or are we happy that we have Majerles, and nightclubs, and offices and such?

Keep in mind, all studies have shown Downtown currently has an EXCESS of parking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 spaces.

Except Phoenix "old" is not really old. One building is 103 years old and the other 83 years.

 

[HooverDam]

Except Phoenix "old" is not really old. One building is 103 years old and the other 83 years.

What's you're point? To qualify as historic a building needs to be 50 years old, these both qualify.

How is Phoenix ever going to have a 300 year old building if we tear them all down when they're 83?

Anything Pre WW2 in Phoenix is VERY old. Anything pre Statehood is INCREDIBLY old and anything pre-1900 is almost UNBELIEVABLY old.

 

[slinslin]

What's you're point? To qualify as historic a building needs to be 50 years old, these both qualify.

How is Phoenix ever going to have a 300 year old building if we tear them all down when they're 83?

Anything Pre WW2 in Phoenix is VERY old. Anything pre Statehood is INCREDIBLY old and anything pre-1900 is almost UNBELIEVABLY old.

I could understand saving old buildings that serve a purpose but those 2 buildings are ruins and an eyesore.

And well we have different definitions of historic clearly being that the oldest standing buildings in the city I live in were built in 1566.

My grandfather is older than one of those Phoenix builings and it's already a ruin? Not worth saving if it couldnt serve a purpose for such a relatively short time.

 

[HooverDam]

I could understand saving old buildings that serve a purpose but those 2 buildings are ruins and an eyesore.

Do you know what rehabilitation is? You realize its vastly more economical, not to mention 'greener', to rehab an old building than to knock them over and build new, right?

Is a parking lot with its blazing hot asphalt somehow less of an eyesore?

And well we have different definitions of historic

We can all have different definitions of if the sky is blue or not, but the standard is 50 years.

clearly being that the oldest standing buildings in the city I live in were built in 1566.

What does this have to do with Phoenix? Comparing us to other Cities is a non starter line of thinking. By your measurement, why don't we knock down every building in PHX and start with a blank slate? Why save the Rossen House even? Its not even 125 years old!

My grandfather is older than one of those Phoenix builings

Congrats to him, I wish him health, but how is this relevant? Again, the NATIONAL STANDARD is 50 years. This isn't something to be argued, its a fact.

and it's already a ruin? Not worth saving if it couldnt serve a purpose for such a relatively short time.

So because the property owner was lazy and purposefully let the building fall apart, that's somehow the buildings fault?

These buildings served purposes for many decades and there's ZERO reason they can't again. They look worn on the outside, but are actually in fairly decent structural shape.

If the Suns had any vision at all, they'd renovate the cluster of buildings into a boutique hotel and it would become a gateway into the warehouse district.

Think all the way through what you're saying for just one minute. Don't hit reply, don't hit quote. Just think. Is what you're saying sensible? I think you'll find it's pretty silly.

 

[slinslin]

So because the property owner was lazy and purposefully let the building fall apart, that's somehow the buildings fault?

Buildings don't have feelings, if it is a ruin and serves no purpose there is no point in saving it.

It's like my mother refusing to throw away her old clothes that she never wears anyway. Some of those might even be historic!

I can see the point of saving "historic" buildings but I doubt anyone comes to Phoenix to see those.

 

[HooverDam]

Buildings don't have feelings, if it is a ruin and serves no purpose there is no point in saving it.

It's like my mother refusing to throw away her old clothes that she never wears anyway.

Who says it doesn't serve a purpose, or couldn't? So once any building is empty, we should demolish it? Or once its empty for a year? 10? What's this magical cut off?

Again, THINK about what you're saying. Frankly, its utter nonsense.

Lets rephrase the two options here:

A. The Historic Madison and St James Hotels are knocked down, the Suns pave the lot for VIP parking and we have another surface parking lot in Downtown PHX for who knows how long. This in a place that has an excess of 10,000 parking spaces.

B. The Suns and City work together and find another place for VIP parking. The buildings are saved and perhaps when the economy recovers, they're renovated and put to good use. This of course creates jobs, taxes, etc.

Why is option A the superior option?


If you're going to reply, at least answer this one bolded question with a well thought out response, please.

I can see the point of saving "historic" buildings but I doubt anyone comes to Phoenix to see those.

Right, because we knocked so many over! If saved more in the first place, we'd have a more walkable, dense, historic urban core.

Don't you see how your argument folds in on itself and is silly?

 

[devilalum]

Here's a pic of the property in its original glory.

You must be registered for see images

 

[slinslin]

because option B probably costs them a **** load of money with no certain revenue and everything you say is highly questionable.

Besides where did it say that the Suns plan to build a parking lot there.

 

[HooverDam]

because option B probably costs them a **** load of money with no certain revenue and everything you say is highly questionable.

According to whom? Things you're just making up?

Your argument seems to be: rehabilitating old buildings and turning them into boutique hotels is a way to lose money. Yet there are similar projects all over the Country and all over Phoenix that would tell you otherwise.

Look at the Hotel San Carlos, Hotel Clarendon and the current conversion thats going on with the old Best Western on Central and Portland for local examples.

What exactly am I saying that's "highly questionable"? If the Suns don't want to renovate the buildings immediately, or can't, they don't have to. They can sit on them until a later date. But at least having them still standing gives us hope that sometimes they'll be useful and generate money for the City as well as the property owner.

Besides where did it say that the Suns plan to build a parking lot there.

Have you been reading the thread? have you read the whole thread, yes or no? It's a simple answer.

The article doesn't mention the parking lot, but that is the plan.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

According to whom? Things you're just making up?

Your argument seems to be: rehabilitating old buildings and turning them into boutique hotels is a way to lose money. Yet there are similar projects all over the Country and all over Phoenix that would tell you otherwise.

Then why didn't another investor buy the buildings for that purpose.

I personally don't see why you are so up in arms about this. It doesn't look like what they are saving is of any importance or consequence.

If they want to spend 7M, even if it were to build new parking lots, what's the big problem? Parking lots would look better than those ruins, IMO. They let them sit for 8 years now. I think they should have done something with the land 8 years ago.