3 Responses

  1. Steve Weiss says:

    I very much hope that Councilman Mattox will get a chance to see my response to his statement, I quote from above,

    “I’m not saying we don’t have sufficient land throughout the Downtown, but when you’re building a campus, you don’t want the law school to be 3 blocks away on a different parcel that’s not even associated with the campus itself because that makes it difficult for the students move back and forth and it also makes it difficult from the student union perspective for students to take advantage of the services that are available. You want to try to build it (the ASU campus) as closely together as possible. In that particular case, that piece of property happened to fit that bill.”

    Actually Councilman, the bill of goods the community was sold on having ASU Downtown come to Phoenix was that students WOULD have to travel through the downtown to get to class buildings. The campus was supposed to INTEGRATE into the downtown, NOT become a tight-knit moated gated community that exist in a super-block style. I’m sure if I go back the folks like me who first met with the city and ASU to discuss the planned campus, they would agree e were toild one thing andwhat was built was another.

    If anything, ASU Downtown’s contiguous campus is just like the failed Arizona Center, Mercado, Collier Center and soon to come, Cityscape; Inward looking, isolated and with minimal small business interaction opportunities. With everything wrong with Sahara(and there was a lot less than you’ll acknowledge), at least IT offered potential for street interaction.

  2. Donna Reiner says:

    And then I would like to see the specifics on these so-called problems dealing with HP commission. It’s not the commission for the most part that makes the decisions on improvements/changes to historic properties. Rather, it is the HP hearing office with input from community members if they show up. The commission only enters in when the home-owner appeals the decision. And the description he gave leads me to be suspect of the accuracy of what really happened. So supportive of Historic Preservation…???? NO, as he doesn’t understand it. And thinking that it will be better “moved into planning” when in actuality it is on equal basis (or it was the last time I looked) with planning makes me wonder if Mattox truly understands the reorganization. Too bad he doesn’t use an umbrella as he could have walked those 4 blocks easily without being sweaty. And I will challenge him any day that it is over 100 to do so.

  3. Will Novak says:

    Ug what a disappointing conversation. Two quotes stuck out to me:

    (Re: the 7’s): “you show me an alternative to that and I’ll support an alternative to that.”

    (Re: The Sahara): “And what would we preserve it for?”

    What must it be like to go through life with such a crippling lack of vision?

    You can’t think of alternatives to the reversible lanes? I can think of loads! We have LRT and freeways that make them unnecessary now. The Cities goal ought to be a complete city, not just some city where we make sure at all costs that traffic moves at 50MPH.

    You can’t think of what we’d do with the Sahara? How about a smaller version of the Valley Ho but Downtown?

    Bleck. Our “leadership” in this city is depressing.

Post a Comment