Stewart Motor Co., the Studebaker dealership, in the 1950s.
I knew they would do it, only when and whom the "they" would be. After Circles Records closed in 2010, I worried every time I passed the empty building. The only surprise was the speed with which much of the cherished former Stewart Motor/Circles Records, built in 1947, was demolished.
Aspirant Development, a unit of Scottsdale-based Empire Group, says it wants to build apartments on the site at Central and McKinley. It bought the parcel for $2.65 million. The company had even scheduled a meeting with the Roosevelt Action Association neighborhood groups on the Monday when...ooops!...two-thirds (or less) of the streamline moderne structure was torn down.
In a way, it's a salutary development that there was enough outrage to stop the tear-down and cause Aspirant to hire the ubiquitous Jason and Jordan Rose to handle damage control. Mayor Greg Stanton had this to say on Facebook:
I am angry that in the middle of negotiating a plan to save the iconic Stewart Motor Company building, the developer began demolition. After my office participated in discussions between the developer and neighborhood leaders, I was confident that a resolution would be found. However, sadly, it appears that the developer was acting in bad faith.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Community and Economic Development Department was in the middle of discussions with the developer, Empire Group. Some of the agreed terms of the discussion stated that the developer would not demolish or remove any portion of the existing building on the Site prior to submitting for construction permits. Empire has plans to build a 19-story apartment building on the 1.24-acre site.
If only such consciousness had been around when hundreds of irreplaceable buildings were bulldozed in the 1980s and 1990s. Yet even now, the unofficial Preservation Police can't be everywhere at once, particularly when so much of the deck is stacked against them.
The developer even apologized. But here's the rub: Aspirant appears to be holding the remains — basically the facade — hostage in order to secure a tax break from the city. Something like a 25-year moratorium on property taxes. In exchange, it would build the 19-story apartment tower with pieces of the old building incorporated into a boring new glass lookalike design. After the developer's behavior, this will be a tough sell to Council.
One activist put it this way, "It's a shit show. These developers say, 'the Arts District, the Arts District! But Roosevelt Row is basically two blocks. (The developers) have shit on the community every chance they've gotten."
There are a lot of moving pieces and some members of the Resistance are working behind the scenes. Others have posted a petition online (you can sign using that link) asking the city to instate a new ordinance to protect historic buildings. One model is found in Los Angeles, where a petition for demolition of a building 45 years or older requires notification of abutting property owners and a prominent sign warning of the impending action.
My fear is that nothing will be built. As has happened so many times before, a player will unveil shiny new renderings. But in the end, we'll be left with yet another blighted empty lot to be endlessly flipped. The site of the (perhaps) Lennar apartments at McDowell and Central — which should be one of the most coveted parcels in the metropolitan area — sat empty for decades, finally ending up in the portfolio of a real estate investment trust in Tel Aviv (!).
This is a danger of facing the entire "downtown boom" in Phoenix. The big driver is ASU and its students. Everything else, however optimistic the green shoots, is very small scale. Real-estate speculation is the economy in metro Phoenix, not a result of the economy. And few of the actors really get, much less are passionately committed or possess the urban toolbox, to really work the center city. It's much easier to work on the fringes with tract houses, tilt-up commercial buildings, and championship golf (a stagnant-to-dying pastime).
As a result, Phoenix has largely missed out on one of the most remarkable phenomenons of the past 60-plus years, the return of companies and residents to the downtowns of America's most vibrant cities. It's the one favorable piece of the hoped-for "Great Reset" that is actually happening many places. Downtown Phoenix's victories have been dearly won, and things are far better than even a decade ago, but let's not kid ourselves. Phoenix is competing for talent and capital against other big cities, not Fresno.
Remedies will be difficult because state laws, especially the destructive Prop. 207, severely restrict cities doing anything to get in the way of the sacred private property owner. Otherwise, empty lots could be taxed at a higher rate, thus preserving building stock. As things stand, even a modest effort such as the LA ordinance would probably face a court challenge — by hustlers who don't even give a damn about the heart of the city.
What really chaps me is that Phoenix is so populated by newcomers, and even many old-timers grew up in the 'burbs and moved farther out, that people don't even remember that the city once had a decent downtown. It was killed off and bladed through many years of malpractice, venality, absent-mindedness, and the death of corporate and moneyed stewards committed to the city's good.
When you ride light rail (WBIYB) up north Central and see the vacant lots, remember...there were once buildings there, many as worthy or more than Circles. In the case of Stewart Motor Co., it was part of a dense cluster of auto dealerships, amid other useful businesses, running from Van Buren to Roosevelt (the DeSoto Central Market is a survivor). Even into the 1970s, this urban fabric was still in place before the tear-downs began.
It's a civic crime for which we are still paying.
I would say that 2/3 of the building remains, not 2/3 were demolished. Still they were jerks. Oops, did I accidentally bulldoze something that was unusual and perhaps even historic?
Posted by: Donna Reiner | April 27, 2016 at 03:30 PM
Jon, I guess you have not been back it town to see it, but the developer actually stopped well short of demolishing 2/3 (or closer to 3/4) of the building as they had intended. The only major damage has been to the northwest corner, maybe 1/4 of the building. Apparently that is as much as you can quickly demo in one day before you realize that you are burning every bridge you had with the neighborhoods and the city.
I am still hopeful a win can be pulled out of this steaming pile. The developer has come back to the table and I believe they are coming to the realization that there will be no public assistance, and lots of public resistance, to their initial plan.
In addition it really is starting to look like it might be possible to get some progress on demolition reform as a result of this debacle.
Posted by: Bob Graham | April 27, 2016 at 03:35 PM
Let's hope so, Bob Graham. And Jon, always appreciate your sharing your personal knowledge about the history of our city.
I didn't grow up here but still remember some of the big houses that formerly reigned so grandly along Central Avenue. We used to go to lunch at a place called "Two Lips Cafe," in a big brick house on the west side of Central, not far from the Spaghetti Company. (As an a aside, I'm always baffled that Spaghetti Company has thrived for so many years.)
Posted by: Janet Traylor | April 27, 2016 at 05:51 PM
Unfortunately, much of Phoenix's downtown wasn't built with brick and mortar, but with something cheaper along the lines of stucco veneer. After 50-70 years, about all one can do is demolish because it look rather tawdry.
Sandblasting stucco? Not bloody likely.
Repurposing when land was cheap (it still is) doesn't lend itself to charming results, such as a "street scene" common in older cities.
Also, to have a vibrant street scene, one needs social Darwinism in the form of cultural diversity. As well, Phoenix's physical street and building layout really lacks the "storefronts" and setbacks that allow a "cross-pollination" social flowering for such street theatre. And the arts scene is tepid at best.
Posted by: Bradley Dranka | April 27, 2016 at 05:51 PM
Bradley,
Thank you for writing, but most of pre-1960 Phoenix was not stucco veneer. That's the crapola they've built from Su-prise to fashionable "South Chandler."
Unfortunately, much of the earlier storefronts and other buildings were covered up with stucco crap. One example is the building on the northwest corner of Adams and Central. Take off the false front and you will find a handsome brick building underneath. I could name a dozen more off the top of my head.
I've never heard Jane Jacob's ballet of the street equated with Social Darwinism, but old Phoenix actually had the former. Downtown could have it again.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | April 27, 2016 at 05:57 PM
While improvements to the demolition process like enhanced notification is helpful, I wouldn't call it a solution. It's true that part of the issue here is prop 207 and I definitely support using GPLET to save Circles, but, Phoenix must think of this as just an interim strategy of borrowing more time for a real solution. A city can't GPLET every historic property (for one thing, GPLET can only be used Downtown) and each time it is used, it just incentivizes more of these hostage situations.
There must be a voter-initiated ballot proposition that eliminates 207 and gives cities all of the tools necessary for quality urban development, such as TIF, special districts, etc. It's possible that this could be effectively accomplished through just a simple "home rule" proposition that gets the state legislature out of local decision-making. This works well in Denver, for example.
But back to the Circles issue, as it's one of my favorite buildings in Phoenix, maybe Bob can chime in here and correct me, but why wasn't this "agreement" with the City and the developer made prior to the demo permit being issued? The demo permit application was submitted at least a couple months ago, as someone who isn't even involved in the "Preservation Police" posted it on my FB page. Why wasn't GPLET in exchange for rescinding the demo permit application the agreement?
It appears to be a fuckup by the City. Which usually means "not a priority". Which doesn't support Jon's observation that there is more "consciousness" about HP than back in the 80's and 90's. The activist Jon quotes puts in well, "it's a shit show".
Posted by: Ex Phx Planner | April 27, 2016 at 08:15 PM
Going on 45 years in Arizona, and never, not for a nanosecond had the desire to live in the State of Maricopa, nor its bastard cousin Pinalville. Phoenix is an annoying blot on a beautiful landscape, one of the most amazing landscapes in the world. The "Feeno-centric" scene in our state forces me to pass through the stucco vacuum en route to the real pleasures of southern Arizona - all roads lead there. The "Feeno-centrism" looks at my community -Flagstaff - as a backwater you only see if you missed the turnoff to Sedona. Well, at least we have a strong community, a vibrant arts scene, and in spite if the "Feeno-developers, a sense of place. At least for now. I don't know if any form of a sense of community will ever take root in Phoenix, beyond a few historic neighborhoods. The deck is stacked toward more stucco more chain restaurants, and ... that pasture pool thing.
Posted by: Kemo Sabe | April 27, 2016 at 08:26 PM
I always appreciate your insights, Ex Phx Planner. As for "consciousness," I was speaking of more citizen-activists and organizations than in the 1980s.
I feel for Flag residents. Like Prescott, this was once a wonderful, real town. And one is hiding in there, beneath all the sprawl, subdivisions, Super Wal-Mart, mall, vehicular dependence, etc.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | April 27, 2016 at 08:56 PM
Kemo Sabe, I'm camped in near Harshaw. Can I pour U a hot cup of brew .
Carbrone cal
Posted by: Cal lash | April 28, 2016 at 08:53 AM
The continuing theme here is, "saving phoenix, when in reality we just continue to destroy the great landscape of the Sonoran desert. We humans keep weeping about this matter so I suggest to U all an
Ed Abbey, Quote, "I have never heard a mountain lion bawling over the fate of his soul."
The solution requires more than writing about the soul of Phoenix, it requires physical actions.
Personally I prefer that Phoenix was never more than a small somewhat mostly winter inhabited village along the banks of the occasionally flowing Salt River.
Posted by: Cal Lash | April 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM
Cal,
You are channeling your inner Sloper.
Phoenix, with five rivers converging nearby, was always going to be something big -- just as it was for the Hohokam.
I would have preferred it as American Eden surrounding a compact, dense oasis city, with plenty of room for "sahuaros" all around.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | April 28, 2016 at 02:32 PM
Thanks Jon, i agree with U
however the Sahuaro are still here
not so the HoHokam.
Posted by: Cal lash | April 28, 2016 at 04:35 PM
I assume that the people doing the actual demo work were sub-contractors.Since I was one for 30 years,I never did anything without a work order,since if I didn't,I didn't get paid without one.Look who signed the workorder and you will know who authorized it.
Posted by: Mike Doughty | April 28, 2016 at 05:10 PM
To Rogue Columnist:
I agree with you on the fact that it isn't all stucco veneer.
But to have a truly vibrant downtown, you would have to have the "roux" of a politically humanistic will, based in equality, that would be open to something more than a quick buck.
It might happen, but I think there is a resistance to an "edgy" element in this bastion of homogeneity.
I do wish it weren't so, but the evidence to the contrary is sketchy at best.
Possibly in the future: We can hope....
Keep up the good fight. I am certainly with you.
Posted by: Bradley Dranka | April 30, 2016 at 12:54 PM
To The Rogue Columnist:
With regard to my using the term "Social Darwinism, I strongly believe the long-term viability of anything (say, a street scene or a society)is dependent upon the variety of influences within it or acting upon it--with more being better. The less the number of influences within or acting upon the subject matter, the less likely it will be viable and survive. Simply put, the influences, more or less, will directly affect how "in touch" or "out of touch" the subject matter will be with the larger "reality."
I believe one can apply this formula to virtually anything, such as a governing philosophy.
Posted by: Bradley Dranka | May 01, 2016 at 12:16 AM
Brad, the Sahuaro will be here long after the current Hohokam tribe.
Posted by: Cal lash | May 01, 2016 at 08:15 AM
Maybe not, Cal. The saguaro is a product of the world's wettest desert. If climate change affects rainfall negatively and humans keep pumping out the groundwater, the Sonoran Desert could come to resemble the Mojave or the Chihuahuan.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | May 01, 2016 at 02:35 PM
U just named two more of my favorite landscapes.
Posted by: Cal lash | May 01, 2016 at 04:56 PM