CityNorth is a planned urban mixed-use development in the Northeast Valley of Phoenix, Arizona, US; featuring retail, restaurant, residential, hotel, office, cultural, civic and entertainment uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment. At completion, CityNorth will comprise more than of development on . Envisioned by Thomas J. Klutznick as the urban core of the Northeast Valley of Phoenix and the commercial core for the master-planned community of Desert Ridge, CityNorth is sited near the intersection of two major freeways—Loop 101 and State Route 51, making it accessible from throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area. The development will open in phases starting with Phase One, High Street, which opened in November 2008.
CityNorth is being developed with the assistance of a $97.4 million tax incentive package that was at the heart of a lawsuit between Phoenix and the Goldwater Institute. Future phases for CityNorth have been put on hold due to economic conditions.
The development was originally supposed to have Bloomingdale's, Macy's and Nordstrom as anchor department stores, but they have been pulled out of the project as a result of the Great Recession in 2009.
Construction on the project began on June 25, 2019, with water and sewer infrastructure as a starting point. An official groundbreaking is planned for early October 2019. In 2020, "early site improvements have included grading what eventually will be a four-lane road".
Developers
CityNorth is being developed by Thomas J. Klutznick Company. The initial phases, called CityCenter of CityNorth, are being co-developed by Thomas J. Klutznick Company and Related Companies. Some previous developments by these companies are Chicago’s Water Tower Place, 730 North Michigan Avenue, 340 on the Park and 333 West Wacker Drive; Los Angeles's Fox Plaza office tower; Boston's Copley Place; New York's Time Warner Center; Reston Town Center, Reston, Virginia; CityPlace, West Palm Beach, California; The Inn & Links at Spanish Bay, Pebble Beach, California; and The Little Nell hotel, Aspen, Colorado.
CityNorth master plan summary ++/- to +/- developmentUseTypeSizeMixed-use ()Office Above RetailRetail & RestaurantResidential Above RetailSingle-use ()OfficeResidential1,500 – 2,000 unitsHotel200-500 rooms
Phase 1 – High Street
High Street opened in November 2008. It comprises restaurant, retail, residential and office over approximately .
On July 1, 2010, High Street, through foreclosure, reverted to the lenders who provided the construction financing.
Phase 2 - The Boulevard
Originally scheduled to open in November 2009, Phase 2 has been delayed, partly because of the downturn in Arizona's economy and partly because of the Goldwater Institute's lawsuit, Turken v. Gordon, against the $97.4 million economic development agreement with the City of Phoenix for the project.
Disagreement over economic benefit
City and developer claims The following projections are based on estimates provided by the City of Phoenix and Thomas J. Klutznick Company.
Municipal Tax Revenues $1 billion to the City of Phoenix over the life of CityNorthGordon, Phil and Peggy Neely. "CityNorth project a big win for Phoenix”, The Arizona Republic, April 7, 2008. $22 million average annually during years 1 to 10
Construction Sales Tax City - $21,200,000 State - $57,300,000
Jobs Created 16,000 during construction 19,000 during operation
Other $6.5 million in development fees and commercial, restaurant, construction, retail and residential-rental taxes. 75 subcontractors and approximately 600 construction worker jobs for phase one. Numerous intangibles for the City of Phoenix.
Goldwater Institute position
The Goldwater Institute disputes these claims, considering them to be exaggerations.Wells, Dave. "CityNorth Retail Economic Analysis" October 30, 2007Pavlov, Andrey. "Review of CityNorth Project" October 30, 2007 One of the studies finds two errors for the CityNorth economic impact:
The City of Phoenix assumes that no mall will be built without the subsidy, while also assuming that every sales tax dollar generated from CityNorth would have otherwise gone to another city without the malls existence. The City assumes that goods and services at CityNorth have no cost because it does not subtract retail costs from profit. For example, the City is assuming that a retail store in CityNorth also creates the clothing it sells.
According to Dr. Dave Wells, "Gross economic impacts overstate actual impacts as they presume no economic activity would have occurred otherwise—e.g., that if you did not buy shoes at CityNorth you would not buy shoes at all. And it presumes that nothing would be built if CityNorth was not developed as proposed. In addition the estimates by Elliot Pollack and Company overstate the gross retail impact by 50 percent in terms of jobs and 75 percent in terms of economic output."
According to the Goldwater Institute, the economic impact is less than $500 million a year, almost a quarter of the estimated impact by the city.
Lawsuit, Turken v. Gordon To develop CityNorth, the Thomas J. Klutznick Company entered into a sales tax incentive agreement with the City of Phoenix where the Klutznick company will keep 50% of all sales tax dollars collected at CityNorth, up to $97.4 million for 11.3 years. This sales tax incentive put CityNorth at the center of a lawsuit brought on by the Goldwater Institute, which is seeking to challenge corporate subsidies in Arizona. In exchange for $97.4 million Klutznick will allow Phoenix to lease 3,180 parking spaces, 200 of which will be reserved for city bus carpoolers. The lease will last 45 years.
On April 2, 2008, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Miles ruled in favor of the City of Phoenix and Thomas J. Klutznick Company. Judge Miles denied the Goldwater Institute's claim that the City's agreement with CityNorth violated the Arizona Constitution. He ruled that the economic activity generated by CityNorth is “undoubtedly” in the public interest.Miles, Judge Robert. "Turken v. Gordon Ruling" . Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. April 2, 2008. The Goldwater Institute has since replied by appealing the ruling.Goldwater Institute, April 2, 2008
The developer of CityNorth and the City of Phoenix filed claims in Maricopa County Superior Court on April 22, 2008, requesting that the court order the Goldwater Institute to pay legal fees incurred while fighting the lawsuit.Buccholtz, Jan. "CityNorth developer, city of Phoenix sue Goldwater Institute for legal fees", The Business Journal of Phoenix, April 23, 2008.“Developer and City of Phoenix File Claims for Attorneys’ Fees”, April 22, 2008. The CityNorth filing argues that the Institute “compounded the length and complexity of the litigation with irrelevant ‘experts’ who hadn't even read the agreement, and displayed a reckless disregard for the enormous fiscal and business interests with which it was interfering.” “Developer Petition for Attorneys’ Fees”, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, No. CV2007-013766, April 22, 2008. According to the City of Phoenix’s filing, “Not only did the Goldwater Institute proceed with this action knowing that it might be ordered to pay the city’s fees and costs, it litigated this case in a manner that increased its scope and expense far beyond that which was required to fully litigate the dispositive issues therin.” “City of Phoenix Petition for Attorneys’ Fees”, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, No. CV2007-013766, April 22, 2008.Buccholtz, Jan. "CityNorth developer, city of Phoenix sue Goldwater Institute for legal fees", The Business Journal of Phoenix, April 23, 2008
The Goldwater Institute argues the attorney's fees request violates conditions agreed upon by all parties during the trial. Clint Bolick, chief litigator for the Goldwater Institute, states "Courts almost never have awarded attorney fees against firms seeking to vindicate public rights. The reasons were articulated by Arizona Supreme Court Justice Stanley Feldman in the very same case, Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District, that all the parties agree sets the legal parameters for the Gift Clause under which the CityNorth case is litigated."Bolick, Clint. "The Empire Strikes Back With Massive Attorneys’ Fee Request in CityNorth Case" Goldwater Institute, April 24, 2008
Mr. Bolick asserted that constitutional cases, such as Turken v. Gordon, are rarely won at the lower court level, and expected a victory at the appeals court to be more likely.Clancy, Michael. "Institute hopes to block CityNorth agreement on appeal" The Arizona Republic, April 16, 2008
City of Phoenix/CityNorth position The agreement between the City of Phoenix and CityNorth's developer allows CityNorth to be built as a dense urban project designed to counter sprawl and reduce traffic. Without an incentive for parking garages, it is likely that more than half of the development would have been consumed by surface parking lots, thus limiting the number of sales-tax-generating businesses. As stated in Judge Miles’ ruling, “The agreement was designed to ensure that the project that is built provides the contemplated benefits – particularly the substantial tax revenues – on a schedule and at a level that is more advantageous to the public than some other, differently configured project that might be built at the site.”
No City funds were advanced and no City tax revenues are at risk. The developer must bear all of the estimated $1.5 billion cost to develop CityNorth and assume all of the financial risk. CityNorth is projected to generate hundreds of millions of tax-revenue dollars for the City and thousands of jobs.Keuth, Don. "CityNorth deal an incentive, not a subsidy" , The Tribune, May 20, 2008. CityNorth will pay for itself with the revenues it generates. Judge Miles states, “The monetary value to be received by the agreement is based on the sale-tax revenues to be generated by the CityNorth project from the 1.2 million feet of retail space that the developer must build before it can receive any payment from the city....Under the agreement the city is projected to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in future sales taxes to use for any public purpose it chooses.”
Goldwater Institute position The Goldwater Institute claims the incentive is a corporate subsidy, which is illegal according to Arizona's constitution.Fenske, Sarah."Revolting Development", New Times September 9, 2008.Boyd, Lindsay."Goldwater Institute suit against city of Phoenix Update" Townhall.com, March 5, 2008Clancy, Michael. "Judge hears arguments in CityNorth case", Arizona Republic, February 12, 2008
According to the Goldwater Institute, Phoenix will pay more than $30,000 per year to lease 200 carpool parking spaces for the next 45 years.Schlomach, Byron. Goldwater Institute, August 8, 2007 The city, which claims the incentive is not a subsidy but a market based incentive, could have bought and owned 6,950 parking spaces in a parking garage for the same price it paid to lease 200.Gibbons, Patrick. "Problematic Parking" Goldwater Institute, March 4, 2008 The Goldwater Institute also obtained records on the attorney's fees for the city, claiming that Phoenix spends more than $10,000 per week to defend the subsidy. Goldwater Institute, January 8, 2008