As the recession began to take hold, the red-hot real estate market around the Chandler Airport went into such a free-fall that the city’s economic development team did the unthinkable.
Officials called property owners who were about to build new projects and advised them to hold off, fearing the area would be stuck with empty buildings otherwise.
Virtually nothing happened around the airport for years.
Now, the city is confident this is the year development will take off around the airport. Chandler expects several significant announcements in 2012 around the airport, which is one of the city’s largest employment centers.
The long pause in development had some upside, said Christine Mackay, the city’s economic development director. The vacancy rate around the airport didn’t jump during the recession because there wasn’t a glut of new buildings that opened as the recession deepened. By comparison, Mackay said the office vacancy rate by the Scottsdale Airpark had skyrocketed to 47 percent at one point.
“The advantage of the economy tipping when it did, it really gave us a chance to take a breath around this airpark area,” she said. “This is our last frontier.”
Chandler refined plans for the 9-square-mile airpark area to maximize its potential to attract employers, Mackay said.
Chandler has reserved city-owned land around the airport for aviation-related businesses, and it will only lease that property to maintain control. Also, it will allow three private property owners through-the-fence access so select businesses can have access to the runway. Very few airports do that, which she said helps set the airport apart.
The airport has become more attractive to development recently with the completion of roads around the airport and new infrastructure around the field.
And last year, the city brought the airport under the economic development division to increase business development efforts. Mackay expects to announce a new development within a couple months and anticipates seeing several new projects within a couple years. The overall improvement in the economy is playing a role, but other factors are at play.
“Arguably, aviation was hit harder than any other sector in this country, and it will take the longest to recover,” Mackay said.
One milestone the airport is working on is a fixed-base operator, which provides concierge services including fuel, food and a lounge. The airport probably needs to grow a little more to attract an FBO, but Mackay said landing one will help the airport lure more executive travel.
“If we could get a significant FBO, it would elevate the standing of the airport more than just about anything we could do,” she said.
The airport now focuses on personal aircraft owners, corporate travel and flight training. For the airpark, the city is focusing on aviation services, financial services, biotechnology, warehouse/distribution and manufacturing. Chandler is marketing the airport as an alternative to corporate executives who can save time by avoiding the security, lines and big parking lots that slow them down at major airports, said airport administrator Lori Quan.
“Ultimately, this will be a great mover of those customers who really need to maximize their time,” she said.
When the 9-mile zone around the airport is fully developed in 2035-2040, Chandler expects 28 million square feet of commercial, industrial and retail space. There is less than 10 million square feet today.
The airport’s runway brings some limitations. At 4,870 feet, it’s slightly shorter than Mesa’s Falcon Field and less than half the length of the runway at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. About the largest plane the runway can handle is a 16-passenger jet, Mackay said.
Gateway’s facilities have resulted in it attracting a flurry of development recently. Allegiant and Spirit Airlines have expanded rapidly and are on track to serve 1 million passengers a year.
Chandler’s airport is the 70th-largest in the nation.
The airpark area is becoming more attractive to development with the improving economy because it has some of the last patches of vacant land. The airpark itself has three parcels of 100 acres or more — as many as in the rest of the city combined. Several airpark owners already have plans approved for major developments. They include a 76-acre parcel of future office and light industrial that’s owned by the Rockefeller Group, the company of the famed Rockefeller Plaza in New York City. Rockefeller probably will be among the first to begin construction, Mackay said.
Developers had once considered the airport too remote to become anything but a quaint airfield, but Mackay said that’s changed as major companies have transformed cornfields into corporate offices.
“It’s really this airport’s turn to turn into a major employment hub,” Mackay said. “And it’s this airport’s turn to be recognized for being a major employment hub.”
Contact writer: (480) 898-6548 or ggroff@evtrib.com
Titan76 posted at 10:48 am on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
In 1990, we purchased a home about 2 miles from Scottsdale airport. At that time, the airport was very similar to Chandler in that it served small (mostly propeller driven) aircraft. The residence had no problems with the airport. However, in the mid-90's, the city "leaders" and airport special interest came up with a plan to grow the airport and surrounding business community. Within a short time, the quiet neighborhoods turned into light (and now heavy) jet traffic......at all hours of the day AND NIGHT. It's had a definite negative impact on our property values and our peace and quiet .....and we are nowhere close to the path of the runway. Unless you want this to happen to you, don't support this "good for Chandler" expansion garbage. It's all an self serving illusion.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:23 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Titian76,
Spoken like the truely ignorant victim you are!
Sure you got hirt. Sure you suffer from development decisions made by your City's planners, developers and city council. But that just can't happen here! Chandler's expansion plans can't mirror those of Scottsdale. Even if we do go for a modest runway lengthening, an unlikely prospect, it will only permit those aircraft which now land safely in the cooler months to land equally safely in the hot summer months. You know, business is four-seasonal and hot AZ summers do restrict the larger private aircraft from landing in that heat on our comparatively short runway!
Look off the runway's end to the northeast of CHD [Chandler's 3 letter Airport designation]. There isn't any housing for at least two miles. Mostly it's freeway, freeway shopping centers and automobile dealerships! Look to the southwest. The housing density is modest and already experiences much of the sorts of "noise" that it would experience after growth. We will not see anything like the sorts of heavier aircraft choosing to land at CHD as choose to land at Scottsdale and now Gateway. It can't happen. CHD's runways are just too thin to carry the weight! And as demonstrated by First Solar's choosing Gateway, CHD doesn't have the off field space for the truely big boys.
Now, Mackay's point about a new FBO is a good one. In too much of a rush to develop an FBO, the city made representations to one of its on field businesses inducing it to qualify for FBO status. In its inducements the City omitted such things as an FBO lounge and traditional concierge taxi services. But it did get expanded fuel service, then choose to remain in competition with the FBO's fuel service. Food, though good, is limited to a small cafe co-located with the FBO. And the lounge facilities are provided at the City's terminal building. Between the current FBO and the terminal building, Chandler has what it needs. But things can improve.
How? Get the city off of the airfield and have the current FBO take over running the City's terminal. The city employees now working on field are overpaid in comparison to private employees working at many other fields. Problem is, the FBO is not interested it taking on more responsibility. It's been burnt once! Where so, find another FBO. Several on field operators have expressed some limited interest!
Thanks to our fair city's decisions, CHD has been stuck in neutral. Hopefully Mackay can find the gear shifter and get things moving forward. The porposed plan seems headed in that direction. But she probably misses one vital point, improving relations with those few voting citizen neighbors living off to the southwest! No improved relations means no runway expansion! It's that simple, folks!
Falcon Field has it better. Williams Gateway has it much better and is developing. Scottsdale has it much better, too. Why even Glendale is a model of good city planning and good FBO cooperation [good though not quite perfect].
Dale Whiting,
Member, Chandler Industrial Development Authority
Writing individually and not in any representative capacity
[But I know what I'm writing about]
azpidge posted at 6:08 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Titan76, you have a sharp tough. Ignorant victim is a little strong. Don't kid yourself. I get the feeling you have not been a resident of Chandler all that long, or you have a vested interest in that runway. The lengthening of the runways has been voted down three times I believe. I hope the residence of Chandler and those within the confines of the developement district understand that a city developement team will eliminate the need for another vote on a runway expansion. Complaisant residence in the Sun Lakes community need to pay attention. The runway length is intended to to limit bigger aircraft. A 16 passenger aircraft is a lot of airplane. The Mayor just asked if there were "any questions".
Dale Whiting posted at 6:54 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
?azpidge?
I don't follow your logic or your position. Titan76 is against airport development, not in favor of it. So how is it you read into his comment that he has a vested interest? Our current FBO has an interest in attracting year round business. Pumping gas heavily for only 8 months of the year is a bit hard on his employees. He'd like to keep them busy year round. And where Chandler has invested a bit of dough in CHD to stimulate business, ought we not do it to please all? When every cost is accounted for and when every stimulating business benefit is measured or thoughtfully estimated, CHD makes money for Chandler.
And yes, the runway extension has been voted down repeatedly. That's why I suggest that the City improve relations with CHD's surrounding neighbors. Some on the field businessmen thought that the ordnance requiring a vote to lengthen the runway would be something the FAA would fight, costing the City perhaps $100,000 in legal fees. But it would appear that the FAA will not act.
Costs to lengthen the runway [or for that matter any on field improvement which is a part of the airport's FAA approved General Plan], are paid for 95% by the Federal and State Governments. [Or is that 95% feds and 2.5% State, I forget which it is.] So having a bond election to approve of a relatively modest amount of money appears to be a political shurking of responsibility. But it looks like the FAA is reluctant to weigh in.
So perhaps those runway extension enthusiasts ought to suck up to their neighbors? Wha'da you say John W.? Was I not right all along? Your FAA trump card appears to have been worthless. Not unlike State Farm, you need to become a good neighbor!
azpidge posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
I am sorry. I posted in response to Mr. Whiting. The solution to noise, the air traffic danger from more "touch and goes", more larger aircraft, the ever present noise of low flying helos and planes in the pattern at low altitude is probably some where between what Titan76 and what Mr. Whiting are saying. I have lived within the footprint of the airport for a long time and have watched and listened to the changes. Developement for the city is a good thing, but there are many neighborhoods and schools that will remain down range when the runways are expanded and the airport becomes more commercial. Mr. Whiting has NO compassion for the residence. "Self serving" is appropriate here. The city has given huge tax break insentives to build and corporate/political fund raising will turn a blind eye to the residence true quality of life. Do not be complaisant !
loubator posted at 12:14 pm on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
I am absolutely amazed at the responses to the article on this forum. The spelling, syntax, grammatical errors and use of incorrect words is astounding, in each of the responses! At the very least, learn the difference between the words residence and residents. There are several more gems in there, see if you can find them. An education is a wonderful thing, folks...you're (not your) never too old to learn!
Dale Whiting posted at 2:52 pm on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
azpidge,
Let's take a closer look at what you are not saying. You mention noise and danger. The "touch and goes" are a function of pilot training. We have several pilot schools at CHD. Lengthening the runway will not change that. Nor will business expansion. It's a function of supply and demand for pilots. I am aware of three such schools at CHD [there may be a fourth], one for helicopters. We have a nation wide significant shortage of helicopter pilots. I understand that we have only two helo schools in the valley. I suspect that those neighbors who are complaining about low flying helicopters have a point to make. But the training pilots report to the school's owner that they are maintaining both altitude and pattern requirements. Yet since the airport administrator has admitted that the processing of noise complaints by his staff's is their lowest priority [this admitted to both me and the last noise study referee] that point is not going to be made. This admission was swept under the table in that lastest noise study and was not reported to the FAA! It was dismissed despite his and my insistence that it be addressed.
The second set of issues, down range hazzards and schools, are mentioned. Please name one school that concerns you. The noise study looked at all and found none to be relevant. While I have it on reasonable authority that planes can and do crash everywhere, if the patterns are maintained, no schools will be overflown, not a one! Last I heard, we were supposed to be applying for a special radar set which would identify location and altitude of all planes nearby such that no one in the tower would be burdened to track this data. But I suspect that got dropped, too.
I proposed to the neighbors that they become educated on identifying low flying aircraft, both to altitute and location visavis the pattern. None took me up on this idea.
You say I lack compassion! Well I used to meet regularly with the major local neighborhood group. But they lost interest in addressing the foregoing issues. I have plenty of compassion and would work with any who would remain organized and work with me. But at last count, that number was ZERO. There is fault on both sides of these issues. While the "on field" businessmen are rather well organized and much better informed of technical issues, the neighbors remain disorganized, confused and appear to not be making any sense. But they do vote! And that is why the runway will not be lengthened!
You see, it's easy to complain, harder to do so with facts, and hardest to respond when the politicians are not listening. Good luck, Ms. Mackay, you'll be needing it! But until you make some sense out of these issues, your elected city officials will be avoiding anything controversial like supporting a modest runway extension.