New tallest building FINALLY coming to Phoenix! (Mesa, Scottsdale: foreclosed, purchase)

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

You continue to contradict yourself.

You say "I don't care about high-rise residential towers being built" and "I have NEVER complained that people living in high-rise towers infringes on my lifestyle" and then you end it with...

"Keep Phoenix's skyline small."

Again...why keep it small if you don't care? Why keep it small if that's not what people want? If you want small...live in Anthem. If people want an urban lifestyle, they could live in downtown Phoenix. It shouldn't affect you in any way, shape, or form...yet you still say to keep the skyline small..

I contradict myself on that idea because I know that there will never be any residential high-rises that will be that tall in Phoenix. Demand downtown will NEVER be that strong. The skyline is not altered, and I still feel like I live in a nice, liveable city. However, putting up a bunch of tall, unnecessary office towers in extremely wasteful. It would alter the skyline, and create the canyon effect, the buildings would hold in heat during the summer, making summer nights even hotter than they are now, and they would be extremely energy inefficient.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Out of your list of why a company would (or should) build in the suburbs instead of downtown...only two make sense, cost and ability to expand.
But ease of transportation (airports, freeways)...are you kidding me?
Downtown is about 5 miles from the airport. It's surrounded by the I-10 and I-17. It is a mass transit hub. How much more ease of transportation could you have? Then...you're very centrally located...so if you live in Peoria or Gilbert, it's about 30 minutes commute. If your HQ is located in Gilbert...it's fine for the Gilbert resident, but the Peoria resident has to travel at 1 hour..

I am not kidding you. If they have a choice to locate NEXT to an airport or NEXT to a freeway, why wouldn't they. If there are trucks involved in transportation, which there usually are, don't you think they would want a lot of space and room for them to manuver and/or park? Should be common sense to most people. That adds ANOTHER factor why high-rises shouldn't be constructed downtown. CONGESTION. Who in their right mind wants a bunch of extra traffic downtown. It's not like there's much room to widen the streets there.

If I live in Peoria or Gilbert, I will need to drive to work. Am I supposed to pay $20/day for a parking garage if I work DT? That's about $5000/yr. I would have to spend just because my company decided to locate downtown. We don't have a subway. Our light rail certainly doesn't go to either suburb. The bus would take about 2.5 hours. What part of that seems attractive? Say parking downtown was only $10/day. That's still $2500/yr. No thanks.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Still though...you still haven't addresses how building towers in downtown would change Phoenix. You said "People are trying to change it by proposing the unnecessary towers"...necessary or not, that's up for debate...but how would say 10 new towers in downtown affect someone living at say Scottsdale Rd and Deer Valley Rd in the suburbs? How would it affect you?.

Congestion, heat island effect, blocking mountain views to name a few. Necessary or not is really not up for debate. If they were necessary, they would be there. I take pride in the area I live in, I moved here not because of the attractiveness of my block or neighborhood, but the whole Valley. If there is added congestion in one part of the Valley, the pollution and domino effect affects us all. I enjoy living in the desert. I don't like this push to act as though Phoenix is just like any other city in the United States. It's not. I like seeing the desert mountains and feeling like I'm in Arizona. The small skyline allows me to feel like I am in the desert no matter what part of the Valley I am in. I enjoy the view of the moutain backdrop with the skyline when traveling down the 51 near Northern. It reminds me of where we are. I would just prefer not to see the mountains blocked out because a bunch of people are skyscraper happy and want to slap up a bunch of 1000' towers.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

The only answer I can think of is that you're afraid that giving people and companies these options (new residential and office towers) would sway them to move away from the suburbs into downtown, therefore diminishing the suburban lifestyle. If that is the case however, then I guess there is a need, right?.

You fail to recognize that the companies need to express interest prior to the towers being constructed. I guess if you admitted that, your case for skyscrapers would pretty much be shot down. You don't build towers to attract people. You attract people and then build to accommodate. Egg before chicken.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

TREMENDOUS waste of YOUR money? Doubtful, so what's it to you? What if one was built and it was mostly empty...again, why would it concern you? It would be bad for the developer...but why would you lose any sleep over it?.

I said a tremendous waste of money. The developer's money. No developer is going to put down a bunch of money for a building not knowing if there will be any tenants. In economic times like these, it would be utter stupidity. How is the developer supposed to pay back the huge loan they take out to construct the building? Really, just spend a couple of seconds removing yourself from your overtly obvious skyscraper obsession and to reality.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

The need is there (shown by the low vacancy rate) which is why there is currently one tower being built with no signed anchor tenants yet (One Central Park East tower...26 floors, 383 ft.) and the Cityscape office tower (27 floors, 385 ft.) which has Wachovia and a large law firm as anchor tenants already signed up...so that meets your criteria of building once there is demand.

No. Low vacancy rates show that there is just the right amount of office space. You're acting as though there are tons of companies that want to move downtown. There aren't. If there were, they would hire a developer to design and construct a building. Hasn't happened. Both of these Central Park and Cityscape projects have been scaled back. Believe me, if Wachovia needed more office space, Cityscape, would still be it's original size. Part of the reason why these projects have been is because the market has shown that such large projects are not needed. Look at just how quickly Central Park and the Cityscape projects are going up. Barely, if at all. The Comcast Building in Philadelphia was built at a tremendous speed. Why? Because the office space was need quickly.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Personally, while I like tall skyscrapers, that isn't really what I wish downtown Phoenix could have and would be. I live city life, I like people walking the sidewalks and cafes where you can sit next to people walking by...I like people watching, I like not having to use a car for everything...I like things within a walking distance, whether it be a grocery store, drug store, movie theatre or restaurant. Thats the type of things I'd like to see in downtown Phoenix. I'd be happy if the streets had life and everything was under 10 stories...thats ok by me.
Hell, Kierland Commons is one of my favorite places in Phoenix becuase it gives you that feeling...the only problem with it is that it's not big enough, you turn the corner and you're back to suburbia.

So you are trying to make Phoenix something it's not? Even if Phoenix was more walkable, who is their right mind would want to walk and sit down at a cafe in 115 degree weather?

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by miamiman

So you are trying to make Phoenix something it's not? Even if Phoenix was more walkable, who is their right mind would want to walk and sit down at a cafe in 115 degree weather?

It's not 115 most of the year, and even when it is, shade and mist cooling can mitigate the exteme heat. I participate in a restaurant discussion board, and some of the more frequent requests are for 1) restaurants within walking distance of a certain place 2) restaurants with outdoor dining. Just a few weeks ago, I ate at Cibo, a pizzeria Downtown, and there were dozens of people eating on the shaded, mist-cooled patio in 110 degree heat. Regardless of the hot summer weather, there's a huge untapped market for the experience described in HX Guy's post.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by miamiman

You act like your family were never transplants, either . Just because you were born and raised here doesn't mean you hold some monopoly over what goes on here. I am sure your family moved here for some purpose. If there reasoning for moving here was being threatened, I am sure that they would've had something to say, too.

My family came here in the 1950s ... but not for shallow reasons like mountain views, or 300 + days of sun. They were from Ohio, where at the time, labor unions were becoming corrupt and out of control. They had some horrible experiences with unions, so they wanted a place where the the unions had little presence in the workforce. Wisely, they chose the Phoenix area. That's one reason I'm proud to be a native Arizonan: the right to work atmosphere which can't be found very much in the Rust Belt or other dreary areas.

BTW, shortly after my family moved here, taller buildings were just beginning to materialize along Central Avenue. They didn't protest or oppose them. In fact, they welcomed the progress! Who would want to move to a sizeable area strictly for the mountain views anyway? If that's what you desire, there are countless small towns & rural areas in Arizona to choose from with unobstrutced views ... and even prettier mountains for that matter!

Originally Posted by miamiman

So many people moved to Phoenix because it was everything East Coast and Midwest cities were not: congested, polluted, dirty, and dreary. Why are we striving to turn Phoenix into Los Angeles East?

We're already "Los Angeles east" in many ways. Look around. We have the crime, the gangs, the ghettos, the pollution, the traffic, and the sprawl. Granted, it's not quite as bad as L.A. yet ... but it's catching up in a hurry. In comparison, Los Angeles has theme parks and a tall downtown area, which we don't. It seems that we're copying most of L.A.'s bad points, but the NIMBYs don't want any part of their finer amenities.

Here's another thing to consider about Los Angeles: there was a time when downtown L.A. was small and flat, and they favored building outward vs. upward. As a result, that place became a sprawling, congested mess. Finally, they ran out of room to build outward, so they had no choice but to grow taller. There is going to come a time when Phoenix will have no more room to grow outward. Some Valley cities (Tempe for example) are landlocked already ... so if they want to grow, they have to build upward.

Originally Posted by miamiman

However, putting up a bunch of tall, unnecessary office towers in extremely wasteful. It would alter the skyline, and create the canyon effect, the buildings would hold in heat during the summer, making summer nights even hotter than they are now, and they would be extremely energy inefficient.

Your beloved suburban sprawl has already created the heat island effect (e.g. concrete, asphalt, and traffic congestion in areas that used to be open desert). As far as energy is concerned, most skyscrapers are becoming more energy efficient. Some buildings are even experimenting with alternative sources of energy such as solar, which is an excellent concept for a place like Phoenix.

Originally Posted by miamiman

That adds ANOTHER factor why high-rises shouldn't be constructed downtown. CONGESTION. Who in their right mind wants a bunch of extra traffic downtown. It's not like there's much room to widen the streets there.

It's better in the long run to have increased traffic in the central core than in the suburban areas. Downtowns & central business districts are where the majority of traffic belong anyway ... always has been that way in every sizeable city. How would you feel if your north Scottsdale suburban area became overrun with traffic congestion and pollution?

Originally Posted by miamiman

If there is added congestion in one part of the Valley, the pollution and domino effect affects us all. I enjoy living in the desert.

Then go live in the desert ... out in the middle of nowhere with the rattlesnakes! Where you reside now is a desert region that happens to be a major metropolitan area. It sounds like what you're looking for is a smaller town or rural area. Sorry, but the Valley is not small or rural ... not anymore!

Originally Posted by miamiman

I said a tremendous waste of money. The developer's money. No developer is going to put down a bunch of money for a building not knowing if there will be any tenants. In economic times like these, it would be utter stupidity. How is the developer supposed to pay back the huge loan they take out to construct the building?

Most highrises are privately owned & constructed. Therefore, how the developer spends money or obtains a loan is really none of your concern. You should be thankful that there are developers who have long term visions to improve downtown Phoenix. If everybody had your attitude, downtown Phoenix would be just a desolate dump with no height whatsoever. That's no way to lure in business, entertainment, or other amenities to a large city!

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

My family came here in the 1950s ... but not for shallow reasons like mountain views, or 300 + days of sun. They were from Ohio, where at the time, labor unions were becoming corrupt and out of control. They had some horrible experiences with unions, so they wanted a place where the the unions had little presence in the workforce. Wisely, they chose the Phoenix area. That's one reason I'm proud to be a native Arizonan: the right to work atmosphere which can't be found very much in the Rust Belt or other dreary areas.

I said that mountain views were partially the reason I came out here. You don't know the full story. I am sure there were other reasons your family moved out here aside from the presence of unions in the Midwest. Many people don't establish their homes out here for just one reason.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

BTW, shortly after my family moved here, taller buildings were just beginning to materialize along Central Avenue. They didn't protest or oppose them. In fact, they welcomed the progress! Who would want to move to a sizeable area strictly for the mountain views anyway? If that's what you desire, there are countless small towns & rural areas in Arizona to choose from with unobstrutced views ... and even prettier mountains for that matter!

Well, we're all not the same, are we? Your family moved from Ohio, I moved from the New York area. Some of the reasons I came out here was because Phoenix is relatively clean, you have the amenities of living in a large metropolitan area largely without the same level of congestion you would find in similarly sized metropolitan areas, I enjoy the high-end shopping near me, the outdoor lifestyle is pleasant, and I enjoy feeling like I live in the desert. Please tell me what small towns in Arizona offer what I am looking for outside of the Valley? None.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

We're already "Los Angeles east" in many ways. Look around. We have the crime, the gangs, the ghettos, the pollution, the traffic, and the sprawl. Granted, it's not quite as bad as L.A. yet ... but it's catching up in a hurry. In comparison, Los Angeles has theme parks and a tall downtown area, which we don't. It seems that we're copying most of L.A.'s bad points, but the NIMBYs don't want any part of their finer amenities.

I know we're already LA East in many respects. I fail to see how LA's tall buildings make LA a better place. We have opportunities to divert away from the direction LA went in. We can improve public transportation, we can devote more land to mountain and riparian preserves, etc.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Here's another thing to consider about Los Angeles: there was a time when downtown L.A. was small and flat, and they favored building outward vs. upward. As a result, that place became a sprawling, congested mess. Finally, they ran out of room to build outward, so they had no choice but to grow taller. There is going to come a time when Phoenix will have no more room to grow outward. Some Valley cities (Tempe for example) are landlocked already ... so if they want to grow, they have to build upward.

Why are we using LA as the model to follow? Many urban planners absolutely despise LA's urban model. LA and Phoenix's histories are totally different. LA has had a large, developed downtown for more than 100 years. Even with the downtown area, numerous skylines have developed throughout the LA area (Century City, Culver City, Westwood, SF Valley, Long Beach, etc., and there's massive sprawl in between those centers. To me that has given LA a feeling of being too congested.

The Valley is not near build-out. Absolutely false. When I can go to the top of South Mountain and not see huge undeveloped or agricultural plots in South Phoenix or the West Valley, I might agree. Tempe is a Valley exception. It's the most densely populated city in the Valley, and therefore needs to expand upward. However, most of the rest of the Valley has large undeveloped plots that need to be filled in.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Your beloved suburban sprawl has already created the heat island effect (e.g. concrete, asphalt, and traffic congestion in areas that used to be open desert). As far as energy is concerned, most skyscrapers are becoming more energy efficient. Some buildings are even experimenting with alternative sources of energy such as solar, which is an excellent concept for a place like Phoenix.

Suburban sprawl does not create the heat island effect. Urbanism does. Look at how much warmer Central Phoenix is than every other place in the Valley. It's astounding. Taller buildings would make Central Phoenix even warmer than it already is. Who wants 100 degree nights?

Originally Posted by Valley Native

It's better in the long run to have increased traffic in the central core than in the suburban areas. Downtowns & central business districts are where the majority of traffic belong anyway ... always has been that way in every sizeable city. How would you feel if your north Scottsdale suburban area became overrun with traffic congestion and pollution?

Traffic does not belong in the central core, not in this type of urban model. That model of urbanism is long outdated. You're telling me that the Valley is near build-out which, aside from being false, means that high-rise development would like start occurring in every city in the Valley, not just downtown. Do you honestly think we should transform the Valley so that the majority of people here work downtown? Absolutely not. The majority of people in this day in age live in one suburb and commute to another for employment. Another reason why we don't need to slap a bunch of skyscrapers downtown.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Then go live in the desert ... out in the middle of nowhere with the rattlesnakes! Where you reside now is a desert region that happens to be a major metropolitan area. It sounds like what you're looking for is a smaller town or rural area. Sorry, but the Valley is not small or rural ... not anymore!

Uhh, we live in the desert. It sounds what I am looking for is what we have now. I am glad that all these proposals to ruin the Valley with out of place skyscrapers are being shot down. People here don't want them, which is what drove Trump out of Phoenix and has caused other projects to be shot down. How about if you want to see large skyscrapers, YOU move to LA. Some of us like Phoenix just the way it is.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Most highrises are privately owned & constructed. Therefore, how the developer spends money or obtains a loan is really none of your concern. You should be thankful that there are developers who have long term visions to improve downtown Phoenix. If everybody had your attitude, downtown Phoenix would be just a desolate dump with no height whatsoever. That's no way to lure in business, entertainment, or other amenities to a large city!

It is very much my concern. I don't want to see a bunch of buildings uninhabited and falling apart because some developer foreclosed on a loan. We have enough of that mess in the West Valley and Maricopa. I am sure your vision of an economically stimulated downtown Phoenix would be compromised if those 60 and 70 floor highrise have huge foreclosure signs posted out front. That would look good for the city. Improvement doesn't mean slapping up a bunch of ugly skyscrapers. Improvement means catering to our environment. In place of a skyscraper, we should put in an indoor Sonoran Desert museum or something to that effect. Let's embrace our environment and not deny we live in a unique area.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by miamiman

Some of the reasons I came out here was because Phoenix is relatively clean, you have the amenities of living in a large metropolitan area largely without the same level of congestion you would find in similarly sized metropolitan areas, I enjoy the high-end shopping near me, the outdoor lifestyle is pleasant, and I enjoy feeling like I live in the desert. Please tell me what small towns in Arizona offer what I am looking for outside of the Valley? None.

Well, let's see. High end shopping, outdoor lifestyle, relatively clean, not too congested, and pretty mountains. Sedona would be perfect for you. It's small, clean, environmentally friendly, and no threat of highrise developments to ruin "their" mountain views. There's a lot more of your type up there than in the Phoenix area anyway. Heck, the residents of Sedona & Oak Creek even protested the widening of the main highway because it would spoil "their" environment.

Originally Posted by miamiman

I know we're already LA East in many respects. I fail to see how LA's tall buildings make LA a better place. We have opportunities to divert away from the direction LA went in. We can improve public transportation, we can devote more land to mountain and riparian preserves, etc.

We've already copied L.A. more than you probably realize. In case you didn't know, L.A. was notorious for smog and traffic jams well before they put in skyscrapers. Why? SPRAWL, and lots of it. If you like suburban sprawl, fine. As HX Guy pointed out, you have the choice to live in far north Scottsdale, or Anthem, Queen Creek, etc. But there are those who wish to live in a central Phoenix location, such as highrise condo towers. Just because you like your suburban/desert lifestyle doesn't mean all 4 million people of the Valley have to be just like you. You're not the developer or land owner of those highrise projects, so what right do you have to deny people that choice?

Originally Posted by miamiman

It is very much my concern. I don't want to see a bunch of buildings uninhabited and falling apart because some developer foreclosed on a loan. We have enough of that mess in the West Valley and Maricopa. I am sure your vision of an economically stimulated downtown Phoenix would be compromised if those 60 and 70 floor highrise have huge foreclosure signs posted out front. That would look good for the city.

What about all the bozos who obtained sub prime loans because they were all too anxious to buy tile roofed cookie cutter homes in the newer suburban developments? Most of the foreclosures can be found in the far flung suburban areas. The vacancy rate is enormously higher in those subdivisions than in central Phoenix. So why don't you focus your NIMBYism on opposing any new suburban cookie cutter housing developments until the vacancy rate drops in the ones that exist?!

Lastly, I'd like to encourage you to read through all the postings on this thread since last year. The majority of posters are in favor of CityScape and more vertical development. You even admitted that there are many pro highrise postings on another forum that you visit. Therefore, you are in the minority. A newcomer telling natives & long termers to move is rather arrogant. Even if you lived here a long time, you still have no right to attempt to stop development that you don't have ownership of. That's another form of socialism. Downtown skyscrapers won't affect you anyway, so what's the big deal? It would be about as stupid as me moving to Miami and protesting the development along South Beach because "it would ruin my ocean view".
()

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Well, let's see. High end shopping, outdoor lifestyle, relatively clean, not too congested, and pretty mountains. Sedona would be perfect for you. It's small, clean, environmentally friendly, and no threat of highrise developments to ruin "their" mountain views. There's a lot more of your type up there than in the Phoenix area anyway. Heck, the residents of Sedona & Oak Creek even protested the widening of the main highway because it would spoil "their" environment.

I also like big cities, which is why the Valley is perfect for me. I am not a small-town guy, never have been. Which is why I appreciate what Phoenix has to offer. You're acting as though I am anti-development. I am not anti unnecessary development. To me, having additional skyscrapers downtown is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

We've already copied L.A. more than you probably realize. In case you didn't know, L.A. was notorious for smog and traffic jams well before they put in skyscrapers. Why? SPRAWL, and lots of it. If you like suburban sprawl, fine. As HX Guy pointed out, you have the choice to live in far north Scottsdale, or Anthem, Queen Creek, etc. But there are those who wish to live in a central Phoenix location, such as highrise condo towers. Just because you like your suburban/desert lifestyle doesn't mean all 4 million people of the Valley have to be just like you. You're not the developer or land owner of those highrise projects, so what right do you have to deny people that choice?

Actually LA has a had relative skyscrapers since the turn of the century. There was a time when 10 story buildings were considered skyscrapers. By 1900, LA had several of those. LA did not have a smog problem back in 1900 because there were few, if any, cars. LA also didn't sprawl out in 1900 like it did by 1945. You also fail to realize that LA had a VERY extensive trolley system that began in 1901 that was greatly responsible for while LA sprawled out in the manner it did. So called "streetcar suburbs" were formed from people realizing they could get relatively cheap land the farther out they went. When automobiles became popular, people started buying land away from the streetcar lines, and eventually many of the suburbs started connecting and becoming areas of continguous development. Smog became a problem when many people started owning cars and commuting to work.

The Valley was formed quite differently. Our sprawl in COMPLETELY related to the proliferation of the automobile. Downtown Phoenix may at one time have been the center of activity in the Valley, but in this day in age, with so many people living far out, this is just clearly not the case. We have people living as far west as Buckeye and as far east as Apache Junction, so to try and make Central Phoenix the center of all activity in the Valley is wasted effort. The ONLY reason many Valley residents go downtown is to see sports games, work, or see a museum. That's all. As I mentioned in my last post, NUMEROUS studies have been conducted showing that in this day in age they most common commuting pattern in from suburb-to-suburb. There are also some cities in which more people commute from city-to-suburb that suburb-to-city. Phoenix is a decentralized as cities get. Putting in a glassy skyscraper is not going to change that fact.

Lastly, again I am not against people wanting to live downtown. The fact of the matter is that demand to live downtown will never be strong enough to warrant the construct of 50 and 60 story condos, which would block out mountain views. The couple of condo projects that have been constructed downtown are a good size, and I think they provide an option for housing for those with the itch to live in the central city. Completely different than these office monstrosities that are proposed every now and then.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

What about all the bozos who obtained sub prime loans because they were all too anxious to buy tile roofed cookie cutter homes in the newer suburban developments? Most of the foreclosures can be found in the far flung suburban areas. The vacancy rate is enormously higher in those subdivisions than in central Phoenix. So why don't you focus your NIMBYism on opposing any new suburban cookie cutter housing developments until the vacancy rate drops in the ones that exist?!

I wouldn't call people who obtained subprime loans "bozos." Homeownership is part of the American dream, and many will do what they have to do to own a home. It's the lender's fault for allowing people with poor credit, no job, no income, and/or no credit to obtain loans. That's why we're in the mess we're in. At this stage of the game, there are no major companies who are itching to house their headquarters in Phoenix. No major Valley company that I know is itching to move downtown. So what's the point of building? If a developer were to build and no tenants moved in, the developer would be in the red. If the developer cannot pay the loan company back, the building will be foreclosed on. You think have these foreclosed tile-roof subdivisions is bad. How would a newly-constructed foreclosed skyscraper look to both residents and visitors? Wouldn't speak highly of Phoenix's economic vitality, would it?

I don't care about these foreclosed subdivisions because I don't have to look at them every day. Luckily, the majority of in my community and social circles are homeowners or can pay their mortgages. Maybe if I lived out in a poor suburbs like Avondale, Maricopa, or Queen Creek, where those types of people live, I would have something to say. But my daily life consists mainly of North Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, and utilizing our wonderful freeway system when I need to go anywhere else. Please understand a foreclosed subdivsion is on a much smaller scale than a foreclosed high-rise.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Lastly, I'd like to encourage you to read through all the postings on this thread since last year. The majority of posters are in favor of CityScape and more vertical development. You even admitted that there are many pro highrise postings on another forum that you visit. Therefore, you are in the minority. A newcomer telling natives & long termers to move is rather arrogant. Even if you lived here a long time, you still have no right to attempt to stop development that you don't have ownership of. That's another form of socialism. Downtown skyscrapers won't affect you anyway, so what's the big deal? It would be about as stupid as me moving to Miami and protesting the development along South Beach because "it would ruin my ocean view".
()

I understand that the majority of people on a site like this or SkyscraperPage are in favor of vertical development. I am not sure that I would hold two websites to represent an accurate cross-section of residents in the Valley. Again, look at other skyscraper propsals that have been vehemently shot down by residents of various neighborhoods. I am not the only one with this thinking. If I was, Phoenix's skyline might look something more like Houston or LA. It doesn't. Maybe when Phoenix attracts some large companies to move their headquarters, they'll be able to strong arm their way past other NIMBYs to building skyscraper behemoths. Luckily, that's not happening right now.

A native trying to act like they are in possession of the Valley is a lot more arrogant than any of my opinions ever were. I am sure the Native Americans who inhabited this land before you and your family are not happy with what the Valley's become. Are you bending over backwards to appease them? Absolutely not. Get real. Be the change you want to see. If you think the Valley is too polluted, stop driving. If you think the Valley is too crowded, move. It's really as simple as that.

As a resident of the Valley, I have the right to have WHATEVER views I please and I am allowed to express them. As an American citizen, I also have to right to express my opinion democratically through voting. I will continue to vote down any measure that I feel are not in this area's best interest. I am not using any illegal measures to try to stop anything. If that's socialism, so be it. My quality of life is just as important as yours and anyone else's. You don't have a right to assume what will affect me and what won't. If skyscrapers are built downtown, traffic will increase, congestion on the freeways will also get worse. Do you understand that increased congestion will cause increased smog? Smog won't just hover over downtown. It will waft and be held in by our mountains. Congestion will cause a domino effect that will affect all freeways in the Valley. Don't tell me what will and will not affect me. You really have no idea.

Lastly, you can complain wherever you want. If you pay taxes, you have that right. Don't compare Phoenix with Miami. First of all, Miami Beach is FULLY DEVELOPED. There is no choice to go but up, unless you feel architechts should find a way to start building on the water. Miami Beach is already chock full of high-rise blocking ocean views with TONS more being constructed now. Phoenix is NOT filled to capacity, NOR is it full of skyscrapers blocking mountain views, and there will NOT suddenly be a boom that would impede on my views, thank goodness. If there is ever that threat, I, along with thousands of others, will do what we are within our legal rights to do to put a stop to it.

[fcorrales80]

Miamiman, your post are HALARIOUS! How exactly are you going to fight with all your power, the construction of new highrises in Phoenix? The only reason the W Hotel in downtown lost its first choice of land was because of the "historic" designation of the Sun Merchantile building on which they were going to build and alter the old structure. However, the parking lot next to U.S. Airways Center is now being considered for the W Hotel. The only "say" anyone would have over the height of a new building would be the FAA to a certain extent. The city could approve any height they wanted, HOWEVER, the FAA could limit flight paths and capacity into Sky Harbor (that would be detrimental).

Secondly, no matter how many skyscrapers are built downtown, there will always be mountain views in Phoenix. Where do you live? NORTH SCOTTSDALE??? Even if manhattan was plopped down along Central Ave in Phoenix "your" mountain views would not be obstructed, nor would most of the population's. If you were in the middle of "Manhattan" then you wouldn't be able to see many mountains...until you walked around a little because no matter what, the mountains around Phoenix are much too numerous and tall to be completely blocked out. If "Dubai high" skyscrapers were built in a circle around Phoenix, most people would still be able to see the mountains.

Second, the reason for building a densely populated downtown is to alleviate growing congestion on the outer reaches of the freeways. It is a proven fact that suburban sprawl creates the most traffic in a metro area...not a compact and tall downtown. Why do you think NYC IS NOT the most congested NOR the most polluted city in the country...becuase density and centrality create a transit friendly environment. L.A.'s downtown is NOT impressive. It's actually very small with a number of "tall" buildings and about 20 freeways running around it because it is not a significant area of employment nor of residential living.

So while you have the right to your opinions, you do not hold a deed to "mountain views" and do not have the right to stop a developer from buidling on his land...especially since you live 20 miles from the center of Phoenix. I find your views a little scewed. Living that far north, you wouldn't even be able to see downtown until traveling past Piestawa Peak, Camelback Moutain, the mountain preserves, and the Papagos...then south of those you would be able to see the buildings. You have no legal right to stop construction of skyscrapers downtown unless they have an impact on a historic building. Since there are many lots where nothing exists, or nothing historic exists, then they can build a highrise in that spot. The only buildings that were "blocked" from being constructed were those along Camelback in the Biltmore neighborhood. This is hardly downtown and the height restrictions in this area are far lower than downtown as well. The residents of the Biltmore neighborhood opposed the new building height proposed by the city because most of the houses around the area are single family homes. These residents wanted Trump and other developers to build downtown and not in their neighborhood (which actually makes sense). Why build tall buildings outside of Uptown, Midtown, or Downtown when many parcel sit waiting for development in these areas. The Biltmore "nimbys" do not oppose downtown construction, they oppose construction of 20 story + buildings that overlook their backyard...this isn't a problem in downtown.

The urban heat island effect can be mitigated and will be mitigated by new technology, construction techniques, and plant life. But Valley Native and HX Guy are right, laying more concrete out to the furthest reaches of the valley spread the effects of the heat island and also create a dangerous flood danger because natural washes are destroyed....hence why most of the "flash flood" warnings are in North Scottsdale, Carefree, Cavecreek, Mesa, AJ, Queen Creek, etc. These areas are full of natural washes and streams that act as drainage for winter runoff and monsoon rainwater. If we really wanted to respect our natural environment, we would focus on density and not on paving over the desert and extending the suburban sprawl. I hope the county, state, and cities of Maricopa County enact an urban boundary as has been done around cities like Portland.

[Valley Native]

FCorrales, at this point it's rather futile to keep arguing with Miami Boy over this topic. He thinks that he can stop further highrise construction through voting or protesting, and that's just not going to happen. He doesn't seem to realize that these land parcels are privately owned. They don't belong to the public, nor are being financed through tax dollars ... so therefore, it's not up to the public to decide the fate of private ownership. Developers own the land, and can build where and what they so choose, so long as it's within zoning requirements. Downtown and the Central Corridor are zoned for tall buildings. Businesses as well as residents are wanting to move to a centralized location more than before, which is why Wachovia is going to occupy one of the CityScape towers.

The only way he can stop highrises is through lawsuits ... as was the case with the Sun Merc building & the unfortunate fate of the W Hotel. Perhaps I'm putting thoughts into his head to do so ... but if he has so much time on his hands & nothing better to do than to stop upward development, that's his problem. He knew before he moved here (or should have known) that there were proposals for taller structures in the downtown area. A newcomer trying to force his ways on the developers & others! Pretty arrogant ... but typical of the NIMBY mentality. NIMBYs are really a small vocal minority of activists. The only reason they have been relatively successful in the Valley is the city government & developers grow tired of their incessant whining, and eventually give up. Developers don't have the time to deal with these malcontents who keep protesting their buildings.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Miamiman, your post are HALARIOUS! How exactly are you going to fight with all your power, the construction of new highrises in Phoenix? The only reason the W Hotel in downtown lost its first choice of land was because of the "historic" designation of the Sun Merchantile building on which they were going to build and alter the old structure. However, the parking lot next to U.S. Airways Center is now being considered for the W Hotel. The only "say" anyone would have over the height of a new building would be the FAA to a certain extent. The city could approve any height they wanted, HOWEVER, the FAA could limit flight paths and capacity into Sky Harbor (that would be detrimental).

You mean hilarious? I will use my voting power to do my part in stopping development. If there are countywide bond issues on the ballot that would spark unnecessary or bad development, I will vote them down. Simple as that. I don't see what is so complicated or hilarious about that. You act like I am going to stand on construction cranes or sprawl on a parcel of land to be developed. Absolutely not. The FAA is NOT the only with say on the heights of buildings. The city and developers could strong arm the FAA into allowing higher building heights, which they clearly haven't done, because it isn't necessary. I don't know if you've ever been to San Diego, but planes basically touch the tops of the skyscrapers in DT San Diego. I am sure there was one point in which building height restrictions were much lower in San Diego, but as the need arose, developers and the city were able to strong arm their way into raising building heights.

The fact of the matter is that I am not alone. I agree that many skyscraper proposals were shot down by residents because the skyscrapers would have been out of place. However, you have to realized that there are bond issues that arise on the ballot every couple of years that anyone with voting power in the city or the county has the power to weigh in on, regardless of how much or little development will affect them. If I have the power to vote, which I do, then I have a say in any matter that arises on the ballot.

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Secondly, no matter how many skyscrapers are built downtown, there will always be mountain views in Phoenix. Where do you live? NORTH SCOTTSDALE??? Even if manhattan was plopped down along Central Ave in Phoenix "your" mountain views would not be obstructed, nor would most of the population's. If you were in the middle of "Manhattan" then you wouldn't be able to see many mountains...until you walked around a little because no matter what, the mountains around Phoenix are much too numerous and tall to be completely blocked out. If "Dubai high" skyscrapers were built in a circle around Phoenix, most people would still be able to see the mountains.

As I have said before, I like my mountain views no matter where I am in the Valley. If Manhattan was plopped down in Central Phoenix we would not be able to see the moutains. You do realize that the Empire State Building is as tall as South Mountain, don't you? When I go to Central Phoenix, I can barely see around me as it is.

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Second, the reason for building a densely populated downtown is to alleviate growing congestion on the outer reaches of the freeways. It is a proven fact that suburban sprawl creates the most traffic in a metro area...not a compact and tall downtown. Why do you think NYC IS NOT the most congested NOR the most polluted city in the country...becuase density and centrality create a transit friendly environment. L.A.'s downtown is NOT impressive. It's actually very small with a number of "tall" buildings and about 20 freeways running around it because it is not a significant area of employment nor of residential living.

Who has proven this fact? Entertain me with some academic papers. I know, you can't. Have you ever tried to drive in New York? Evidently not. There is NO congestion in the country as bad as in Manhattan. Have you ever been to Philadelphia? Chicago? Boston? DC? You should go sometime so you have a clue about what you're talking about. You've clearly fallen asleep on your keyboard several times during this post.



I have also got news for you. Phoenix is the epitome of suburban sprawl. You are not going to change that by putting up skyscrapers. I have already alluded to the fact that the majority of Valley residents live and work in the suburbs. Many Valley residents already live 35 miles from DT Phoenix. So would making DT Phoenix the hub of entertainment in the Valley be smart? No. Let's have all 4.3 million Valley residents descend on downtown. That would be smart. When a metropolitan area is this spread out, you will have a decentralized core. There is no way around that.

It sounds like you have never been to LA. There are not 20 freeways "running around" DT LA. There are 5. Unless I am missing something, please inform me of the other 15 freeways "running around." I personally think the skyline of DT LA is impressive, but since you have clearly never been there, I am not surprised you have the opposite view. The fact of the matter is LA is FULL of tall skyscrapers and we see how sprawly and decentralized LA STILL is. What makes you think Phoenix will be any different? It won't.

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

So while you have the right to your opinions, you do not hold a deed to "mountain views" and do not have the right to stop a developer from buidling on his land...especially since you live 20 miles from the center of Phoenix. I find your views a little scewed. Living that far north, you wouldn't even be able to see downtown until traveling past Piestawa Peak, Camelback Moutain, the mountain preserves, and the Papagos...then south of those you would be able to see the buildings. You have no legal right to stop construction of skyscrapers downtown unless they have an impact on a historic building. Since there are many lots where nothing exists, or nothing historic exists, then they can build a highrise in that spot. The only buildings that were "blocked" from being constructed were those along Camelback in the Biltmore neighborhood. This is hardly downtown and the height restrictions in this area are far lower than downtown as well. The residents of the Biltmore neighborhood opposed the new building height proposed by the city because most of the houses around the area are single family homes. These residents wanted Trump and other developers to build downtown and not in their neighborhood (which actually makes sense). Why build tall buildings outside of Uptown, Midtown, or Downtown when many parcel sit waiting for development in these areas. The Biltmore "nimbys" do not oppose downtown construction, they oppose construction of 20 story + buildings that overlook their backyard...this isn't a problem in downtown.

Again, I have the right to vote on bond issues, which I will do. I will attend city council meetings and rally with others who are against anyunnecessary waste of money. I will submit formal complaints about any building proposals that I feel with ruin my quality of life and other people's quality of life in the Valley. I will not be taken advantage of by greedy developers trying to build nauseating and vertigo-inducing high rises.

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

The urban heat island effect can be mitigated and will be mitigated by new technology, construction techniques, and plant life. But Valley Native and HX Guy are right, laying more concrete out to the furthest reaches of the valley spread the effects of the heat island and also create a dangerous flood danger because natural washes are destroyed....hence why most of the "flash flood" warnings are in North Scottsdale, Carefree, Cavecreek, Mesa, AJ, Queen Creek, etc. These areas are full of natural washes and streams that act as drainage for winter runoff and monsoon rainwater. If we really wanted to respect our natural environment, we would focus on density and not on paving over the desert and extending the suburban sprawl. I hope the county, state, and cities of Maricopa County enact an urban boundary as has been done around cities like Portland.

Nowhere in the Valley is as hot as Central PHX. True, developed suburban areas are hot, too. All the more reason why we should require xeriscaping and environmentally-efficient homes. However, additional skyscrapers would hold in way too much heat. No one is going to want to go downtown if it is 115 during the day and 101 or 102 at night. None of these developers are going to build green buildings. They're way too greedy. They are going to build glass and concrete behemoths, and you, HX_Guy, and Valley Native will be the only ones cheering them on. I shutter for the day when residents living like sardines in those new condos lose power during early July. There will be all of these new buildings surrounding them slowly emitting massive amounts of heat, creating a TRULY hellacious and deadly experience. Do your really want that to happen?

I really DO NOT hope there is an urban growth boundary like Portland. Growth boundaries are proven to drive up housing prices to unaffordable levels, reducing everyone's quality of life. I am glad you realize that we should not pave over the desert. Therefore, you agree that we should not pave over parks and other areas downtown to put in skyscrapers. I am all for low and mid-rise infill. Offer development incentives to build in-town. Just stop this skyscaper madness.