New tallest building FINALLY coming to Phoenix! (Scottsdale, Tempe: foreclose, lenders)

[ABQSunseeker]

Miamiman, I had a good chuckle about FCorrales80's take on NYC. After having lived in NYC, a mostly wonderful but maddening city, for 25 yrs, I left the hellish congestion for Phoenix. According to a US Census Bureau Feb. 25, 2004 release, New Yorkers had the "longest commute time in the nation among large cities". At 38.4 minutes. LA was lower in the top ten with 28.5 minutes.

Getting stuck in traffic is ROUTINE in NY. I was caught in horrendous traffic jams even in the middle of the night, well after midnight on numerous occasions.

Congestion has been so bad, that Mayor Bloomberg proposed a congestion pricing plan for midtown Manhattan based on the London model which would have charged motorists a fee to drive in midtown during the day. This was just recently defeated.

Density in Manhattan historically has always been overwhelming. Parts of the Lower East Side in the past rivaled the densities of Kolkata (Calcutta).

So despite a huge mass transit system which is mostly very efficient (if antiquated and in need of updating), NY IS hugely congested. Just try riding the Lexington Ave. trains in rush hour, try taking the Lincoln Tunnel in rush hour, try driving on the FDR in rush hour. Oh, PLEASE.

I hardly think this is the direction Phoenix wants to move in.

[Magnum Mike]

Originally Posted by miamiman

....
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.

If you're talking about Portland, Oregon and not Portland, Maine - The only reason Portland has the growth bounderies you mentioned is because they have no choice. The city is land-locked by a few smaller cities, and there is no room to expand the bounderies. You got Vancouver in the State of Washington to the north, Gresham to the east, Milwaukie to the southeast, Lake Oswego and Tigard to the south and southwest, Beaverton and Hillsboro to the west and northwest.

I lived outside of Portland for a little over a year in the city of Tigard to the southwest, and right now Portland has a number of tall residential high-rise projects under construction in the downtown area.

I do not agree with your views against more sky scrapers in downtown Phoenix, but with the price of gasoline sky-rocketting, there will be more and more people moving closer to the downtown area. I am also against the urban sprawl we've seen in recent years. I don't think the Phoenix metro area will ever be like the Los Angeles basin and the "Inland Empire" in southern California, at least not in our lifetime, but the need for office and residential high-rises in, or close to downtown Phoenix, will definitely always be there.

[fcorrales80]

Miamiman and Alb, I really think you have no idea what you are talking about. The Empire State Building is around 1,000ft. South Mountain and the Estrella Mountains have peaks near 4000ft. in elevation. Their rise from the Valley floor is a 3,000 foot gain in elevation, LOL! The empire state building will not dwarf mountains that are wider than the Island of Manhattan! PLEASE!!! And NO NO NO, Los Angeles has the worst congestion because it is just a sprawling city.

You can not say NYC is more congested on the roads than L.A., that is a farce! There is practically NO transit ridership in LA which cuases the worst traffic and congestion in the world to occur in this city. NYC has 2 million poeple crammed onto a small island (Manhattan, and another 6.3 million stuffed in 4 other burroughs) and their "commute" times average 26 minutes where as L.A. averages much more:
In Depth: 10 Worst Cities For Commuters - Forbes.com
NYC isn't even in the top ten for worst commutes, the above link will let you know which are. Just to foreshadow, they are in metro areas with the worst sprawl in the country (Atlanta; which has far-flung suburban expanses much worse than Phoenix, hence horrible commute times and stalling traffic jams)!

Bonds, bonds, and bonds. Unfortunately for you Miamiman, Phoenicians approve almost every bond the city sends for a public vote. However, most of the private downtown highrises are built and financed with private money. CityScape has received no bond money from any city. AND again, you live in Scottsdale, so you can't vote on Phoenix city bond issues: Scottsdale sure, but I'm not arguing for high-rises out there, that would be dumb. Heat island this, heat island that. BLAH! Surburban sprawl causes this island to grow, and while downtown remains warmer than the rest of the valley, this has been the case before Phoenix was a city; it's along the lowest point of the Salt River Valley...as most know, the lower the elevation in the inter-mountain West, the higher the temperature typically will remain. The city of Mesa was named Mesa because it sits on a mesa that is at its highest point hundreds of feet higher in elevation than Phoenix. But like I said, new building codes, LEED certified buildings, green construction, drought resistant leafy plants, and downtowns "natural greenbelt" will mitigate the heat as more is constructed. You should read up on new building codes and roof materials that have drastically improved the dissipation rate of heat. All this will improve with time as new materials and methods of construction become available.

[ABQSunseeker]

Wrong FCorrales, I'll take the census bureau over a dubious Forbes site. 38.4 min for NY v. 28 min for LA. You may only have tread lightly in NY but have no real experience of it. You shouldn't parade prejudices and opinions as fact, when they are, in fact, opinions. Do your research. Why would a mayor of NY want to charge New Yorkers to drive on its streets. No congestion, hah. Give me a break.

[fcorrales80]

Dubious forbes site, LOL. Where do you think they received their numbers? From the Census and from research firms that actually do the work to find out which cities are the worst:

"To find them and others, Forbes.com looked at the 75 largest metro areas in the U.S. and evaluated them based on traffic delays, travel times and how efficiently commuters use existing infrastructure, based on data from the Texas Transportation Institute and the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey (2006 was the last time this Survey was conducted)."
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/24/cit...ealestate.html

Here is a little piece about density and traffic from the above link:
"Varying population densities and development patterns in the nation's cities make gaging efficiency difficult. In Boston, for example, jobs are mostly concentrated in and around the city center. In Los Angeles, offices are more spread out. That means Boston's commuter rail and "T" systems, part of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), are better able to put area commuters closer to their jobs than an identical train system could do for Los Angeles (broken link) commuters...
Yet Detroit, another city losing people, has one of America's worst commutes. Transit design in Motown is, not unexpectedly, tailored to the car--yet traffic patterns aren't smooth, since only 11% of commuters walk, carpool or take public transit. The average Detroit commuter is delayed 54 hours a year, more than residents in California's sprawling "Inland Empire" cities of San Bernardino and Riverside, who log 49 hours of delays; and more than Chicago or Boston with 46 hours each.
Even in Houston, where the car is king, 17% of commuters stray from the "one worker, one car" approach, among the country's highest rates. Let alone the environmental implications of single-worker driving, it's important to consider cost. Cars are least fuel-efficient when they're idling or stuck in traffic, and households beholden to the single commuter driving are the most adversely affected by rising gasoline costs.
Long Trips
Cities like Atlanta and San Bernardino, Calif., have difficult commutes as the result of sprawl. In Atlanta, 12.7% of commuters spend more than an hour getting to work, and in the "Inland Empire," which includes San Bernardino and Riverside, 15% of commuters take over an hour to get to the office."

I lived in New York and the NY area for over 5 years...in the city itself for over 2 years while attending Columbia University (in Manhattan). Sure, there are cars on the streets, half of which were taxis and out of state license plated cars. Almost EVERY NYer I met did not own a car. You lived there, so tell me, how long did it take you to walk from the East side to the West in most of Manhattan? Or to ride the subway a few miles north to south? The mayor wants to charge to drive on the streets to generate funds for road improvements...in Phoenix and Arizona we pay this with a gas tax added to each gallon of gas we purchase and other means approved by voters.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

FCorrales, at this point it's rather futile to keep arguing with Miami Man 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.

I will put a stop to this high-rise madness. If I have to attend city council meetings with others and yell at the top of my lungs, I will do so. You are blithely unaware of the power residents in various cities have exerted to successfully stop development that they deemed a poor fit. You are also clearly ignorant to the fact that many times cities will waive development impact fees that developers often have to pay by using bond money to fund infrastructure costs. Bond money will be necessary to provide public parking structures for the thousands of additional people who would work in these monstrosities, as well as the widening of roads, which would CLEARLY be necessary. You are too busy taking a 3D issue and trying to make it 2D. You have only been able to give me one reason why you are for high-rises, one that it extremely flawed. You don't build huge skyscrapers in a poor real estate market. That's why CityScape has been scaled back tremendously. The fact that Wachovia will inhabit 3 floors of CityScape means nothing. Who will inhabit the rest? Do you even know? Do you even care? You're so concerned with tile-roof subdivsions being foreclosed on when, really, you need to focus on the larger structures being built. You might not care anything about where you live, but I most certainly do.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

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.

NIMBY's might be a small segment of the population, but out here, we almost always get their way. You should know that, being a native and all. If NIMBY's can defeat Trump, they can defeat anyone. Sorry to inform you. You keep calling me a newcomer, as though that somehow cheapens my opinion. It doesn't. You think anyone cares that you're a native? They don't. Especially not me.

I have proven everyone of your arguments against me to be false, and all you can keep saying is how I am an arrogant newcomer because I want the desert to be preserved. How am I trying to force my ways on others? How ridiculous. Secondly, you keep acting as though there are tons of proposals for high-rises in Phoenix, and no one can do anything to stop it. There are two proposed developments, one just got scaled down, and I don't know what's going on with the other one. Developers are seeing what I am seeing and are leary of building in Phoenix. Phoenix is not Los Angeles, nor has it developed like Los Angeles as you have claimed. Phoenix's skyline will be small in the near future. If there are any plans to challenge the height ordinance, I will do anything in my legal power to stop it.

[fcorrales80]

Miamiman, did you know CityScape actually caused the streets to be narrow and the developer is paying for infrastructure improvement around the site? Also, Alta Phoenix, the Monroe 44 residential tower, Jackson St. Entertainment District, Park Central East tower, Cielo Tower, Century Plaza Tower, etc. are private developments and are thus funding themselves. They are also NOT widening any roads because of the towers. Van Buren, Central, 1st ave, and the street north of Central Park East (for example) are NOT being widened despite the fact that a 30 story tower is being built on this block. The developer is, however, paying for the widening of side walks around the building. This is true of all the private highrises in Phoenix. You don't have a say in the construction of these towers since NO building code is being violated, no public funding is being used, etc.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by ABQSunseeker

Miamiman, I had a good chuckle about FCorrales80's take on NYC. After having lived in NYC, a mostly wonderful but maddening city, for 25 yrs, I left the hellish congestion for Phoenix. According to a US Census Bureau Feb. 25, 2004 release, New Yorkers had the "longest commute time in the nation among large cities". At 38.4 minutes. LA was lower in the top ten with 28.5 minutes.

Getting stuck in traffic is ROUTINE in NY. I was caught in horrendous traffic jams even in the middle of the night, well after midnight on numerous occasions.

Congestion has been so bad, that Mayor Bloomberg proposed a congestion pricing plan for midtown Manhattan based on the London model which would have charged motorists a fee to drive in midtown during the day. This was just recently defeated.

Density in Manhattan historically has always been overwhelming. Parts of the Lower East Side in the past rivaled the densities of Kolkata (Calcutta).

So despite a huge mass transit system which is mostly very efficient (if antiquated and in need of updating), NY IS hugely congested. Just try riding the Lexington Ave. trains in rush hour, try taking the Lincoln Tunnel in rush hour, try driving on the FDR in rush hour. Oh, PLEASE.

I hardly think this is the direction Phoenix wants to move in.

Exactly. It's brutally apparent that none of the people with whom I am debating have ever spent appreciable time in New York, or any other major city. You can't choose to have a bunch of skyscrapers and people working downtown, then turn around and tell me that there won't be a congestion problem.

Compared to the congestion of most major metropolitan areas, people in Phoenix have NO idea how good they have it. The fact that everything is so decentralized and spread out helps the situation here tremendously. The FDR, the West Side Highway, the bridges and tunnels, Broadway, 5th Avenue are all scenes I hoped to NEVER see again! Can you imagine if most people in the Valley worked downtown, especially with our current streets AND NOW the light rail going in? That would be absolute chaos. Remember how expensive daily parking in Manhattan was too? Can you imagine with the way the Valley is set up, people coming DT to work only to have to pay 10-20 dollars a day to park?

Agressive pandhandlers, the putrid smells of hot garbage and urine, tourists walking slowly and disturbing the flow of pedestrian traffic definitely come to mind when I remember the pedestrian experience in New York. Can you imagine how much those smells would be amplified here in 112 degree weather?! No thank you.

Having poor building height to street width ratio did cause a feeling of being enclosed. I can't believe people here actual want that kind of madness!

I think people here are really just unaware of the massive downsides that come along with building a super dense and tall downtown. I will do everything I can to save my quality of life here in the Valley to make sure this place never gets to that point.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Miamiman and Alb, I really think you have no idea what you are talking about. The Empire State Building is around 1,000ft. South Mountain and the Estrella Mountains have peaks near 4000ft. in elevation. Their rise from the Valley floor is a 3,000 foot gain in elevation, LOL! The empire state building will not dwarf mountains that are wider than the Island of Manhattan! PLEASE!!! And NO NO NO, Los Angeles has the worst congestion because it is just a sprawling city.

Of course you don't. The Empire State Building is from bottom to the top of the antenna is 1,472 feet. If you knew what YOU were talking about, you would know that the South Mountain lookout is only 1,200 feet above the Valley floor. It's 2,300 feet above sea level. Phoenix is about 1,100 freet above sea level. 2,300-1,100=1,200. 1,472 feet > 1,200 feet.

Tell me how sprawl contributes more to congestion than if the Valley had a growth boundary drawn around it tomorrow and we forced infill development in between what already exists? Please answer that question for me. If density increases, congestion worsens.

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

You can not say NYC is more congested on the roads than L.A., that is a farce! There is practically NO transit ridership in LA which cuases the worst traffic and congestion in the world to occur in this city. NYC has 2 million poeple crammed onto a small island (Manhattan, and another 6.3 million stuffed in 4 other burroughs) and their "commute" times average 26 minutes where as L.A. averages much more:
In Depth: 10 Worst Cities For Commuters - Forbes.com
NYC isn't even in the top ten for worst commutes, the above link will let you know which are. Just to foreshadow, they are in metro areas with the worst sprawl in the country (Atlanta; which has far-flung suburban expanses much worse than Phoenix, hence horrible commute times and stalling traffic jams)!

Yes, I absolutely can tell you that NYC is more congested than LA. I have lived in just outside of NYC while working in the city. I have spent significant time in LA. It doesn't compare. I would recommend that you try to drive from Lower Manhattan, around Battery Park, to the Bronx, using any street you'd like, and tell me that LA has worse congestion than New York.

Did you even read the article you sent me? It only measures HIGHWAY MILES. I don't know of any highways in Manhattan. The only highways I know of are in the outer boroughs. I am talking surface streets. The same article also mentions that because LA is so spread out a decentralized a smaller percentage of people spend more than 45 minutes communting to work than in New York, same with Chicago, or other cities with large populations communiting to the core. Now your own article just weakened your own case for why Phoenix should have a dense downtown. By all means, let's increasing the percentage of Phoenix area commuters who have to commute more than 45 minutes to downtown in exchange for glassy skyscrapers. No. Thank. You.

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Bonds, bonds, and bonds. Unfortunately for you Miamiman, Phoenicians approve almost every bond the city sends for a public vote. However, most of the private downtown highrises are built and financed with private money. CityScape has received no bond money from any city. AND again, you live in Scottsdale, so you can't vote on Phoenix city bond issues: Scottsdale sure, but I'm not arguing for high-rises out there, that would be dumb. Heat island this, heat island that. BLAH! Surburban sprawl causes this island to grow, and while downtown remains warmer than the rest of the valley, this has been the case before Phoenix was a city; it's along the lowest point of the Salt River Valley...as most know, the lower the elevation in the inter-mountain West, the higher the temperature typically will remain. The city of Mesa was named Mesa because it sits on a mesa that is at its highest point hundreds of feet higher in elevation than Phoenix. But like I said, new building codes, LEED certified buildings, green construction, drought resistant leafy plants, and downtowns "natural greenbelt" will mitigate the heat as more is constructed. You should read up on new building codes and roof materials that have drastically improved the dissipation rate of heat. All this will improve with time as new materials and methods of construction become available.

There are countywide bond issues that I can vote on. Lucky for me . I have already told the native that often cities use bond money for the infrastructe needed to cater to high-rises. County residents have approved bonds mainly that have allowed for transportation improvements and freeway construction. I have no problem with CityScape. The building has been scaled down, and when other developers see how much of a failure it is, other unnecessary, horrid downtown construction proposals will be scrapped.

Please don't explain to me how the weather works. If you knew anything about the heat island, you would know that central cities are the warmest areas of all. Look at New York. There are many nights when the city is as much as 15 to 20 degrees warmer than outlying communities. Solely because buildings hold in heat. There are ways to mitigate the effect, but it will never go away. I don't care if developers were to cover every building in grass, it would still be terrifyingly hot at night dowtown. If your elevation theory was true, it should be hotter in the West Valley than in Central Phoenix at night, which it clearly isn't.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by fcorrales80

Miamiman, did you know CityScape actually caused the streets to be narrow and the developer is paying for infrastructure improvement around the site? Also, Alta Phoenix, the Monroe 44 residential tower, Jackson St. Entertainment District, Park Central East tower, Cielo Tower, Century Plaza Tower, etc. are private developments and are thus funding themselves. They are also NOT widening any roads because of the towers. Van Buren, Central, 1st ave, and the street north of Central Park East (for example) are NOT being widened despite the fact that a 30 story tower is being built on this block. The developer is, however, paying for the widening of side walks around the building. This is true of all the private highrises in Phoenix. You don't have a say in the construction of these towers since NO building code is being violated, no public funding is being used, etc.

Great. Narrower streets. CityScape will inevitably add more vehicular traffic with people trying to access the grocery store and restaurants or working in the offices, and the developer wants to narrow the street! The developer is clearly trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Additionally, retrofitting any street costs a lot of money which will come right out of taxpayers pockets through these bonds as a result of the city waiving development fees.

Private developments often don't fund themselves! If a city like Phoenix is this desperate to get high-rises, they will bend over backwards to cater to the developer. This just makes me sick.

The developer won't end up having to pay for anything. It will just come out of everyone else's pockets. Ughh. Greedy. Keep Phoenix's skyline small. This is not LA!!