Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what I've been saying even gung ho conservative Texas cities are embracing rail. Especially Dallas (who is pretty liberal at the core however).
We're behind and we keep falling behind the more we vote these things down.
It's not a good piece. There is no reason to disparage the South Mountain freeway development just to support light rail. We should be endorsing both measures. We clearly need the South Mountain freeway. It will relieve an enormous amount of traffic and create a true loop of the city which we've been missing. Light rail is also needed to help spur our economy and create an affordable means of travel for many.
It amazes me how Phoenix residents approach these issues with an illogical religious fervor as if it's Middle Eastern politics. Everything is a love or hate type of issue. Get past your drama people and look at the big picture instead of short term petty politics. The Valley is going to grow. That is certain. You want to continue to expand public transportation and improve freeway access. That is good for the city.
The only positive element to aging is that us conservative scared old folks are going to be replaced by the millenial generation who are aggressive and progressive. Sure, the millenials bother me in many other ways but I do like this element about them.
It's not a good piece. There is no reason to disparage the South Mountain freeway development just to support light rail. We should be endorsing both measures. We clearly need the South Mountain freeway. It will relieve an enormous amount of traffic and create a true loop of the city which we've been missing. Light rail is also needed to help spur our economy and create an affordable means of travel for many.
It amazes me how Phoenix residents approach these issues with an illogical religious fervor as if it's Middle Eastern politics. Everything is a love or hate type of issue. Get past your drama people and look at the big picture instead of short term petty politics. The Valley is going to grow. That is certain. You want to continue to expand public transportation and improve freeway access. That is good for the city.
The only positive element to aging is that us conservative scared old folks are going to be replaced by the millenial generation who are aggressive and progressive. Sure, the millenials bother me in many other ways but I do like this element about them.
It is a good piece in ways he is right. In premise the author wants a less sprawled city and a densified
City. What you are saying is realistic. For reality purposes the south mountain freeway should be built, but idealistically a denser growth pattern would benefit us much more than allowing Maricopa and Casa Grande a possible incentive for expansion. Phoenix would be much better served by densifying now rather than expanding its footprint and for that the author is right. Now what is going to happen is that we are going to promote new Real Estate at the fringes, in order to accommodate that we need the freeway and for that you are right.
For the record I am a millennial and the lack of density is the #1 complaint of my age group about Phoenix.
Last edited by JGMotorsport64; 08-04-2015 at 08:13 PM..
The stupid Phoenix light rail system has been a white elephant right from the start.
If they really wanted to reduce traffic congestion they shouldn't have introduced something that permanently removes one or two pre-existing traffic lanes from everywhere it goes.
Just from watching the trains its clear that very few people use the light rail. Unless you live very near a stop (which is relatively very few people) the rail system is basically irrelevant/uesless. 3 almost empty trains an hour doesn't come even close to the number of people the same traffic lanes could and did accommodate in cars.
Not only should we all vote against 104, we should vote to shut the light rail down ASAP and return the massive amount of cost and space it takes up back into roads and road maintenance.
Opposing the proposition is your right, your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.
But shutting down the light rail?
You understand that would involve the removal of all tracks and stations, and essentially re-doing the streets, which would be outrageously expensive, more so than expanding the existing service.
It's becoming quite entertaining reading all these anti-transit comments because many of them are nothing but extremist kneejerk reactions, but it makes for some good comedy.
It is a good piece in ways he is right. In premise the author wants a less sprawled city and a densified
City. What you are saying is realistic. For reality purposes the south mountain freeway should be built, but idealistically a denser growth pattern would benefit us much more than allowing Maricopa and Casa Grande a possible incentive for expansion. Phoenix would be much better served by densifying now rather than expanding its footprint and for that the author is right. Now what is going to happen is that we are going to promote new Real Estate at the fringes, in order to accommodate that we need the freeway and for that you are right.
I see your point but I have to disagree somewhat.
Phoenix is a very spread-out city and metropolitan area, it always has been that way.
Trying to densify is fine but slowing or stopping construction of new freeways would be totally wrong.
Phoenix needs a solid comprehensive mass transit system consisting of freeways, busses, and rail. One should not be ignored for the other.
It is a good piece in ways he is right. In premise the author wants a less sprawled city and a densified
City. What you are saying is realistic. For reality purposes the south mountain freeway should be built, but idealistically a denser growth pattern would benefit us much more than allowing Maricopa and Casa Grande a possible incentive for expansion. Phoenix would be much better served by densifying now rather than expanding its footprint and for that the author is right. Now what is going to happen is that we are going to promote new Real Estate at the fringes, in order to accommodate that we need the freeway and for that you are right.
For the record I am a millennial and the lack of density is the #1 complaint of my age group about Phoenix.
If density is truly the #1 complaint of the majority of people in any age group, that type of dwelling and all that fills around it will happen because demand($) will drive it. What we/I/others wish for/write about/want is just that....thoughts, words, and wishful thinking. Right now, it's obvious the vast majority want a home in the suburbs with a little land as that's what is selling for the most part. Where I live in the suburbs in Goodyear in Estrella, I see many young families in their 20's and 30's still moving in. Perhaps single young people want something else for a while but if they want to start families, it seems they usually end up back to the suburbs in the end. Time will tell if that trend continues over the coming decades.
If density is truly the #1 complaint of the majority of people in any age group, that type of dwelling and all that fills around it will happen because demand($) will drive it. What we/I/others wish for/write about/want is just that....thoughts, words, and wishful thinking. Right now, it's obvious the vast majority want a home in the suburbs with a little land as that's what is selling for the most part. Where I live in the suburbs in Goodyear in Estrella, I see many young families in their 20's and 30's still moving in. Perhaps single young people want something else for a while but if they want to start families, it seems they usually end up back to the suburbs in the end. Time will tell if that trend continues over the coming decades.
Your anecdote isn't representative, the most thriving parts of the valley are the urban nodes in Tempe and Phoenix.
My main point still stands.....the vast majority of people are moving to the suburbs/buying homes. If you have data that "urban" areas of Tempe and Phoenix are growing faster than the the suburb cities of the valley, I'd like to see it.
My main point still stands.....the vast majority of people are moving to the suburbs/buying homes. If you have data that "urban" areas of Tempe and Phoenix are growing faster than the the suburb cities of the valley, I'd like to see it.
The problem with both of these is that they have small populations so small influx is a greater population boost.
Like adding 10 to a city of 100 is a growth of 10% and adding 20 to a city of 400 is a growth of 5% even though 20>10.
Goodyear saw the sixth largest population growth as a percentage growing 4.8% or around 2K in residents.
Quote:
The statistics used in this top 15 are all growth rates. As far as sheer numbers of people added, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago make up the top three, followed by Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and San Jose.
But adding people doesn’t necessarily mean those cities are really growing much. New York’s growth rate was just 0.6 percent, while Chicago’s was 0 percent, meaning that the number of people it did add was so minuscule a proportion of the total population that it was statistically meaningless.
In your own link...
I imagine a lot of the growth in Goodyear is what it advertises itself as
Quote:
“If you move to Goodyear, it’s by choice,” Mayor Lord added. “People move here because they want to live here and retire here.”
In the last three years Phoenix has added over 67K people to it's city proper which while only accounts for a little less than 4% increase, it's close to the entire population of Goodyear (72K) and greater than the entire City of Buckeye (57K). Or to make it compatible with your links Phoenix has grown an average of 23K/year (or ~1.5%/year) which is almost 10x what Goodyear has each year.
There's a thread in here about DT PHXs growth in price, but the thread also mentions the addition of close to 10K in residential living in DT PHX alone. That's 5x what Goodyear has seen in growth.
As for Tempe it grew 8K in 3 years all while remaining landlocked and unable to build additional subdivisions or around 2.5k/year which is more people than Goodyear but less of a percentage if your catching on to what I'm trying to say.
I'm happy for Goodyear, but it's not at the same scale and hardly the 'vast majority'.
Last edited by JGMotorsport64; 08-04-2015 at 11:14 PM..
In the last three years Phoenix has added over 67K people to it's city proper which while only accounts for a little less than 4% increase, it's close to the entire population of Goodyear (72K) and greater than the entire City of Buckeye (57K). Or to make it compatible with your links Phoenix has grown an average of 23K/year (or ~1.5%/year) which is almost 10x what Goodyear has each year.
There's a thread in here about DT PHXs growth in price, but the thread also mentions the addition of close to 10K in residential living in DT PHX alone. That's 5x what Goodyear has seen in growth.
As for Tempe it grew 8K in 3 years or around 2.5k/year which is more people than Goodyear but less of a percentage if your catching on to what I'm saying.
I'm happy for Goodyear, but it's not at the same scale.
Understand your point/logic about % relative to population size. My point was just to highlight a few valley cities that are growing fast, not the be all/end all of that's all the growth going on in the valley suburbs. My original point requires adding in population growth in suburban cities like Surprise, Goodyear, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Buckeye, etc, valley suburbs, and compare that population to Tempe and/or Phoenix growth. My original point I think still stands and what I'm trying to say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Right now, it's obvious the vast majority want a home in the suburbs with a little land as that's what is selling for the most part.
As for Tempe being an urban city in any sense, I don't really see it like that. It's very suburban to me as is most of Phoenix besides the downtown area. Perhaps that will change more dramatically in the future but again, it all hinges on demand.
Understand your point/logic about % relative to population size. My point was just to highlight a few valley cities that are growing fast, not the be all/end all of that's all the growth going on in the valley suburbs. My original point requires adding in population growth in suburban cities like Surprise, Goodyear, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, Queen Creek, Gilbert, Buckeye, etc, valley suburbs, and compare that population to Tempe and/or Phoenix growth. My original point I think still stands and what I'm trying to say...
As for Tempe being an urban city in any sense, I don't really see it like that. It's very suburban to me as is most of Phoenix besides the downtown area. Perhaps that will change more dramatically in the future but again, it all hinges on demand.
If Statisticians made stats about the kinds of things it would be easier. Although then we run into what qualifies as 'urban' in the first place.
I guess all we can do is wait, see and guess about the future...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
