What are some ways Phoenix could develop to stand out from the crowd? (Scottsdale: waterparks, neighborhoods)
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 project is more or less just putting in a pedestrian path. It's a nice start, but they could do so much more in some areas. Create some multi-use, mid-density areas, and link them together with the pedestrian paths.
I hear you, but there is something grand and awesome about sheer growth too, a sprawling empire in the desert connected by a superior freeway system.
As for as unique identity, I say just go with "inland version of Los Angeles" formula. I mean we're only 370 miles from one of the most recognized cities in the world. But it's become unaffordable there. You have people commuting 60 miles to Riverside, and even then they probably rent an apartment. Phoenix area developers could put up billboard advertisements along I-60 and I-10 in the inland empire, showing beautiful homes starting in the 200's or whatever.
Plus you'd be attracting the youthful hip California crowd, rather than more amazon-sized, cankled, New Balance wearing retirees from Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
Hey everyone!
So some of you may know me as a rather pessimistic regular on the Arizona forums. I'm a born and raised Phoenician from West Valley, particularly far northern Peoria and Glendale.
One of my qualms with Phoenix is that, while I do believe Phoenix has a lot of potential to be a better city, it is not tapping into that potential. Phoenix tends to follow a market formula like many other cities have done and I don't think this is the way to go for our city.
We live in one of the most unique ecosystems of the world, the Sonora desert, and traditionally the Southwest is home to some of the most unique cuisine and architecture. Phoenix offers a ton of lakes which most people don't even know exist, or places like Flagstaff. We have some of the best skies and stargazing in the country, with one of the highest per capita numbers of observatories (I believe we might be the highest with Hawaii coming second) due to our big open skies. We even have swamps here, known as cienegas, that exist in Southern Arizona. We have lots of ghost towns and arguably some of the best hiking in the country.
What I fail to see out of our city is to market ourselves in our unique location of the country. We build the same apartments, the same freeways, the same housing... but not really advertise ourselves in a positive light. It's as if we just want to be mediocre.
When I look at the cities that are currently booming with high-paying jobs in many ways they are quite different from Phoenix. Let's name a few of these, shall we? Seattle. Austin. Bay Area. NYC. Denver. What separates these five from us?
- NYC has always been a unique city for being the most urban, and this attracts urbanites. No other city in the US compares to NYC in offering this amenity. Many have argued that if other cities offered this urban lifestyle, they would rather live there than NYC.
- Austin. Known as a "liberal city in a red sea", Austin prides itself on being a state capital of a very populous state. Austin is arguably in the one pretty part of Texas other than El Paso IMO with hills (very rare for Texas, no?) and greenery. Austin probably got its start with the university and has marketed itself to be a yuppie-friendly urban place, even if it was not at first. It is now beginning to fit that marketing.
- Bay Area. San Francisco has always attracted professionals probably due to large variety of weather in the Bay alone and density that come close to NYC, but not quite. San Francisco has a large array of exceptional higher education and managed to keep those graduates (something Arizona as a whole is not as good at). The Bay has been a center of culture with the hippie culture and been a center for art for quite some time. The Bay has been successful at diversifying its industries from finance to art to tech, it is dubbed the "NYC of the West" for many reasons.
- Seattle. Known for exceptional outdoors, Seattle offers beautiful pines, snow-capped mountains, and a large sound for water activities. Seattle's attractive central location to maritime/ocean activities and mountains make it desirable to many outdoor fanatics. In fact Seattle is arguably the only Western city suitable for maritime activities in large amounts. Seattle's rainy season keeps it green throughout the year, yet not so humid, which is desirable to many of people who want less humidity but want greenery comparable to the East at the same time. Seattle got its start from being culturally unique, for being "grungy" during the 90s, this was capitalized on and practically destroyed by yuppies who wanted to be around this culture but didn't manage to keep the grunge alive in Seattle. A similar thing happened in the Bay.
- Denver. It has marketed itself for its mountain activities. It is of no shock that Colorado as a whole has exceptional mountain activities. It offers some of the tallest mountains in the US and potentially the most ski resorts in the country, many of which are not terribly far from Denver. Denver is known for its laid-back culture, friendly for stoners (something big for us youngins), which sets it out from the other four cities as I have listed here for those who want a healthy live/work balance and a "live and let live" vibe. Denver's more casual environment as a whole (comparable to ours) managed to attract those who want similar progressive and outdoors of Seattle, a bit more sunshine and more affordability. Denver has also been big economically as a logistics port between the west and the east, with easy flight connections to the rest of the nation and a big center for federal government jobs.
I am not here to make Phoenix seem weak to these cities. I think Phoenix could EASILY compare to these cities (except NYC honestly) if we improved our city amenities. I think our outdoors speak for themselves, though we could advertise on it some more.
So now that you read through these five descriptions, I hoped you noted some similarities and differences between our metro and theirs. What stood out to you?
To me one of the biggest differences is that in most of these areas (Bay, Seattle, NYC) offerED (gentrification ruined most of this) a unique culture. It is of no surprise people like to be surrounded by culture, particularly a culture they enjoy, participate in, and identify with. As far as I'm concerned, Phoenix has not ever been the home of a cultural movement. Even one of the biggest culturally unique things I can think of (dirt bike bros) of Arizona is actually more centered around southern California around the Corona area. Even then not many people identify or appreciate motocross in large amounts, and it's not unique to the Southwest like in many ways NASCAR is unique to the South.
Another big difference is urbanity. These cities have may not been urban at the beginning (NYC was though) but have developed upwards over time. In places like the Bay it was out of necessity, but in the others it is out of pure desire of the populace. Phoenix still prefers to sprawl or try to market/advertise our more dense areas. Like Tempe, Old Town or Downtown. We do have urban areas, not quite to the extent of these cities right now, but how do we think Denver and Austin started to become more dense when they still have land to sprawl out on?
The key is that while these all are seeing similar levels of success in drawing the high-paying population, they have very different ways of achieving that goal. None of them followed the same formula in doing that.
So what it comes down to is, what would be a unique formula that we can use to improve Phoenix? What can we do to attract higher-paying jobs and more industries? What are your solutions to answer this?
Phoenix has, slowly I think, been developing its urban areas and transportation. But I still think we are missing something, and that is the unique element to set us out. So what do you propose?
Last edited by New Horizons; 04-12-2017 at 12:17 PM..
Reason: took out insulting remark
That project is more or less just putting in a pedestrian path. It's a nice start, but they could do so much more in some areas. Create some multi-use, mid-density areas, and link them together with the pedestrian paths.
Something like the Indianapolis Canal Walk:
Or the San Antonio Riverwalk:
Fair enough but it's the City fronting the money first to improve the bones, pave some areas, beautify it and add some art installations. Private investment should take care of the rest and I hope it does happen!
That project is more or less just putting in a pedestrian path. It's a nice start, but they could do so much more in some areas. Create some multi-use, mid-density areas, and link them together with the pedestrian paths.
Something like the Indianapolis Canal Walk:
Or the San Antonio Riverwalk:
These are perfect examples of what could be implemented along the Phoenix canals. Scottsdale did a fantastic job with the Waterfront project (even though it was a long struggle just to get it going). The rest of the canal areas could be developed to resemble something similar to the Waterfront, or like the examples you gave of those other two cities. It's kind of funny how some people get all excited over things like low scale pedestrian paths or a few 10 story buildings downtown, and consider that progress.
That project is more or less just putting in a pedestrian path. It's a nice start, but they could do so much more in some areas. Create some multi-use, mid-density areas, and link them together with the pedestrian paths.
Something like the Indianapolis Canal Walk:
Or the San Antonio Riverwalk:
Both the Canal Walk in Indy and Riverwalk in San Antonio are really nice, but they are also in the downtown areas of both respective cities, that alone gives them a huge advantage over the Grand Canal in Phoenix.
Re: the suggestion that Phoenix go all solar? Correct me if I'm wrong, but solar energy can't compete on a pure cost basis to other forms of elect. generation. The gov't subsidizes solar power to make it more attractive. I'm sure with technological improvements over time, this may change though.
Re: reducing our carbon foot print. Don't forget our massive Palo Verde Nuclear electrical plant in the west valley. Produces no carbon emissions yet for some odd reason environmentalists seem to forget this benefit.
Another suggestion I'd make for creating a more livable, beautiful Phoenix is to invest more effort and resources in urban forestry. Since this is my field of study, it naturally comes to mind. As it stands now, urban forestry is grossly underfunded in a city this large. Even the MAYOR of Phoenix said he wants Phoenix to have tree lined neighborhoods!
IMO, Too many Phoenix streets, boulevards and neighborhoods look hot and barren due to the fact that no one planned for street trees. This responsibility should have been done by the city and developer years ago (and in my opinion, the ongoing irrigation for the trees should be paid for by the city/municipality using inexpensive untreated canal water- trimming and removal costs as well.) The argument that we don't have the water, or it's a waste of water, rings hollow with me. For example, massive amounts of water are used by farmers on the edges of the valley yet no one complains about that.
Some purists will argue that because this is the desert, tree lined shade trees don't belong here. I disagree and feel the benefits of shade FAR outweigh the costs as long as trained staff are maintaining the trees. For example, what percentage of kids would rather play in a tree shaded yard vs. a yard with no shade and with blazing sun and heat? Other benefits: reduction in the urban heat island, beauty, uptake in C02, increased property values, more people walking along neighborhood sidewalks, etc.
Sacramento is one of my favorite examples of a city that has done urban forestry right. If anyone else has seen that town's beautiful mature tree lined streets, you'll know what I'm talking about. I was told by one of the locals that the trees were purposely planted years ago by city planners to keep the city cool before air conditioning came along.
Sacramento is one of my favorite examples of a city that has done urban forestry right. If anyone else has seen that town's beautiful mature tree lined streets, you'll know what I'm talking about. I was told by one of the locals that the trees were purposely planted years ago by city planners to keep the city cool before air conditioning came along.
Sacramento also gets, on average, an additional 10 inches of rain each year as compared to Phoenix. Imagine the amount and types of trees Phoenix could have if it got 18 inches of rain a year instead of just 8 inches, in a good year, but then it wouldn't be considered a desert.
Sacramento also gets, on average, an additional 10 inches of rain each year as compared to Phoenix. Imagine the amount and types of trees Phoenix could have if it got 18 inches of rain a year instead of just 8 inches, in a good year, but then it wouldn't be considered a desert.
Could probably pull it off with specific types of trees.
Palo Verde
Olive
Black Maple
Ash
All come to mind as trees that don't die without some effort.
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.
