Phoenix Regains Title of 5th Most Populous City in US (Mesa: best cities, transplants)

[Renegade007]

[quote=BIG CATS;48278297]Lets just hope PHX uses Philly's recipe of going UP instead of OUT. Seriously.

Not a chance.
There's too much cheap land (i.e. desert) available. Phoenix will never grow up. (As in vertically, not being perpetually juvenile).
Tempe, maybe yes. They are a landlocked city. Phoenix metro as a whole, no way. There's a better chance of the metro spreading south towards Tucson and north towards Flagstaff (just need to build some houses on that hill below Cordes Junction).

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by ajonesaz

While we are not as packed in as Philly, that is still a little misleading. Phoenix has more city park space than any city in the country. IF you look at the biggest urban parks in the country, #1,3 and 10 are in Phoenix. South Mountain alone is 30 sq miles.

The author of that article can trash Phoenix all he wants, I will take Phoenix over Philly any day.

Also misleading is the comment that Phoenix population grew by a land grab. Most of what Phoenix grabbed over the years was vacant desert at the time it was annexed. There was nothing there but cactus, coyotes and rattlesnakes. The people came after the annexation. Easterners don't appreciate the concept of open, undeveloped and unpopulated land or why a city would want to annex it.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

Lets just hope PHX uses Philly's recipe of going UP instead of OUT. Seriously.


Philly is adding skyscrapers like its going out of style. We're just adding more homes and lame 10 story apartments. C'mon, Phoenix!
http://www.imagicdigital.com/email/n...ine-aerial.jpg

I agree but there is a reason why Phoenix builds out more than up, there is land available. Philadelphia doesn't have this option.

Phoenix is a typical western city, it grew outward and is slowly but surely growing more inward which is a good sign.

In comparison, most eastern cities grew inward and upward but there is still plenty of outward-suburban growth in the eastern MSAs.

As for skyscrapers, Phoenix doesn't really need a taller skyline but there should be more residential and job growth concentrated in the downtown-midtown areas which I think is finally starting to happen.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts

The Phoenix metro area population is over 4.5 million and ranks 12th in the U.S.

A large population is good and bad. Good because it brings wealth, culture, good restaurants, better roads, etc. Bad because it's congested 24x7, it loses its local flavor, crime rises, etc.

Well-written.

I moved here over 20 years ago from a small city in upper Michigan and Phoenix always seemed big to me.

Now it seems a little too big with more traffic congestion that isn't going to get any lighter with all the growth.

[Finger Laker]

I used to live in Philly and it is exciting about what is going on there and it fits that city well. That is the development Park they should follow and it cannot be discounted how much of their activity is tied to major cities corporate HQs and universities. What GCU is building along Camelback is small potatoes to what is happening in Philly.

I definitely prefer the development of Phoenix though. I like that there is some height going up, but it isn't the be all end all for a city of this land mass

[BIG CATS]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Also misleading is the comment that Phoenix population grew by a land grab. Most of what Phoenix grabbed over the years was vacant desert at the time it was annexed. There was nothing there but cactus, coyotes and rattlesnakes. The people came after the annexation. Easterners don't appreciate the concept of open, undeveloped and unpopulated land or why a city would want to annex it.

Bizarre thing to say, but ok?


I wonder how cities like Chicago, Atlanta, etc, grew w/o annexing undeveloped land. Do you think the French arrived on the shores of Lake Michigan and immediately drew out city lines that extended dozens of miles in each direction?

[locolife]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

Bizarre thing to say, but ok?


I wonder how cities like Chicago, Atlanta, etc, grew w/o annexing undeveloped land. Do you think the French arrived on the shores of Lake Michigan and immediately drew out city lines that extended dozens of miles in each direction?

No but at the time new arrivals settled lots of small towns that eventually grew together and they've been around so long now they've more then outgrown what anyone would have thought possible in the 1700s.

Phoenix is really young by comparison, the founders already knew what occurred out east and incorporated those lessons here before it grew up. Now our cities mostly aren't landlocked and despite not having the massive downtown of older cities we get a lot of really nice benefits out of that planning, namely much lighter traffic and more evenly dispersed job hubs, entertainment options and so on.

We may not be the sexiest city on a post card but for day to day life it makes for a really great place to live and that's what matters.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

While Philadelphia is adding eight people a day, Phoenix brings in 11 times that, 88 a day, according to Census Bureau statistics released Thursday. The biggest difference between Phoenix and Philadelphia may be physical size. Philadelphia spans a compact 135 square miles, but Phoenix covers 517 — half the size of Rhode Island.

This part speaks the truth. Phoenix wouldn't be nearly as populated as it is if it wasn't for suburban sprawl. Parts of Phoenix such as Paradise Valley Village, Desert Ridge, Deer Valley, and Ahwatukee seem like they should be separate communities ... none of them look or feel like you're in "the city". Think about it: if Phoenix's land area wasn't 500+ square miles, and if Ahwatukee & the northern suburban sections were separate cities, the city population would be barely over a million (making it slightly smaller than Dallas). Also, while a good part of Philadelphia is old/run down (and I definitely wouldn't want to live there), it feels more like a true city there compared to here because of the greater density.

Originally Posted by LeavingDetroit

So with the influx of additional bodies, how's the greater Phoenix employment scene? Is it rising as fast as the population or is it mostly retirees?

This is a good question, and it raises another closely related question: what KIND of people is Phoenix attracting? Are we bringing in highly skilled, educated, ambitious, career minded/entrepreneurial types ... or is the growth mainly the result of people who are only here for the sun, and have no goals in life except sitting by the pool or hiking Camelback Mountain?

[Finger Laker]

I don't buy that you need need urbanization to feel like a "real city".

Phoenix is every bit of a real city, just laid out differently in a way that reflects the geography and growth of the time

I lived in a place in Philly that was a row house built in the 1880s... Obviously a very different situation than what is absolutely in Phoenix. Also it should be noted how Philly had their development impacted by the gentlemen's agreement for so long

The annexation of up item land concept is different than where the major eaten metros are. Again, the development of the whole area is different. There were towns setup everywhere. Some were swallowed by the city officially, others just remain. They are now really a part of the city/metro even if their population doesn't count. Even around Phoenix there were fewer cities that were more spread out, opening up more ability for annexation

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

This part speaks the truth. Phoenix wouldn't be nearly as populated as it is if it wasn't for suburban sprawl. Parts of Phoenix such as Paradise Valley Village, Desert Ridge, Deer Valley, and Ahwatukee seem like they should be separate communities ... none of them look or feel like you're in "the city". Think about it: if Phoenix's land area wasn't 500+ square miles, and if Ahwatukee & the northern suburban sections were separate cities, the city population would be barely over a million (making it slightly smaller than Dallas). Also, while a good part of Philadelphia is old/run down (and I definitely wouldn't want to live there), it feels more like a true city there compared to here because of the greater density.



This is a good question, and it raises another closely related question: what KIND of people is Phoenix attracting? Are we bringing in highly skilled, educated, ambitious, career minded/entrepreneurial types ... or is the growth mainly the result of people who are only here for the sun, and have no goals in life except sitting by the pool or hiking Camelback Mountain?

I already looked into this, if you made the city just the area between Washington St and Bell Rd and took out the mountains (since no one can live on them), you would have a city of 900,000 people in about 155 sq miles of developable land, which would be a population density of 5,800ppsm