"Lack of Culture/Things to DO" in Phoenix?? Huh?? (Glendale: job market, to buy)

[silverbear]

This thread has changed from a culture discussion to a discussion of high-rise development.

On this board, I often see two extremes on this issue:

-- One is the anti high-rise position. It's often phrased in terms of mountain views, blocking the sun, and the claim that Phoenix is getting too "crowded."

-- The other is the belief that every proposed high-rise is a good one and that anyone who dares to object to a high-rise project deserves to be subjected to a lot of NIMBY-name-calling.

I don't accept either position and consider myself a moderate on this issue. I don't really buy the "blocking the sun" argument. In fact, I believe the Phoenix area desperately needs more shade. Even in high-rise areas, however, there can be open spaces with plenty of sunshine. In cities like New York and Chicago, the real sunshine stealer is not high-rise buildings, but instead elevated trains. That's one of many reasons I'm thankful for street-level light rail instead of elevated heavy rail.

I used to be more sympathetic to the mountain views argument, but one could argue that the best mountain views can be found from a 20-story office, apartment, or restaurant. In other words, while high-rises block some views, they create new ones. Note that the areas nearest mountains are not zoned for the highest buildings. Along Camelback Road, we'll probably never see anything higher than 20 stories, and I'm okay with that. Along Central Avenue, however, I think that developers should be free to build as high as they can go as long as FAA air safety issues are addressed adequately.

The one objection to some high-rise projects I am sympathetic toward is historic preservation. There is so much available land even in the core of the city that an equilibrium can be established between new high-rise development and keeping interesting structures from prior eras intact. Unfortunately, in some of the name-calling I mention above, those who value historic preservation are often grouped with other high-rise opponents who have different motives. That's an unfortunate oversimplification.

Looking beyond the whole high-rise issue, though, I think it's important to distinguish between vertical cities and dense cities. A lot of shiny high rises on the skyline are nice, but they are not the most important elements in creating walkable cities with a high quality of life. Any visit to Europe or Washington D.C. shows how walkable a low-rise city can be. Ideally, Phoenix will develop both a more impressive skyline and more walkable neighborhoods, but if forced to choose, I'd take the walkable neighborhoods. I'd much rather have a bunch of five and ten-story buildings that are not set back from the street, within walking distance of rail transit, not surrounded by surface parking, and with ground-floor retail than forego all that in favor of a few 50-story towers on the skyline.

[Climacus]

I think by culture we (the complainers) mean something along the lines of "identity". Other cities have an "identity", whereas the constant influx of transplants leaves Phoenix looking like a bad attempt to replicate the rest of the country. Yes, Phoenix provides a consumer's paradise of options of "things to do" available everywhere. But the city itself (as opposed to the natural beauty surrounding it) doesn't have a whole lot that is *distinct* or unique or an underlying sense of its own identity.

It's a heady concept and a heady complaint, but when you look around a notice that (with a few exceptions) every part of the city looks *exactly the same* as every other part it's hard not to be left yawning....

[Plin]

Originally Posted by Climacus

It's a heady concept and a heady complaint, but when you look around a notice that (with a few exceptions) every part of the city looks *exactly the same* as every other part it's hard not to be left yawning....

As someone who was just there last week, looking for a place to live in many different parts of the Phoenix metro area, I have to disagree. I think that there is a huge, visible difference between Arcadia and downtown and Scottsdale and Tempe, just to name the areas where I spent the most time. I could differentiate areas with a finer grain, too: downtown meaning right around the Convention Center being quite different from a few blocks north on Central; Scottsdale's Old Town/arts district vs. the greenbelt vs. North Scottsdale; south Tempe vs. the area around the ASU main campus... and so on.

Anyway, I currently live in a city that changes character dramatically every few blocks, and that's a big part of what I love about it. I was relieved to see that Phoenix has its own set of different neighborhoods, and I know there are more to discover beyond what I saw on this brief visit.

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for in terms of differentiating factors. I usually go by architecture, types of establishments available (and the business-to-home ratio), and the less empirical but still tangible "vibe" of a neighborhood. I found these to vary quite a bit.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by Climacus

I think by culture we (the complainers) mean something along the lines of "identity". Other cities have an "identity", whereas the constant influx of transplants leaves Phoenix looking like a bad attempt to replicate the rest of the country. Yes, Phoenix provides a consumer's paradise of options of "things to do" available everywhere. But the city itself (as opposed to the natural beauty surrounding it) doesn't have a whole lot that is *distinct* or unique or an underlying sense of its own identity.

It's a heady concept and a heady complaint, but when you look around a notice that (with a few exceptions) every part of the city looks *exactly the same* as every other part it's hard not to be left yawning....

I see your logic, but I can't say that the lack of "identity" as you have defined it is a negative for me. I've lived in and visited places that had very strong, distinctive regional cultures. Those identities had their charms, but they also felt like straitjackets. I can recall being places where I was asked which team I routed for in a regional sports rivalry. Saying you didn't follow the particular sport and therefore didn't care was unacceptable. Likewise, I've been in places where not liking a certain local food was viewed as a major crime. Regional cultures have their charms, but I don't like them when they are overwhelming. For me Phoenix has just enough regional culture due to its Mexican and Native American influences. Combine those with influences brought by transplants from all over, and the metro area becomes a place in which I feel much more freedom to be myself than I've experienced in many other places.

As for the whole metro area looking alike, it that were true, then that uniform look might actually be Phoenix's identity. Fortunately, as Plin eloquently states, the area is much more diverse in appearance than often acknowledged. One outer suburb may look like another on the other side of town, but the outer suburbs look different from the inner suburbs and the city's core. Think of Phoenix as concentric circles and its diversity of design and architecture becomes more apparent.

[sberdrow]

Originally Posted by Climacus

I think by culture we (the complainers) mean something along the lines of "identity". Other cities have an "identity", whereas the constant influx of transplants leaves Phoenix looking like a bad attempt to replicate the rest of the country. Yes, Phoenix provides a consumer's paradise of options of "things to do" available everywhere. But the city itself (as opposed to the natural beauty surrounding it) doesn't have a whole lot that is *distinct* or unique or an underlying sense of its own identity.

It's a heady concept and a heady complaint, but when you look around a notice that (with a few exceptions) every part of the city looks *exactly the same* as every other part it's hard not to be left yawning....

no wonder I like EVERY part of the city.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Climacus

I think by culture we (the complainers) mean something along the lines of "identity". Other cities have an "identity", whereas the constant influx of transplants leaves Phoenix looking like a bad attempt to replicate the rest of the country. Yes, Phoenix provides a consumer's paradise of options of "things to do" available everywhere. But the city itself (as opposed to the natural beauty surrounding it) doesn't have a whole lot that is *distinct* or unique or an underlying sense of its own identity.

It's a heady concept and a heady complaint, but when you look around a notice that (with a few exceptions) every part of the city looks *exactly the same* as every other part it's hard not to be left yawning....

You described how I feel perfectly, climacus. Phoenix has tons of things to do, tons of nightlife spots, tons of surrounding mountains to go hiking, tons of restaurants to eat out, representation of the fine arts and performing arts-- pretty much everything a city needs... and yet, I am still bored here. When you describe it as a "heady concept and a heady complaint," that's a great way to put it. It has all the components of a city, but it lacks (what's the word I'm looking for?) vibrancy, style, "pizzazz." BTW, many other cities (such as Denver, where I'm from) have the same exact problem. But I think there are many American cities, including other cities in the southwest, that DO feel one of a kind. Las Vegas for example-- there are many imitators, but there's only one Vegas. Go to the Albuquerque forum and you'll see that many residents there believe Albuquerque has a unique local culture, which they are proud of. Here's a memorable post from one ABQ resident:

Originally Posted by abqsunport

I think you probably realize, New Mexico is its own place. You can't find a similar place anywhere. Lets be honest, Austin, Oklahoma City, Denver all have "similar vibes". Sometimes PHX tries to be L.A. All Southern Cities are alike. However, there is only one NYC. Only one Boston. Only one Albuquerque!!!! I really honestly feel like that is the way it is. Sure El Paso and Tucson are very similar, but the overall feel has some staunch differences. <BTW...There are a few quarrels between ABQ and El Paso, but that is more because El Paso has an inferiority complex jk> But the El Paso Albuquerque rivalry isn't a serious one, just a friendly one!!!!

Now silverbear is right, from an objective point of view, having a lack of a distinct regional culture is probably a good thing. But perhaps some people do better living intellectually, artistically, and emotionally in a city with a more distinct "vibe" (a very non-scientific term, of course). I don't know; maybe it's an age thing; perhaps when I'm older I won't care about all those intangibles.

[Climacus]

I do see what you're saying, silverbear, about this lack of identity providing a type of freedom to be oneself without regional straightjackets or small town parochialism . . . and in some ways this willingness to think and act outside of traditional limitations *is* a subtle part of our identity.

But on the other hand, freedom from all limitations can turn into a type of detachment from life. For example, we have the freedom to cheer for the away team in a hockey or football game without feeling like an outsider (in some games we might be in the majority). But we also lose attachment to a "home" team. We have the freedom to plant whatever we want in our front yards if we can pay for the water -- palm trees, australian eucalyptus, pine trees, rubber plants, mediterranian olive trees, eastern deciduous trees -- but we also lose any attachment to the actual environment we live in. We have complete freedom from cultural traditions in where we go and how we spend our time, but in the end it leaves us a bunch of people who don't go anywhere or do anything.

To be fair, as you said, the cores of each of these concentric circles have and are developing their own uniqueness architecturally . . . and outer suburbs should be expected to look the same in Chandler or Glendale as they do in San Antonio or San Diego . . . but there is this (very unscientific and fuzzy!) sense of something lacking when I tell people I'm from Phoenix, or that I grew up in Phoenix: it feels sort of like saying I'm not from anywhere.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Climacus

I do see what you're saying, silverbear, about this lack of identity providing a type of freedom to be oneself without regional straightjackets or small town parochialism . . . and in some ways this willingness to think and act outside of traditional limitations *is* a subtle part of our identity.

But on the other hand, freedom from all limitations can turn into a type of detachment from life. For example, we have the freedom to cheer for the away team in a hockey or football game without feeling like an outsider (in some games we might be in the majority). But we also lose attachment to a "home" team. We have the freedom to plant whatever we want in our front yards if we can pay for the water -- palm trees, australian eucalyptus, pine trees, rubber plants, mediterranian olive trees, eastern deciduous trees -- but we also lose any attachment to the actual environment we live in. We have complete freedom from cultural traditions in where we go and how we spend our time, but in the end it leaves us a bunch of people who don't go anywhere or do anything.

To be fair, as you said, the cores of each of these concentric circles have and are developing their own uniqueness architecturally . . . and outer suburbs should be expected to look the same in Chandler or Glendale as they do in San Antonio or San Diego . . . but there is this (very unscientific and fuzzy!) sense of something lacking when I tell people I'm from Phoenix, or that I grew up in Phoenix: it feels sort of like saying I'm not from anywhere.

A lot of it depends on your generation. There WAS a true local Arizona culture, even in Phoenix, which to my understanding of history lasted from the very beginnings of modern settlement in the state/territory of Arizona all the way up to the 1980s. Back when the economy was about the "Five C's," back when Phoenix was a small to medium sized city, when the Valley of the Sun was a primarily agricultural valley (not an urbanized valley with only remnants of farming on the fringes), back when the slump block ranch style home WAS the architecture of Phoenix, before the stucco and tile roof craze of the '90s. I know people who grew up here in Tempe that are a bit older than me, in their late 20s and early 30s, who are true born and bred Arizonans, to the core. Everybody I talk to who has lived in Phoenix for decades agrees that Phoenix was a much friendlier, safer, "down home" type of community back then. I wish I was born a generation earlier (with the exception of Vietnam... I didn't miss any of that!) and could have experienced Phoenix (and Denver) back in the day. Phoenix has always been about huge population growth, but in the last 15 years especially it has been totally SWAMPED with outsiders and the character it once had has been lost.

To say Phoenix is "Anytown USA" is about right, but more accurate would be to say its "Anywhere Southwest Desert USA." There is no question about it, Phoenix is a desert southwest city (nobody will ever confuse Phoenix and Seattle, for example), but other than being bigger, is there anything about Phoenix that makes it culturally distinct within the region-- distinct from off-the strip Las Vegas, or Tucson, or Kingman, or Yuma, or Bullhead City, or El Centro, or Victorville/Apple Valley, or Las Cruces, or Albuquerque, or "name desert city here"? Not really, unfortunately.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by Climacus

but in the end it leaves us a bunch of people who don't go anywhere or do anything.

Those people aren't necessarily Phoenicians; they're lazy bums and they exist everywhere. I remember a lot of people in the NYC suburb where I grew up would never venture into "the City" (Manhattan) because it was too scary and too strange for them. In Phoenix, as in any location, there people who choose to enjoy life to its fullest and people who choose to be complacent. I've yet to be convinced that the ratios are significantly different here than in the rest of the nation.

As for rooting for visiting teams and wasting water, I don't endorse either, although as VP points out, part of the Phoenix heritage and distinctiveness is actually found in irrigation as seen in citrus groves, cotton farms, and neighborhoods like Arcadia. The phenomenon of rooting for visiting teams does seem much more pronounced in Phoenix than elsewhere, and if I cared much about sports I'd probably be disgusted by it. Darrell Ankarlo, whose views I usually disagree with, actually had some good insight on the sports issue in this essay:

Ankarlo’s Angle: Anybody Home? - Phoenix Magazine

[steve22]

Originally Posted by silverbear

As for rooting for visiting teams and wasting water, I don't endorse either, although as VP points out, part of the Phoenix heritage and distinctiveness is actually found in irrigation as seen in citrus groves, cotton farms, and neighborhoods like Arcadia. The phenomenon of rooting for visiting teams does seem much more pronounced in Phoenix than elsewhere, and if I cared much about sports I'd probably be disgusted by it. Darrell Ankarlo, whose views I usually disagree with, actually had some good insight on the sports issue in this essay:

Ankarlo’s Angle: Anybody Home? - Phoenix Magazine

For most of us who grew up playing and watching sports religiously, as I did, sports loyalties were formed way back during our formative years, and have become a part of us. The concept of abandoning those loyalties is not only sacriligious to some, it's often downright impossible to do. In my case, that's certainly true. I was born and raised in Detroit, lived there for the first 22 years of my life, and the memories & experiences I remember from my childhood associated with those franchises are as much a part of me as my own family. No matter where I live for the rest of my life, I will always be a Detroit sports fan, and proud of it, couldn't change it if I wanted to, any more than I could just stop caring about a sibling and just randomly "choose" another. It's just an absurd assumption that this would even be something that would be a possibility or a "choice" for many people. It's not meant to be an affront or insult to those living in whatever location I may live in, if I choose to root for "my" team; and anyway, in this country, I'm completely within my rights to do so. Don't like it? Tough. It's not something I can control any more than I can change what my race or ethnicity is. Why don't you become angry with me for refusing to change my skin color to purple, it'd be about as possible for me to do that.

The truth is that, 20 years ago, Americans weren't nearly so mobile and transient as they are now. People have become tremendously more mobile in recent years, and the demographic trends show it. Phoenix is a boomtown; that's just the reality of it, and for many of those transplants, "home" will always be thought of as somewhere else. Phoenix isn't alone in that regard. This phenomonon of half the fans rooting for the visiting team can be observed in pretty much any sunbelt city.

In addition, factor in the mass media outlets of today, and honestly, it's just as easy to continue following any team in this country from anywhere else as it would be if you lived in that particular city. Thanks to satellite TV and the internet, I can watch and follow all Detroit sports teams now just as easily as I could when I lived there, if not more so. And I can still see them play live a few times a year when they visit. 20 years ago, if you had moved across the country, and you still wanted to follow a particular professional league or sport, you had really no option other than to follow the new home franchise wherever you had moved to. In the 21st century, that's no longer the case.