More downtown development plans near Roosevelt Row (Phoenix, Scottsdale: low income, real estate)

[timothyaw]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

We still have a high demand, but a low supply. Part of the problem is NIMBYism, as stated in the article below. There might be a paywall restriction on that article, so I'll list some of the highlights underneath the link. What it comes down to is: NIMBYs are opposed to the needed construction projects, causing even more delays ... thus, intensifying the shortage & increasing the costs!

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...s/70171279007/





The final statements say it all:

Not trying to be funny here - I assume the area you live in is built out/no available land. But if one of these controversial affordable multi-family developments was right beside your community or home would you be open to it? Some of the complaints are valid like more traffic, "potential" less desirable individuals nearby, bring down your property values (if I'm not mistaken you mentioned your area is 1 million plus).

[timothyaw]

Definitely no height here, but kinda cool and different - https://ktar.com/story/5557423/phoen...eaking-jan-23/

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

Not trying to be funny here - I assume the area you live in is built out/no available land. But if one of these controversial affordable multi-family developments was right beside your community or home would you be open to it? Some of the complaints are valid like more traffic, "potential" less desirable individuals nearby, bring down your property values (if I'm not mistaken you mentioned your area is 1 million plus).

Define "affordable". Many of those newer developments are advertised as luxurious ... and therefore, certainly not cheap. I could understand the concern about less desirable neighbors, but here again: we're talking about new complexes that are geared mostly for the working professional. It's not like they're Section 8, or homeless shelters.

People who are complaining about increased traffic can go right ahead and complain, but it will solve nothing. Traffic is becoming heavier anyway because of all the growth, and how large this place is now. This is nothing compared to how it could be in another 10 to 20 years! Stopping or delaying new developments won't do a thing to make traffic congestion less of a concern. Anybody who chooses to live in a big, growing metro area needs to take the bitter with the sweet. Life isn't all about mountain views and tranquility.

[asufan]

The city of Phoenix will subsidize affordable housing development by giving developers financial incentives to keep the prices down. Artisan Village is one such affordable development which was one of the first projects on Roosevelt and spurred future development. It's not section 8 but is considered affordable.

[timothyaw]

The developments stated in the article in Chandler and Surprise are considered affordable, and that's part of the reason why some residents were against it. But the problem is the land is a county island and Chandler has no say over what goes there. The developer did decide to make it affordable multi-family for seniors only. That takes away the argument of overcrowding of schools.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

We still have a high demand, but a low supply. Part of the problem is NIMBYism, as stated in the article below. There might be a paywall restriction on that article, so I'll list some of the highlights underneath the link. What it comes down to is: NIMBYs are opposed to the needed construction projects, causing even more delays ... thus, intensifying the shortage & increasing the costs!

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...s/70171279007/





The final statements say it all:

Yeah I totally agree we are not there yet with overbuilding but once everything is up for rent that's currently under construction/planned in advanced state AND we get a recession then we will get bargains again. I think we will only get bargains in MF and commercial RE this time. SFHs are still scarce even including all current and planned developments so even if we get a recession 2026+ there won't be a drop. As SFH I think is around 90% of construction activity that also means next recession will be mild and not like 2008.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

Definitely no height here, but kinda cool and different - https://ktar.com/story/5557423/phoen...eaking-jan-23/

I recently read about this breaking ground along Roosevelt Row. The design is unique, but it's a low rise building, and not a good fit for that area unless taller towers would be constructed with a similar design around it. No valid reason why highrises at least 10 times the height of this thing can't be built in the downtown area, especially with all the growth & demand for new apartments.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Define "affordable". Many of those newer developments are advertised as luxurious ... and therefore, certainly not cheap. I could understand the concern about less desirable neighbors, but here again: we're talking about new complexes that are geared mostly for the working professional. It's not like they're Section 8, or homeless shelters.

From https://www.planetizen.com/features/...20surroundings.

"NIMBYism serves many social functions. In an improvised and very democratic way, it forces mitigation measures to be considered, distributes project impacts, protects property values, and helps people adjust to change in their surroundings."

If a low-income development was heading close by you, I predict you too would be the poster child representing NIMBYism! I would be pushing back from that happening In My Back Yard." Also, people pay dearly for a view. Currently, in our neighborhood, there is a $670K lot premium (some remaining new builds) to get an amazing mountain view. Sorry, I'd be protecting my $670K investment. Go ahead and roll over if you like. My point is that many times, NIMBY's are rational.

NIBYism ALSO means stopping homeless shelters nearby or group homes. Or maybe not having zoning approved for a strip joint nearby.

I've re-concluded I don't want to live anywhere near a seedy location. Last week, a group of us had an exceptional dinner at Lom Wong https://www.lomwongaz.com/ . I didn't exactly feel comfortable parking or coming out of a nice car. And I certainly would not want to live near there. YMMV.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

From https://www.planetizen.com/features/...20surroundings.

"NIMBYism serves many social functions. In an improvised and very democratic way, it forces mitigation measures to be considered, distributes project impacts, protects property values, and helps people adjust to change in their surroundings."

If a low-income development was heading close by you, I predict you too would be the poster child representing NIMBYism! I would be pushing back from that happening In My Back Yard." Also, people pay dearly for a view. Currently, in our neighborhood, there is a $670K lot premium (some remaining new builds) to get an amazing mountain view. Sorry, I'd be protecting my $670K investment. Go ahead and roll over if you like. My point is that many times, NIMBY's are rational.

NIBYism ALSO means stopping homeless shelters nearby or group homes. Or maybe not having zoning approved for a strip joint nearby.

I've re-concluded I don't want to live anywhere near a seedy location. Last week, a group of us had an exceptional dinner at Lom Wong https://www.lomwongaz.com/ . I didn't exactly feel comfortable parking or coming out of a nice car. And I certainly would not want to live near there. YMMV.

NIMBYism can be rational, but it is ethically questionable. It tests the limits of property rights with the idea that owning property entiltes the owner to control other peoples' property. It also hoards opportunity by limiting the development of new housing in order to assure the lifestyle preferences of incumbent property owners. Nevertheless, whatever concerns exist in your neighborhood sound unrelated to Roosevelt Row. The view in more suburban parts of the region is unaffected by high-rise development downtown. People who choose to live there accept the variety, including both upscale restaurants like Lom Wong and the homeless who congregate in Hance Park.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

NIMBYism can be rational, but it is ethically questionable. It tests the limits of property rights with the idea that owning property entiltes the owner to control other peoples' property. It also hoards opportunity by limiting the development of new housing in order to assure the lifestyle preferences of incumbent property owners. Nevertheless, whatever concerns exist in your neighborhood sound unrelated to Roosevelt Row. The view in more suburban parts of the region is unaffected by high-rise development downtown. People who choose to live there accept the variety, including both upscale restaurants like Lom Wong and the homeless who congregate in Hance Park.

Agreed (in bold)^^. I'm admitting what others pretend they are against. Hence, people have selective NIMBYism.

Re: views etc. Agreed. Roosevelt Row has no such concerns. I was addressing VN's hot button (all things relating to NIYBYism.) To protect your view is rational. BTW, my view is looking at someone's backyard. So my point didn't pertain to my situation. I'm too cheap to pay for a view I see countless times away through our community. Now, if I had one measly zero after my net worth, I could easily see the value of spending that kind of money. And while I am babbling, my hot button is to be far away from seedy areas. I'm not willing to accept the trade-offs and live in that area.