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.
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.
I was wondering for a long time when this building would be acquired for possible demolition and new development. For that matter, the stretch along Central Avenue between Garfield and Roosevelt (and some of the older buildings along east Roosevelt) could be turned into new highrises. With our continuing growth, and the demand for multi family housing, this would be a prime area. Chances are, however, any new structures will be in the 10 to 25 story range. For whatever reason, Phoenix can't seem to get anything taller than a 50 year old 40 story tower (which remains vacant).
If you're talking about Chase tower they'll have to turn that into multifamily. The demise of the office sky scraper is inevitable.
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."
I say again: you haven't lived here long enough to experience all the NIMBYism here, which has been prevalent for as long as I can remember. Much of it has been absolutely ridiculous, and it's a big reason why Phoenix fell behind other large metros in terms of practically everything from freeways to highrises. Protecting property values is valid ... however, nearly 20 years ago, there was a proposed 18 story Trump building that would have been on Camelback near my neighborhood. Regardless of what I think of Trump personally, it was insane how people in my area were fighting tooth & nail to stop this because it would have disturbed "their" views. Moreover, the building wouldn't have been all that tall, and it likely would have resulted in increased property values for the area!
The Phoenix market was too cheap for too long, and the blatant NIMBYism certainly didn't help in bringing up real estate values. In fact, the act of pushing away new developments actually contributed to suppressing property values. When existing buildings become vacant eyesores, or when empty lots aren't developed, it creates blight. People should welcome new development on those lots. Of course, if it's Section 8 housing, or something absurd like a refinery in a residential neighborhood, then NIMBYism would be warranted. NIMBYs take things way too far when they push back against anything for fear of losing "their" view of a nearby mountain, or because it would disrupt "their" tranquility (in an already established area). It's different when we're talking about somewhere like Carefree, Rio Verde, or far NE Scottsdale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
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.
If a developer wanted to build a 30 story tower in an area like yours, it wouldn't be appropriate ... therefore, any kind of resistance would be acceptable. What do you consider "low income"? A multi story senior assisted living center was recently completed in my area. The design & concept appear to be fairly upscale, but I'm sure there are seniors there who aren't wealthy by any stretch, and could very well be in the lower income bracket. Some nearby residents might have had their views of Camelback Mountain obstructed, but the earth didn't shatter as a result of the new development.
Anyway, the thread is about downtown & Roosevelt Row. There shouldn't be any resistance to upward development around there ... and I don't mean the same 10 or 20 story box shaped buildings. That area is supposedly up & coming, so a few 50+ story towers with more creative designs could easily be built there, especially with all the demand for multi family housing. I don't see office towers being much in demand for the foreseeable future.
I say again: you haven't lived here long enough to experience all the NIMBYism here, which has been prevalent for as long as I can remember. Much of it has been absolutely ridiculous, and it's a big reason why Phoenix fell behind other large metros in terms of practically everything from freeways to highrises. Protecting property values is valid ... however, nearly 20 years ago, there was a proposed 18 story Trump building that would have been on Camelback near my neighborhood. Regardless of what I think of Trump personally, it was insane how people in my area were fighting tooth & nail to stop this because it would have disturbed "their" views. Moreover, the building wouldn't have been all that tall, and it likely would have resulted in increased property values for the area!
The Phoenix market was too cheap for too long, and the blatant NIMBYism certainly didn't help in bringing up real estate values. In fact, the act of pushing away new developments actually contributed to suppressing property values. When existing buildings become vacant eyesores, or when empty lots aren't developed, it creates blight. People should welcome new development on those lots. Of course, if it's Section 8 housing, or something absurd like a refinery in a residential neighborhood, then NIMBYism would be warranted. NIMBYs take things way too far when they push back against anything for fear of losing "their" view of a nearby mountain, or because it would disrupt "their" tranquility (in an already established area). It's different when we're talking about somewhere like Carefree, Rio Verde, or far NE Scottsdale.
If a developer wanted to build a 30 story tower in an area like yours, it wouldn't be appropriate ... therefore, any kind of resistance would be acceptable. What do you consider "low income"? A multi story senior assisted living center was recently completed in my area. The design & concept appear to be fairly upscale, but I'm sure there are seniors there who aren't wealthy by any stretch, and could very well be in the lower income bracket. Some nearby residents might have had their views of Camelback Mountain obstructed, but the earth didn't shatter as a result of the new development.
Anyway, the thread is about downtown & Roosevelt Row. There shouldn't be any resistance to upward development around there ... and I don't mean the same 10 or 20 story box shaped buildings. That area is supposedly up & coming, so a few 50+ story towers with more creative designs could easily be built there, especially with all the demand for multi family housing. I don't see office towers being much in demand for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, you don't mind selective NIYBYism. So long as it fits your definition. I assume you wouldn't want a cell tower in your backyard. Or a waste treatment plant near you, etc. Back to people protecting their view. People have a legal right to fight for their views. And I bet the farm if you had a view that would command several hundred thousand more $$'s, you too be fighting to keep it. That would mean you are rational. Now, if that possible high-rise that ruined someone's view stroked a check for the "damage" they caused to their value, that seems like a fair compromise.
My concern as it relates to "low income" has everything to do with crime. If it attracts scummy people, then I won't live there. Most often, "low-income" seniors are not problematic.
That site would be perfect for an observation tower, and the area surrounding it could be developed into some skyscrapers with better architectural designs than just standard box shapes. That's my hope, but it will likely never happen.
Why not more highrises? Phoenix is the nation's 5th largest city, still growing at a fast rate, and there is demand for urban living. A tall skyline is one of the expectations in the vast majority of big cities in the U.S. and elsewhere. Even cities that are smaller than us (Austin, Charlotte, Denver, etc.) have better downtowns, and are building up their skylines. Maybe you can provide some good reasons why Phoenix has to be different from the norm.
As much as i have liked Phoenix, its downtown has never been very striking. Your reference to Charlotte is well taken. It has a very attractive downtown with a handful of some colossal buildings (usually banks) which don't detract from the street scene.
In conclusion, you don't mind selective NIYBYism. So long as it fits your definition. I assume you wouldn't want a cell tower in your backyard. Or a waste treatment plant near you, etc.
I'm all about putting things in the proper perspective. Call it selective NIMBYism or whatever, but residential neighborhoods aren't industrial zones, which is why there aren't sewage treatment plants, chemical factories, etc. On the other hand, NIMBYs in central Phoenix have protested tall buildings. Now, think about it. What kind of sense does it make to raise a fuss over new highrises in a highrise district? How rational is it to be against practically any new development (including freeways) in a large, growing metro area? Those are the kinds of NIMBYs I'm referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
Back to people protecting their view. People have a legal right to fight for their views. And I bet the farm if you had a view that would command several hundred thousand more $$'s, you too be fighting to keep it. That would mean you are rational. Now, if that possible high-rise that ruined someone's view stroked a check for the "damage" they caused to their value, that seems like a fair compromise.
You could say that my house has a view of Camelback Mountain, but that's not why I chose it. I look at more important details: condition of the neighborhood (including the types of residents), safety of the general area, construction quality, amenities, etc. Location also matters. In my case, it's close to the Biltmore area, and not far from downtown Phoenix, Old Town Scottsdale, Sky Harbor. If this area didn't have a mountain view, I'd still reside here for all the above reasons. Also, the value of our homes is directly related to all those reasons as well ... not because we can see Camelback Mountain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQSunseeker
As much as i have liked Phoenix, its downtown has never been very striking. Your reference to Charlotte is well taken. It has a very attractive downtown with a handful of some colossal buildings (usually banks) which don't detract from the street scene.
Agreed. Even as much as downtown Phoenix has improved compared to 15 or 20 years ago, it's still not anywhere close to what it should be. It's not just the height of the buildings ... although that contributes greatly to it. You can walk around the downtown area on any weekend that doesn't have games or concerts, and literally be all alone (especially during the summer).
I can't remember the screen name but he or she posted pics of cranes in Downtown, as if that will spur cultural attractions and draw the crowds.
Downtown Phoenix is better than when I moved here, but it's going to take a lot more than new apartment buildings to get more people to go there and leave their suburban surroundings.
I can't remember the screen name but he or she posted pics of cranes in Downtown, as if that will spur cultural attractions and draw the crowds.
Downtown Phoenix is better than when I moved here, but it's going to take a lot more than new apartment buildings to get more people to go there and leave their suburban surroundings.
I know who you mean. The one who said something to the effect of: "Phoenix's official bird should be the crane. Uh yup, uh yup, isn't that just hilarious?!" But you're right. A few cranes and new apartments alone won't make downtown what it should be ... although, we are seriously lacking a tall skyline which is a key component of a true big city. Speaking of which, I have to admit that Tempe's skyline has become fairly impressive considering it's a suburb.
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.
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.
Where's the crane person?
