In defense of Phoenix (Tucson, Glendale: zoning, job, sick)

[Caliguy2007]

I've never lived in AZ,but i've always had the impression that it was Pro-Development,especially with New Construction popping up everywhere,but I guess Phoenix likes spreading outwards instead of upwards.

Originally Posted by newtotheoc

If you actually believe that then I've got some nice bridges for sale for you. Arizona is the most anti-development place in the world. Why do you think there are no tall buildings and just a bunch of drab 2-story offices and strip malls? Because EVERY TIME something new is proposed, it gets shot down!! Even Donald Trump got shot down when he proposed a new Trump International hotel, something that would have actually brought class to the city!

One of my reasons for leaving there for OC was how disgusted I got with AZ's anti-development fanaticism. Now when I drive to my office in Irvine I get a wonderful feeling seeing actual buildings around. Irvine is just a suburb and it has more tall buildings than all of downtown Phoenix ... that's pathetic.

[Cj81]

Vertical development is something Phoenix has struggled with and its mainly due to the economy for development here. The city is pro vertical development and so are all of the architects, planners, and developers. Most people I talk to want to see vertical development downtown as well. The city of Phoenix has been trying to build a solid and vibrant downtown forever but they have yet to pull it off. The main reason for this in the past was that land out on the fringe was so much cheaper than land downtown. There are not a lot of people who are going to buy an 800 sf condo when they can drive 15 minutes away and buy a 2000 sf house for the same price. That has been the story of Phoenix until now. The valley is still growing extremely fast and now the affordable new homes are more like 30 miles away and traffic is getting worse by the day. Downtown development has become the new trend because people are tired of sitting in traffic and spending so much of thier quality time in the car. Phoenix is also developing a light rail that will run through downtown and all the way to Tempe and Mesa. So there is the potential for a life without a car in the near future. The bottom line is that for the first time in the history of Phoenix, there is a demand and a market for downtown to actually grow.
The Donald Trump development was baisically a power struggle, the people in the neighborhood were for the development but Trump wanted the city to grant height variances so he could build taller than the allowable. Thats when the people got proactive, I think it was more of a power struggle, to show Trump that he couldn't just walk in and have his way. At any rate the people got enough signatures to keep in from exceeding the height limit and Trump backed out of the development completely. I thought it was stupid, he could have still built about 12 stories, but I guess that was his way of getting back at the people. If it was any other developer it probably would have made it through but the local news was all over it just because it was Trump. Oh well, who needs Trump anyway, have you seen that huge UGLY tower he is building in Vegas? WOW, I can't imagine looking at that thing all day.

[vegaspilgrim]

Time to rise to the defense of Phoenix again, on the thread I started to do just that... All of you "vertical development" advocates are forgetting some major things:

1. The urban heat island-- Phoenix is already getting hotter at night, and building more dense vertical buildings in the core of the metro area is only going to trap more and more heat. If you think the problem is bad now, just wait-- downtown Phoenix could end up being an inferno.

2. Aesthetics-- Tall tower like buildings are UGLY-- especially in desert areas like Arizona. One thing is having tons of pin-shaped monstrosities in a city with cold, gloomy winters, like Chicago. But have you ever seen pictures of dense third world cities like Mexico City, Beirut, Lebanon or Tehran, Iran? Disgusting. Or you want real urban density-- density that makes New York look sparse? Check out Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo. No thanks. You can talk about your "taco bell architecture" all you want-- the fact is, low-rise, Mediterranean style buildings blend in well with the colors of the desert and the intense sun. The ideal density for a city core is about 3-5 stories max. Most European cities that tourists flock too are built like that, not with skyscrapers. Some of the most charming American cities that are considered to have their own sense of style and culture are all low-rise cities: New Orleans, Santa Fe, Charleston, SC, etc. I think Phoenix had the right idea architecturally with the Mercado project downtown-- only it wasn't implemented right.

3. Economics-- The growth of downtowns happens in addition to "sprawl," not as a replacement for it. There is no magical "balance" between one and the other. Even for dense cities that are 100% built out, like San Francisco, the metropolitan areas are still growing and sprawling-- even if it means people will leapfrog out with Herculean commutes to the Bay Area from central valley cities like Stockton. There are people who commute from Pennsylvania across two states to get to their jobs in New York City. Even for Phoenix, growth is leapfrogging beyond the Indian reservation to towns like Maricopa and Casa Grande. And strip malls do not create sprawl-- they only follow wherever the homes are being built.

[CodyW]

You know, its funny. The heat island effect is happening, and will CONTINUE to happen regardless of dense development. You want to point the blame? Blame the endless asphalt.

Your European statement is rather pointless, as European cities have their highrise districts, too. London, Stockholm, Goteborg, Copenhagen, Helsinki, and so on. You also forget, that the HISTORIC centers of these citys, while rather short height-wise, are also EXTREMELY dense. New Orleans, and Charleston are definitely NOT low rise cities.

And while you are right about there being no balance between density and sprawl, the point in Phoenix is that, there is no density, just the extreme end of sprawl.

[Cj81]

1. The urban heat island-- Phoenix is already getting hotter at night, and building more dense vertical buildings in the core of the metro area is only going to trap more and more heat. If you think the problem is bad now, just wait-- downtown Phoenix could end up being an inferno.

This is not really true, in fact if you look in other parts of the world and throughout history you will find that desert cities are usually very compact and very dense. The reason for this is the ample shade provided by the close proximity of buildings. Look at cities like Jaipur or Jodhupur in India or Fez Morocco or even Cusco Peru. These cities are extremly dense and very urban however not exactly to the same technological standards as Phoenix. Thats how you design a desert city that doesn't have air conditioning because you want shade. Phoenix has the luxury of air conditioners so we can just build out and out forever and plug in the AC wherever we go. Thats why shade is so hard to find in this city, cause everyone just goes inside to the Air Conditioners. If this city were to try to be more sustainable the best thing for it would be dense development topped by roof gardens. And Cody is right, the endless parking lots in this city are some of the biggest contributors to the heat island. Not to mention sprawl just creates more roads, more parking lots , more roofs , more traffic, and all of those contribute to more heat and more pollution.

2. Aesthetics-- Tall tower like buildings are UGLY-- especially in desert areas like Arizona. One thing is having tons of pin-shaped monstrosities in a city with cold, gloomy winters, like Chicago. But have you ever seen pictures of dense third world cities like Mexico City, Beirut, Lebanon or Tehran, Iran? Disgusting. Or you want real urban density-- density that makes New York look sparse? Check out Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo. No thanks. You can talk about your "taco bell architecture" all you want-- the fact is, low-rise, Mediterranean style buildings blend in well with the colors of the desert and the intense sun. The ideal density for a city core is about 3-5 stories max. Most European cities that tourists flock too are built like that, not with skyscrapers. Some of the most charming American cities that are considered to have their own sense of style and culture are all low-rise cities: New Orleans, Santa Fe, Charleston, SC, etc. I think Phoenix had the right idea architecturally with the Mercado project downtown-- only it wasn't implemented right

This information is simply your opinion, none of this information is supported my any kind of factual information. Yes some major tourist cities are mid rise, like Paris and Rome, niether are known for tall buildings. Both however are very dense, and that is what Phoenix needs, density! A few tall buildings will help Phoenix out with its identity crisis though. MERCADO? who are you kidding man? That complex of buildings is probably the least succesful develpment in downtown Phoenix ever! The Mercado's days are numbered. I am shocked to hear someone consider the Mercado good architecture, thanks man, you just made my day.

3. Economics-- The growth of downtowns happens in addition to "sprawl," not as a replacement for it. There is no magical "balance" between one and the other. Even for dense cities that are 100% built out, like San Francisco, the metropolitan areas are still growing and sprawling-- even if it means people will leapfrog out with Herculean commutes to the Bay Area from central valley cities like Stockton. There are people who commute from Pennsylvania across two states to get to their jobs in New York City. Even for Phoenix, growth is leapfrogging beyond the Indian reservation to towns like Maricopa and Casa Grande. And strip malls do not create sprawl-- they only follow wherever the homes are being built.

First of all, you are contradicting yourself here! Second, what is your point? Nobody ever said that the burbs in Phoenix have lost steam. They are still ripping out tons of beautiful desert everyday to make room for more tract homes and more parking lots to add to that good ol heat island. And yes there are some completly crazy people who enjoy the commute from Maricopa all the way to Phoenix everyday. If you think that is better for our environment than density then I suggest you do some research.

[nevercoldcall]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

Tall tower like buildings are UGLY-- especially in desert areas like Arizona.

The only thing uglier are the ratty-tatty one and two story "office buildings" that contaminate the entire Valley. Just look at the Scottsdale airpark - it looks like a ghetto with all the low-budget single-story office and warehouse buildings. It's really bad. Totally unappealing.

[moose168]

Originally Posted by nevercoldcall

If you actually believe that then I've got some nice bridges for sale for you. Arizona is the most anti-development place in the world.

You're half-right.
It's highly pro-development in the way of spread-out cookie-cutter subdivisions; and Wal-Marts, Circle Ks, and Home Cheapos located on practically every major street corner.

Why do you think there are no tall buildings and just a bunch of drab 2-story offices and strip malls? Because EVERY TIME something new is proposed, it gets shot down!! Even Donald Trump got shot down when he proposed a new Trump International hotel, something that would have actually brought class to the city!

Agreed 100%.
I didn't familarize myself too much with the Trump hotel; but I'm not surprised if that was met with opposition - especially if it was more than 4 or 5 stories tall.
There are plans to build up downtown, but you're right about all the proposals being shot down. City scape would add height and many promises to the central city, but that's being met with angry protests. The W hotel is in some kind of legal battle, which is delaying things even further.
There needs to be more culture and an active nightlife in addition to a vertical skyline. Just building tall structures alone won't improve the urban core.
Face it - the mindset of many people here is for more tearing up of desert for their stucco suburbs, more asphalt, more driving, and more heat generated. No Fortune 500 companies basing their headquarters here - just satellite offices with some of the lowest pay in the nation. Little in the way of the performing arts, or higher education. They actually think ASS-U is higher education.
Phoenicians like their lifted pickups and big SUVs tearing down the street or freeway at 20 miles over the speed limit. All that sun-worshiping has warped their brains, and they probably think they're Mario Andretti!

[MiasM]

I can comment on Donald Trumps Buildings. Here in White Plains, NY (30 min. north of Manhattan and next biggest business city up north of there), Trump built two high rises (tallest buildings in the city - the guy has a big ego). They are luxury condos all over a million and attached is shopping. I won't call it "fine" shopping. There is a Target, Movieplex, Barnes and Noble, Filenes Basement, NY Sports Club and the like. But, much to everyone's amazement - they sold! AND, Ritz Carlton Hotels are now in mid construction of two high rises - one will be luxury condos and the other the hotel and connecting them will be all luxury boutiques. I have to say that the Trump project worked. It did encourage more high end stores etc. to come in. BUT, it didn't really change the rest of the city which I think pales in comparison to Manhattan - big time. Nothing really can compare but the city has not caught up. Not a lot of fine restaurants and there is no small town feel with small boutique stores where you can just walk and hit some nice stores/cafes or restaurants- only malls and department stores. So, Trump can bring some stuff in - but it didn't really change the dynamics of the city that much.
And my two cents on high rises is they kill a city. They block views, they create wind tunnels - I can never walk by those (#&(*$&# buildings without getting dust in my eyes, they create traffic nightmares because there is never enough parking for them and they limit your view of the city. I poo poo them.

[Andre5140]

Why does density automatically have to mean super-tall buildings? 3-5 story buildings that have ground floor retail and apartments above is a great form of infill development that can bring life back to downtown.

Remember: density is anything over single-family...not 50 stories and up.

I love Taco Bell, by the way, so they can keep building Besides, brown and tan hues blend in with the desert. Let me guess...some of you want a 1940s-style Cape Cod placed in a town like Chandler?

Moderator cut: personal

[irwin]

Originally Posted by Andre5140

Besides, brown and tan hues blend in with the desert. Let me guess...some of you want a 1940s-style Cape Cod placed in a town like Chandler?

Well, for one, I would never live in Chandler.

But, I think it would be nice to see a little diversity in building types around Phoenix. Diversity is a good thing and keeps things interesting. Drive through some of the older neighborhoods in the area and you will see different style homes. Some are California bungalow style. Some are brightly colored. Some even lack an attached garage! Change and variety is good....even for the bland suburban lifestyle of Chandler.

And BTW, I COMPLETELY agree with you on the fact that density doesn't necessarily mean high rises. Honestly, I would rather have 4-story brownstones with commercial zoning at the end of the block any day. Reminds me of Washington and North End in Boston.