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.
[Moderator cut: off topic Sprawl happens everywhere you have a city...this past summer when I drove through Utah and Salt Lake from at least Ogden down, it was total sprawl and never again if I can help it... I think the question or at least mine, is how strong is the cities center core? Does Phoenix have one, or does everyone stay in their little burb?[/quote]
Moderator cut: off topic
As far as driving from Grasston to Duluth, I hope that wasn't an every day thing! That would be quite a drive!
And as far as people staying in their own burb, the way I see it is that if a typical suburb has good amenities and especially if their job is in the same suburb, they'll tend not to venture far out of their suburb.
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 12-09-2009 at 11:40 PM..
What if, hypothetically speaking, Phoenix diagrammed a network of rail lines ahead of time. And lets say they don't even have the money or the means to build them right now but they have a hard diagram of where the transit lines will be.
I like this idea! Phoenix does have these network of rail lines diagramed NOW...they meet other cities at their borders and thus those cities must plan rail or other transit accordingly and with MAG for future extensions. Glendale is having trouble meeting the Phoenix line because they don't know if they want to connect downtown Glendale first or the Westgate City Center.
Glendale also wants Phoenix to share some of its cost in the rail for Glendale, which is unwise and unlikely because this would take money from Phoenix's northeast extension into Paradise Valley. Glendale and residents there will have to contribute to the region by paying for transit that will benefit it, and the rest of the region.
Mesa is extending their section of the rail further east into their downtown and Tempe and Chandler are planning lines south through both cities. These areas already have massive development close to the line and will continue to see growth around those planned transit corridors. Mesa has started a great rapid commuter bus service from east Mesa sections to their main light rail hub; it is the faster growing, and largest rapid/express bus connection in the Valley. Tempe, Chandler, and Gilbert are following suit. This will apply to Phoenix as well when the NE LRT is complete and when the LRT to the 79th Ave "transit center" is completed via i-10. When Glendale's line is running the same will be true for commuters and their cities in the NW valley; Surprise, Peoria, NW Glendale, etc...
Quote:
With such a plan, builders proposing a subdivision would KNOW up front they have to build their neighborhood around this rail line. Phoenix could even demand that the developer is responsible for creating a small station that ties into the feel of the community and landscaping the corridor in the same fashion they do with retention basins. Maybe these type of neighborhoods have to be a little more expensive to accommodate, or maybe the HOA dues would have to include some of the expenses associated with the rail line rather than just paying a bunch of NAZI's to enforce exterior color schemes. In this case we would now have development that ties the "nether regions" to the core.
Very good points. I'd also throw in impact fees, NO subsidies for building sprawling communities OR strip malls, etc...
Quote:
My point on the counties is that if we had another neighboring county pitching an idea that they came up with for a great transit corridor, they might have tried to encourage Maricopa to meet them at the border with a matching rail line corridor for continuity, we could have been exposed to fresh thinking from another county instead of having one stale think tank for an area that is more populated than 24 other states.
Probably not, as those counties would be rural and wouldn't see much benefit in the expense of having rail in their borders. Does someone have an example where this would have been the case in other metro area?
Quote:
I would gladly agree to pay more for that type of development before I would plant myself in some master plan in the middle of nowhere. But such options did not exist because it wasn't developed that way. My 2 options were to pick from the nether regions or go for a 50 year old fixer upper home with half the space at double the cost. I picked unwillingly from those 2 options, and now you have an example of someone that can't wait to leave instead of someone who thinks the city is progressive and forward thinking.
This is another area I think we will probably continue to disagree about. I am among those people who bought, but before rented, in the center of the city and didn't have to settle for a fixer upper and also didn't mind that my house/apartment was much older to begin with as it was beautiful and made extremely well and NOT double the cost. There are also much more affordable options with beautifully maintained homes, and STILL in heavily used transit corridors outside of the expensive historic neighborhoods (Roosevelt, Encanto, Alvarado, Willo, etc) that would have been in reach of those looking to spend $200,000 and up.
Quote:
I would be willing to pay top dollar for something that works and that I appreciate, and so would alot of people, but Phoenix has developed in a way that has attracted a bargain basement crowd looking for someplace cheap. Thats my opinion of why this place crashed and burned more than anywhere else, and its also my opinion it was entirely preventable if growth was managed with intelligence.
I think this is half true. There are (as most "urbanistas," tree huggers, sprawl haters, etc do not like) people who LOVE the suburban lifestyle and wouldn't trade their Surprise cookie cutter for a beautiful downtown bungalow if it were free. There are also those retirees that wouldn't want to live in the urban core either or families who want suburbs and not the core, etc. I believe many other suburbanites did not know their options when moving to Phoenix because they weren't aware, weren't shown, or didn't think of Phoenix as anything but cookie cutter sprawl.
You say it is your opinion that "this place crashed and burned more than anywhere else" and that it could have been prevented but the first point is not accurate (and many other places are worse off and many more becoming so) and the second is easier said than done. What matters now is what is going to be done and how is the city, metro, and its residents going to change behavior and lifestyles. Are people going to continue flipping and trading up as soon as the market recovers, or will they actually stay and allow real appreciation and value to take root in their communities?
Moderator cut: orphaned quote ... Sprawl happens everywhere you have a city...this past summer when I drove through Utah and Salt Lake from at least Ogden down, it was total sprawl and never again if I can help it... I think the question or at least mine, is how strong is the cities center core? Does Phoenix have one, or does everyone stay in their little burb?[/quote]
Moderator cut: off topic
As for development in downtown Phoenix, yes, most of the employment for metro Phoenix is in central Phoenix. Most of the cultural amenities are in the central city and centrally located cities of the metro region. Most people leave the burbs for Phoenix as is evidenced by the traffic flows during rush hour, transit trips into the city via light rail, bus, and rapid/express bus, etc...
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 12-09-2009 at 11:42 PM..
I am not aware of any of the rail lines you are talking about that are planned for suburbs. I have seen all the projections for the light rail, but its still not anything like what I described in my idea. For my development plan to glue the suburbs to the core, they would have had to pre-thought out the corridors already and they didn't. Imagine if thats what they already did, the city would have a totally different feel to it. I would be proud of how innovative the city was and be bragging about it instead of criticizing.
Not everyone wants to live downtown, but plenty of people are looking for easy access to downtown events that live in the burbs, and many would love to have a car-less lifestyle. It would only be a boon to the core to provide easy transportation. Sure beats hanging out near home and driving to chain restaurants and shopping at big box superstores. Give Sun City a train to Vee Quiva and the Fort. Would it hurt to get some of them off the road too?
I'm tired of arguing. My point is that there is such a huge population base here that I feel was wasted on poor design. We have now retreated right back to the bargain basement desert city as it was intended, and as a result we attract those who are seeking cheap living. With the tax base being made up of inexpensive real estate, it doesnt have the funding to evolve into anything more and its vicious circle. If they curbed the demand by building slower and smarter with some real vision, we would be sitting on higher property values and have a city that lives like a real city. There has to be a switch from new building on the fringes to serious infrastructure. At first the city will take a hit but if it never does, it will always be chasing developers to build yet even further into the distance in search of a quick buck rather than improving the qualify of life here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcorrales80
I like this idea! Phoenix does have these network of rail lines diagramed NOW...they meet other cities at their borders and thus those cities must plan rail or other transit accordingly and with MAG for future extensions. Glendale is having trouble meeting the Phoenix line because they don't know if they want to connect downtown Glendale first or the Westgate City Center.
Glendale also wants Phoenix to share some of its cost in the rail for Glendale, which is unwise and unlikely because this would take money from Phoenix's northeast extension into Paradise Valley. Glendale and residents there will have to contribute to the region by paying for transit that will benefit it, and the rest of the region.
Mesa is extending their section of the rail further east into their downtown and Tempe and Chandler are planning lines south through both cities. These areas already have massive development close to the line and will continue to see growth around those planned transit corridors. Mesa has started a great rapid commuter bus service from east Mesa sections to their main light rail hub; it is the faster growing, and largest rapid/express bus connection in the Valley. Tempe, Chandler, and Gilbert are following suit. This will apply to Phoenix as well when the NE LRT is complete and when the LRT to the 79th Ave "transit center" is completed via i-10. When Glendale's line is running the same will be true for commuters and their cities in the NW valley; Surprise, Peoria, NW Glendale, etc...
Very good points. I'd also throw in impact fees, NO subsidies for building sprawling communities OR strip malls, etc...
Probably not, as those counties would be rural and wouldn't see much benefit in the expense of having rail in their borders. Does someone have an example where this would have been the case in other metro area?
This is another area I think we will probably continue to disagree about. I am among those people who bought, but before rented, in the center of the city and didn't have to settle for a fixer upper and also didn't mind that my house/apartment was much older to begin with as it was beautiful and made extremely well and NOT double the cost. There are also much more affordable options with beautifully maintained homes, and STILL in heavily used transit corridors outside of the expensive historic neighborhoods (Roosevelt, Encanto, Alvarado, Willo, etc) that would have been in reach of those looking to spend $200,000 and up.
I think this is half true. There are (as most "urbanistas," tree huggers, sprawl haters, etc do not like) people who LOVE the suburban lifestyle and wouldn't trade their Surprise cookie cutter for a beautiful downtown bungalow if it were free. There are also those retirees that wouldn't want to live in the urban core either or families who want suburbs and not the core, etc. I believe many other suburbanites did not know their options when moving to Phoenix because they weren't aware, weren't shown, or didn't think of Phoenix as anything but cookie cutter sprawl.
You say it is your opinion that "this place crashed and burned more than anywhere else" and that it could have been prevented but the first point is not accurate (and many other places are worse off and many more becoming so) and the second is easier said than done. What matters now is what is going to be done and how is the city, metro, and its residents going to change behavior and lifestyles. Are people going to continue flipping and trading up as soon as the market recovers, or will they actually stay and allow real appreciation and value to take root in their communities?
I am not aware of any of the rail lines you are talking about that are planned for suburbs. I have seen all the projections for the light rail, but its still not anything like what I described in my idea. For my development plan to glue the suburbs to the core, they would have had to pre-thought out the corridors already and they didn't. Imagine if thats what they already did, the city would have a totally different feel to it. I would be proud of how innovative the city was and be bragging about it instead of criticizing.
As you said in a prior post, if the city planned for it, even if they couldn't built it, it would still be wise...the cities did plan for it and will build it, but do not have the resources to built it all now and open it all at once. It also wouldn't of made much sense to built rail out to the burbs back in the day because there was nothing to build to and thus would not have been a wise use of infrastructure planning. Mass transit like rail, unfortunately follows long after development because a strong and large population must be present to sustain it.
Here are some extensions planned for Valley Metro; this is just a light rail map of future lines and their expected year for opening: Valley Metro | METRO Future Extensions (http://www.valleymetro.org/metro_light_rail/future_extensions/ - broken link)
You can learn about Valley Metro Links to light light rail, bus, rapid, etc here: Valley Metro | Welcome
Quote:
Not everyone wants to live downtown, but plenty of people are looking for easy access to downtown events that live in the burbs, and many would love to have a car-less lifestyle. It would only be a boon to the core to provide easy transportation. Sure beats hanging out near home and driving to chain restaurants and shopping at big box superstores. Give Sun City a train to Vee Quiva and the Fort. Would it hurt to get some of them off the road too?
Very true, but trains and commuter options have to be built in areas where usage would be high enough to responsibly account for the expense of such services; Sun City to Vee Quiva unfortunately isn't a viable option...Surprise to downtown Phoenix is however, and a part of MAG's commuter rail plan and Valley Metro's plan for light rail to Glendale as well.
Quote:
I'm tired of arguing. My point is that there is such a huge population base here that I feel was wasted on poor design. We have now retreated right back to the bargain basement desert city as it was intended, and as a result we attract those who are seeking cheap living. With the tax base being made up of inexpensive real estate, it doesnt have the funding to evolve into anything more and its vicious circle. If they curbed the demand by building slower and smarter with some real vision, we would be sitting on higher property values and have a city that lives like a real city. There has to be a switch from new building on the fringes to serious infrastructure. At first the city will take a hit but if it never does, it will always be chasing developers to build yet even further into the distance in search of a quick buck rather than improving the qualify of life here.
Moderator cut: personal besides this isn't about arguing but about intelligently discussion options and what can be done differently. Phoenix cannot continue to sprawl as it landlocked and there is pressure for those not already landlocked to curb their development outward. Phoenix and many of the central burbs are looking inward rather than out; especially Phoenix, Tempe, Glendale, Scottsdale and now Mesa, Chandler, and Avondale...
CMIST said: "We have now retreated right back to the bargain basement desert city as it was intended, and as a result we attract those who are seeking cheap living. With the tax base being made up of inexpensive real estate, it doesnt have the funding to evolve into anything more and its vicious circle." However, this doesn't fit in with reality as people were willing to OVERPAY for housing that should have cost $180,000 when it went for $300,000, $200,000 for $480,000, etc...
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 12-09-2009 at 11:44 PM..
Phoenix cannot continue to sprawl as it landlocked and there is pressure for those not already landlocked to curb their development outward. Phoenix and many of the central burbs are looking inward rather than out; especially Phoenix, Tempe, Glendale, Scottsdale and now Mesa, Chandler, and Avondale...
Do you not understand when I say Phoenix I mean the Valley? Do I really need to specify the individual suburbs that have room to expand outwards?
Can you not understand that my point is that if they keep adding more new homes all around the fringes it affects EVERYONE since it creates oversupply for the whole metro area? I will say it again, if the Valley had built slower and smarter, the demand level could have been sustained. Higher property values means more tax collection and more money to spend on the existing population rather than building a new home for every person that flies into town. This lowers prices.
However you could also keep adding an unending supply of tract housing all around the fringes no matter what the suburb is and build your base from an oversupply of cheap homes which is what Phoenix has done. Thats not bashing, its a fact.
Do you not understand when I say Phoenix I mean the Valley? Do I really need to specify the individual suburbs that have room to expand outwards?
Without wasting too much time, most suburbs are pretty much locked into their full growth potential save Buckeye. The communities to the SE are in Pinal County and are the hardest hit and they could grow still; however, the SE Valley cities are locked in the by the county line, the Indian Reservations and Public/State Trust land...
Quote:
Can you not understand that my point is that if they keep adding more new homes all around the fringes it affects EVERYONE since it creates oversupply for the whole metro area? I will say it again, if the Valley had built slower and smarter, the demand level could have been sustained. Higher property values means more tax collection and more money to spend on the existing population rather than building a new home for every person that flies into town. This lowers prices.
Can you not understand that is what we are discussing! I've raise the issue of taxation and increase impact fees for those that want to build further out and in the fringes and instead rewarding those that build in and closer to the infrastructure of the metro area. And I'm not sure what "this" is that "would lower prices." But higher property values, more taxation, and denser populations raise prices. That will be one trade off we will make when we see the effects of densification and transit in Phoenix; it will be more expensive. It would remain cheaper than many metro areas but will still cost more.
Quote:
However you could also keep adding an unending supply of tract housing all around the fringes no matter what the suburb is and build your base from an oversupply of cheap homes which is what Phoenix has done. Thats not bashing, its a fact.
I agree with this, but what you said before was markedly different. Yes, an over supply is not good but not the entire case; it was more a problem with foreclosures due to sub-prime loans, a national recession that effected Phoenicians as well and resulted in lower sales tax revenue, etc. "An oversupply of cheap" homes is misrepresentative of the real issues which are more than simply sprawl.
"An oversupply of cheap" homes is misrepresentative of the real issues which are more than simply sprawl.
It wasn't an oversupply of "cheap homes" It was an oversupply of HOMES, cheapness was the later result of the oversupply.
Growth is far from "locked up". What about "unincorporated county"? There's a ton of land in Glendale and West Phoenix south and west of the stadium. North Peoria is loaded with open land and even crosses over into Yavapai county and its also slated for nothing more than huge masterplans, I saw it already on the books. There is vast amounts of land in the southeast valley as well.
The valley didn't stop building because they thought it was time to focus on the existing development. They stopped because it crashed, which means as soon as its profitable again to break ground wherever possible they will.
If I was going to live here, I would get involved if I saw building start up all over the place like it was before. I'm doubtful any group could stop them though. As for me though, as soon as it picks up, I will be gettin' out of dodge instead.
It wasn't an oversupply of "cheap homes" It was an oversupply of HOMES, cheapness was the later result of the oversupply.
Growth is far from "locked up". What about "unincorporated county"? There's a ton of land in Glendale and West Phoenix south and west of the stadium. North Peoria is loaded with open land and even crosses over into Yavapai county and its also slated for nothing more than huge masterplans, I saw it already on the books. There is vast amounts of land in the southeast valley as well.
The valley didn't stop building because they thought it was time to focus on the existing development. They stopped because it crashed, which means as soon as its profitable again to break ground wherever possible they will.
If I was going to live here, I would get involved if I saw building start up all over the place like it was before. I'm doubtful any group could stop them though. As for me though, as soon as it picks up, I will be gettin' out of dodge instead.
Moderator cut: personal
Peoria also incorporated some of a regional park that cannot be developed that encompasses its northern boundary. Around the stadium in Glendale isn't really sprawl as it is close to Glendale's historic downtown. City limits have been drawn and all one needs to do is look at the obstacles that limit further development; Indian Reservations, military land like the Barry M. Goldwater range, state trust land that takes up a lot of unincorporated county land, state/city/county parks, preserves, greenbelts, etc etc. Also, central cities have been focusing on their cores. I listed those above and is evident by development patterns, real estate, light rail, transit, etc.
Now, what do you wish to discuss would prevent other cities from trying to expand into what land in their limits are not yet developed? Maybe setting aside huge swaths of preserves and open space like Phoenix and Scottsdale have done? Impact fees to encourage smarter development? Commuter rail support?
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 12-09-2009 at 11:47 PM..
Moderator cut: orphaned quote
Peoria also is not crossing into Yavapai county, and around the stadium in Glendale isn't really sprawl as it is close to Glendale's historic downtown. City lines have been drawn and all one needs to do is look at the obstacles that limit further development; Indian Reservations, military land like the Barry M. Goldwater range, state trust land that takes up a lot of unincorporated county land, state/city/county parks, preserves, greenbelts, etc etc. Also, central cities have been focusing on their cores. I listed those above and is evident by development patterns, real estate, light rail, transit, etc.
Now, what do you wish to discuss that would prevent other cities from trying to expand into what land in their limits that aren't developed? Maybe setting aside huge swaths of preserves and open space like Phoenix and Scottsdale have done? Impact fees to encourage smarter development? Commuter rail support?
I think you need to look at a map of Peoria and notice it does indeed cross into Yavapai. I never said it was sprawl near the stadium, I said there was plenty of land near south and west of the stadium to build more.Moderator cut: rude
Its NOT locked up, there is plenty of unincorporated county land everywhere as well as plenty of suburbs with room to grow besides Buckeye.
Moderator cut: personal I am against pursuing the same path that landed us here. If you love the city so much, I am not sure why you would argue a point of taking care of what is developed before adding more?
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 12-09-2009 at 11:50 PM..
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.
Phoenix does have these network of rail lines diagramed NOW...they meet other cities at their borders and thus those cities must plan rail or other transit accordingly and with MAG for future extensions. Glendale is having trouble meeting the Phoenix line because they don't know if they want to connect downtown Glendale first or the Westgate City Center. 
I've raise the issue of taxation and increase impact fees for those that want to build further out and in the fringes and instead rewarding those that build in and closer to the infrastructure of the metro area. And I'm not sure what "this" is that "would lower prices." But higher property values, more taxation, and denser populations raise prices. That will be one trade off we will make when we see the effects of densification and transit in Phoenix; it will be more expensive. It would remain cheaper than many metro areas but will still cost more. 
