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.
It's really only noticeable when it's snow-capped because again, it's a "One Peak" at that point. Hard to differentiate from other mountains when it's not. But I deduced it as Four Peaks because the Superstitions which would be in front of it aren't as "pointy". It's also *extremely* faint and since we don't get too many snow-capped mountains that would be in that area, I was able to deduce it even further. I'm extremely doubtful that I was looking at Pinal Peak, since I think that sits too far east of where I was. I don't think the Superstitions were snowcapped that day too.
Since the I-10 starts going NW/SE at this point, I'd recommend being on the I-10 W to see this best. I'd pull over on the access road on the Northside on a clear winter day, preferably when we have good air quality in pinal county. But I wouldn't expect to be wowed by this view, a one story building or a train could block your view at this point. I like to point it out though to show how expansive our horizons can truly be that certain landmarks can be pointed out from quite a far distance, even though Four Peaks especially in comparison to many other mountains in the country is not the most prominent.
No it's ok most people don't know about the name change. And certain natives here are very adamant on not wanting to admit that the Native Americans hated the name of the mountain and won't accept the name change, so many locals still call it that too.
Apache Junction does not have the best view of it because again you see it from the side and especially if you are unfamiliar with local geography you really don't know exactly what you are looking at.
Here is a street view of the area I was referring to. It's literally four peaks, side by side. The photo was probably taken near here or somewhat further east. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6276...7i13312!8i6656
Thank you! I'm pretty sure I've never seen it now...
OP here. I originally posted this because I loooovvvveee Seattle. The water, the urbanity, the culture, the restaurants, the seafood, the views, EVERYTHING!
And, after I spent a short 5 weeks in Tempe-Phoenix Metro (in June haha) I also loved this part of the United States! But I can't articulate it like I can Seattle. I do love the heat....but that wasn't all. But again, I can't say exactly why which is why I posted the question. I wanted to see what you all thought!
Seattle and Phoenix share the same amount in population (MSA), though for some reason people treat Phoenix as a city a lot smaller in population. Seattle definitely does some things better than we do, but Phoenix is also better at other things. As states, they are both some of the most beautiful in the US, and in their own ways on the same playing field. People will have preferences for one or the other and that's fair as it's subjective.
Phoenix isn't as corporate or as dense, but this is changing. The good news for Phoenix is that our weaknesses (we have plenty of them, trust me) can be changed with the correct investments. But Phoenix is still somewhat affordable which is extremely important, as the inability to buy a house/condo prevents people from being financially stable and building wealth needed for retirement. And the US Superstar cities (which includes Seattle) lack of interest and pursuit in keeping things affordable will ultimately make Seattle a rich person's playground devoid of certain cultural aspects and the middle class. Some of our superstar cities like San Francisco and Manhattan are already there. This should not be downplayed or flat-out ignored when comparing the two cities. I'd rather be able to afford my rent and health insurance than have a good food scene. For the 99%, Phoenix is a better city to live in. This along with a few other reasons is why Phoenix has topped growth charts for several decades since our creation about 100 years ago and managed to still keep things affordable and realistic for the times while a decade or two of high growth and Seattle has seen obscene amounts of housing inaffordability and real estate prices to the point that people have been pushed out. No one is getting pushed out of Phoenix, and no one has since our high growth rates beginning post WWII. Seattle's geography is not an excuse for this, you just build more densely to accommodate the demand. Seattle should truly be a denser city, and likewise so should Phoenix.
In sum, Seattle hits more of the pretty surface-level amenities we all want but at the end of the day Phoenix will provide a better quality of life as people are less likely to be stressed about just trying to survive here. Now if you are rich enough to where this isn't a concern despite Seattle's COL then by all means Seattle is by far the better city but most of us simply are not rich. So I will say Phoenix > Seattle unless you are extremely successful in life, then Seattle > Phoenix. Ignoring subjective opinions like climate and weather as these two are polar opposites there.
Seattle and Phoenix share the same amount in population (MSA), though for some reason people treat Phoenix as a city a lot smaller in population. Seattle definitely does some things better than we do, but Phoenix is also better at other things. As states, they are both some of the most beautiful in the US, and in their own ways on the same playing field. People will have preferences for one or the other and that's fair as it's subjective.
Phoenix isn't as corporate or as dense, but this is changing. The good news for Phoenix is that our weaknesses (we have plenty of them, trust me) can be changed with the correct investments. But Phoenix is still somewhat affordable which is extremely important, as the inability to buy a house/condo prevents people from being financially stable and building wealth needed for retirement. And the US Superstar cities (which includes Seattle) lack of interest and pursuit in keeping things affordable will ultimately make Seattle a rich person's playground devoid of certain cultural aspects and the middle class. Some of our superstar cities like San Francisco and Manhattan are already there. This should not be downplayed or flat-out ignored when comparing the two cities. I'd rather be able to afford my rent and health insurance than have a good food scene. For the 99%, Phoenix is a better city to live in. This along with a few other reasons is why Phoenix has topped growth charts for several decades since our creation about 100 years ago and managed to still keep things affordable and realistic for the times while a decade or two of high growth and Seattle has seen obscene amounts of housing inaffordability and real estate prices to the point that people have been pushed out. No one is getting pushed out of Phoenix, and no one has since our high growth rates beginning post WWII. Seattle's geography is not an excuse for this, you just build more densely to accommodate the demand. Seattle should truly be a denser city, and likewise so should Phoenix.
In sum, Seattle hits more of the pretty surface-level amenities we all want but at the end of the day Phoenix will provide a better quality of life as people are less likely to be stressed about just trying to survive here. Now if you are rich enough to where this isn't a concern despite Seattle's COL then by all means Seattle is by far the better city but most of us simply are not rich. So I will say Phoenix > Seattle unless you are extremely successful in life, then Seattle > Phoenix. Ignoring subjective opinions like climate and weather as these two are polar opposites there.
You present a fair argument. As I posted earlier you have to take weather out of it for obvious reasons. The rest of the comparisons are fair. Both cities actually have similarities. Both have major league football, baseball, and a major college. Both have strong suburban communities surrounding, (though one could say Bellevue is way above Phoenix suburbs in density, etc.). Seattle leads obviously in major employers. Both attract others from larger metro areas.
It probably comes down to which will survive our coming business transformation the best. I think a denser city probably has a better chance but who knows? A lot to sort out here in mid-2020 with cities and how they will succeed in a new business climate.
You present a fair argument. As I posted earlier you have to take weather out of it for obvious reasons. The rest of the comparisons are fair. Both cities actually have similarities. Both have major league football, baseball, and a major college. Both have strong suburban communities surrounding, (though one could say Bellevue is way above Phoenix suburbs in density, etc.). Seattle leads obviously in major employers. Both attract others from larger metro areas.
It probably comes down to which will survive our coming business transformation the best. I think a denser city probably has a better chance but who knows? A lot to sort out here in mid-2020 with cities and how they will succeed in a new business climate.
From what I have heard about Bellevue--I should state I've never been to Seattle so take what I say with a grain of salt--Tempe would be Phoenix's equivalent of Bellevue. Tempe has the most public transit and highest walkability/bikability score in the whole state, even over Downtown Phoenix. Now this isn't to say Downtown Phoenix is bad, it's a politics game. Tempe is the only landlocked city in the metro, they cannot grow out. Tempe is arguably the most blue/liberal out of the whole metro too. Phoenix's (including suburbs) obsessions with land annexations ultimately pull power and funding away from Downtown investment into the suburbs. Especially suburban Phoenix proper neighborhoods like Anthem and Ahwatukee. This is why Phoenix's suburbs are relatively strong and nice places to live but the suburbs' downtowns are... underwhelming for what they should be. Seattle is land and sealocked in contrast, and therefore all the money they earn can focus on their core instead of over a massive swath of land. Phoenix proper is the 3rd largest city in the US by land (behind Anchorage, AK and Jacksonville, FL). While Phoenix does have entire mountains in its city limits, including #2 and #4 of the largest municipal parks in the US (#1 is in Scottsdale, AZ), a lot of it is still developable land. If Phoenix didn't obsessively annex everything back in the day, our Downtown would be a lot more impressive I will tell you that. Most of the people living in the cores of Phoenix metro are very liberal and open-minded, close to the perception of many Seattleites, but we are struck with an eternal battle of our very Republican suburban areas and since we all share jurisdictions, one wins over the other. Arizona is not immune to things like gerrymandering, so you can guess who has been winning all these years. We aren't as red as we seem, I keep telling people this.
This has to do with a very strange Arizona law that an area cannot be incorporated as a city unless all the neighboring cities vote to agree. So what Phoenix used to do was veto any unincorporated area numerous times until they caved and agreed to be a part of Phoenix proper. This is what happened to Sunnyslope, now a neighborhood of Phoenix. Along with Cactus, AZ. However many neighborhoods also chose to agree because of water resources, another debate I'm not going to get into. But our water laws favor larger (land size) cities over a plurality of smaller jurisdictions. Popular opinion Zonies have now is against further land annexation (a great thing in my opinion) and it has come up again in regards to an area known as New River, eligible to become a new annexed neighborhood of Phoenix proper. They are considering it due to the water thing, but Phoenix citizens may be against it this time. I hope they are.
I live in Tempe so we aren't subjected to as much suburban/NIMBY influence (do not get me wrong we have some in South Tempe, but it pales in comparison to the other cities in the Valley) and thus we were able to get things like a streetcar, an extensive free circulator bus, separated bike lanes, etc. approved. While Seattle is a much more left-leaning metro overall, I'm sure they still have republican leaning areas, but they are probably in different jurisdictions. This plays out a whole lot differently than our system here.
If by business transformation you mean more people telecommuting and working from home, I suspect this will favor Phoenix over Seattle. And this is due to affordability alone. People will probably want a bit more square footage in their personal homes to accommodate an office, and that will favor cheaper cities, in addition to taking that high Seattle income and living the sweet life here in the sun like Californians have been doing since the 1950s. Or maybe not Phoenix, but a place like Boise or even their hometown in Ohio and retire early. I suspect a Rust Belt revitalization.
And yes there's no way to objectively compare weather and landscape. The two are polar opposites. There is no way anyone on planet Earth or an astronaut in space can equally love both weather, foliage and landscapes of both areas. Or hate both of them. There will always be a leaning. Seattle is beautiful to me and if you look deep into my history you will see me praise Seattle often, but I know myself more now and know I would hate the cold rain (clouds wouldn't get to me though) and there is a good chance I'd miss the big, colorful skies.
From what I have heard about Bellevue--I should state I've never been to Seattle so take what I say with a grain of salt--Tempe would be Phoenix's equivalent of Bellevue. Tempe has the most public transit and highest walkability/bikability score in the whole state, even over Downtown Phoenix. Now this isn't to say Downtown Phoenix is bad, it's a politics game. Tempe is the only landlocked city in the metro, they cannot grow out. Tempe is arguably the most blue/liberal out of the whole metro too. Phoenix's (including suburbs) obsessions with land annexations ultimately pull power and funding away from Downtown investment into the suburbs. Especially suburban Phoenix proper neighborhoods like Anthem and Ahwatukee. This is why Phoenix's suburbs are relatively strong and nice places to live but the suburbs' downtowns are... underwhelming for what they should be. Seattle is land and sealocked in contrast, and therefore all the money they earn can focus on their core instead of over a massive swath of land. Phoenix proper is the 3rd largest city in the US by land (behind Anchorage, AK and Jacksonville, FL). While Phoenix does have entire mountains in its city limits, including #2 and #4 of the largest municipal parks in the US (#1 is in Scottsdale, AZ), a lot of it is still developable land. If Phoenix didn't obsessively annex everything back in the day, our Downtown would be a lot more impressive I will tell you that. Most of the people living in the cores of Phoenix metro are very liberal and open-minded, close to the perception of many Seattleites, but we are struck with an eternal battle of our very Republican suburban areas and since we all share jurisdictions, one wins over the other. Arizona is not immune to things like gerrymandering, so you can guess who has been winning all these years. We aren't as red as we seem, I keep telling people this.
This has to do with a very strange Arizona law that an area cannot be incorporated as a city unless all the neighboring cities vote to agree. So what Phoenix used to do was veto any unincorporated area numerous times until they caved and agreed to be a part of Phoenix proper. This is what happened to Sunnyslope, now a neighborhood of Phoenix. Along with Cactus, AZ. However many neighborhoods also chose to agree because of water resources, another debate I'm not going to get into. But our water laws favor larger (land size) cities over a plurality of smaller jurisdictions. Popular opinion Zonies have now is against further land annexation (a great thing in my opinion) and it has come up again in regards to an area known as New River, eligible to become a new annexed neighborhood of Phoenix proper. They are considering it due to the water thing, but Phoenix citizens may be against it this time. I hope they are.
I live in Tempe so we aren't subjected to as much suburban/NIMBY influence (do not get me wrong we have some in South Tempe, but it pales in comparison to the other cities in the Valley) and thus we were able to get things like a streetcar, an extensive free circulator bus, separated bike lanes, etc. approved. While Seattle is a much more left-leaning metro overall, I'm sure they still have republican leaning areas, but they are probably in different jurisdictions. This plays out a whole lot differently than our system here.
If by business transformation you mean more people telecommuting and working from home, I suspect this will favor Phoenix over Seattle. And this is due to affordability alone. People will probably want a bit more square footage in their personal homes to accommodate an office, and that will favor cheaper cities, in addition to taking that high Seattle income and living the sweet life here in the sun like Californians have been doing since the 1950s. Or maybe not Phoenix, but a place like Boise or even their hometown in Ohio and retire early. I suspect a Rust Belt revitalization.
And yes there's no way to objectively compare weather and landscape. The two are polar opposites. There is no way anyone on planet Earth or an astronaut in space can equally love both weather, foliage and landscapes of both areas. Or hate both of them. There will always be a leaning. Seattle is beautiful to me and if you look deep into my history you will see me praise Seattle often, but I know myself more now and know I would hate the cold rain (clouds wouldn't get to me though) and there is a good chance I'd miss the big, colorful skies.
Bellevue is more akin to Scottsdale than Tempe. The average house price in Bellevue is almost double even Scottsdale so it's a place with money, jobs, and nice shopping and restaurants like Scottsdale.
Bellevue is more akin to Scottsdale than Tempe. The average house price in Bellevue is almost double even Scottsdale so it's a place with money, jobs, and nice shopping and restaurants like Scottsdale.
Scottsdale is similar when it comes to upscale shopping and residential, but they aren't on the Light Rail line like Tempe is. I'm guessing Tempe may have more white collar jobs. State Farms new Western ops center alone has 8,000 employees.
In sum, Seattle hits more of the pretty surface-level amenities we all want but at the end of the day Phoenix will provide a better quality of life as people are less likely to be stressed about just trying to survive here. Now if you are rich enough to where this isn't a concern despite Seattle's COL then by all means Seattle is by far the better city but most of us simply are not rich. So I will say Phoenix > Seattle unless you are extremely successful in life, then Seattle > Phoenix. Ignoring subjective opinions like climate and weather as these two are polar opposites there.
Great summary, especially that first sentence, the lure of living an urban, walk-able lifestyle will pull in a lot of people. The reality is only the highest paid will be living in those downtown high-rise 1-bedroom condos for $4,000 - $5000 a month.
Phoenix has done a good job remaining relatively affordable but I do wonder how long that can be sustained, as every open space in the Tempe-Scottsdale-CenPho area begins to fill in I do see that price pressure will rise.
But I'll defend Seattle's affordability. You don't have to be in the 1%. It helps to be in the 30% if your goal is a big house. I'd guess that across real estate classes our prices are 60% of San Francisco's. But our boom (and our demographic wide spot) doesn't deal with that. It's about young adults, who frequently live in smaller apartments or with roommates, and often don't have cars.
Regarding Bellevue, Tempe, and Scottsdale, transit commute share is a massive difference. Using citywide stats (which would be magnified for those living in each core), the 2018 ACS had the transit, walk, bike shares as:
--Bellevue: 14.4%, 5.1%, 0.3%
--Tempe: 3.7%, 3.8%, 4.3%
--Scottsdale: 0.4%, 1.7%, 0.6%
Tempe's numbers are despite a major university. The difference is that Bellevue puts a large volume of offices and residents into one big, sorta dense walkable district, in addition to significant secondary nodes. And yeah Bellevue's bike infrastructure isn't very good, speaking as someone who's biked through it many times.
Those numbers will widen when Bellevue's grade-separated light rail line opens in three years. There's already a huge volume of TOD construction in anticipation of this, in addition to plans for 40-50 towers in Downtown itself, including three significant office highrises started during the virus including DTB's first 600' tower.
Bellevue is more akin to Scottsdale than Tempe. The average house price in Bellevue is almost double even Scottsdale so it's a place with money, jobs, and nice shopping and restaurants like Scottsdale.
I see that you live in Washington so I’m inclined to listen to you more but I’m not entirely sure I agree. Scottsdale still acts *mostly* as a rich bedroom community instead of an independent secondary city with large employment hubs that I perceive Bellevue plays more of a role as.
Scottsdale’s economy is highly dependent on snowbirds and tourism, almost 70% change in business between slow and summer seasons. Scottsdale has some jobs sure but not a ton.
Tempe’s Downtown and Rio Salado district (extending from Downtown to Tempe Marketplace) is the third largest employment hub in the metro, behind Downtown and Midtown Phoenix. This is based on office space square footage. Tempe is also rapidly growing in its office and commercial space especially along Rio Salado. When you factor in Tempe’s other employment hubs in West Tempe near Sky Harbor, South Tempe bear IKEA, etc. Scottsdale pales in comparison.
Also I’m not sure housing costs are relative in this situation. Seattle is going to be double the price anywhere you go. I’m sure some of Seattle’s lowest income neighborhoods “slums” are still more expensive than Phoenix’s middle class maybe even higher class areas. What’s the point? We should be comparing housing inventory. You know, average house size, development style, etc. but not prices as Seattle is way pricier across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl
Scottsdale is similar when it comes to upscale shopping and residential, but they aren't on the Light Rail line like Tempe is. I'm guessing Tempe may have more white collar jobs. State Farms new Western ops center alone has 8,000 employees.
Tempe has been very proactive on its public transit development and it has the third largest employment hub in the metro, in addition to having a couple others. Tempe also has richer areas too, in South Tempe, and most of the new developments in the core are going 400k+ (townhouses and condos) which is about 100k over average house price in Phoenix metro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by locolife
Great summary, especially that first sentence, the lure of living an urban, walk-able lifestyle will pull in a lot of people. The reality is only the highest paid will be living in those downtown high-rise 1-bedroom condos for $4,000 - $5000 a month.
Phoenix has done a good job remaining relatively affordable but I do wonder how long that can be sustained, as every open space in the Tempe-Scottsdale-CenPho area begins to fill in I do see that price pressure will rise.
Phoenix is starting to reach its tipping point in how far people are willing to live out. Jobs are generally remaining inside the 101/202 loops respectively yet most developments are outside these areas. And yet even factoring that in the new developments on the fringe are still not the most affordable. I’m seeing people get pushed out of these central neighborhoods but not the entire metro. Where I live in Tempe is getting expensive, 900 sq ft homes going for 300k, and I know people getting pushed out of here. They are relocating elsewhere to Mesa mostly, a couple miles down the road. My neighborhood however pales to Coronado, where the same house would easily be 600k.
Jobs are also focusing on the east valley in Tempe, Chandler, etc. while most affordable housing is in west valley. This is a concern that will be addressed in due time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Certainly valid points about housing costs.
But I'll defend Seattle's affordability. You don't have to be in the 1%. It helps to be in the 30% if your goal is a big house. I'd guess that across real estate classes our prices are 60% of San Francisco's. But our boom (and our demographic wide spot) doesn't deal with that. It's about young adults, who frequently live in smaller apartments or with roommates, and often don't have cars.
Regarding Bellevue, Tempe, and Scottsdale, transit commute share is a massive difference. Using citywide stats (which would be magnified for those living in each core), the 2018 ACS had the transit, walk, bike shares as:
--Bellevue: 14.4%, 5.1%, 0.3%
--Tempe: 3.7%, 3.8%, 4.3%
--Scottsdale: 0.4%, 1.7%, 0.6%
Tempe's numbers are despite a major university. The difference is that Bellevue puts a large volume of offices and residents into one big, sorta dense walkable district, in addition to significant secondary nodes. And yeah Bellevue's bike infrastructure isn't very good, speaking as someone who's biked through it many times.
Those numbers will widen when Bellevue's grade-separated light rail line opens in three years. There's already a huge volume of TOD construction in anticipation of this, in addition to plans for 40-50 towers in Downtown itself, including three significant office highrises started during the virus including DTB's first 600' tower.
The average house price in Seattle right now is around 760k. That’s quite a bit of money, and more than double Phoenix’s average house price (~300k). Last I checked salaries are not doubled between Phoenix and Seattle for comparable jobs I’ve seen. People are suffering because of that in Seattle. Things are tighter.
Tempe has a lot of locals and we are more than our university. And we have a ton of office space in our core (again, 3rd in metro against two Phoenix hubs) that is rapidly growing. Tempe’s streetcar isn’t even built yet and they are already looking at expanding it in collaboration with the City of Mesa. Tempe is also in the works to develop a Bus Rapid Transit line along Scottsdale/Rural road (this really should be a light rail line but Scottsdale is the reason we can’t get light rail, they ruin a lot of things here for the region). However I’m not sure how this is gonna work out.
Scottsdale has since shut down the Scottsdale Trolley and since they have contracts to *prevent* valley metro buses from even entering the majority of the city you might as well give Scottsdale a negative on transit score. I’m surprised they even have a score to begin with. They’ve also shut down public transit numerous times especially for Scottsdale road which again is a corridor that could really use it.
Phoenix proper is also working on three approved light rail expansions: NW phase II to Metro Center, South Central, and the I-10W lines. In addition they have 5 BRT separated lines being developed too. City of Chandler is working with Mesa to build a light rail line to serve DT Chandler, fiesta district and Mesa Riverview. All of this at-grade because really don’t need grade separation here. No we aren’t building as many talls but we are doing quite a bit and our transit has really good ridership numbers because we build inside arterials that are needed instead of simply where it’s convenient like Denver did (they are lower than us in ridership but yet because they have more lines get praised more). The I-10W will be our first that’s not along a busy street and the first to really be serving commuters from the burbs instead of serving the inner core.
Phoenix won’t be as tall of a city and that’s due to geography and that’s ok. Phoenix isn’t a slump either though and we do offer more than we are given credit for. Phoenix is not on the same playing field here but we could be with the right investment, as I stated earlier.
Bellevue is more akin to Scottsdale than Tempe. The average house price in Bellevue is almost double even Scottsdale so it's a place with money, jobs, and nice shopping and restaurants like Scottsdale.
Yep. Not sure how much Scottsdale is, but Bellevue is over a million I think.
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.
