Denver vs. Phoenix? (Aurora, Boulder, Thornton: layoffs, neighborhoods, maintenance)

[tfox]

Originally Posted by steveco.

I guess that what I am trying to say is that give Phoenix 20 or 30 years and see if people are still moving there in droves... or just saying it is one big suburban ghetto...

Ghetto or not, they'll continue to grow for one simple reason: consistently mild winter weather (average highs in the upper 60s in mid-winter, with 70s by February), with predictable sunshine virtually all winter long. To find winter temps like Phoenix, you have to go to South Florida, extreme South Texas (Brownsville, McAllen, etc), or SoCal, and none of them have the sunshine that Phoenix does. Of course, summer weather is pretty miserable (which is why so many people snowbird there), but that doesn't deter since there are so few alternatives.

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by steveco.

Yes I would have to say that one of the main reasons for this is the ease of which the cities of phoenix have been able to annex large swaths of undeveloped land and smaller cities, each being eaten up by the phoenix civic boundry one at a time. Most of this development was not designed to develop in a community sense, but rather is a culmination of Builder after mega builder throwing up as many 1 acre lot ranches as possible in as short amount of time. City planning in that area has to be a mess where things are thrown together so fast that no real thought goes into how the community will look or how people will live there in 30 or 50 years. Its a shame also in the sense that literally thousands of acres of land have been developed in this way and it really is at other people (and places) expense. Here in Denver back a few years ago we were dealing with one of the worst draughts/ fire seasons in history and could barely water the flowers in our yard, while the people of Phoenix enjoyed their luxuriously manicured lawns that glistened in the 120 degree summer sun all the while pushing water supplies to their limit.... I guess that what I am trying to say is that give Phoenix 20 or 30 years and see if people are still moving there in droves... or just saying it is one big suburban ghetto...

Contrary to "conventional wisdom", Phoenix has sufficient water to keep growing for some time and isn't all that less dense than Denver. People tend to forget/be ignorant of the fact that the majority of Phoenix housing built in the last 30 years has displaced irrigated farming. An acre of houses uses less water than an acre of irrigated farmland on an annual basis, so in many areas there has been a net water gain when farmland is developed. As to density, I laughed whn I read your "1 acre lot ranches" comment. Obviously you aren't familiar with average lot sizes in Phoenix. Population densities are pretty similar with Denver at about 3,900 people per square mile and Phoenix at 3,600 people per square mile. USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)

[Victoria "vicki"]

Arizona is a tough place to be.

But if you like hot, hot summers (I mean HOT) than maybe it is for you? The job market is so so and the single situation the same!

It always seems better on the other side of the fence but one has to have a mind set to live in the desert which can be beautiful and you MUST have a good car to get around as everything is spread out and Yes there is south phoenix which you want to stay away from. GANGS & CRIME (way out wet valley or way out east valley okay...Tempe is good for young and college folks!

Good luck as I get frustrated with here as wish I could afford to go home to CA.

[steveco.]

Originally Posted by Patrick754

Contrary to "conventional wisdom", Phoenix has sufficient water to keep growing for some time and isn't all that less dense than Denver. People tend to forget/be ignorant of the fact that the majority of Phoenix housing built in the last 30 years has displaced irrigated farming. An acre of houses uses less water than an acre of irrigated farmland on an annual basis, so in many areas there has been a net water gain when farmland is developed. As to density, I laughed whn I read your "1 acre lot ranches" comment. Obviously you aren't familiar with average lot sizes in Phoenix. Population densities are pretty similar with Denver at about 3,900 people per square mile and Phoenix at 3,600 people per square mile. USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)

Im laughing in the fact that you don't really know what you are talking about. For starters Demographia.com is one of the most bias and inacurate demographic pages around. Second, even if I were to take this faulty data into consideration it still proves my point. Phoenix has about 1.5 million more people than Denver yet still has a density of about 300 less people per square mile. Just take city proper data for instance. Phoenix proper holds about 1.5 million people in its civic boundry with a density of 2,782 people per square mile in an area of 515 square miles. On the other hand Denver's boundry is at a mere 154.9 square miles with about 600,000 people for a density of 3,698 people per square mile. Heck you don't even have to look at numbers to know that just compare the skylines
Like this


to this

And I was rolling on the floor with that comment about the water. Are you talking about glen canyon? The one that is supposed to go dry in 20 or 30 years??

[tfox]

Originally Posted by steveco.

And I was rolling on the floor with that comment about the water. Are you talking about glen canyon? The one that is supposed to go dry in 20 or 30 years??

They do have plenty of water due to the area around Phoenix being primarily agricultural. Subdivisions can simply take over the water rights previously held by farmers. Subdivisions do actually take less water per acre than farming, particularly if you put rocks in the yard instead of grass (as most new subdivisions in Phoenix area do). Of course, agricultural then becomes the sacrificial lamb for development in the process.

This, IMO is a real scary prospect, and it's relevant to us here in Colorado as well. Both Arizona and Colorado have agricultural sectors that are vulnerable. Northern Colorado has always been an important agricultural area, with Weld County the hub of it. Weld County is now under increasing threat from developers, who can buy agricultural land packaged with water rights, and continue building subdivisions willy-nilly, forever. Larimer and especially Boulder counties are not too supportive of this kind of thing, but Weld seems a 100% for it.

It's really frightening because much of northern Colorado's agricultural heritage is under siege. One of the few tools for fighting this is conservation easements, which has been used extensively in Boulder County, but without county and municipal support for it, there's it becomes difficult to protect such lands.

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by tfox

They do have plenty of water due to the area around Phoenix being primarily agricultural.

and most of Phoenix's water does not come from the Colorado River.

[steveco.]

Originally Posted by tfox

They do have plenty of water due to the area around Phoenix being primarily agricultural. Subdivisions can simply take over the water rights previously held by farmers. Subdivisions do actually take less water per acre than farming, particularly if you put rocks in the yard instead of grass (as most new subdivisions in Phoenix area do). Of course, agricultural then becomes the sacrificial lamb for development in the process.

This, IMO is a real scary prospect, and it's relevant to us here in Colorado as well. Both Arizona and Colorado have agricultural sectors that are vulnerable. Northern Colorado has always been an important agricultural area, with Weld County the hub of it. Weld County is now under increasing threat from developers, who can buy agricultural land packaged with water rights, and continue building subdivisions willy-nilly, forever. Larimer and especially Boulder counties are not too supportive of this kind of thing, but Weld seems a 100% for it.

It's really frightening because much of northern Colorado's agricultural heritage is under siege. One of the few tools for fighting this is conservation easements, which has been used extensively in Boulder County, but without county and municipal support for it, there's it becomes difficult to protect such lands.

Its a blessing and a curse for Boulder also as the city itself has strictly limited the amount of new development in the city itself. This has caused home prices there to skyrocket and made it almost impossible to find affordable housing there.

[steveco.]

Phoenix gets a good part of its water from the central arizona project. The other large source is the salt river project.

[tfox]

Originally Posted by steveco.

Its a blessing and a curse for Boulder also as the city itself has strictly limited the amount of new development in the city itself. This has caused home prices there to skyrocket and made it almost impossible to find affordable housing there.

Well, that's true, but at least Boulder County still has a productive agricultural industry (if a bit shifted toward the natural foods arena), as well as preserving its open areas. Imagine a Boulder county crammed end-to-end with "affordable" subdivisions? Would you want to live there under those circumstances?

[steveco.]

Maybe not. But those growth restrictions have still come at a cost to some of the other municipalities in and around the Boulder area, most of which are experiencing explosive growth which for a relatively small city can be a bit overwhelming.