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.
No offense - you need to get better informed. The small town of Laveen is still separate from Phoenix proper - the surrounding area become the urban village of "Laveen" - Phoenix is divided into 13 urban villages (sections of which are still rural in character).
The exact same situation applies to Ahwatukee. Go back and do some research. The history of the Valley is uniquely variant compared to what happened with cities back east (Arizona did not become a state until 1912). One is not better than the other - just different.
Location: A circle of Hell so insidious, infernal and odious, Dante dared not map it
623 posts, read 1,226,566 times
Reputation: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Charles_
No offense - you need to get better informed. The small town of Laveen is still separate from Phoenix proper - the surrounding area become the urban village of "Laveen" - Phoenix is divided into 13 urban villages (sections of which are still rural in character).
The exact same situation applies to Ahwatukee. Go back and do some research. The history of the Valley is uniquely variant compared to what happened with cities back east (Arizona did not become a state until 1912). One is not better than the other - just different.
Hmm... then perhaps you should read that book I mentioned.
I lived in Philly for quite a long time .... the cities are night and day different, so it's really hard to compare.
I personally enjoyed them both for different reasons.
However, if you are looking at pure population dynamics without any emotion attached to it - Phoenix is definitely outpacing Philly for growth. It's not just the cities proper either.
It's also a bit laughable to say that the growth is by annexation. For that to work you would need to annex an existing population - kind of like corporate growth by merger.
They aquired land which was then filled by houses due to growth.
Even some of the suburban cities are doing this. PLaces like Buckeye are a good example. The amount of land in that city is quite vast. However, their population didn't grow in proportion with their land holdings if you were to apply the existing density to the new areas. When this new land eventually fills in then there will more growth and population there.
In another 40-60 years I imagine places like Buckeye will have a very substantial population.
Ahwatukee was never a town. It was a marketing name for a Wood Bros. housing development. It never had a large number of people living there when it was not part of Phoenix/Chandler - though I did live there when it was still county. The area that became what you think of as Ahwatukee was annexed well ahead of development. It is and was no more an independent town than today's Verrado or Estrella or yesteryear's Maryvale are. And "Laveen" was just a crossroads with a gas station and C-store (and a post office branch) in the middle of nowhere. The real Laveen still exists I think, but what the developers want to call Laveen for marketing reasons is southwest Phoenix. It was part of Phoenix long before the homes went up.
Land owners here try to get annexed. It is nearly impossible under AZ laws to get sufficient water rights, access to sewer services, police and fire, and other utilities without joining an adjacent city. So if you want to develop you have to get annexed first. The ones that avoid it and go it alone are those that would never get approved by city planning boards like Anthem in the north (bitterly opposed for leap-frogging by Phoenix) and Dreaming Summit (encroachment on Luke AFB) in the west or places that want to avoid paying city taxes like Sun City.
Last edited by Ponderosa; 11-23-2010 at 03:45 PM..
Location: A circle of Hell so insidious, infernal and odious, Dante dared not map it
623 posts, read 1,226,566 times
Reputation: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Ahwatukee was never a town. It was a marketing name for a Wood Bros. housing development. It never had a large number of people living there when it was not part of Phoenix/Chandler - though I did live there when it was still county. The area that became what you think of as Ahwatukee was annexed well ahead of development. It is and was no more an independent town than today's Verrado or Estrella or yesteryear's Maryvale are. And Laveen was just a crossroads with a gas station and C-store (and a post office branch) in the middle of nowhere. It was part of Phoenix long before the homes went up.
Had I originally brought up the annexation topic, I would have said "communities" or something along those lines. People were living in unincorporated areas that Phoenix annexed. I know people are moving here and being born here, but Phoenix definitely did absorb inhabited communities.
In any case, I don't think that was such a good idea in hindsight. Yes, Phoenix has bragging rights to have that many people... but I don't think it has much to show for it. Really... going by official city limits ONLY look up how many people live in Sydney and contemplate what it looks like and has to offer, then compare it to here. Back to the main topic... I posted something on this thread a bit ago about GDP of cities, and Phoenix' ranking is dropping because other cities are adapting and making progress. Population growth or not, the quality of jobs (amongst other things) is not keeping pace.
Had I originally brought up the annexation topic, I would have said "communities" or something along those lines. People were living in unincorporated areas that Phoenix annexed. I know people are moving here and being born here, but Phoenix definitely did absorb inhabited communities.
In any case, I don't think that was such a good idea in hindsight. Yes, Phoenix has bragging rights to have that many people... but I don't think it has much to show for it. Really... going by official city limits ONLY look up how many people live in Sydney and contemplate what it looks like and has to offer, then compare it to here. Back to the main topic... I posted something on this thread a bit ago about GDP of cities, and Phoenix' ranking is dropping because other cities are adapting and making progress. Population growth or not, the quality of jobs (amongst other things) is not keeping pace.
Any increase in population within the City of Phoenix from absorption of surrounding communities, or whatever one prefers to call them, is trivial in comparison to the growth the took place from in-migration. I can forgive someone from PA for thinking that annexation explains the population growth, but as someone who lives here you certainly know that is not true. We grew because people moved here to live. Today, we are also getting growth from births to those who moved here including my own contributions to the cause. I don't live in Phoenix, though. I live in a much faster growing city.
BTW, Sydney was established over 200 years ago. PHX developed from a dusty ag town to the 5th largest in the US in the last 50 years. We achieved "critical mass" as a population center only about 25 years ago. We are an infant. It takes time to grow up. So check back in another 100 or so to see what we have become. You have the misfortune of living in a still-blooming city and the lack of perspective to understand that, as they say, Rome was not built in a day.
I prefer the dynamic growth landscape of the Phoenix area and the opportunities the future may hold. Around here we dream of what we can be, not of what we once were. When Phoenix is kicking, it is positively exciting to see all the new things going in and going on. Some prefer the ivy and the moss and the way it used to be. So be it.
Last edited by Ponderosa; 11-23-2010 at 04:16 PM..
Location: A circle of Hell so insidious, infernal and odious, Dante dared not map it
623 posts, read 1,226,566 times
Reputation: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Any increase in population within the City of Phoenix from absorption of surrounding communities, or whatever one prefers to call them, is trivial in comparison to the growth the took place from in-migration. I can forgive someone from PA for thinking that annexation explains the population growth, but as someone who lives here you certainly know that is not true. We grew because people moved here to live. Today, we are also getting growth from births to those who moved here including my own contributions to the cause. I don't live in Phoenix, though. I live in a much faster growing city.
BTW, Sydney was established over 200 years ago. PHX developed from a dusty ag town to the 5th largest in the US in the last 50 years. We achieved "critical mass" as a population center only about 25 years ago. We are an infant. It takes time to grow up. So check back in another 100 or so to see what we have become. You have the misfortune of living in a still-blooming city and the lack of perspective to understand that, as they say, Rome was not built in a day.
I prefer the dynamic growth landscape of the Phoenix area and the opportunities the future may hold. Around here we dream of what we can be, not of what we once were. When Phoenix is kicking, it is positively exciting to see all the new things going in and going on. Some prefer the ivy and the moss and the way it used to be. So be it.
I know it's a trivial amount... but personally, I think Phoenix made poor use of all the land it acquired. Which brings me to why I brought up Sydney: the metro area has about as many people as the Valley, but the actual City of Sydney is less than 10 sq mi and has fewer people than Scottsdale. Still, they make better use of their land.
I do think you raise a good point in saying: "We achieved 'critical mass' as a population center only about 25 years ago. We are an infant. It takes time to grow up. So check back in another 100 or so to see what we have become. You have the misfortune of living in a still-blooming city..."
If there are people who want more out of a city than what Phoenix has done with itself, it could eventually have a hard time retaining, or even attracting them. As for me, I'm not patient enough to wait 20 years or more for Phoenix to try to evolve, so I'll go somewhere that offers what I want in a city. But, I'm with you in watching Phoenix grow. Well, was with you. It just seems things have become so transgressive that it's in my best interests to go. I never thought I could love a city so much... then hate it so quickly until this year.
To say that Phoenix never annexed suburbs is a joke in itself. Your city limits are over 500 sq. miles compared to Philly's 135 sq. miles. Philadelphia's population would be over 3 million with city limits over 500 sq. miles. So in reality Philadlephia is much bigger. Maybe thats something you should get use to!
Seems like you're confusing bigger with denser. Yes, Philly is more dense than Phoenix but it is not bigger in population. And, no, Phoenix never annexed any suburbs. The city grew outward with some areas being skipped over. The city is slowly annexing the skipped over portions that are only now being developed from farmland or native desert. Phoenix isn't cannibalizing the landscape. Unlike the older established Philadelphia, it can spread outward with hardly any limitation. Phoenix stretches 22 miles wide by 46.5 miles tall.
Population estimates from the census show Phoenix with 1,593,659 people as of 07/01/09 which is an increase of 272,614 in only NINE years. The same source estimates the METRO Phoenix at 4,364,094 people as of 07/01/09 which is an increase of 1,112,218 in the same period. So this means that only about 20% of the increase in population is actually occurring in Phoenix. The rest is in the outlying suburbs, most of which already have more than 100,000 people. No other city in the country has suburbs as huge (in both area and population) as those that surround Phoenix.
Obviously, I like where I live. The problem I have with the growth is that it should increase density instead of area. We need taller buildings, shorter distances (commutes), shaded areas, and a better educated population. The get-rich-quick thinking that morphed the desert into this "city" needs to mature into the adult stage: we develop a sustainable City (with a capital C) that is better equipped to handle economic ups and downs.
Phoenix did develop quite differently than the NE and Rust Belt cities. Take Chicago. A massive densely populated city surrounded by tiny suburbs. Only a few suburbs have over 100,000 people and only a handful more over 50,000 people. Yet there are 300 suburbs. Phoenix on the other hand has a handful of suburbs with hundreds of thousands of people.
I do not see Phoenix's population growth slowing at all. The amount of available land is massive.
Some of my friends have lived in Phoenix and want to move back in a heartbeat from Chicago. I have heard that downtown Phoenix is becoming livelier.
As much as I am a Chicagoan, the boom times will for the next century be in the southwest.
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.
