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.
Dubious forbes site, LOL. Where do you think they received their numbers? From the Census and from research firms that actually do the work to find out which cities are the worst:
"To find them and others, Forbes.com looked at the 75 largest metro areas in the U.S. and evaluated them based on traffic delays, travel times and how efficiently commuters use existing infrastructure, based on data from the Texas Transportation Institute and the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey (2006 was the last time this Survey was conducted)." Best And Worst Cities For Commuters - Forbes.com
Here is a little piece about density and traffic from the above link:
"Varying population densities and development patterns in the nation's cities make gaging efficiency difficult. In Boston, for example, jobs are mostly concentrated in and around the city center. In Los Angeles, offices are more spread out. That means Boston's commuter rail and "T" systems, part of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), are better able to put area commuters closer to their jobs than an identical train system could do for Los Angeles (broken link) commuters...
Yet Detroit, another city losing people, has one of America's worst commutes. Transit design in Motown is, not unexpectedly, tailored to the car--yet traffic patterns aren't smooth, since only 11% of commuters walk, carpool or take public transit. The average Detroit commuter is delayed 54 hours a year, more than residents in California's sprawling "Inland Empire" cities of San Bernardino and Riverside, who log 49 hours of delays; and more than Chicago or Boston with 46 hours each.
Even in Houston, where the car is king, 17% of commuters stray from the "one worker, one car" approach, among the country's highest rates. Let alone the environmental implications of single-worker driving, it's important to consider cost. Cars are least fuel-efficient when they're idling or stuck in traffic, and households beholden to the single commuter driving are the most adversely affected by rising gasoline costs. Long Trips
Cities like Atlanta and San Bernardino, Calif., have difficult commutes as the result of sprawl. In Atlanta, 12.7% of commuters spend more than an hour getting to work, and in the "Inland Empire," which includes San Bernardino and Riverside, 15% of commuters take over an hour to get to the office."
I lived in New York and the NY area for over 5 years...in the city itself for over 2 years while attending Columbia University (in Manhattan). Sure, there are cars on the streets, half of which were taxis and out of state license plated cars. Almost EVERY NYer I met did not own a car. You lived there, so tell me, how long did it take you to walk from the East side to the West in most of Manhattan? Or to ride the subway a few miles north to south? The mayor wants to charge to drive on the streets to generate funds for road improvements...in Phoenix and Arizona we pay this with a gas tax added to each gallon of gas we purchase and other means approved by voters.
Forbes does not get anything from the Census Bureau. Those magazines get information from other private industries. Everyone has an agenda.
No offense, but I highly doubt anyone who spells hilarious "halarious" spent any time at Columbia.
This is a real interesting thread because despite the contentiousness, it's all about the future of Phoenix. We are having the exact discussion on the Albuquerque forums about what to do with OUR small unprepossessing downtown.
What I don't understand is why people want to turn these cities into replicas of so many other U.S. cities with dense clusters of high rises. As if that is supposed to reflect their status and forwardness, their muscle and clout.
I rather liked Phoenix (I lived in Scottsdale) when I lived there and think if it keeps its Arizona flavor and builds on it and maintains growth with an Arizona distinctiveness, it will continue to be a very attractive city. I don't think Manhattanization in the desert is the way to go.
I might not like Washington DC, but it's retained its own very distinctive character and is not a forest of skyscrapers.
BTW, FCorrales, I'll grant you that LA is more polluted than NY, but that has nothing to do with centralized core vs. suburbanization. It's an accident of geography. New York's quick changing weather patterns and winds blow pollutants out to sea, while pollutants stagnate in the LA basin. Again you need to know your facts.
Great. Narrower streets. CityScape will inevitably add more vehicular traffic with people trying to access the grocery store and restaurants or working in the offices, and the developer wants to narrow the street! The developer is clearly trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Additionally, retrofitting any street costs a lot of money which will come right out of taxpayers pockets through these bonds as a result of the city waiving development fees.
Private developments often don't fund themselves! If a city like Phoenix is this desperate to get high-rises, they will bend over backwards to cater to the developer. This just makes me sick.
The developer won't end up having to pay for anything. It will just come out of everyone else's pockets. Ughh. Greedy. Keep Phoenix's skyline small. This is not LA!!
MiamiMan, may I ask what part of the Phoenix metro area you live in? It sounds like you are completely against structures that are taller than what we have now. If you lived in let's say 10 miles away from downtown Phoenix, then why the heck would you be against a structure that's taller than 500 feet in downtown Phoenix?
Also, on the street widening bit - Even if the developer widens the streets that border the block where the high-rise tower is, what good will that do if the streets go back to their original width away from the tower? That will only create a bottleneck effect on traffic in all directions.
[b][color=darkgreen]MiamiMan, may I ask what part of the Phoenix metro area you live in? It sounds like you are completely against structures that are taller than what we have now. If you lived in let's say 10 miles away from downtown Phoenix, then why the heck would you be against a structure that's taller than 500 feet in downtown Phoenix?
I live in North Scottsdale, near Scottsdale and Dixileta. I am against structures that are taller against what we have now.
I have alluded to the fact that skyscrapers have domino effects, which range from congestion to more pollution. Congestion and pollution affect us all, not just those who live around Central Phoenix. As I have also stated, I like to feel like I'm in Arizona in Arizona. There are so many cities that are already have massive high-rises. Why don't the people who long for dirty, vertigo-inducing high-rises leave? If Phoenix was meant to have massive high-rises, it would have them. You people care nothing about the poor children who will have to helplessly try to sleep thorugh 105 degree nights, while choking on the fumes eminated by fossil fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike
Also, on the street widening bit - Even if the developer widens the streets that border the block where the high-rise tower is, what good will that do if the streets go back to their original width away from the tower? That will only create a bottleneck effect on traffic in all directions.
All the more reason why vomit-inducing development should not take place. Let's avoid bottlenecks, street widening, or street narrowing by keeping downtown's skyline small. If you long for skyscrapers go to LA for a weekend and run around downtown. Change the background on your background to Sao Paulo or Tokyo or something. Don't ruin the lives of millions in the Valley because of your selfish agendas.
I live in North Scottsdale, near Scottsdale and Dixileta. I am against structures that are taller against what we have now.
I have alluded to the fact that skyscrapers have domino effects, which range from congestion to more pollution. Congestion and pollution affect us all, not just those who live around Central Phoenix. As I have also stated, I like to feel like I'm in Arizona in Arizona. There are so many cities that are already have massive high-rises. Why don't the people who long for dirty, vertigo-inducing high-rises leave? If Phoenix was meant to have massive high-rises, it would have them. You people care nothing about the poor children who will have to helplessly try to sleep thorugh 105 degree nights, while choking on the fumes eminated by fossil fuels.
First of all, let me just say that I am a native of Phoenix, and I'm not interested in moving to Los Angeles or those other big cities, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me to move to those cities. That would be like me telling you to move to Wickenburg, Globe, Superior, or another less populated place that really looks like Arizona. I was born here in the late 1950's and I've seen how Phoenix went from a small city to the urban metropolis we have now, and I've seen the mistakes that were made, and I hope somebody who lived here long enough, realizes those mistakes and not keep repeating them. Urban sprawl is a lot more detrimental to the environment than skyscrapers in downtown Phoenix. You say skyscrapers contribute to more pollution - Well, that's a new one - I also heard that cars cause drunk drivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
All the more reason why vomit-inducing development should not take place. Let's avoid bottlenecks, street widening, or street narrowing by keeping downtown's skyline small. If you long for skyscrapers go to LA for a weekend and run around downtown. Change the background on your background to Sao Paulo or Tokyo or something. Don't ruin the lives of millions in the Valley because of your selfish agendas.
The primary source of the problem with bottlenecks and traffic problems is not the skyline, it's growth, and we're going to have growth no matter what you do. Building upwards is not our "selfish" agenda, it's an agenda that should be adopted to accomodate the growth. If you had office buildings close to residential towers like the new 44 Monroe, then you won't have to worry about how wide or narrow streets are. And please, let's not talk about those heat islands in downtown, and I think your night temperature prediction of 105 degrees is a bit of an exaggeration. Heat islands are going to be everywhere, not just downtown.
Nobody anticipated the growth we've seen in the last 40 years, and I'm not sure if anybody could have, but if we don't do things right in the next 40 years, then you might be looking at a sprawling metropolis like the Los Angeles basin, and I'm sure none of us would like to see that. We are going to have more people moving here MiamiMan, and the best thing we can do to accomodate the growth is to build more upwards, and less outwards. I don't think we'll ever see skyscrapers as tall as the Sears Tower in downtown Phoenix, so you don't have to worry about that.
It seems a lot of people on both ends of the debate are too focused on the term skyscraper. It immediately causes one to think of the tallest buildings we've personally encountered and then we juxtapose those images onto PHX. Even in NY and many other cities, most of the really huge buildings are not housing, but offices. For many builders, planners and residents, high density can be a much more modest 3 or 5 story building and it would seem these would be more logical choices for many areas.
I agree that "out of character" tall buildings are probably not desirable in most residential parts of town, however there should be openess to more denser housing in the urban cores... and this includes downtown PHX, Scottsdale, Tempe, etc. Cities should have a mix of housing options for residents... urban, suburban and rural, if possible. You don't want a 30, 15 or 5 story building in a neighborhood of single story homes. But having more 3-5 story buildings in urban/high traffic corridors makes a lot of sense... especially if there's more mixed-use zoning to where those residents can walk to many amenities.
How many people in the region can walk to a cafe, store or coffee shop? A pub, retail outlet or breakfast place? Very few. If I want to buy a light bulb, fish food, a loaf of bread, deposit some funds or buy a burger, it requires a car trip for each. That leads to more congenstion than if more places were nearby/walkable. But more places won't be built nearby if there aren't not more bodies.
There's a balance. I see so many vacant retail spots and struggling small businesses that could do with more locals. A lot of great local eateries have gone under because foot traffic has lacked.
In short, we don't want to packed in like sardines, but having clusters of higher density housing helps drive unique amenties that benefit everyone. And higher doesn't have to be 100 ft. tall. I love the Roosevelt Row area, for example, with 2 or 3 story buildings where stores and shops front the main road and there are live/work lofts above.
It's 1000 times better than a city block with nothing but a check cashing store, strip club and crappy taco stand along the same sized stretch.
Great. Narrower streets. CityScape will inevitably add more vehicular traffic with people trying to access the grocery store and restaurants or working in the offices, and the developer wants to narrow the street! The developer is clearly trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Additionally, retrofitting any street costs a lot of money which will come right out of taxpayers pockets through these bonds as a result of the city waiving development fees.
Private developments often don't fund themselves! If a city like Phoenix is this desperate to get high-rises, they will bend over backwards to cater to the developer. This just makes me sick.
The developer won't end up having to pay for anything. It will just come out of everyone else's pockets. Ughh. Greedy. Keep Phoenix's skyline small. This is not LA!!
LOL, I find your posts hilarious; there are you happy. You're thinking is so backward that I can't even think of where to begin. Should I start with the fact that sprawl adds more taffic volume along freeway miles (which is the primary mode of transportation for Phoenix). What has happened in cities that rely on sprawl for growth is that traffic congestion has increased 10-fold. How long does it take to get from downtown L.A. to Santa Monica, a mere 12 miles in distance...it NEVER took me that long to travel between buroughs in NYC. Sorry, but I just think you've never really experienced living in these cities.
I don't really care if you don't believe I went to Columbia, LOL, can't disprove fact so you attack on a personal level and rebut with opinion. I don't know about you, but I right these posts "on the fly" and don't spend to much time editing; actually, I just look over them very quickly while typing...AND english wasn't my first OR second language, sorry for the misspelling of a few words and grammar errors. Show me solid evidence to support your claims...I want to see numbers and facts, and who did the research. Forbes used the Census bereau numbers and an institute whose sole purpose is to research traffic patterns and congestion. And like I said, peaks of South Mountain and Estrella Mountains are over 4,000 ft and Phoenix sits at an elevation of 1,117 ft (a gain of 3237 ft.): Sierra Estrella Mountains (elevation 4354 ft.).
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Elevation of other ranges surrounding the Valley and Phoenix:
1. South Mountain in Phoenix city limit, 2690ft.
2. Superstition Mountains, 5057ft.
3. Four Peaks, 7657ft.
4. Camelback Mountain, 2608 ft.
5. Piestewa Peak, 2608ft.
6. North Mountain Preserves range from 2600-3100ft.
AND again, these ranges are wider and longer than the island of Manhattan, so no amount of highrises or skyscrapers will "block" them out.
Sprawl does not preserve the desert, it eats away at valuable open space. THAT IS THE TRUTH!! What, an acre of of Sonoran desert is bulldozed and paved over every hour? There are plenty of infill and leap-frogged developments within the current "urban" boundary to sustain suburban growth for sometime!
Last edited by fcorrales80; 07-15-2008 at 02:09 AM..
I will put a stop to this high-rise madness. If I have to attend city council meetings with others and yell at the top of my lungs, I will do so.
Well, if you're so consumed with boredom, and feel this passionately about making sure there are no further highrises, have at it. Perhaps if I can find the time, I just might attend some of those City Council meetings & support the improvement the city & developers are trying to make. If there's a maniac at the meetings yelling at the top of his lungs, you can bet that if the security guards don't walk him out the door, I will have cell phone in hand, and call the police to see that he's arrested for disorderly conduct. I'd love to see your arrogant ass thrown in the slammer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
You are also clearly ignorant to the fact that many times cities will waive development impact fees that developers often have to pay by using bond money to fund infrastructure costs. Bond money will be necessary to provide public parking structures for the thousands of additional people who would work in these monstrosities, as well as the widening of roads, which would CLEARLY be necessary. You are too busy taking a 3D issue and trying to make it 2D. You have only been able to give me one reason why you are for high-rises, one that it extremely flawed.
You're clearly ignorant to the fact that many times cities will waive development impact fees & give tax breaks to developers of flat, sprawling, cookie cutter projects. Are you aware of Mayor Gordon and the CityNorth development? Bond money has paid for a lot of new streets, new water lines, new streetlights, new sidewalks, etc. in the outer suburban areas to cater to the idiots who bought homes with ARMs, only to have them foreclosed & sit vacant. Incidentally, you blamed the lenders for the housing crunch ... but the lendees have a responsibility as well. Ever hear of "let the buyer beware"?!
I've also provided several reasons for more highrises: increased demand for centralized locations, reduction of suburban sprawl, better choices for residents & business, reputation/appearance of the nation's fifth largest city. If developers have the money and the market to construct highrises, they have the right to do so. What part of "free enterprise" do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
NIMBY's might be a small segment of the population, but out here, we almost always get their way. You should know that, being a native and all. If NIMBY's can defeat Trump, they can defeat anyone. Sorry to inform you.
(* Ahem *) It should be "we almost always get OUR way", school teacher! Yes, I'll reluctantly agree about NIMBYs usually getting their way here. One reason for that is the wimps in the city government eventually cave in ... mostly because they & the developers grow tired of the NIMBYs' constant bickering & protesting. Who can get anything done with a clan of malcontented radicals picketing their property? NIMBYs might get their way, but they're certainly not in the majority ... and they're often looked down on as a clan of foolish jackasses & trouble makers with nothing better to do. I'm sorry that your life is apparently so empty that you feel like you must be one of them!
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.
If NIMBY's can defeat Trump, they can defeat anyone. Sorry to inform you.
