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.
Hopefully developers. I'm not saying that public funds should be used for any of this, just saying that I would love if our downtown was more dense in both buildings and people and that you don't need sky scrapers to achieve that.
Another talking point...if they would of never allowed high rises to be built north of McDowell Rd, we'd have a much better looking skyline and a lot more density in downtown today. There are approx. 19 high rises between McDowell and Camelback Rd, if those would have been south of the I-10 in downtown, we'd have about twice as many buildings in that area.
About the 500' thing, it's not going to happen in downtown due to the airport. Actually, they can go a little higher, to about 575' along Washington St but that's about it. Once you move north a little, they can do up to 700' around 7th Ave and Van Buren, but there are no high rises in that area today or any real reason for someone to build a high rise that tall there.
The approaches to Sky Harbor have a lot to do with the limits to the skyline. The first attached file shows the approach to the east from over downtown. To the non-pilots, there is an intermediate approach fix, ALOGE, located 2.2 miles from the west end of the runway, 3.6 from the east end where the radio aid is located. Aircraft are restricted to at or above 1840 feet at that point; it's only 238 feet higher than the 1602' building highlighted with the arrow. Make a taller building or obstruction, make a higher descent gradient. [Extract from the FAA approach plate for PHX]
There WAS a proposal in the 70s to build a giant 500-foot-plus saguaro building. That exercise in tackiness was shot down quickly.
Additionally, making a tall building with no other tall buildings nearby results in a skyline similar to the other attachment, The Devon Energy Tower in OKC. Sorry about the grainy resolution, not the best camera in the phone. It stands out big-time. Great for navigation around OKC as a landmark, but in PHX the mountains are so much nicer looking.
I don't understand this need to have super tall high rises. High rises don't equate to the importance or desirability of a city. DC has no skyscrapers and yet it is still one of the most important cities in the US. Our tallest building is only 17 feet shorter than San Diego's tallest building, for the same reason (FAA regulations), yet San Diego is still a lively city.
Who cares what Houston's skyline looks like? If Houston's airport was right next to its downtown, I'm sure it would look a lot different. Many corporations like to locate on the periphery of the city, thus no need for skyscrapers. We grow outward, not upward. We want our mountain views preserved and not the Manhattanization of Phoenix. Plus, I can't imagine how much our heat island would be exacerbated downtown if we had 700+ foot buildings lining the streets. There would just be that much more concrete to retain the day's heat well into the night. Who would want to live downtown if there were nights that didn't even drop below 100 degrees? Horrific.
Keep Phoenix the way it is. If we warrant having more midrise buildings in downtown and midtown, fine. Just none of the monstrosities you find in Dallas or Chicago. Keep those away.
It's not so much the skyline that bothers me, it's the empty dirt lots and surface parking lots that do. If we could fill up every dirt lot and parking lot with 5-10 story buildings, our skyline would look the same but downtown would be so much better.
How about just turning these lots into parks? Why do they have to be buildings?
How about just turning these lots into parks? Why do they have to be buildings?
Because parks, while necessary and beneficial, don't do much to bring an area to life, unless there is already a sizable population base in the neighborhood. There are many opportunities for park space downtown, though. I hope at some point it becomes more beneficial to use these lots as such.
Exactly. Parks are great and I'm all for them but parks will not add more people to downtown and create a more lively area with sidewalk cafes, street front retail, restaurants, grocery stores and all the other necessary things needed for urban living.
Alright so I know where you guys are coming from now. . . We don't need a better skyline because it makes us unique and we outward expand instead of inward expand. Yet people complain about "suburban sprawl"? Also, because the airport is in the way and there isn't enough money to build these high rises (which explains all the foreclosures and cancellations), right?
Okay okay, so how about this question, just for fun. If you had the chance to build your own skyscraper, what type would it be? Office? Residential? Hotel? How to tall would it be? Wait. . . last question . . . Would you add it to the Phoenix skyline? or the Tempe skyline?
IMO would build a mixed use building (office, residential, and hotel), in my name. About 800' ft ATLEAST. next to Tempe Town Lake, near the West Sixth towers of course. That would look awesome!
Another vote for mixed use with residential and hotel because that is what we need downtown. We need more poeple who are there around the clock, not just 9-5. Residential apartments have shown to be in great demand downtown, I don't mow why more developers aren't jumping on this and building while prices are low.
As for where, definitely downtown Phoenix. A new tallest would be nice, something around 575' since thats the max allowed in the core of downtown, maybe right to the east of a Cityscape where there's a parking lot now. Tempe can't have an 800' tower, I believe they can't go taller than the Tempe Butte mountain.
Not every city needs to look like Chicago though, which seems to be the approach that Vegas is pursuing. In Phoenix, when you look to the horizon, there are mountains in all directions. That's a lot more impressive than some building, and I say that as someone who used to live in New York.
As you ALL know, everyone dislikes Phoenix's skyline and I can't say I blame them. After researching proposals like the 32-story residential Cielo towers (that were trashed), Omega one tower: all these projects that would've boosted our skyline! There was even a proposal for a "Phoenix tower" that was supposed to withstand 110 stories! Also, what ever happened with the Trump tower Pheonix? Can someome please explain why our skyline is so dinky for our size? Other than being so spread out, Houston is more spread out then we are and they still have a better skyline. Can we just break our record already!? It's been almost 40 years since..
You'll find that there are many many excuses for why Phoenix has a small skyline for its size ... everything from Sky Harbor being too close to downtown to "we don't need no stinkin' highrises". One big factor seems to have been overlooked: the NIMBYs. They're the ones who were responsible for killing the Trump Tower on Camelback (which would have hardly been a "tower" at only 20 stories). They were also largely responsible for stopping construction of the W Hotel downtown, which would have been a nice 39 story addition to the skyline.
We even have a few NIMBYs on this forum, and you'll know them by the things they post. They don't want their mountain views obstructed, and they would rather turn the clock backward rather than letting progress happen. Many NIMBYs simply don't have a life ... and as a result, they spend much of their time protesting developments like highrises, etc. They apparently don't have much appreciation for aesthetics because it seems like they'd rather have vacant lots and run down structures than sparkling towers that would actually ENHANCE the area & appreciate property values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cacto
Yeah, but we have mountains right in town. Most other cities don't. Mountains are prettier.
That's your opinion. Here's my opinion: our mountains aren't very pretty at all. Most of them are low elevation brown hills, and they're actually rather ugly compared to the mountains surrounding many other cities in the west. Look at photos of Tucson, L.A., and Las Vegas ... their mountains are taller and much more scenic than ours!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
It's not so much the skyline that bothers me, it's the empty dirt lots and surface parking lots that do. If we could fill up every dirt lot and parking lot with 5-10 story buildings, our skyline would look the same but downtown would be so much better.
I somewhat agree. The vacant lots, open parking lots, and dilapidated structures are eyesores. Downtown really could use a good mix of BOTH midrise and highrise developments. Phoenix really needs its own financial district with more national & global corporate HQs of large banking firms and other large reputable companies, along with being a regional hub as it currently is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
Another vote for mixed use with residential and hotel because that is what we need downtown. We need more poeple who are there around the clock, not just 9-5. Residential apartments have shown to be in great demand downtown, I don't mow why more developers aren't jumping on this and building while prices are low.
The economic downturn likely scared a lot of them off for a while. Besides, even if there would be another attempt to build taller skyscrapers downtown, they'll likely be shot down by the g.d. NIMBYs again. And the really sickening part is that NIMBYs often end up winning. I blame that on the wimpy city leaders and developers who cave into them. It's too bad these NIMBYs won't get out of our hair & move to a smaller place since they dislike growth & development so much. My hope is that one day they will simply leave Phoenix and go out in the middle of the desert somewhere & become hermits so that we never have to see or hear from them ever again!
Because parks, while necessary and beneficial, don't do much to bring an area to life, unless there is already a sizable population base in the neighborhood. There are many opportunities for park space downtown, though. I hope at some point it becomes more beneficial to use these lots as such.
Neither do empty buildings. If the market warranted buildings, the vacant lots would be developed. They are sitting there empty. There are people who live in Central Phoenix who I'm sure would appreciate more green space. The city could put in some nice shade trees and some nice benches, which could invite people who work in the downtown offices and along the Central Corridor to sit outside for lunch in the cooler months.
I just don't undestand this need to urbanize as much as possible to bring "life" to the area 24/7. Why does the area need to be alive all the time? Because that's what it's like in "real" cities? I also don't understand how constructing random midrise buildings, suggested in the post I initially responded to, bring life to an area. Who says these buildings would be occupied? There's no way to tell. There's no sense in building just to fill in for aesthetic purposes. No developer is going to go for that. Instead of waiting for downtown and midtown to become some urban mecca, it would be best to just make active use of the vacant space that exists now. A great use would be an inviting public space to draw people in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
Exactly. Parks are great and I'm all for them but parks will not add more people to downtown and create a more lively area with sidewalk cafes, street front retail, restaurants, grocery stores and all the other necessary things needed for urban living.
I am confused as to why we need to have sidewalk cafes and grocery stores downtown? Why does downtown Phoenix have to be this way? Because that's what downtowns are like in Seattle and Philadelphia? As I have said in earlier threads, Phoenix is unapologetically suburban. I don't understand why people feel the need to change the dynamic of this city to emulate what you can find in many major cities. We live in a unique environment, and the highly urbanized downtown model that you find in many other cities just isn't going to work here. There's very little demand for it and any attempt to rapidly urbanize downtown to "catch up" with other cities would just contrived, inorganic, and silly. Many urban centers are the way they are because of historical urban growth patterns. Phoenix's history just hasn't warranted the development of a huge downtown area. I don't see that changing now.
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.
Okay, I get it.
. If you had the chance to build your own skyscraper, what type would it be? Office? Residential? Hotel? How to tall would it be? Wait. . . last question
. . . Would you add it to the Phoenix skyline? or the Tempe skyline?
. About 800' ft ATLEAST. next to Tempe Town Lake, near the West Sixth towers of course. That would look awesome!
. After researching proposals like the 32-story residential Cielo towers (that were trashed), Omega one tower: all these projects that would've boosted our skyline! There was even a proposal for a "Phoenix tower" that was supposed to withstand 110 stories! Also, what ever happened with the Trump tower Pheonix? Can someome please explain why our skyline is so dinky for our size? Other than being so spread out, Houston is more spread out then we are and they still have a better skyline. Can we just break our record already!? It's been almost 40 years since..
