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.
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.
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.
I can see, and understand your point of view, I think. Live and let live, there are NO right answers for a topic like this - and there are a lot of people on both sides of the argument.
You'd be surprised though, there are more people interested in this than you would think. There are a lot of people, mainly younger folks, who are trying to seek out a more urban environment. In Phoenix's case, a LOT of these people end up leaving the valley for other, more traditional cities. In my opinion, if Phoenix wants to retain any sort of permanent population, it needs to adapt and have something for everyone. No, there is NO need for Phoenix to play catch up to other older, more established cities. But there is no reason for it NOT to, either. The gradual urbanization of central Phoenix harms no one, and it does a lot to entice a different segment of the population.
A City like Phoenix THRIVES on growth - and the urban neighborhood scene is something that is lacking, in Phoenix. It presents an opportunity to be successful in a new segment of the market, and attract people and grow for many years to come.
Yes, currently, if there were a maze of buildings constructed over night, there WOULD be a very high vacancy rate. That's why they don't exist. The market currently doesn't warrant it. You're right.
But over time, slowly, things will start to pick up. Thanks to people who have an interest in this type of living environment in Phoenix. Many, many years from now, central Phoenix will be an excellent place to live and work, and will continue to change.
The short version of what I wrote is: Live and let live. It's not hurting you.
Lastly, what I think Phoenix really needs is some sort of a gamechanger for downtown, employment wise. It seems as if the city has done very little to attract any large scale corporations to the area. I think, if there was some effort put toward this, focusing on the downtown area - it could act as a sort of snowball effect.
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?
No, not because that's what "real"cities are like, but because that is something Phoenix is lacking. There isn't a place where you can go and do something or grab something to eat or a drink at all times of the day and in my opinion, there should be. I don't see the downside.
[/quote] 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. [/quote]
I actually agree with you on this, I don't think we need to just build spec buildings and hope they fill up. All that's really proven to do so far is move one company from one part of downtown/midtown to the new building, leaving the old one empty. There is some upside to that as the newly (older) vacated spot can now bring in a company that may not have the funds to lease a brand new Class A space.
I think we should build things out of need, which is why I suggested residential apartments. 44 Monroe has been an overwhelming success since being converted to apartments and so is Alta Phoenix. It seems that people want to live downtown, they just don't want to own downtown. That's probably for a couple of reasons, first no one wanted to own anything anywhere for a while and two, people don't want to live downtown forever, they'd probably like it for a few years and then settle down in a home out in the suburbs.
Quote:
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.
What I don't understand is why you are so against the notion, as if it's encroaching on your suburban paradise. Phoenix will always have that, no matter how much downtown is built and urbanized, that will never change. Why can't we have both? This has nothing to do with trying to be like other cities, it has with options and there are some of us that enjoy walking around, people watching, sitting at a street front cafe and so fourth. Not just that, but I would love to have the option to live somewhere where I don't have to drive to get everything, I could just go downstairs and grab a bite, have a drink, or do some shopping. All I'm saying is that there should be the option for this, not that everyone needs to live this way.
There are too many people in Phoenix who moved from Boston, Chicago, NYC that now want to change the city rather then respect it. They are people who think they are so much smarter and believe historic preservation and buildings that conform to only their way of thinking should be built. This city was built and grew because of the freedom and liberty to do things for both companies and people! Activists have now, taken control of city hall which in turn has resulted in increased regulations that has turned into a bureaucratic mess for even things as simple as building permits. I think "Valley Native" did a good job on page 3 of this post of digging into this point.
Why would a company want to build downtown and deal with all of the BS? You will hear people who moved to PHX from the above mentioned who are for urban growth-historic preservation and conservation talk about vacant lots but turn right back around and talk about more regulations. They then ponder why downtown is not growing real fast. The bottom line is that this city is no longer fostering growth and that is going to be a problem later on for more then just the skyline and downtown.
You will hear people who moved to PHX from the above mentioned who are for urban growth-historic preservation and conservation talk about vacant lots but turn right back around and talk about more regulations. They then ponder why downtown is not growing real fast. The bottom line is that this city is no longer fostering growth and that is going to be a problem later on for more then just the skyline and downtown.
I'm a Phoenix native. Pro-urban growth. Again, supporting it isn't hurting anyone in the community. Not to mention it's good to get behind a cause and be active within the community. No one is trying to make Phoenix like anything else. We are trying to make Phoenix a unique, vibrant, livable place.
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.
OK, so there are mountains, which are really more like hills. Big deal. How do mountains enhance downtown and create a prosperous skyline? How do mountains contribute to a city as far as business, competitive jobs, economic prosperity, and tax revenue? No, Phoenix doesn't need to resemble New York or Chicago (I have stated this many times) ... however, Phoenix does have a rather small urban core with limited business and few things to bring people downtown compared to other cities its size or smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
What I don't understand is why you are so against the notion, as if it's encroaching on your suburban paradise. Phoenix will always have that, no matter how much downtown is built and urbanized, that will never change. Why can't we have both? This has nothing to do with trying to be like other cities, it has with options and there are some of us that enjoy walking around, people watching, sitting at a street front cafe and so fourth. Not just that, but I would love to have the option to live somewhere where I don't have to drive to get everything, I could just go downstairs and grab a bite, have a drink, or do some shopping. All I'm saying is that there should be the option for this, not that everyone needs to live this way.
Exactly! When you think about it, practically all major metros have a combination of urban living and suburban sprawl. Nothing wrong with either lifestyle. Admittedly, most of the Phoenix metro area is very much suburban ... however, there should be options for people to live & work in a centralized urban core, especially now that there is more of a demand than there used to be. Not everything has to be hit & miss suburban styled cookie cutter/strip mall developments. And just because a sizeable amount of the population prefers suburban life doesn't mean everybody in Phoenix has to.
I swear if some of these "suburban enthusiasts" had their way, downtown Phoenix would be a complete ghost town with no highrises, no light rail, no eateries, no urban living, no business whatsoever! Or at the very least, they'd want downtown to be nothing but single family subdivisions, or WalMart/Home Depot/Target/Costco supercenters. Yeah, that would be a real attraction, wouldn't it? Make downtown Phoenix look just like Gilbert or Surprise.
()
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaw1981
There are too many people in Phoenix who moved from Boston, Chicago, NYC that now want to change the city rather then respect it. They are people who think they are so much smarter and believe historic preservation and buildings that conform to only their way of thinking should be built. This city was built and grew because of the freedom and liberty to do things for both companies and people! Activists have now, taken control of city hall which in turn has resulted in increased regulations that has turned into a bureaucratic mess for even things as simple as building permits. I think "Valley Native" did a good job on page 3 of this post of digging into this point.
Yes, those activists are the NIMBYs I mentioned, and there are too many of them. The really sad part is that a good share of NIMBYs aren't even from here. Many of them are recent transplants who want Phoenix to be nothing more than a small resort town (like it was 50+ years ago).
Another thing I can't understand about NIMBY activists is why they protest developments on property in which they have absolutely no financial stake or investment interest. In other words, the things they balk at are usually on private property that they do not own. I don't see these loudmouths making any proposals to buy the properties and turn them into something more attractive other than empty land, parking lots, or run down structures. It seems they would rather have eyesores ... just as long as there isn't a highrise or something blocking "their" mountain views, which I might add is very arrogant on their part.
If you want top see a weak skyline, take a look at Tucson.
Tucson and Phoenix are truly apples and oranges in making that comparison. The people who criticize Phoenix' skyline start from the premise that it is not impressive for one of the largest cities in the country. Tucson isn't in that category. But, like Phoenix, it spread out, not up. For a city its size, given that, the skyline is what I would expect. Pretty, though, with the mountains in the background.
Tucson and Phoenix are truly apples and oranges in making that comparison. The people who criticize Phoenix' skyline start from the premise that it is not impressive for one of the largest cities in the country. Tucson isn't in that category. But, like Phoenix, it spread out, not up. For a city its size, given that, the skyline is what I would expect. Pretty, though, with the mountains in the background.
Absoultely. I've lived in both places, and the Tucson downtown skyline is indistinct. It looks a lot like Albuquerque's skyline, the buildings are near-copies of each other. And yet, once you get past the "boring" and "unimpressive" there's what's behind them. The Catalinas/Rincons and Sandias, respectively. If those don't add a mark of distinction to the skylines, then the person looking at them isn't paying attention.
Houston was mentioned in here... it has a very generic skyline, and like Phoenix, has a corridor of buildings in addition to a downtown core. If you look at the Houston skyline, most people ask "Where is that?" Unlike NYC, San Francisco, LA, Dallas, and especially Chicago, which have distinct features. Defining downtowns with unique profiles. Then there's the monstrosity of Vegas.
The cities with unique towers can be identified easily (Vegas, Toronto, Seattle, San Antonio, Dallas, St. Louis with the arch). Does anyone really need that? I argue that Phoenix has South Mountain. In the 70s the AZ Republic Sunday edition had an insert with a famous telephoto of the downtown core, with the then-new Valley Bank building and the Hotel Adams (?) with the revolving restaurant. Great picture, and for this Valley native, a defining view of PHX.
I notice a recurring theme in this thread is "who cares"? I agree in part. Why would Phoenix WANT to be like anywhere else? It's Phoenix. Not Philly. The closest metro to where I now live is OKC with DFW about an hour farther, and there seems to be a trend to make OKC more like Dallas or San Antonio these days. (If you saw the NBA Finals, you saw a lot of OKC Bricktown and Riverwalk photos. A great entertainment venue, not at all undoable in PHX, but then whatever happened to the Arizona Center?) I'd rather see a metro evolve on its own and not try to emulate another. As they say in Fort Worth, "Fort Worth... because life's too short to live in Dallas."
I can see, and understand your point of view, I think. Live and let live, there are NO right answers for a topic like this - and there are a lot of people on both sides of the argument.
You'd be surprised though, there are more people interested in this than you would think. There are a lot of people, mainly younger folks, who are trying to seek out a more urban environment. In Phoenix's case, a LOT of these people end up leaving the valley for other, more traditional cities. In my opinion, if Phoenix wants to retain any sort of permanent population, it needs to adapt and have something for everyone. No, there is NO need for Phoenix to play catch up to other older, more established cities. But there is no reason for it NOT to, either. The gradual urbanization of central Phoenix harms no one, and it does a lot to entice a different segment of the population.
A City like Phoenix THRIVES on growth - and the urban neighborhood scene is something that is lacking, in Phoenix. It presents an opportunity to be successful in a new segment of the market, and attract people and grow for many years to come.
Yes, currently, if there were a maze of buildings constructed over night, there WOULD be a very high vacancy rate. That's why they don't exist. The market currently doesn't warrant it. You're right.
But over time, slowly, things will start to pick up. Thanks to people who have an interest in this type of living environment in Phoenix. Many, many years from now, central Phoenix will be an excellent place to live and work, and will continue to change.
The short version of what I wrote is: Live and let live. It's not hurting you.
Lastly, what I think Phoenix really needs is some sort of a gamechanger for downtown, employment wise. It seems as if the city has done very little to attract any large scale corporations to the area. I think, if there was some effort put toward this, focusing on the downtown area - it could act as a sort of snowball effect.
Sounds like pie in the sky hope. I still can't understand why anyone thinks Phoenix needs a dense urban core? Most people didn't relocate to Phoenix from wherever they came from to see skyscrapers built in downtown Phoenix. In addition to work, many people came here for the weather, the desert environment, and the low stress environment of the Valley. Downtown being built up would exacerbate the heat island, which no one wants. What young professional would want to live downtown when it is 15-20 degrees hotter than any surrounding neighborhood at night? It just doesn't make any sense. We need more grass and trees and less concrete.
For decades downtown boosters have dreamed of Central Phoenix becoming some hub of activity. Yet Arizona Center is a failure, the sports arenas only bring people downtown sporadically, CityScape is failing, and ASU students would NOT be in DT Phoenix had the university not decided to build a campus there. The traditional urban model has not worked and will not work in Phoenix. There is no good reason why we need to focus on any area of the city where people just will not go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
No, not because that's what "real"cities are like, but because that is something Phoenix is lacking. There isn't a place where you can go and do something or grab something to eat or a drink at all times of the day and in my opinion, there should be. I don't see the downside.
Phoenix is lacking a lot of things. That doesn't mean we need it. There are plenty of places in the Valley where you can eat 24/7. They're just not in downtown Phoenix. If there is not enough foot traffic to keep restaurants in business during their normal operating hours, why would any store choose to be open at 3 in the morning? It just makes no sense. Come to think of it, there are VERY few downtowns that have 24 hour restaurants anymore. I don't see the upside to having this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
I actually agree with you on this, I don't think we need to just build spec buildings and hope they fill up. All that's really proven to do so far is move one company from one part of downtown/midtown to the new building, leaving the old one empty. There is some upside to that as the newly (older) vacated spot can now bring in a company that may not have the funds to lease a brand new Class A space.
Too much uncertainty. No investor is going to take a chance with that by constructing new office space, Class A or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
I think we should build things out of need, which is why I suggested residential apartments. 44 Monroe has been an overwhelming success since being converted to apartments and so is Alta Phoenix. It seems that people want to live downtown, they just don't want to own downtown. That's probably for a couple of reasons, first no one wanted to own anything anywhere for a while and two, people don't want to live downtown forever, they'd probably like it for a few years and then settle down in a home out in the suburbs.
44 Monroe is a failure. It couldn't even be sustained as a condominium because of such weak demand. That shows you how many people in Phoenix actually want to live in that sort of environment. If 44 Monroe was in New York, Chicago, San Diego, Seattle, Miami, etc. it would have reamined as a condo. Here, not so much. Just a quick glance on their website shows rent between $1423-$3135/month. You can rent a new 3-bedroom home in portions of the Valley for $1000/month. You can have a mortgage in a brand new home for lower than $1423/month. If these buildings were such a success, there would be more of them going up. It's just not happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy
What I don't understand is why you are so against the notion, as if it's encroaching on your suburban paradise. Phoenix will always have that, no matter how much downtown is built and urbanized, that will never change. Why can't we have both? This has nothing to do with trying to be like other cities, it has with options and there are some of us that enjoy walking around, people watching, sitting at a street front cafe and so fourth. Not just that, but I would love to have the option to live somewhere where I don't have to drive to get everything, I could just go downstairs and grab a bite, have a drink, or do some shopping. All I'm saying is that there should be the option for this, not that everyone needs to live this way.
I have a vested interest in my entire community, not just my subdivision. I, like you, want to see the best for this community. I cannot support urbanizing our downtown for the sake of urbanizing it. Everything, in my eyes, thus far has been an abject failure. People do not move to Phoenix to live an urban lifestyle. This is a suburban city, period. I don't like seeing restaurants and stores open and quickly close, leaving vacant space. People need to realize the limitations of downtown Phoenix. It can only support so much.
If you want to people watch, shop, and eat there are plenty of malls that you can go to. Just sit in the food court and read the paper. You can try to entice people downtown, but it's ultimately their decision on whether or not they come. So far the vast majority of people have chosen to go elsewhere.
44 Monroe is a failure? Do you know what the vacancy rate is at 44 Monroe? Beside the penthouses, which were just finished and made available for rent, ZERO. You consider that a failure? Yes, it was a failure when they were condos with the prices they were asking, very very few people were willing to make that kind of purchase, but as a rental property, it's done fantastic. You say if it was just a success, you'd see more going up and it's just not happening. What about the Concord Eastridge apartments that are going up right now? Or the planned apartments above the Hotel Monroe at Cityscape (currently in the permitting stage)? I don't even see how the price or comparing it to what you could get a house for is relevant...what you don't seem to grasp is that not everyone wants a suburban home with a 3 car garage and a yard. I am going to guess you probably don't see the need for expensive cars either and probably think why would anyone buy or lease a BMW when you can have a Kia which can get you to the same places.
Again, I'm not saying we should push these things onto people and make them go there...but if there is a need there, then why not build? You actually seem opposed to building anything downtown, even if there is a need.
Why do you suggest that everyone who moves to Phoenix does not want an urban lifestyle? People move here for all sort of reasons, maybe it's a job, or maybe it's family...that doesn't mean they only moved here to live in suburbia. What about people who were born here? Personally, I came here when I was 11, and my parents came because their jobs moved here.
And really? Food court? That's your suggestion? How does a food court compare to the kind of quality restaurants you usually get in city centers? And the vibe and atmosphere? How is that even a serious suggestion?
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.
)
