Chandler vs. Gilbert: Interesting Phoenix magazine investigation (Scottsdale, Tempe: low income, real estate)

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by msfoom

I wonder if the median price of housing in Gilbert is a bit higher now because a new Mormon temple is there and that creates a slight demand? There are a lot of LDS in the Mesa and Gilbert area and some like living in closer proximity to a temple. I think maybe because they (LDS) might believe more people will want to live closer, therefore more families nearby will also be LDS thus having more camaraderie and like thinking neighbors?

PS - this is just a thought, not a bashing or anything remotely prejudicial on my part - so please don't turn it in to that. I used to live in Chandler but now live in South Jordan, UT. I have learned a lot about the culture since I have been here and just thought it might be a possibility?

I don't know about that. It can also be a big deterrent to non-LDS people concerned about exclusion, so I would guess it's about a wash when figuring both sides of the coin. Plus there are other LDS churches all over the place.

[azriverfan.]

Growing up in southern California, I wanted some of that element in Arizona. Chandler provides that for me. It's ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse. There is a large Asian and Hispanic presence which I was used to growing up in so Cal. It has a lot of trees and lakes. You will see a lot of lawns and parks for kids to play in. When people complain about too much desert and brown landscaping, you don't really see that in Chandler. It also feels socially liberal. In my opinion, there is no red neck factor here. There is also a huge I.T. industry here. And they have great schools here. I also consider South Tempe to be an extension of Chandler to the North. It's basically Chandler in my opinion although I'm sure our moderator will disagree. Either way, it's a really nice community. It's not a perfect community. There are more luxurious and upscale areas in other parts of the Valley (Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Biltmore in Phoenix) and Chandler has crime ridden areas (downtown Chandler area) but overall, I really like it's vibe. Chandler is not for everyone. People who are conservative and perceive diversity as a bad thing will probably be best served living in another part of the Valley.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by asufan

LOL, according to the news back when this story was released, it is because Chandler is home to 2 very large internet service providers so it shows up as a Chandler IP even though they can be in other cities. Not that it's anything to be ashamed of

No, I'm pretty sure it's probably due to me.

[Pink Jazz]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

It also feels socially liberal.

We have been over this before. According to this list:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/...081205libs.pdf

Chandler votes 57.09% conservative vs. 41.39% liberal. Not nearly as conservative as Gilbert, but still conservative overall. For comparison, Tempe votes 45.77% conservative vs. 54.22% liberal. The main exception to the rule in Chandler is the Kyrene area that borders Tempe, which is somewhat more liberal than the rest of the city.

[Jukesgrrl]

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz

We have been over this before. According to this list:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/...081205libs.pdf

Chandler votes 57.09% conservative vs. 41.39% liberal. Not nearly as conservative as Gilbert, but still conservative overall. For comparison, Tempe votes 45.77% conservative vs. 54.22% liberal. The main exception to the rule in Chandler is the Kyrene area that borders Tempe, which is somewhat more liberal than the rest of the city.

Personally, I have a big problem with that report. Nowhere I know are candidates listed on ballots as being "conservative" or "liberal" (except in New York City, where there actually is a "Conservative" party that once in awhile has candidates on the ballot).

The libertarian outlook is big in Arizona. In some ways, Libertarian views are "conservative" in nature (the free market should decide issues), but in other ways (social issues such as choice, rights for LGBT people, and endorsing the freedom to be self-destructive, for some examples) they fall more on the side of personal freedom. So that makes it very hard to use such simplistic labels as "conservative" or "liberal" in this state. Some of the very same people who voted for Janet Napolitano must have voted for Jan Brewer more recently, whatever that means. At the same time the state replaced a Democrat with a Republican in the governor's office, the state legislature has been becoming more Democratic in the past ten years. If Arizona voters are anything, it's schizophrenic.

Gilbert, Mesa, and Peoria, Arizona, are the only Arizona cities that fall in the Top 25 list of Most Conservative Cities as measured by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research (whoever they are I am unable to determine). I'm willing to accept that judgment based on what I know of those places. For other Arizona cities, I'll follow my personal observations.

[Valley Native]

I prefer Chandler over Gilbert. Chandler at least has some thriving employment centers and is close to major freeways. While Gilbert isn't considered rural anymore, I still consider it to be exurban, and nothing more than a bedroom community. I think Gilbert prefers to be that way because they still call themselves a town instead of a city. The population of Gilbert is well over 200,000, but they still want to be a town. I'd say the "town" has some serious growing up to do if they ever want to be anything more than housing developments.

[AlohaFriday]

Finally read this article. It was interesting to read about the differences and hear how Chandler primed the tech corridor with underground nitrogen lines - good planning - but I fail to see how they can declare Gilbert the bedroom community of Chandler. There's nothing to back up the idea that people are working in Chandler and commuting from Gilbert.

Why wouldn't people who work in Chandler live in Chandler? How does Gilbert still manage to have a higher median income? How did Mesa stagnate and lose its status as the premier a East Valley city, as the cover blurb so dramatically stated? These are all interesting questions that would have been interesting to dive into.

Chandler is really aggressive about growing new business and the city has done a great job. Maybe they can help Phoenix out? Lol

Thanks Jukkesgirl for drawing attention to the article. It was definitely an interesting read.

[8to32characters]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

If Arizona voters are anything, it's schizophrenic.

"Apathetic" is more like it.

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

The September issue of Phoenix has an interesting article asking if Mesa is still "the capital of the East Valley?" "A Tale of Two Boomburgs" by Jess Harter compares Gilbert (called the "country burb" to Chandler (dubbed the "city burb") comparing and contrasting lifestyles in the two areas.

This article should be required reading for anyone thinking of locating, or re-locating, to the Southeast Valley. But run, don't walk, if you need to buy a newsstand copy of the magazine because Phoenix is now behind a paywall and you can only read complete articles online if you are a subscriber.

Some very interesting facts and statistics emerge that show how the two areas are alike (incorporated the same year, 1920; nearly identical land areas and median ages; a population difference of fewer than 20,000, Chandler is bigger; a median home price difference of only $8,000, Gilbert is higher; and a median household income of less than $10,000, again Gilbert is higher). Both have highly regarded medical centers with the Chandler Medical Center establishing the Southeast Valley's first Level One trauma center and Gilbert hosting the Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center's largest regional extension.

Differences include Chandler being more culturally diverse and a bit better educated, with its citizens having a shorter travel time to work. Chandler also boasts a city-owned municipal airport and almost twice as many developed park acres as Gilbert's 584.

The biggest difference is Chandler's business development. Most of the thriving corporations of Chandler are tech related, many located along the Price Road Corridor, land set aside by the municipality for high tech businesses. Added to the well-established Intel, Freescale Semiconductor, and Orbital Technologies, these include the newer Infusionsoft (digital marketing), Isagenix (health technology), and Iridium (satellite phones). Chandler's wholesale businesses have annual sales estimated at $4.6 billion dollars, compared to $649 million for Gilbert. And the tax money these businesses generate supports an operating budget for Chandler that is almost twice what Gilbert's is, run out of a stunningly modern $47 million "municipal campus."

The conclusion author Harter draws from the research is that sleepier, more rural Gilbert "plays the role of bedroom community to Chandler's economic engine."

Chandler has a crime rate almost double that of Gilbert.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

Chandler has a crime rate almost double that of Gilbert.

Which, given the very low crime rate of Gilbert, still makes it a pretty safe place.