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.
"The proposal would have required amending Tempe's General Plan, a voter-approved document that guides development, to allow for a higher density of residents than currently allowed in the area. It would have required a vote of 5 out of the 7 council members."
On the topic of NIMBY, I've found that NIMBY is often called out and seen as a bad thing against others until it negatively impacts #1 and then it's somehow not defined as NIMBY anymore, it's just ok to be against something. And "negatively impacts" is a sliding scale. I think if each one of us is honest with ourselves, we all have things that we wouldn't want to be built close to where we live that indeed might benefit a community/city/region. For example, I don't think many(anyone?) here would like a landfill positioned near their existing house/ neighborhood because of many factors including smell, reduced property values, etc. But if it's in another area, away from our dwelling, and hear some others complaining about it who live nearby to such a proposal, we hear some say.....hey!!!......it's those darn NIMBY people fighting things we all benefit/need....how dare they!
I think in the end it all depends on what side of the tracks one is on. But I think it helps to perhaps see another side, put ourselves in another persons shoes, and not just jump to it as a negative, those pain in the neck NIMBY types as I think we all have a NIMBY trigger if we are truly honest with ourselves.
It was shut down because it is against the current city plan for population density reasons, at the very least you could know the facts before spouting your nonsense. The city plan is a voter approved plan which means the majority of people decided they don't want these buildings in their city. I'm pretty sure I just repeated myself but maybe you can't read?
I'm not confusing rural living and sprawl, the idea is the same people want space from their neighbors. This is why our city plans have low population densities, the voters have decided they want and like the sprawl.
LOL wow I have no idea why you are so emotional on this topic. What you said is basically what I said in that it is not meant for that area. FYI I'm a former developer and I developed infill high-density housing so I know exactly what I am talking about and was not "spouting off". You may note that I agree it was was not good for the area. What I do not agree with that you said is that high density does not belong "here", apparently referring to the valley, but you never clarified where "here" is. I merely pointed out that there is a market here for that type of housing product. Now settle down.
This is not a high rise. The rendering makes it appear to be about six floors. In any case, the building is butt ugly and out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. This is a low density, low rise metropolitan area and that's the way most of us would like to keep it. If you want high rise living, hop on the 10 or the 8 and head about 5.5 hours west to San Diego or LA. Urbanity of that scale is not good for this area. Tempe is already in the middle of the urban heat island. If developers keep building to this intensity, pretty soon it's not going to drop below 105-110 at night during the summer and it will drive up electricity usage/costs. That would destroy the ecosystem. If you don't believe that intensive urbanization exacerbates the heat island, look at NY. There are some nights when it's 20 degrees warmer in the city than surrounding suburbs. That may be okay when the average low is in the 60s, but when the average low is in the mid 80s, it's unacceptable.
This sort of development also tends to be way overpriced. The Republic ran a story this week about a proposed high rise residence in DT Phoenix that will potentially charge residents $1300 for 400 square feet. Is that a joke? You can find better deals on high rise living in Miami and LA. Prices like that drive out lower income people, because all real estate starts going up in price. This is not a third world country. We do not need upper income people living in high rises in the central areas while the poor are restricted to the endless sea of Taco Bell style homes on the periphery.
Lastly, development like this destroys mountain views. I can see at least six prominent mountain ranges in the Phoenix area from my property. It is soothing and a reminder that I live in a unique desert environment. If I were to be surrounded by a bunch of hideous glass high rises, I would lose my sense of place. I would have to contend with nosy high rise neighbors invading my privacy, trash being thrown onto my property, hundreds of additional cars clogging up local roads, and all the increased noise and light. No thanks. I think we have done enough to already disturb the natural environment here. We don't need to turn this place into the Tokyo of the desert.
Keep this urban garbage in other places. If you are so hellbent on being surrounded by strangers living on top of each other, go somewhere else. That's not what we do here.
You are grossly misinformed. You also seem to be doing a fair amount of projection here.
The best way to mitigate the UHI effect in the Southwest is to build UP not OUT. You cannot compare Phoenix suburbs to NYC suburbs. NYC suburbs have much, much more vegetation, homes are on larger properties and are therefore much more spaced out, and there is much less exposed concrete.
Don't give me that "it blocks mountain views" nonsense. Phoenix is in a valley surrounded by mountains on all sides. You can see the mountains from 99.5% of the Phoenix area, even with a growing downtown and several growing urban cores (like Tempe). Most urban plans prioritize the maintenance of view corridors and sightlines to these mountains. You claim you love being reminded about the unique desert environment you live in, yet in the same breath you advocate for sprawl (the means of further destroying that precious desert environment).
You also make the claim that there would be "hundreds of additional cars clogging up the roads". With higher density comes higher ridership and demand of mass transit (such as the light rail) which keeps cars off the road. More people living where they work means less cars on the road (they don't need to commute!). If you live close enough to the light rail route, you can use the light rail to commute, which takes cars off the road (so higher densities living along the light rail route is a good thing). I bet you need to drive to go to the grocery store, or the doctors office, or the post office, or to bring the kids to school. Any remedial task requires you to get in your car and drive. In a true urban, high density, mixed use environment, cars become virtually unnecessary. Traffic is only an issue when people who live in the SUBURBS all get to drive out of the urban core at the same time. Not sure where the trash point comes in, urban cores are typically clean and if you are living in an apartment or condo, you don't have any exposed property for people to throw trash onto, unlike a suburban property.
The idea that one urban project in one urban city suddenly means that metro Phoenix is turning into NYC or Tokyo is nonsense and simply disregards the other 97% of the PHX area that IS suburban. Move there if you don't like it. No one wants Phoenix to be like New York City. Creating a few modern, vibrant neighborhoods doesn't turn Phoenix into anything more than slightly more urbanized suburbia.
Contrary to popular belief, urbanization is a GOOD THING. Sprawl is BAD. I agree that this project is definitely out of place and local neighborhood context should ALWAYS be taken into account. However, Phoenix has finally matured enough to realize and understand that sprawl is unsustainable, unattractive, and inefficient, and along with the destruction of the desert ecosystem only brings negative consequences. The most important point here is that all successful metropolitan areas have a healthy variety of urban and suburban housing, and Phoenix has so much of the latter that you turn away the fast growing urban crowd (young families and young professionals) who would otherwise love living here.
Last edited by sloguy1496; 03-02-2016 at 10:00 PM..
Good. There is a downtown development plan and this would be in violation of that. If you are going to change the plan every time some money bag developer comes in and demands it, why bother with a plan at all? Build the high rises in areas that were planned for high rises and stop violating the interests of people who were there first with every expectation that things would be as the Council said they would.
Gentrification violates the interests of people who were there first.
Gentrification violates the interests of people who were there first.
It benefits those that were there first and also have an ownership interest, the actual stakeholders. Sure I agree renters may have to move, that's one of the benefits of ownership. The highest and best use of a property is fluid, it may be as a parking garage one year, and a 30 story high rise the next.
Contrary to popular belief, urbanization is a GOOD THING. Sprawl is BAD. I agree that this project is definitely out of place and local neighborhood context should ALWAYS be taken into account. However, Phoenix has finally matured enough to realize and understand that sprawl is unsustainable, unattractive, and inefficient, and along with the destruction of the desert ecosystem only brings negative consequences. The most important point here is that all successful metropolitan areas have a healthy variety of urban and suburban housing, and Phoenix has so much of the latter that you turn away the fast growing urban crowd (young families and young professionals) who would otherwise love living here.
Usually when the kiddies of a generation grow up, mature, and start a family, they don't do that in a city. They want a house with a plot of land in the suburbs. And things like better schools take priority over being close to a coffee house and clubs. For better or worse, that usually means the better suburbs. I've always guessed this generation will be no different.
And here's the hard census data to see this happening, once again:
"According to U.S. Census Bureau data released this week, 529,000 Americans ages 25 to 29 moved from cities out to the suburbs in 2014; only 426,000 moved in the other direction. Among younger millennials, those in their early 20s, the trend was even starker: 721,000 moved out of the city, compared with 554,000 who moved in.1 Somewhat more people in both age groups currently live in the suburbs than in the city."
No if about it in May 2014 the voters decided they wanted the current plan by 56% you cant get anymore of a literal majority than that. The majority of people said very plainly they don't want these buildings being built where they tried to put this thing. The plan allows for a very high density core around ASU but if you want to spread that further then you need to get a new plan approved by the voters, good luck. Stop telling people you don't agree with to move, basically you want 56% of the people to abandoned Tempe which would turn it into a ghost town. If you don't like it tough your point of view lost in that election but good luck next time, the plan is good until Dec 2023 but don't get your hopes up.
You just summed up my reply upthread.
I clearly wrote that this proposal was out of place in that neighborhood and I agree with the opposition.
What I didn't agree with was new2colo's long argument against higher density development, and I didn't agree with your assumption that Tempe residents don't want this higher density in their city.
You wrote the following.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager
The city plan is a voter approved plan which means the majority of people decided they don't want these buildings in their city.
These buildings exist in many parts of northern Tempe, namely Mill district, Rio Salado and around ASU, and more are under construction so it's apparent the majority of Tempe residents were not opposed to them in their city.
They were only opposed to them in certain residential neighborhoods such as this one.
Usually when the kiddies of a generation grow up, mature, and start a family, they don't do that in a city. They want a house with a plot of land in the suburbs. And things like better schools take priority over being close to a coffee house and clubs. For better or worse, that usually means the better suburbs. I've always guessed this generation will be no different.
And here's the hard census data to see this happening, once again:
"According to U.S. Census Bureau data released this week, 529,000 Americans ages 25 to 29 moved from cities out to the suburbs in 2014; only 426,000 moved in the other direction. Among younger millennials, those in their early 20s, the trend was even starker: 721,000 moved out of the city, compared with 554,000 who moved in.1 Somewhat more people in both age groups currently live in the suburbs than in the city."
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!
Very interesting data! As a millennial myself, this is certainly not the feeling I get when talking to people my age, nor is it my own desire to ever live in the suburbs, although I won't argue with the numbers. I wonder if it has something to do with skyrocketing rents in cities like SF and NYC pushing millennials out despite their desire to live in an urban center. Still seems to be a lot more sticking around in the city than in previous generations, though!
Very interesting data! As a millennial myself, this is certainly not the feeling I get when talking to people my age, nor is it my own desire to ever live in the suburbs, although I won't argue with the numbers. I wonder if it has something to do with skyrocketing rents in cities like SF and NYC pushing millennials out despite their desire to live in an urban center. Still seems to be a lot more sticking around in the city than in previous generations, though!
yes, surprised me too the sheer numbers, especially the people in their younger 20's. Good point on the rents and such in bigger cities. Could very well be a big factor. The rents are crazy in places like SF. And Boston and many parts of NYC of course.
For the people I know in their 20's, I get a mix of different answers on the topic. There's one guy I know who's 23 and he fits the data and can't wait to get his own house in the suburbs. He recently described all the things he wants in his future house in detail. He does like visiting cities, hanging out, wouldn't mind living in one for a while, but his goal is a suburban house. He needs a good job first though and he's realistic it might have to wait a while on that account.
Very interesting data! As a millennial myself, this is certainly not the feeling I get when talking to people my age, nor is it my own desire to ever live in the suburbs, although I won't argue with the numbers. I wonder if it has something to do with skyrocketing rents in cities like SF and NYC pushing millennials out despite their desire to live in an urban center. Still seems to be a lot more sticking around in the city than in previous generations, though!
The rents aren't just skyrocketing in SF & NYC - if you look at the HOA fees on a high-rise building, (especially one with a parking garage, rooftop deck, workout area, pool, etc), you'll find they're pretty darn high right here in Phoenix. It's not a bit unusual for one bed high-rise condos to have $600+ monthly fees.
I think far too often "nimby" is tossed around when it doesn't apply - developers who need to get the zoning changed in a given area to do what they want to do really have no business throwing out the term "nimby". Residential low-rise land is cheaper than land zoned for high rises. The desire to save a buck by putting something where it doesn't belong doesn't make a developer "noble" or forward-thinking, it makes them a profiteering goober trying to make a buck by changing the rules in their favor.
Nimby might be appropriate if people were picketing & protesting when someone wanted to build a high rise on land zoned for high rises. But that isn't what's going on here.
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.
