NY Times article about the rebuilding of downtown Phoenix and its attempt to lure companies from Silicon Valley (how much, new construction)

[JGMotorsport64]

I was unaware California was within the Phoenix area.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

I was unaware California was within the Phoenix area.

It's not, this point had been forgotten until AZ_Rookie brought it back up again, I just don't like him. Anyone can feel free to delete this post and the few before it.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Okay, agreed in some places. But the question was why Phoenix doesn't attract international firms, but without political spin thrown in.

You have a take on that? Separate the politics from the City, Phoenix is, afterall, blue, it just houses the State Capital.

Did I not make that clear? Arizona politicians need to enact policies that are attractive to businesses. Instead of sucking it up and going against what's popular, by which I mean increasing taxes to fund what the state needs to be more attractive, Arizona "leaders" just wait for companies to move in, though that's not working. If Phoenix did a good job of marketing, then there ought to be some signs of a diversifying economy and improvements, but there aren't.

Downtown is pathetic to look at, and is going to be for some time because of relatively little development. You don't have to dig too deep on this forum to read people saying how the "conservative model" works in economic development while "liberal cities decay". Oddly enough, Los Angeles is about to complete a new tallest building plus an additional six that will be taller than the tallest building in Phoenix (plus many others that are shorter); Philadelphia is also constructing a new tallest, as well as two others taller than Chase Tower; also under construction besting Phoenix are Boston (6), New York (22), San Francisco (3), and Chicago (7). Again, those numbers are omitting anything under construction shorter than Chase Tower. It also highlights the demand for office space in those cities and the relative lack thereof here. To me it's very clear that the model this state has adopted is seriously broken when very little progress is being made, and that its conservative model doesn't work. If the state isn't more proactive, it's just going to get harder and more costly to catch Phoenix up to where it needs to be.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Did I not make that clear? Arizona politicians need to enact policies that are attractive to businesses. Instead of sucking it up and going against what's popular, by which I mean increasing taxes to fund what the state needs to be more attractive, Arizona "leaders" just wait for companies to move in, though that's not working. If Phoenix did a good job of marketing, then there ought to be some signs of a diversifying economy and improvements, but there aren't.

Downtown is pathetic to look at, and is going to be for some time because of relatively little development. You don't have to dig too deep on this forum to read people saying how the "conservative model" works in economic development while "liberal cities decay". Oddly enough, Los Angeles is about to complete a new tallest building plus an additional six that will be taller than the tallest building in Phoenix (plus many others that are shorter); Philadelphia is also constructing a new tallest, as well as two others taller than Chase Tower; also under construction besting Phoenix are Boston (6), New York (22), San Francisco (3), and Chicago (7). Again, those numbers are omitting anything under construction shorter than Chase Tower. It also highlights the demand for office space in those cities and the relative lack thereof here. To me it's very clear that the model this state has adopted is seriously broken when very little progress is being made, and that its conservative model doesn't work. If the state isn't more proactive, it's just going to get harder and more costly to catch Phoenix up to where it needs to be.

Here here 👍

[locolife]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Did I not make that clear? Arizona politicians need to enact policies that are attractive to businesses. Instead of sucking it up and going against what's popular, by which I mean increasing taxes to fund what the state needs to be more attractive, Arizona "leaders" just wait for companies to move in, though that's not working. If Phoenix did a good job of marketing, then there ought to be some signs of a diversifying economy and improvements, but there aren't.

Downtown is pathetic to look at, and is going to be for some time because of relatively little development. You don't have to dig too deep on this forum to read people saying how the "conservative model" works in economic development while "liberal cities decay". Oddly enough, Los Angeles is about to complete a new tallest building plus an additional six that will be taller than the tallest building in Phoenix (plus many others that are shorter); Philadelphia is also constructing a new tallest, as well as two others taller than Chase Tower; also under construction besting Phoenix are Boston (6), New York (22), San Francisco (3), and Chicago (7). Again, those numbers are omitting anything under construction shorter than Chase Tower. It also highlights the demand for office space in those cities and the relative lack thereof here. To me it's very clear that the model this state has adopted is seriously broken when very little progress is being made, and that its conservative model doesn't work. If the state isn't more proactive, it's just going to get harder and more costly to catch Phoenix up to where it needs to be.

Just to play Devil's advocate. If you want to talk tall building development as a major success criteria then the Middle East is blowing every US city out of the water.

[phenomenon]

"Tall buildings" is a strange metric to use for measuring the success of a city's economy.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by phenomenon

"Tall buildings" is a strange metric to use for measuring the success of a city's economy.

It actually is a great metric, because it means there is increasing employment and demand for workers. NYC wasn't always skyscraper central like today. Plus, it increases density, allowing functional mass transit.

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by phenomenon

"Tall buildings" is a strange metric to use for measuring the success of a city's economy.

Maybe, but one could use that to show that there is a big demand for real estate for large businesses and corporations. I always remember, going back 20 or 30 years, that if you want to know how well a city is doing economically, count the number of those tower cranes, more cranes=better economy, because there is a limited supply of those cranes and they are really expensive to use/rent.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by LeavingDetroit

All of this politico talk isn't really furthering my understanding why there are not more growth oriented, multinational companies headquartered in the Phoenix area. I'd like to understand this if anyone cares to comment in a non-political, thoughtful fashion. (Not to say some of you haven't). thanks in advance

I definitely agree ... I'm tired of practically every topic in the Phoenix forum turning into a political debate. You asked a legitimate question about why there's a lack of reputable multinational corporate HQs in the Phoenix area, and JG Motorsport answered it quite well. To expand on what he stated: Phoenix has focused its economic reliance on what worked in the past, which is the weather/climate, cheaper cost of living, seasonal tourism, and retirement. Now that we're one of the larger cities & metro regions in the nation, we can't rely on what worked 40 years ago when this was a mid sized city.

It's time for Phoenix to grow up, act like the large metro area that it is, work on improving our image, and focus on important matters like competitive jobs. Attracting more skilled talent and entrepreneurs should be our goal ... not continuously attracting ignorant sun freaks who have no goals in life other than sitting by the pool or hiking the trails.

Originally Posted by cjseliga

Maybe, but one could use that to show that there is a big demand for real estate for large businesses and corporations. I always remember, going back 20 or 30 years, that if you want to know how well a city is doing economically, count the number of those tower cranes, more cranes=better economy, because there is a limited supply of those cranes and they are really expensive to use/rent.

Exactly! Tall buildings house many firms (large and small), and they are also an indication of success. It's not too difficult to figure out why a lot of NIMBYs are against highrises: it's because many of them aren't very successful in life, and taller structures create jealousy & resentment among that crowd (not to mention block their precious sunlight & mountain views).
()

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by phenomenon

"Tall buildings" is a strange metric to use for measuring the success of a city's economy.

Not really. It shows demand for office space, which appears to be fairly low in the Valley. I just did a quick search and it appears the Phoenix office vacancy rate is fairly high, which means low demand for office space. On top of that, companies can pay for naming rights of high-rises, even though they don't occupy 100% of that building. Go to almost any high-rise and look at the directory, and you'll see a large number of businesses in most buildings, even if the building bears the name of a single business. Those cities I listed have multiple high-rises under construction because demand for that space is high enough to warrant new construction and development. While tall buildings aren't the only metric in an economy (such as in many European cities, and cities with strict height restrictions such as Washington), they do provide some insight into the city's economic health.