Phoenix Regains Title of 5th Most Populous City in US

[orlando-calrissian]

Originally Posted by mags61

With a census pending this year I got thinking-----
Could Phoenix ever surpass Houston or Chi-town in coming decades? More people seem to want out of Chicago than in. Houston is growing but not as fast as Phoenix is.

Phoenix is way too far behind both of those cities. Chicago is essentially treading water and has been around 2.7M population for 10 years. Houston is rapidly growing and has actually added more people than Phoenix, but because it's bigger the percent increase is less.

Also, growth for the sake of growth isn't necessarily good. There are smaller cities that do things much better than Phoenix does currently. Personally, I'd like to see Phoenix start to de-annex some of the exurban areas. At 517 sq mi, the city is too large. I'd start by removing anything north of the 101.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Roadwarriors79

Parts of Anthem are already part of Phoenix city limits. Mostly what is west of I-17 in that area. Also, the area of New River that is west of I-17 is already within city limits.

It's ridiculous enough that these far reaching areas are part of the "city". There certainly doesn't need to be any further annexation, especially an area like New River (where the biggest attractions for many years have been a nudist camp, Wranglers Roost, and a store called Jackass Acres). If New River wants to incorporate on their own, more power to them, but they're not deserving of Phoenix city services ... and quite frankly, I doubt if anybody there wants to have anything to do with Phoenix.

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Also, growth for the sake of growth isn't necessarily good. There are smaller cities that do things much better than Phoenix does currently. Personally, I'd like to see Phoenix start to de-annex some of the exurban areas. At 517 sq mi, the city is too large. I'd start by removing anything north of the 101.

Absolutely! I wouldn't even mind seeing everything north of the Phoenix mountain preserve deannexed, which includes all of Paradise Valley Village. This would reduce Phoenix's population, but it would still be slightly over a million, and still in the top 10 for largest cities in the nation.

[mags61]

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Phoenix is way too far behind both of those cities. Chicago is essentially treading water and has been around 2.7M population for 10 years. Houston is rapidly growing and has actually added more people than Phoenix, but because it's bigger the percent increase is less.

Also, growth for the sake of growth isn't necessarily good. There are smaller cities that do things much better than Phoenix does currently. Personally, I'd like to see Phoenix start to de-annex some of the exurban areas. At 517 sq mi, the city is too large. I'd start by removing anything north of the 101.

Weather is a big factor though for Chicago and even Houston.
Surviving a Chicago winter isn't fun with the bitter-cold, snow, ice, and wind.
Houston has very hot humid summers and it's a target for hurricanes and floods.
Phoenix doesn't have any weather-related problems other than heat, and ya don't need snowplows or sandbags to protect your home from heat-just some decent shade and air-conditioning.

[More Rock]

That explains all those pinheads gunning their engine outside my door during commute.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Absolutely! I wouldn't even mind seeing everything north of the Phoenix mountain preserve deannexed, which includes all of Paradise Valley Village. This would reduce Phoenix's population, but it would still be slightly over a million, and still in the top 10 for largest cities in the nation.

I'd rather see an urban boundary drawn for anything past what's developed already, if you just de-annex it then another town can gobble it up. Phoenix annexed as far north as they did partially to avoid being land-locked if Peoria, Glendale, or Scottsdale were to annex north locking in Phoenix to the South.


Water availability seems to be what will be our natural growth obstacle, I saw an article recently that Buckeye has or will soon reach a water limit for further growth. "Buckeye is the nation's fastest-growing city. But it doesn't have the water to keep it up"

[barca12]

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Also, growth for the sake of growth isn't necessarily good. There are smaller cities that do things much better than Phoenix does currently. Personally, I'd like to see Phoenix start to de-annex some of the exurban areas. At 517 sq mi, the city is too large. I'd start by removing anything north of the 101.

This is a stereotype that is still being held by some. The Phoenix metropolitan region and Arizona for that matter hasn't emphasized growth as an economic engine since before the housing bubble pre-2007. In fact, they learned from past mistakes. Phoenix has grown it's economy through industrial diversification. They have acquired more companies and growth. Start-ups have moved here. Companies have grown their presence here. Several companies have brought regional headquarters here. Phoenix was ranked 1st for job growth in 2019. This is what has driven population growth here. The metropolitan area has not expanded outwardly at the same growth rate as the early to mid 2000's. Most of the construction in the last 6-7 years has been inward. Older homes, commercial buildings and large residential developments in the core are being purchased and torn down for newer developments. Millennials and Generation Z prefer smaller yet more urban and centrally located dwellings so this is where builders are focusing their efforts. These generations do not prefer cheaper yet more remote housing like previous generations. You are seeing more high rise and vertical growth to meet this demand. This is where most of our construction is taking place. Downtown, Phoenix, Temple, Scottsdale, Chandler and Gilbert have all grown significantly in the past 10 years

Even our growth is somewhat measured. We still have not seen the type of growth that existed here in 2006 when over 150,000 people moved to Maricopa County. Banks and the mortgage industry are much more strict in terms of lending practices. Home prices are higher. Builders are more restricted and cannot build large groups of tract homes like they did in the past. All of those factors have curtailed growth as an industry here.

[xPlorer48]

Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian

Phoenix is way too far behind both of those cities. Chicago is essentially treading water and has been around 2.7M population for 10 years. Houston is rapidly growing and has actually added more people than Phoenix, but because it's bigger the percent increase is less.

Also, growth for the sake of growth isn't necessarily good. There are smaller cities that do things much better than Phoenix does currently. Personally, I'd like to see Phoenix start to de-annex some of the exurban areas. At 517 sq mi, the city is too large. I'd start by removing anything north of the 101.

Edward Abbey: “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Be careful what you wish for.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by locolife

I'd rather see an urban boundary drawn for anything past what's developed already, if you just de-annex it then another town can gobble it up. Phoenix annexed as far north as they did partially to avoid being land-locked if Peoria, Glendale, or Scottsdale were to annex north locking in Phoenix to the South.

Urban growth boundaries were put on a ballot before, and they went down in defeat because they're too controlling & go against the free market. People should be allowed to build & reside wherever they want, whether it's in an urban area, suburb, or rural. All I'm saying is that if somebody chooses to live in a far flung area because they want to be away from the city, then they don't deserve to have city services. That's why I suggest deannexation ... or at the very least, no more annexation of empty desert or exurban communities. Norterra, Anthem, Desert Hills, etc. can self incorporate into their own separate towns (or choose to be unincorporated) instead of having a larger city gulp them up.

Originally Posted by locolife

Water availability seems to be what will be our natural growth obstacle, I saw an article recently that Buckeye has or will soon reach a water limit for further growth. "Buckeye is the nation's fastest-growing city. But it doesn't have the water to keep it up"

I tend to agree, but I also think that reducing the amount of agriculture in the rural areas of Maricopa County will help in that regard. Water usage has actually decreased over the years since agriculture is far less predominant around the metro area. It's one of those tricky situations because we need agriculture for survival, but it does consume an enormous amount of water.