Is Phoenix being overdeveloped? (Scottsdale, Tempe: 2015, rentals, how much)
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.
It certainly does mean something! Skyscrapers help give a city prestige & clout. The skyline is the first thing you see when you drive or fly into a major city, and it's basically the first impression a person gets of the city & whole area. Whether you want to admit it or not, first impressions and appearances matter immensely ... regardless if it's meeting a person for the first time, or arriving in a particular city for the first time. Tall buildings often are the HQs for large reputable national & global companies, and their presence in a city means lots of jobs, productivity, and success.
Boston has a definitive skyline, so that's a moot point. If you prefer the lack of height in certain European cities, maybe you should move to one of them. This is America, where the vast majority of major cities have tall skylines. The only real exception to this (as you mentioned) is Washington, DC. But their height restriction is only hurting the city more than anything else because it puts a limit to what can built within the city limits. DC encompasses a rather small area ... however, the U.S. government is so huge that many federal agencies are housed outside of DC in nearby suburbs.
If you get off to phalices do it on your own time, if you want the city to be succefull you focus on the streetlevel not on how the buildings look on instagram
If you get off to phalices do it on your own time, if you want the city to be succefull you focus on the streetlevel not on how the buildings look on instagram
Of course street level development is important, but we can't leave out building upward. The problem with Phoenix is there are too many small thinkers with hick town attitudes. Some people still insist on Phoenix remaining low density, and others believe adding a bunch of 5 to 15 story buildings downtown is major progress. Seriously??? There's nothing wrong with having a mix of the lower height buildings, but what's still missing is skyscrapers like most other large American cities have, as well as a large corporate presence. Bring the corporate jobs downtown, and that would have a way of bringing in more residents, eateries, shopping, and events to the central core.
Also: succefull? Do you check spelling before you post? Apparently, SUCCESS isn't part of your vocabulary.
Of course street level development is important, but we can't leave out building upward. The problem with Phoenix is there are too many small thinkers with hick town attitudes. Some people still insist on Phoenix remaining low density, and others believe adding a bunch of 5 to 15 story buildings downtown is major progress. Seriously??? There's nothing wrong with having a mix of the lower height buildings, but what's still missing is skyscrapers like most other large American cities have, as well as a large corporate presence. Bring the corporate jobs downtown, and that would have a way of bringing in more residents, eateries, shopping, and events to the central core.
Also: succefull? Do you check spelling before you post? Apparently, SUCCESS isn't part of your vocabulary.
No I don’t check spelling that is the last vestige of a man with no argument.
The reason Phoenix doesn’t have tall building is because of supply and demand there has been no demand for urban living until about 10 years ago and there is a large supply of available land.
It has nothing to do with “hick” attitudes this isn’t 1975
The reason Phoenix doesn’t have tall building is because of supply and demand there has been no demand for urban living until about 10 years ago and there is a large supply of available land.
Exactly, there is much more of a demand for urban/centralized development now compared to 10+ years ago, which is precisely why there should be more vertical height ... not just a bunch of cheaply built, generic looking low to midrise buildings. Look at the other cities with similar growth patterns to Phoenix: Dallas, Houston, Austin, L.A., San Diego, etc. They didn't have much demand for urbanization until the last decade either, but all of them have been able to add tall, prestigious towers to their central cores. Even San Diego with their height restrictions has a more impressive downtown skyline than Phoenix does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno
It has nothing to do with “hick” attitudes this isn’t 1975
When people get all bent out of shape or overly excited about a few 10 story buildings, a new grocery store, or a new bar opening downtown, that's a hick town mentality pure & simple. We don't have to copy NYC or Chicago, but it would be a big step in the right direction if Phoenix could be portrayed to the nation & world by something more impressive besides a brown mountain or a damn cactus!
Exactly, there is much more of a demand for urban/centralized development now compared to 10+ years ago, which is precisely why there should be more vertical height ... not just a bunch of cheaply built, generic looking low to midrise buildings. Look at the other cities with similar growth patterns to Phoenix: Dallas, Houston, Austin, L.A., San Diego, etc. They didn't have much demand for urbanization until the last decade either, but all of them have been able to add tall, prestigious towers to their central cores. Even San Diego with their height restrictions has a more impressive downtown skyline than Phoenix does.
When people get all bent out of shape or overly excited about a few 10 story buildings, a new grocery store, or a new bar opening downtown, that's a hick town mentality pure & simple. We don't have to copy NYC or Chicago, but it would be a big step in the right direction if Phoenix could be portrayed to the nation & world by something more impressive besides a brown mountain or a damn cactus!
Who has complained about new development downtown? It’s doubled in size and population and gone from a ghost town to an entertainment district
What are you talking about? The only project that has been blocked by the community was a tower called derby and it was from local business owners and a tax credit not the neighborhood
You have an innacurate perception of the city and the people in it if you think they are anti development.
Our height restrictions are mostly because of the airport FYI a city of 10-40 stories would give us Vancouver
Is Vancouver not city enough for you?
As for your examples every single one of those cities had a more advance and developed urban core than we did decades ago. We are starting from zero and have made massive improvements. If you don’t think so it’s becauae you weren’t there before or haven’t been there recently
Who has complained about new development downtown? It’s doubled in size and population and gone from a ghost town to an entertainment district
What are you talking about? The only project that has been blocked by the community was a tower called derby and it was from local business owners and a tax credit not the neighborhood
You have an innacurate perception of the city and the people in it if you think they are anti development.
Our height restrictions are mostly because of the airport FYI a city of 10-40 stories would give us Vancouver
Is Vancouver not city enough for you?
As for your examples every single one of those cities had a more advance and developed urban core than we did decades ago. We are starting from zero and have made massive improvements. If you don’t think so it’s becauae you weren’t there before or haven’t been there recently
Don't ever compare Downtown Phoenix to Downtown Vancouver. It's about 4 league above Phoenix's and way, way bigger and much more dynamic. Not in the same vocabulary.
Who has complained about new development downtown? It’s doubled in size and population and gone from a ghost town to an entertainment district
What are you talking about? The only project that has been blocked by the community was a tower called derby and it was from local business owners and a tax credit not the neighborhood
You have an innacurate perception of the city and the people in it if you think they are anti development.
Well, it seems that you are anti development when it comes to tall buildings, based on some of your posts, including this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno
Height means nothing, the magic of an urban city happens in the first few floors. I would take a busy downtown of 10 story buildings over a Houston or Dallas or Phoenix with 9 to 5 vertical office parks and mega-blocks
You seem to have a very narrow view of what a downtown area is in a large U.S. city. The central core should be a lively mix of entertainment, nightlife, dining, shopping, residents, and the HQs for major corporations. I agree that downtown Phoenix has come a long way in the last decade or so, and it's much livelier at the street level ... however, the corporate HQ presence is still what is severely lacking, as well as the majestic skyline that goes along with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno
As for your examples every single one of those cities had a more advance and developed urban core than we did decades ago. We are starting from zero and have made massive improvements. If you don’t think so it’s becauae you weren’t there before or haven’t been there recently
Not necessarily. I've been to every one of those cities I mentioned, and all of them basically grew at the same kind of outward sprawling pace that Phoenix did during much of the 20th Century. I remember being in San Diego in the early 1980s when it was more or less a dump, very little to do, and had a tiny skyline. You make the lame excuse that Sky Harbor has prevented downtown Phoenix from growing taller ... however, San Diego's airport is even closer to their downtown. Explain how San Diego's central core grew from paltry to impressive, even with their height restrictions. If cities like San Diego can rise upward with a major airport close by, so can Phoenix.
It certainly does mean something! Skyscrapers help give a city prestige & clout. The skyline is the first thing you see when you drive or fly into a major city, and it's basically the first impression a person gets of the city & whole area. Whether you want to admit it or not, first impressions and appearances matter immensely ... regardless if it's meeting a person for the first time, or arriving in a particular city for the first time. Tall buildings often are the HQs for large reputable national & global companies, and their presence in a city means lots of jobs, productivity, and success.
Boston has a definitive skyline, so that's a moot point. If you prefer the lack of height in certain European cities, maybe you should move to one of them. This is America, where the vast majority of major cities have tall skylines. The only real exception to this (as you mentioned) is Washington, DC. But their height restriction is only hurting the city more than anything else because it puts a limit to what can built within the city limits. DC encompasses a rather small area ... however, the U.S. government is so huge that many federal agencies are housed outside of DC in nearby suburbs.
I mean, in America, we're used to defining a city by how many skyscrapers it's downtown has. Though it doesn't have to be the case. It's just that the way our zoning rules are set up, encourages suburban development and not high rises. Think about it, because we split zones up in Residential, Commercial, Offices, and Industry (just look at any city's zoning map), encourages it because, you split zones, put a road down the middle of them, (which makes it farther to walk), and encourage low density development by putting caps on numbers of units, how tall the building can be, how many parking spaces it must support per number of units/offices, etc, etc. etc.. all points towards for encouraging the usage of cars, roads, and freeways.
If we were really smart, we'd zone for multi-use areas. One's where people live, work, and play all on 1 piece of land. It makes efficient use of land, you can fit more people into 1 space (and not add much traffic), and you can increase the supply of housing greatly (to prevent another CA-like housing disaster).
You arent going to get massive amounts of people to give up their cars. Sorry, not happening. Even if you did it would be for Uber/Lyft, which doesnt really.solve the problem. No one wants to ride on buses and light rail full of homeless people shooting up and peeing on the floor.
This whole "give up your car and live in a high rise" is a liberal fantasy we dont need here. Move to NYC or Chicsgo if that's how you want to live. High rises end up being prohibitively expensive for every day people, so you just end up with a bunch of rich snobs living in a high rise district.
I mean, we don't need to get political here.
My suggestions was purely based on practical solutions. The fact is, if you want to maintain suburban neighborhoods, low density zoning, rural areas, you need a good infrastructure of roads and freeways which all costs money (in the form of your tax dollars).
This solution is impractical... since if you keep suburbanizing, you'll end up eventually with the entire Phoenix metro occupying a huge swath of land in the desert. Which as you know, adds to the problems we already have now. Heat island, traffic, constant need of upgrading roads/freeways -> higher taxes, constant need to expand basic infrastructure such as water, sewer, and power services (which adds to the cost of these services).
There are cities that has this problem that already has shown it isn't the way to go. Hint hint, Los Angeles. But by all means, you can be ignorant and not plan for the future in a smart way and be selfish and only think about the now before you die. But others don't want to have that selfish of a mindset.
Of course street level development is important, but we can't leave out building upward. The problem with Phoenix is there are too many small thinkers with hick town attitudes. Some people still insist on Phoenix remaining low density, and others believe adding a bunch of 5 to 15 story buildings downtown is major progress. Seriously??? There's nothing wrong with having a mix of the lower height buildings, but what's still missing is skyscrapers like most other large American cities have, as well as a large corporate presence. Bring the corporate jobs downtown, and that would have a way of bringing in more residents, eateries, shopping, and events to the central core.
Also: succefull? Do you check spelling before you post? Apparently, SUCCESS isn't part of your vocabulary.
It's funny how people can't seem to see that we have way too many single family homes and suburban neighborhoods and a very small downtown with a couple apartment skyscrapers.
I'm pretty sure, there's plenty of people who would opt to own a unit inside a skyscraper if given the opportunity and not just rent. We need more of those. Affordable townhouses and condos in skyscrapers to be built so people can buy.
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.
