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.
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.
Problem is, anything built downtown WON'T be affordable. Dallas has converted a lot of the old office buildings to high rise rentals and apartments. They are not affordable for the average office worker. PHX would be the same.
Problem is, anything built downtown WON'T be affordable. Dallas has converted a lot of the old office buildings to high rise rentals and apartments. They are not affordable for the average office worker. PHX would be the same.
Not unless you build more than enough of them and then some more on top of that. Simple supply and demand problem here. If you believe in such a concept.
Phoenix has been overdeveloped since at least the 1990s. There should have been something along the lines of an urban growth boundary put at Bell Road in the early 1990s. The population in Phoenix grew far faster than infrastructure has. There are the perpetual water issues. If growth had to occur, it would have been better for growth to go upwards into the sky rather than tearing up new desert land. However, upward growth isn't even ideal.
The Phoenix metro area really reached its carrying capacity of population in the 1990s, given the lack of job quality due to few corporate HQs being in the region and the water concerns. Maricopa County had under 1 million people as of the 1990 Census and population growth should have inched after that. At most the County's population should be like 1.4 or 1.5 million now, and Pinal should have grown at a similar pace as well.
The quality of jobs issue was the primary reason I departed, but I was always saddened when I saw pristine desert land being torn up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukon
Problem is, anything built downtown WON'T be affordable. Dallas has converted a lot of the old office buildings to high rise rentals and apartments. They are not affordable for the average office worker. PHX would be the same.
What is happening in Dallas is that in Uptown and Downtown, the apartments are rather expensive. Not quite New York or San Francisco level pricing, but rather expensive for the region. If you go a few miles away from Uptown and Downtown, the apartments get more affordable, but you sacrifice walkability and proximity at bars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougStark
My final opinion: If Phoenix metro doesn't take this urban heat island problem seriously and implement strstegies to reduce it, the whole metro will eventually become borderline unlivable.
Phoenix has been overdeveloped since at least the 1990s. There should have been something along the lines of an urban growth boundary put at Bell Road in the early 1990s. The population in Phoenix grew far faster than infrastructure has. There are the perpetual water issues. If growth had to occur, it would have been better for growth to go upwards into the sky rather than tearing up new desert land. However, upward growth isn't even ideal.
The Phoenix metro area really reached its carrying capacity of population in the 1990s, given the lack of job quality due to few corporate HQs being in the region and the water concerns. Maricopa County had under 1 million people as of the 1990 Census and population growth should have inched after that. At most the County's population should be like 1.4 or 1.5 million now, and Pinal should have grown at a similar pace as well.
The quality of jobs issue was the primary reason I departed, but I was always saddened when I saw pristine desert land being torn up.
What is happening in Dallas is that in Uptown and Downtown, the apartments are rather expensive. Not quite New York or San Francisco level pricing, but rather expensive for the region. If you go a few miles away from Uptown and Downtown, the apartments get more affordable, but you sacrifice walkability and proximity at bars.
I was thinking of the Phoenix alone number in 1990, which was under 1 million. Maricopa County, which is most of the metro area had 2.1 Million in 1990, a little over 3 million in 2000, and just under 4 million in 2010. The estimate now is 4.3 million. So, lets say that Maricopa County doubled a 2.1 million population in 1990 in 25 years (it is fair to say that the population was 4.2 million in 2015). That growth is excessive. The environmental sustainability isn't there to support that sort of growth.
I would have liked to have seen Maricopa County cap population growth and land development given the water issues. That's just environmentally friendly. While I'm not an environmentalist, I think it is good to do sensible things to protect the environment. Tearing up desert land for development is not sensible. Measured population growth while growing upward to the sky is more sensible. Conceptually, I would have liked the idea of an urban growth boundary placed at Bell Road, but in practice urban growth boundaries haven't been effective. There's a urban growth boundary case study around Boulder, Colorado that didn't quite work as anticipated.
The main problem with the Phoenix metropolitan area is jobs. During my time there in the 2000s, what I noticed is that Metro Phoenix lacks major Fortune 500 headquarters (still true now) and the quality of jobs suffers. Because Metro Phoenix was not a major population around the end of World War II (~300,000), big legacy companies are not headquartered there. There is no Procter & Gamble type HQ in Phoenix. Metro Phoenix did have the Dial Corporation from 1971 until 2017, but that's now gone and even when it was there, Dial alone does not make a local economy. Motorola's declined. Other big companies still in the area are Discount Tire, Best Western, etc. Discount Tire doesn't compare well with Apple, Google, Amazon, and AT&T. And Phoenix never had a company like Google develop in its backyard. With all this place, there isn't a base of jobs that is on par with metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, etc. The quality of jobs seen in Metro Phoenix is on par with a midsize metro like an Oklahoma City.
What has happened in Phoenix is expansive growth with infrastructure not keeping pace and without environmental sustainability being prioritized.
I was thinking of the Phoenix alone number in 1990, which was under 1 million. Maricopa County, which is most of the metro area had 2.1 Million in 1990, a little over 3 million in 2000, and just under 4 million in 2010. The estimate now is 4.3 million. So, lets say that Maricopa County doubled a 2.1 million population in 1990 in 25 years (it is fair to say that the population was 4.2 million in 2015). That growth is excessive. The environmental sustainability isn't there to support that sort of growth.
I would have liked to have seen Maricopa County cap population growth and land development given the water issues. That's just environmentally friendly. While I'm not an environmentalist, I think it is good to do sensible things to protect the environment. Tearing up desert land for development is not sensible. Measured population growth while growing upward to the sky is more sensible. Conceptually, I would have liked the idea of an urban growth boundary placed at Bell Road, but in practice urban growth boundaries haven't been effective. There's a urban growth boundary case study around Boulder, Colorado that didn't quite work as anticipated.
While I'm not in favor of continuous outward sprawl, capping population growth goes against free enterprise. It also creates more government control, which we already have more than enough of. I would be much more in favor of Valley cities mandating that all vacant land within in the city limits be developed before any further expansion of city boundaries takes place. From the '60s through the '90s, Phoenix and many surrounding suburbs annexed a ridiculous amount of land. Much of this land in the fringes is still undeveloped, and what is developed is defined as leapfrog sprawl. We don't need growth caps, but we do need more infill and upward type of growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312
The main problem with the Phoenix metropolitan area is jobs. During my time there in the 2000s, what I noticed is that Metro Phoenix lacks major Fortune 500 headquarters (still true now) and the quality of jobs suffers. Because Metro Phoenix was not a major population around the end of World War II (~300,000), big legacy companies are not headquartered there. There is no Procter & Gamble type HQ in Phoenix. Metro Phoenix did have the Dial Corporation from 1971 until 2017, but that's now gone and even when it was there, Dial alone does not make a local economy. Motorola's declined. Other big companies still in the area are Discount Tire, Best Western, etc. Discount Tire doesn't compare well with Apple, Google, Amazon, and AT&T. And Phoenix never had a company like Google develop in its backyard. With all this place, there isn't a base of jobs that is on par with metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, etc. The quality of jobs seen in Metro Phoenix is on par with a midsize metro like an Oklahoma City.
I agree 100%. A lot of this is because of the TYPE of people who continue to move here. Many of them seek sunshine, blue skies, and warm weather as the main reasons to get away from where they used to live, so they choose the Phoenix area because they want a "better climate" along with more affordable big city amenities. The problem is many of them have few goals in life, and very little desire to better themselves business wise & financially.
The lack of skills creates a rather low talent pool for higher paying jobs, and this has a way of discouraging reputable companies from locating their main HQs here. I've seen this at the company I work for: when interviewing potential candidates (many of whom are in their 20s & 30s), I can't believe how awful their grammar and communication skills are ... and many of them are COLLEGE GRADUATES! They have little or no work experience, and yet expect to obtain a job title that requires experience. A lot of this problem is widespread throughout the country, but the Phoenix area seems to be a haven for laid back, unskilled, unmotivated attitudes. That's one of the big reasons why there is a lack of Fortune 500/Fortune 1,000 company HQs.
While I'm not in favor of continuous outward sprawl, capping population growth goes against free enterprise. It also creates more government control, which we already have more than enough of. I would be much more in favor of Valley cities mandating that all vacant land within in the city limits be developed before any further expansion of city boundaries takes place. From the '60s through the '90s, Phoenix and many surrounding suburbs annexed a ridiculous amount of land. Much of this land in the fringes is still undeveloped, and what is developed is defined as leapfrog sprawl. We don't need growth caps, but we do need more infill and upward type of growth.
I would be okay with infill and upward type growth instead of outward growth. I'm in Dallas now, and Metro Dallas is having the same problem with outward vs. infill. If there has to be growth, it should be infill and measured. Metro Dallas has had Frisco and McKinney boom out of nowhere since the 1990s like Surprise and Gilbert have done in Metro Phoenix.
I was always saddened to see desert land torn up in Phoenix, and now in Dallas, I am saddened when former prairie/forested land is torn up. Dallas doesn't quite have the same water issues as a desert in Phoenix, but I'm not liking the development in either place. Frisco, McKinney, Gilbert, and Surprise are all examples of low density outward growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
I agree 100%. A lot of this is because of the TYPE of people who continue to move here. Many of them seek sunshine, blue skies, and warm weather as the main reasons to get away from where they used to live, so they choose the Phoenix area because they want a "better climate" along with more affordable big city amenities. The problem is many of them have few goals in life, and very little desire to better themselves business wise & financially.
The lack of skills creates a rather low talent pool for higher paying jobs, and this has a way of discouraging reputable companies from locating their main HQs here. I've seen this at the company I work for: when interviewing potential candidates (many of whom are in their 20s & 30s), I can't believe how awful their grammar and communication skills are ... and many of them are COLLEGE GRADUATES! They have little or no work experience, and yet expect to obtain a job title that requires experience. A lot of this problem is widespread throughout the country, but the Phoenix area seems to be a haven for laid back, unskilled, unmotivated attitudes. That's one of the big reasons why there is a lack of Fortune 500/Fortune 1,000 company HQs.
I decided to leave Phoenix after dealing with the jobs issue. Due to absence of reputable companies having HQs there, the quality of jobs is low. Even reputable companies with operations in Metro Phoenix don't have their highest skilled jobs in Metro Phoenix. Phoenix was the first city that I worked in after college graduation, and it was a rather frustrating place to start a career. One of the criteria that led me to Dallas was looking for a city with a pro-business environment with numerous Fortune 500/Fortune 1000 HQs, and this criterion was heavily influenced by my experiences starting my career in Phoenix.
Just so you know, Kierland is an INFILL development, not just another sprawling master planned suburban community. The cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale were already expanding & building outward when the notion of Kierland was conceived, and the land that would become Kierland was nothing but a huge swath of vacant land in the middle of all this leapfrog development. You should be glad Kierland exists and is shaping up to be somewhat of an urbanized district in a sea of low density sameness. Also, the road infrastructure is already in place. If traffic is a problem, then so be it. Urbanized areas aren't exactly designed to be quiet and peaceful.
If you want to go on the attack of sprawling development with a lack of infrastructure, go after San Tan Valley, Maricopa, Anthem, Buckeye, Estrella, or even Westgate, which are basically on the edge of nowhere. Infill developments like Kierland are very much welcome, as is upward development. BTW, there are no "tall" towers in the Kierland area, just a few midrise condos & office buildings. Perhaps your definition of "tall" and "high density" is different than mine. I consider anything over 30 stories to be tall, and these are the kinds of structures downtown/midtown Phoenix & downtown Tempe should be building. I also don't see anything wrong with putting up 20 or 30 story buildings in Old Town Scottsdale. What has taken place in Kierland is just right for the area, and it meets the demand, so I don't see the need in complaining.
Kierland is not really an infill development. It is just a symptom of terrible Los Angeles-style development that is hurting all Sunbelt cities, not just ourselves. All development in Kierland now can be considered infill, but not when it was first created, which is the issue. Government is slow and they zoned it that way. They aren't looking at open lots in Downtown or Midtown and saying "hey, we need more mid and high-rises as we need to increase our supply and this area is popular, so we are going to rezone these lots". Kierland had already been zoned to support major employment areas. It's not the same scenario. They zoned for the offices, now those who want to live/work/play in the same place they work (aka urbanites) are drawn to Kierland.
Valley Native you and I agree on creating more urbanized districts and supporting infill and higher density, but the location of employment hubs is important. "Oh my husband and I both work in Kierland, so we can live in Carefree if we want to." Building employment hubs further from central locations is what allows development to leapfrog out to exurbs, as for the most part most people need jobs. Everyone has a limitation to how much time they are willing to sacrifice to commute. Whether it's two hours a day--one hour each way--or three hours a day for those who choose places like Casa Grande, but there is a limit on how much people are willing to sacrifice their free time in reaching their employer. But if outward development like Kierland was at one point in time allows even further development for commuters, then suddenly places like Kierland become more important areas that do eventually become infill (crazy to think how Northern was at one point the most northern road in the city) and then suffer the same issues of traffic and it increases demand for suburban outward sprawl like some of the areas you mentioned e.g. Maricopa. However if higher density infill developments were approved and not willfully blocked and ignored by NIMBYs, governments, and other groups of people across the several decades since WWII along with public transportation projects then there wouldn't have been a need to create Kierland-like areas, because getting to Downtown/Midtown would not have been as painful and more people would be willing to commute there and not create demand for suburban fringe office development which is what Kierland used to be (and we've leapfrogged past Kierland now) to newer areas.
So in summary, what I'm saying is Kierland-like areas (suburban fringe employment hubs) with terrible infrastructure cause low density suburban development due to easier commutes, creating induced demand for more cars and more traffic.
We also do have different definitions of "tall" as most zoning definitions define "high-rise" development as anything taller than 6 stories, which is the definition I use as well. Mid-rise is anywhere from four to six stories and is the development style of most apartment and condo complexes I see today. Skyscrapers like in Downtown and Midtown, which we both agree we should be developing more of, are basically a thing in the past as they are expensive to maintain. We will never really see skyscraper development in Phoenix again unless we put an urban growth boundary in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukon
I think a big part of why Phoenix metro has grown out instead of up is that people move to the west for wide open spaces. You build up, you lose that feeling and things start to feel closed in. You feel like you've lost part of your personal space. While some may like an urban jungle like NYC, others still want to be able to see the horizon.
Have you ever been in a high-rise? Especially in Phoenix? You can see even more wide open spaces than you do in a single-story house. Most development will be mid-rise, four to six stories, for high density areas, which means if you get to live in one of the few high-rise developments, you will be able to see forever. I suggest looking at some condo listings in Downtown, you can see the ends of the Earth in them. And in the pricier units with the better locations in the building, you will get all the views East Valley has to offer (Four Peaks, Camelback, etc.) and West Valley (Estrellas, unblocked sunsets down the I-10 corridor, etc.) in one unblocked location.
Problem is, anything built downtown WON'T be affordable. Dallas has converted a lot of the old office buildings to high rise rentals and apartments. They are not affordable for the average office worker. PHX would be the same.
This has to do with real estate speculators holding land for increasing value and then selling it at a point in which they feel will maximize their profits. Housing will never be affordable ever again because capitalism is doing exactly what it's meant to do, maximize profits. Developers have to factor in those higher real estate costs in their rent/listing prices on top of construction costs and then for them to turn a profit themselves.
We will never have new, affordable real estate unless real estate speculation gets regulated and/or affordable rents tied to minimum wage or something gets legislated.
Valley Native you and I agree on creating more urbanized districts and supporting infill and higher density, but the location of employment hubs is important. "Oh my husband and I both work in Kierland, so we can live in Carefree if we want to." Building employment hubs further from central locations is what allows development to leapfrog out to exurbs, as for the most part most people need jobs. Everyone has a limitation to how much time they are willing to sacrifice to commute. Whether it's two hours a day--one hour each way--or three hours a day for those who choose places like Casa Grande, but there is a limit on how much people are willing to sacrifice their free time in reaching their employer. But if outward development like Kierland was at one point in time allows even further development for commuters, then suddenly places like Kierland become more important areas that do eventually become infill (crazy to think how Northern was at one point the most northern road in the city) and then suffer the same issues of traffic and it increases demand for suburban outward sprawl like some of the areas you mentioned e.g. Maricopa. However if higher density infill developments were approved and not willfully blocked and ignored by NIMBYs, governments, and other groups of people across the several decades since WWII along with public transportation projects then there wouldn't have been a need to create Kierland-like areas, because getting to Downtown/Midtown would not have been as painful and more people would be willing to commute there and not create demand for suburban fringe office development which is what Kierland used to be (and we've leapfrogged past Kierland now) to newer areas.
So in summary, what I'm saying is Kierland-like areas (suburban fringe employment hubs) with terrible infrastructure cause low density suburban development due to easier commutes, creating induced demand for more cars and more traffic.
Agree in principle, but my point was that the Kierland land was nothing but a vast vacant swath of nothing, and development had already taken place all around it anyway. Maybe in 1978 it would have been a leapfrog sprawl development, but not so much in the mid to late 1990s when it came to fruition. With Phoenix & Scottsdale annexing so much land and sprawling like crazy during the last part of the 20th Century, something had to be developed in that area eventually. I'm actually glad Kierland has become upscale and semi urban ... not just another mundane low density cookie cutter community. If it had, I would be inclined to agree with you more.
City North, Desert Ridge, NorTerra, Anthem, etc. are the leapfrog sprawling areas that are basically a sea of sameness ... nothing at all like what Kierland is. And I highly doubt that Kierland has caused these places to develop. They would have happened anyway because of demand. Even though the demand to live on the fringes is not as high as it was 20 years ago, there will always be those who want that lifestyle, and will commute however long it takes to get to their work, appointments, etc. I only ask that the cities not be so eager to annex those outlying areas. Allow infill development to take place in the existing city limits before any further annexation of exurban areas takes place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
We also do have different definitions of "tall" as most zoning definitions define "high-rise" development as anything taller than 6 stories, which is the definition I use as well. Mid-rise is anywhere from four to six stories and is the development style of most apartment and condo complexes I see today. Skyscrapers like in Downtown and Midtown, which we both agree we should be developing more of, are basically a thing in the past as they are expensive to maintain. We will never really see skyscraper development in Phoenix again unless we put an urban growth boundary in place.
And that makes no sense whatsoever. When other sprawling metros like Dallas, Houston, Austin, Atlanta, L.A., San Diego, and even Vegas have gone vertical, why must Phoenix be lagging behind? Of course they're expensive to maintain, but that didn't seem to stop 50+ story structures from being built in those other cities in recent years. Phoenix's skyline was actually somewhat impressive 30 or 40 years ago for a city its size (despite the lack of density) ... however, now that it's up there in population with cities like Philadelphia & Dallas, the lack of height is rather embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
Have you ever been in a high-rise? Especially in Phoenix? You can see even more wide open spaces than you do in a single-story house. Most development will be mid-rise, four to six stories, for high density areas, which means if you get to live in one of the few high-rise developments, you will be able to see forever. I suggest looking at some condo listings in Downtown, you can see the ends of the Earth in them. And in the pricier units with the better locations in the building, you will get all the views East Valley has to offer (Four Peaks, Camelback, etc.) and West Valley (Estrellas, unblocked sunsets down the I-10 corridor, etc.) in one unblocked location.
Well said! These NIMBY types who hate highrises because they supposedly block sunlight, ruin mountain views, or destroy tranquility are so clueless. If they bought a condo in one of the top floors of a highrise building, they'd have all the precious sunlight and views they could ask for. But you know that many of these NIMBYs are just loudmouths & troublemakers, and would never live in a highrise (largely because they can't afford it).
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.
