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.
As for downtown Phoenix.
- Is there yet the prestige of a downtown location?
- Is the city offering incentives to lure those suburban companies?
- does the city give incentives to choose the downtown to California relocating companies, being a major relocation force to your region?
- Has pricing increased far to quick downtown that quenched what might have been more of?
Doesn't seem the core of Phoenix developed that prestige factor to have the dominant headquarters there. That is a key ingredient too.
Downtown Chicago definitely has that Prestige factor to have and lure even suburban headquarters back.
Good questions. Downtown Phoenix has always lacked the prestige compared to other large cities, but it is more of a happening place than it was just a decade ago. More people are wanting to live downtown now than before, but the lack of a solid financial district or a large corporate presence is what I believe is the missing ingredient to what could be an even better & more active central core.
It was mentioned previously about rent being too high in downtown Phoenix ... however, despite the rental increases in recent years, Phoenix is still a relatively affordable place compared to many other large cities. It's certainly more affordable than NYC, Chicago, L.A., Seattle, or San Francisco, yet many large corporations are still headquartered in the central cores of the above mentioned cities. Why are they not upset about high rents in those cities? Could it be that those companies realize that being centralized has more benefits than located out in distant suburbia?
Is the city offering incentives? Another good question. To my knowledge, Phoenix has done very little to encourage more business in the city, let alone encourage companies to move downtown. For one thing, Arizona's corporate tax rates are on the high side. I believe Ducey has tried to lower the rates, but it still isn't enough of a decrease to entice companies. Phoenix could easily offer things like tax breaks or credits to companies that move to the central core.
Southwestern cities are horizontal. There is no center and no one is looking for one.
You will never understand the Southwest unless you understand the topography and climate that makes horizontality the norm.
We are not Chicago and we don't want to be Chicago. Chicago, like the Northeast, is the past.
So southwestern cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, Vegas, L.A., and San Diego are all horizontal and have no center??? Maybe you're not looking for a city center, but that doesn't mean everybody here is exactly like you. Such ridiculous generalizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear
This is some BS. Most people want to be more like Chicago, including people living here. They have high-paying jobs, urban centers that are fun to visit (instead of hundreds of miles of grandma's cookie cutter neighborhood BS). Those companies with high-paying jobs like cities with that type of structure moreso than ours and if you don't believe me look at national trends. Which cities are booming right now?
There is nothing about topography and climate that favors this development. The only thing that does is O&G companies, automobile companies and their dealerships lobbying local politicians to favor suburban developments and making zoning only for those types of developments at the cost of losing these amenities. If you don't believe me look who funds Sal DiCiccio, who recently went for the Prop 105 campaign. A lot of car dealerships backing him. And yet, Prop 105 lost, because people want those types of amenities here.
If you can't figure this out then maybe buy a farm and move there. This isn't 1990s Phoenix anymore, we don't want this.
You could say we live somewhere more or less flat and may make this easier, sure, but then look at Europe, which has a lot of cities in flat areas, or China, etc. Denver is pretty flat and yet, densifying at a better rate than we are. Because people in Denver also want that lifestyle as an option.
Dense urban cities are the future, on the contrary, as they are more sustainable, aren't heavily subsidized by tax dollars (odd how conservatives love supporting the most costly city developments at their own expense), and can provide more affordable lifestyles (think how much you can save without car maintenance and insurance) on top of healthier lifestyles (more walking to reduce obesity). All these pros for dense urban cities, and yet all these cons for heavily suburbanized cities... really not a coincidence why we keep losing well-paying jobs who have woken up and are getting with the times.
In all fairness, I don't want Phoenix to become like Chicago. Despite having a dense & active urban core, Chicago as a whole has a reputation lately of being dirty, gritty, and crime ridden. Their population has decreased since the mid 20th century and hasn't recovered very much in recent years. Chicago is not a good example of a booming city. Despite its massive sprawl, Houston is much more of a booming city than Chicago, and they have a dense downtown, a tall skyline & many Fortune 500/Fortune 1,000 firms. Phoenix should strive to be more like the large Texas cities.
This proves that sprawling metro areas don't have to have all the jobs scattered all over just because there is room to build outward. Suburban living will always be in demand, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but people usually want to live in the suburbs because they're not as congested as the urban cores of the cities. Having companies in suburban locations increases traffic & congestion in those areas. What kind of sense does it make to have crowded streets & congested freeways in the suburbs?
All in all, the differences between city, suburb, and rural areas are very distinct and rooted in American tradition:
Large city = dense, crowded, tall skyline, big business, mass transit, cultural amenities
Suburb = master planned communities, single family homes, shopping centers, chain stores, vehicle centric, less crowded, family friendly
Rural area/small town = sparsely populated, little or no business (except locally owned stores & maybe WalMart), friendlier, slower, very little traffic, no hustle bustle
This is what's great about America: there's a specified setting for anybody who desires a specific lifestyle. Take your pick from one of the above. Don't like growth, development, tall buildings, or big business? Fine. Don't live in a large city/metro area! Problem solved.
So southwestern cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, Vegas, L.A., and San Diego are all horizontal and have no center??? Maybe you're not looking for a city center, but that doesn't mean everybody here is exactly like you. Such ridiculous generalizations.
I wouldn't consider Texas cities to be SW cities, and Las Vegas really doesn't have a traditional city center, either. People there also complain about it. Not real downtown, etc. Honestly I even think calling San Diego a SW city is a stretch as coastal CA is a whole different thing. Just saying.
__________________
My posts as moderator will be in red.
Phoenix is kind of an anamoly. If you look at SW cities, none of them are close to Phoenix’s size. Only Vegas comes close and it like Phoenix has no true urban center other than a drag of very high end gaming and entertainment and another older one on Fremont. Neither are places you’d live and work as a typical urbanite.
Albuquerque has no real urban area. It’s very similar to Phoenix when Phoenix was smaller.
Tucson has one but it’s small and not totally practical. Also Tucson, like Phoenix, sprawls very far at an even lower density.
El Paso is disjointed due to geography and being in the border, but has no real urban area either.
Now Phoenix has an urban area it’s just small. You could live an urban lifestyle here but your kind of limited without a car.
I wouldn't consider Texas cities to be SW cities, and Las Vegas really doesn't have a traditional city center, either. People there also complain about it. Not real downtown, etc. Honestly I even think calling San Diego a SW city is a stretch as coastal CA is a whole different thing. Just saying.
Texas & southern California cities are technically SW, but they also have other classifications. Houston is probably more southern, and Dallas could be defined as central plains, but San Antonio has more of a SW culture than the other two.
My main point was that all the cities I mentioned grew at pretty much the same pace that Phoenix did, and all of them at one time were horizontally developed with very limited urbanized central cores. But now, all of them (with perhaps the exception of Vegas) have taller, denser, more active downtown areas than ever before due to the increased market demand.
Even Vegas has grown vertically, but mainly south of downtown along the Strip. Their crown jewel has been (coincidentally enough) CityCenter, which I think is one thing that has helped turn Vegas into a real city, and not just a gambling & show town. The addition of pro sports has helped in this regard as well.
Texas & southern California cities are technically SW, but they also have other classifications. Houston is probably more southern, and Dallas could be defined as central plains, but San Antonio has more of a SW culture than the other two.
My main point was that all the cities I mentioned grew at pretty much the same pace that Phoenix did, and all of them at one time were horizontally developed with very limited urbanized central cores. But now, all of them (with perhaps the exception of Vegas) have taller, denser, more active downtown areas than ever before due to the increased market demand.
Even Vegas has grown vertically, but mainly south of downtown along the Strip. Their crown jewel has been (coincidentally enough) CityCenter, which I think is one thing that has helped turn Vegas into a real city, and not just a gambling & show town. The addition of pro sports has helped in this regard as well.
Texas is Texas. It is definitely its own category.
I don't consider City Center in Las Vegas to be anything that has turned LV into a "real city" as it is really just a big, fancy mixed use hotel/resident/shopping area. Nothing "city" about it considering it is part of the Las Vegas Strip. It's just another touristy thing, as it is used much more predominately by visitors than locals. It's not a bad thing, but citing it as an example in a thread that is comparing other cities to Chicago is a stretch.
__________________
My posts as moderator will be in red.
I wouldn't consider Texas cities to be SW cities, and Las Vegas really doesn't have a traditional city center, either. People there also complain about it. Not real downtown, etc. Honestly I even think calling San Diego a SW city is a stretch as coastal CA is a whole different thing. Just saying.
I'm 33yo and grew up in the Chicago suburbs in the '90s, the land of so many classic John Hughes movies, along with the same-era, same-setting classic 'Risky Business'. In my opinion, one common characteristic of kids and teenagers in the Chicago suburbs is the excitement of going to "downtown Chicago". Fields trips there always seemed more special, like you were an adult for a while, "all on your own" (/s) in the big city for the day. Following college, a common rite of passage for suburban Chicago teenagers is getting enough money saved up to rent an apartment with your friends *in the city*.
I've lived in metro Phoenix for several months now, and I think that metro Phoenix, especially Scottsdale, is a pretty great place to live. But my biggest disappointment with metro Phoenix is downtown Phoenix itself. Simply put, I've been shocked with how forgettable it is.
Whereas "moving to the city" is, as I mentioned above, a major rite of passage among teenagers in Chicago suburbia, "moving to the city" (specifically downtown Phoenix) seems to be of no interest to many of the young 20-something workers in my large suburban metro Phoenix office.
After Thur/Fri work in downtown Chicago, large groups of coworkers would often walk or talk the El and head together to a bar, and then another, then another, etc. The young people here in suburban Phoenix all drive their own ways after work and seem to spend little time with coworkers after work.
Perhaps it's unfair to*compare*Phoenix to Chicago.
To be clear, life in Chicago about half the year can be miserable, owing primarily to the weather (even in Phoenix's miserable weather time, you can still be on the golf course or at the pool, and early mornings are still great), and it's a high-tax, high-cost place to love. I think that there's some spectacular things about Phoenix. The drive to Flagstaff is stunningly gorgeous. Hiking up Camelback is awesome. Golf in shorts in January is so rad. The reasonably quick drive to Vegas or SoCal or a Mexican beach town is cool as well. But *The City* proper is such a letdown.
But it's very interesting to me that what makes Chicago great (awe-inspiring architecture, the manic energy of 20-something life when everyone you know is within a couple-miles radius and there's a ton to do within such a small area) is generally non-existent in metro Phoenix, where so much is spread out and the aura of "GOING TO THE CITY" common among Chicago suburbanites (and NYC-area Bridge and Tunnelers as well) just doesn't exist.
So what is your opinion on why, compared to Chicago, so few young people in Phoenix are interested in moving to the city center?**
Downtown Phoenix’s history is different than most other large cities. Phoenix was a relatively small city until the mid 50s. Downtown was the center of activity (shopping, employment and entertainment). As the city rapidly grew during the 50s, businesses started to rapidly leave downtown in favor of new shopping centers. Park Central mall took numerous high profile department stores from downtown Phoenix, leaving people with less of a reason go downtown. By the early 60s, downtown Phoenix became a virtual ghost town outside of working hours. As the city continued to expand outward, downtown remained small and increasingly neglected. Over the decades, many older buildings, including several old theaters that were located there were demolished.
Chicago and other cities had much larger downtown areas than Phoenix had. These downtown areas were prominent enough to withstand post World War 2 suburbanization. Phoenix’s downtown was not. Suburbanization killed the city’s little downtown in a period of under five years.
There have been numerous downtown redevelopment efforts over the past 50 years. They have included the construction of the original convention center, demolition of a number of flop house hotels and porno theaters, the construction of a downtown park that no longer exists, construction of the Arizona Center, construction of the stadiums and construction of a couple hotels in the 70s, in addition to many other proposals and projects. None of these proposals were enough to get people back downtown in any meaningful numbers.
Within the past 20 years, the city made a much more concerted effort to get downtown on the map again. The city worked to attract ASU to open a long discussed downtown campus. Light rail also helped spur quite a bit of new development again. Downtown is more active now than it’s been in about 60 years. However, it is still small and low key compared to cities as big as Phoenix. Downtown is constantly competing with Scottsdale and parts of Tempe as an entertainment destination. Downtown is slowly coming along, but still has a long way to go.
Southwestern cities are horizontal. There is no center and no one is looking for one.
You will never understand the Southwest unless you understand the topography and climate that makes horizontality the norm.
We are not Chicago and we don't want to be Chicago. Chicago, like the Northeast, is the past.
True, Phoenix is not Chicago or the Northeast, but Chicago and the Northeast are definitely not the past. I agree with the poster that said this is BS, through and through. Biases connected with moving from the Midwest or Northeast won't eliminate a problem that will grow with time and that is really unique to Phoenix which is now a huge city. What is "the past" is car-dependent suburbs with sprawl and no public transit that can transport people from point A to point B. Downtown Chicago has boomed because it is where companies want to be, moving from HQ from out of state like Conagra in Omaha and Google in California to moving from the Chicago suburbs like McDonald's and portions of Walgreen.
All this BS talk of suburban greatness for companies that continue to sprawl out to infinity is not good for the environment, traffic, area cohesiveness or prestige of a city. What climate or topography (Phoenix is in a valley right?) have to do with horizontal nature of growth is beyond me. Using your logic, flat Chicago would be more likely to grow horizontally than Phoenix. It all comes down to poor planning.
So southwestern cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, Vegas, L.A., and San Diego are all horizontal and have no center??? Maybe you're not looking for a city center, but that doesn't mean everybody here is exactly like you. Such ridiculous generalizations.
In all fairness, I don't want Phoenix to become like Chicago. Despite having a dense & active urban core, Chicago as a whole has a reputation lately of being dirty, gritty, and crime ridden. Their population has decreased since the mid 20th century and hasn't recovered very much in recent years. Chicago is not a good example of a booming city. Despite its massive sprawl, Houston is much more of a booming city than Chicago, and they have a dense downtown, a tall skyline & many Fortune 500/Fortune 1,000 firms. Phoenix should strive to be more like the large Texas cities.
This proves that sprawling metro areas don't have to have all the jobs scattered all over just because there is room to build outward. Suburban living will always be in demand, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but people usually want to live in the suburbs because they're not as congested as the urban cores of the cities. Having companies in suburban locations increases traffic & congestion in those areas. What kind of sense does it make to have crowded streets & congested freeways in the suburbs?
All in all, the differences between city, suburb, and rural areas are very distinct and rooted in American tradition:
Large city = dense, crowded, tall skyline, big business, mass transit, cultural amenities
Suburb = master planned communities, single family homes, shopping centers, chain stores, vehicle centric, less crowded, family friendly
Rural area/small town = sparsely populated, little or no business (except locally owned stores & maybe WalMart), friendlier, slower, very little traffic, no hustle bustle
This is what's great about America: there's a specified setting for anybody who desires a specific lifestyle. Take your pick from one of the above. Don't like growth, development, tall buildings, or big business? Fine. Don't live in a large city/metro area! Problem solved.
I don't know where you are from or if you have EVER been to Chicago, but it is one of the cleanest cities out there, with a beautiful downtown. Chicago has far more fortune 500 firms than Houston. When I think of Houston, I think oil refineries and hurricanes, no zoning and sprawl. To each his own.
Last edited by Justabystander; 10-03-2019 at 05:49 PM..
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.
