U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2019, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Uptown Phoenix, AZ
5,128 posts, read 4,598,777 times
Reputation: 4535

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager View Post
Builders build the type of housing that people want. DR Horton halted a townhome project just south of Happy Valley at I17 because they weren't selling them. They finally finished them but considering it took them a decade to do it in an area surrounded by both middle and high income jobs it shows the demand isn't there. In a much much shorter timeframe DR Horton built and sold 314, much more expensive, single family homes at Jomax and Dysart. People want to live further out and are more than willing to pay more to do it.
No one wants a townhouse on the periphery. People want townhouses where there are services. Why would I give up space and share walls for... being next to dirt patches and boring exurbia? No wonder that project failed it failed to understand why people want townhouses and condos. People who want to live in exurbia want an exurban house, not a townhouse.

Again we need townhouses and more development in the core. People don’t really want to commute from Jomax and Dysarthria for crying out loud. They are being forced to because we aren’t building in the core. Build townhouses and condos in the core and upzone the swathes of single family houses in the core with guest houses and duplexes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2019, 11:48 PM
 
81 posts, read 45,377 times
Reputation: 117
Maybe I’m going to sort of defend sprawl and exurbia expansion? I’m from the urban east coast, I never saw an attached garage or new houses being built in my life until I was an adult. I hate how car based and diabesity sprawl is...but building outward is on the other hand also amazing in that it keeps housing prices low. San Francisco has NIMBYism and families with two working parents living in vans. I live in urban infill in Phoenix and have a yard big house and a short commute. Arizona is cheap because you can build. If we have a growing population due to immigration we need a growing housing stock period. I would just like to see more walkable bikeable civic design as Phoenix (and Tuscon) spread.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2019, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ area
3,338 posts, read 3,916,799 times
Reputation: 4115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
No one wants a townhouse on the periphery. People want townhouses where there are services. Why would I give up space and share walls for... being next to dirt patches and boring exurbia? No wonder that project failed it failed to understand why people want townhouses and condos. People who want to live in exurbia want an exurban house, not a townhouse.

Again we need townhouses and more development in the core. People don’t really want to commute from Jomax and Dysarthria for crying out loud. They are being forced to because we aren’t building in the core. Build townhouses and condos in the core and upzone the swathes of single family houses in the core with guest houses and duplexes.
The townhomes at Happy Valley and I17 have all the services, jobs, nightlife, you name that anyone would need it is all there. A dozen or more corporate HQs are within 20 minutes of that location with a huge chunk of them within biking distance. And you are 30 minutes or less from Downton, Desert Ridge, Westgate, Lake Pleasant. There are many small businesses right there, doctors offices, shopping, dining, etc. People don't want townhomes even at a steep discount, they are about 20%+ less expensive than the single family homes across the street. you can buy one today for $200k-260k depending on how much SQ FT you want.

The people who purchased at Dysart and Jomax paid more for their new homes than most of Phoenix and most of them spend thousands more to landscape and upgrade their new homes after they closed, that's pretty normal for new homes. They absolutely chose to buy there because it is exurban. Look at how much Asante has exploded, or Verrado.

There is a tiny minority that want to live downtown in the "core" but are too poor to be able to afford the stock that is there so they want to increase stock with the hopes of reducing prices. The truth is if it was profitable then the real estate developers would be doing it, like they do elsewhere, but it isn't profitable here because people want space. I don't care if you throw in a thousand 50 story buildings, I'll be way out here on land I own and can do whatever I want with every day of the week over being packed in like sardines.

Houses with guest houses exist all over the valley, my dad lives in my guest house. When he dies I'll convert it into an office/gym not rent it out. And whose going to pay for all these duplexes/guest houses you want to create? They can be built today, people don't want to.

I'm not entirely sure what any of this has to do with the question the OP asked though. I'm not sure why you have to go into unrelated threads and push your odd belief that Phoenix needs to become a hyper dense city. It won't happen anytime soon no matter how much of a hard on for it you have.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2019, 02:25 AM
 
Location: Uptown Phoenix, AZ
5,128 posts, read 4,598,777 times
Reputation: 4535
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager View Post
The townhomes at Happy Valley and I17 have all the services, jobs, nightlife, you name that anyone would need it is all there. A dozen or more corporate HQs are within 20 minutes of that location with a huge chunk of them within biking distance. And you are 30 minutes or less from Downton, Desert Ridge, Westgate, Lake Pleasant. There are many small businesses right there, doctors offices, shopping, dining, etc. People don't want townhomes even at a steep discount, they are about 20%+ less expensive than the single family homes across the street. you can buy one today for $200k-260k depending on how much SQ FT you want.

The people who purchased at Dysart and Jomax paid more for their new homes than most of Phoenix and most of them spend thousands more to landscape and upgrade their new homes after they closed, that's pretty normal for new homes. They absolutely chose to buy there because it is exurban. Look at how much Asante has exploded, or Verrado.

There is a tiny minority that want to live downtown in the "core" but are too poor to be able to afford the stock that is there so they want to increase stock with the hopes of reducing prices. The truth is if it was profitable then the real estate developers would be doing it, like they do elsewhere, but it isn't profitable here because people want space. I don't care if you throw in a thousand 50 story buildings, I'll be way out here on land I own and can do whatever I want with every day of the week over being packed in like sardines.

Houses with guest houses exist all over the valley, my dad lives in my guest house. When he dies I'll convert it into an office/gym not rent it out. And whose going to pay for all these duplexes/guest houses you want to create? They can be built today, people don't want to.

I'm not entirely sure what any of this has to do with the question the OP asked though. I'm not sure why you have to go into unrelated threads and push your odd belief that Phoenix needs to become a hyper dense city. It won't happen anytime soon no matter how much of a hard on for it you have.
This is what we can do to stop Phoenix and Tucson from eventually touching and becoming a CSA. Phoenix is in the top share of cities for supercommuters so this is really likely to be our future. Building up instead of building out has everything to do with this thread. People want to live here so they need to live somewhere. If we don’t want Tucson and Phoenix to touch then we need to build up. Or we can follow California’s development even more (since we are almost a carbon copy of Los Angeles in its development) and continue sprawling until prices skyrocket and we eventually hit nature’s carrying capacity (we might be closer than we think of you’ve been listening to local media). If you can’t connect the dots with that and the topic of this thread it isn’t my problem...

There is no nightlife at Happy Valley and I-17 what a joke. I’m in my 20s and I’d be bored to tears if I lived up there. I used to live by 7th street and Bell and was pretty bored with that too. Much happier here in Tempe which has a real nightlife. What I get in Tempe vs North Phoenix is so significantly different, I get international cuisine, I get to use transit for commuting (I get subsidized transit for my commute, free light rail rides are fine by me), so many things near me to go do and see. Most of which in walking distance and at most a short drive for everything I need. My central location also puts me in a prime spot should I ever change jobs, my commute would be relatively similar most likely. Where instead if I lived far north like that and lost my job in a recession and the next job I could land was in Chandler... that gas budget wouldn’t be very fun. Tempe is where people would be more inclined to live in a townhouse, not far north Phoenix, because people who would want to live somewhere like Tempe would be more inclined to live in higher density because things are so close by.

If you have a townhouse you mostly own the land your townhouse sits on too.. But if you’re in a SFH with a HOA you don’t really own your land either as failing to abide by the HOA, after a certain amount of time depending on the “severity” of your violation, can get you evicted from your own house even if you have no mortgage. That also applies to townhouses and condos. So those people in Verrado and similar master planned communities don’t *really* own their houses either. They can’t paint their house how they want, they can’t build a shed if they want, they may not be able to park an RV on their property... and they can get evicted if they refuse to follow the regulations of the HOA. If some house in a master planned community because you don’t share a wall means “do whatever I want with every day of the week” then you really need to read some of the contracts out there and understand that at that point a townhouse is not really any different, you’re just biased without any logical reasoning behind it.

I’m not proposing everyone build a guest house or duplex. City zoning ordinances forbid them if not HOA a lot of the time. I want zoning regulations be changed to allow this and then people do it as they please. Rents are at an all-time high right now and are still climbing I believe, this would appeal to many to build something they can rent out. Minneapolis recently banned single-family zoning, we should do it too. It does not mean people cannot build a single family house, it means that the area of the city cannot REQUIRE only single family homes to be built there. That way when there is vacant land or someone sees a good opportunity, they can build a condo development, or spilt a house too big into a duplex, or a casita, without fighting zoning regulations and going through numerous city NIMBY meetings for land they already own. Also getting rid of those hoops will create less of a financial burden for developers and families and hopefully will reduce costs.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2019, 03:51 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ area
3,338 posts, read 3,916,799 times
Reputation: 4115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
If we don’t want Tucson and Phoenix to touch then we need to build up
Is that really a bad thing that needs to be avoided though? Really the distance between the Pheonix metro and Tuscon isn't much more than the distance between Surprise and San Tan Valley and no one was trying to stop those two from touching. By allowing the two metros to connect you will remove a lot of farm land and end up conserving tons of water in the process. The best thing for sustainability that could happen to desert farm land is removing the farm and putting people in its place. It is bound to happen eventually considering we have pretty firm Southern, Northern, and Eastern barriers (mountains and reservations) which will halt development in those directions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
since we are almost a carbon copy of Los Angeles in its development
Phoenix is nothing like LA. LA didn't plan for cars at all and packed way too many people into a tight area. You want an example of why you don't want higher density then LA is the perfect place to look. Phoenix spread everyone out, made a bunch of areas for businesses to operate, and built/expanded/maintained the infrastructure in order to accommodate its growth. LA did none of that, they restricted development, they never had proper infrastructure for all the people they crammed into the area then after seeing their restrictive development led to skyrocketing prices they decided to double down on it and add additional burdens to new construction (renewable energy requirements are a perfect example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
There is no nightlife at Happy Valley and I-17 what a joke. I’m in my 20s and I’d be bored to tears if I lived up there. I used to live by 7th street and Bell and was pretty bored with that too. Much happier here in Tempe which has a real nightlife. What I get in Tempe vs North Phoenix is so significantly different, I get international cuisine, I get to use transit for commuting (I get subsidized transit for my commute, free light rail rides are fine by me), so many things near me to go do and see. Most of which in walking distance and at most a short drive for everything I need. My central location also puts me in a prime spot should I ever change jobs, my commute would be relatively similar most likely. Where instead if I lived far north like that and lost my job in a recession and the next job I could land was in Chandler... that gas budget wouldn’t be very fun. Tempe is where people would be more inclined to live in a townhouse, not far north Phoenix, because people who would want to live somewhere like Tempe would be more inclined to live in higher density because things are so close by.
Then you haven't been to the area if you think there is nothing there. Nearly nightly live music at several bars in the area among many other things. You think the 20 somethings that live up there go down to Tempe when they want to get out?

The bold is what is wrong with the light rail, among many other issues. The light rail can't pay for itself and it likely never will. It costs $43 million a year and 72% of that is paid with tax dollars. 10 years and billions of dollars later its time to tear it all out or make it self sustainable.

I haven't worked since 2009 when I quit to focus on real estate so I don't get the finding a new job needing to be in the center of the valley thing. There is literally millions of jobs spread out all over the valley, the main reason Phoenix is nothing like LA. If you are worth a damn in your field you wont lose your job to begin with, my last job was in a family owned construction office and I had only worked there for 2 years when they started laying off the entire office. The owner's daughter and I were the only ones left in the office when they were done doing layoffs and I was the newest hire by a long shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
If you have a townhouse you mostly own the land your townhouse sits on too.. But if you’re in a SFH with a HOA you don’t really own your land either as failing to abide by the HOA, after a certain amount of time depending on the “severity” of your violation, can get you evicted from your own house even if you have no mortgage. That also applies to townhouses and condos. So those people in Verrado and similar master planned communities don’t *really* own their houses either. They can’t paint their house how they want, they can’t build a shed if they want, they may not be able to park an RV on their property... and they can get evicted if they refuse to follow the regulations of the HOA. If some house in a master planned community because you don’t share a wall means “do whatever I want with every day of the week” then you really need to read some of the contracts out there and understand that at that point a townhouse is not really any different, you’re just biased without any logical reasoning behind it.
For starters, I'm not in an HOA and neither are my neighbors for miles around me. Believe it or not there are hundreds of homes north of me for miles, we're all on a decent amount of land out here.

Of all those things you listed as an issue for a person who owns their home in an HOA, which of those can a person do in a townhome? None, and because of the shared walls you actually have more restrictions on top of the crap you listed. You know what you do get when you own land, a private pool/BBQ/playground/hangout area. You don't have to listen to your neighbors TV all night or any of the other problems that come with shared walls, go look through the rental forum and you will see the constant complaining that happens from apartment/townhome dwellers about noise. I own a decent number of townhomes and noise complaints are by far the biggest problem my tenants have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
I’m not proposing everyone build a guest house or duplex. City zoning ordinances forbid them if not HOA a lot of the time. I want zoning regulations be changed to allow this and then people do it as they please.
Which city? Phoenix doesn't forbid ADUs and neither does Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Peoria, Gilbert, or Glendale (I've stopped looking them up but I'm sure not a single city in the metro forbid them). Some HOAs might but I own quite a lot of real estate here in the valley and not a single HOA I own in has an issue with them. Would you look at that you got your wish, people can build guest houses as they see fit... and they still aren't doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Rents are at an all-time high right now and are still climbing I believe, this would appeal to many to build something they can rent out.
Rising rents is music to my ears. Jokes aside, everything is at an all time high. The real questions are: is inflation adjusted rents higher? Is the quality of the housing higher? Are incomes keeping up with the increased rent? From what I can see both quality of housing is better and incomes have risen right along with the rent. Rising rents on their own aren't necessarily a bad thing. Would you expect incomes to rise and rents to stay flat?

As far as if they will continue to climb, I doubt it; they will almost always go up but I think were done for a little bit with the 5%+ increases we have seen over the the last decade or so. Our market was hit so hard with the recession it needed to make huge leaps in order to get back to normal. As a landlord who does this all day every day I just don't see rents getting too much higher than where we are right now. Partially because people are beginning to hunker down for the impending recession and partially because home sales have begun to slow a little. When home sales begin to slow then prices stagnate and rents typically follow suit. If you asked me a year or even two ago if I thought we were at the peak I would have said no but right now I think we are about there; maybe another year, two tops, before the problems begin.

Quote:
The only urban areas where incomes kept pace with rising rents were Austin, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/renton...th-since-1960/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Minneapolis recently banned single-family zoning, we should do it too. It does not mean people cannot build a single family house, it means that the area of the city cannot REQUIRE only single family homes to be built there. That way when there is vacant land or someone sees a good opportunity, they can build a condo development, or spilt a house too big into a duplex, or a casita, without fighting zoning regulations and going through numerous city NIMBY meetings for land they already own. Also getting rid of those hoops will create less of a financial burden for developers and families and hopefully will reduce costs.
The NIMBY crown have a right to be vocal and get in the way of developments they don't like, they live there after all and technically speaking they created/molded the city to make it attractive enough to get other people to want to cram themselves into the middle of their life. I don't necessarily agree with them but they do have the right to be heard.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2019, 11:26 AM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
6,753 posts, read 9,862,497 times
Reputation: 7915
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShampooBanana View Post
There is a lot of state, federal, and reservation land in between that will prevent Phoenix and Tucson from ever meeting in our lifetimes. Perhaps hundreds of years out when there might be no more US government, etc, but I'd say that's a crapshoot given I don't expect humanity to even last that long, but that's a whole different matter and way off topic.
Not only does government land stand in the way, but Tucson's lack of growth compared to Phoenix also is an inhibitor. The Phoenix metro area could at least expand to Casa Grande if it wasn't for all that ridiculous reservation land, which is essentially useless the way it is now. Those people have very little desire to develop, progress, or improve their lives ... so instead, they farm for a while, then abandon the land, which aids in the creation of the dust storms that are common in the SE Valley during the summer. It would be highly beneficial if all the reservation land in AZ and around the country could be turned over to the private sector ... but that's also a different matter & off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Building townhouses and condos instead. And letting existing housing build guesthouses or casitas or ADUs. Put an urban growth boundary on the metro. By the way urban growth boundaries haven't stopped Portland.

It's not about people moving here, it's how we are choosing to build that is the problem. I would rather have a townhouse with a shorter commute than a house with lawns and more maintenance and a longer commute that I almost spend half my weekend doing house upkeep. I think plenty others would like that too. The downside is that really isn't an option in most of the metro. There are only small pockets of that type of housing here and because of it it's overpriced.
As much as I prefer infill and urbanization over exurban development, we can't be mandating what to build, or where it should/shouldn't be. The free enterprise market always decides where the demand is. Implementing urban growth boundaries for the purpose of preserving the desert and pushing infill sounds good initially, but there are too many bad side effects. You might recall that we already had a ballot proposition relating to growth boundaries (nearly 20 years ago), and it failed by a large percentage. It would likely be defeated if we voted on it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager View Post
The NIMBY crown have a right to be vocal and get in the way of developments they don't like, they live there after all and technically speaking they created/molded the city to make it attractive enough to get other people to want to cram themselves into the middle of their life. I don't necessarily agree with them but they do have the right to be heard.
NIMBYs have a right to be heard, but they don't have a right to get in the way of developments they don't like. They don't own the land which the proposed developments sit on, and they don't have any kind of financial investment in the proposed developments ... therefore, all they can do is express their concerns & throw their conniption fits, but that's their limit. In a large, growing metro area like this, development is inevitable. You know this is a fact, and so do the NIMBYs. The NIMBY types would be better off living in small towns or rural areas where growth & development aren't a part of life.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2019, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,276 posts, read 28,874,084 times
Reputation: 21722
When you figure that you can put 8 homes on an acre of land. When you figure that Phoenix grows in all directions. When you figure that 113 miles are between Phoenix and Tucson. When you figure that Phoenix grows by about 25,000 homes a year.

Take a 50 mile stretch along side of Phoenix that is 1 mile wide. 50 square miles. That is 32,000 acres of land. Plenty of space for 256,000 homes. It will take just over 10 years to build out the 50 square miles.

Of course we need to figure all the other stuff. Business space, retail, industrial, hospitals, parks, infrastructure. So why not split the land in to 1/3 sections. with housing getting 10,000 acres. On 10,000 acres you can build 80,000 homes.

At 25,000 homes a year, on a good year, 3 years to build out a one mile thick area, and 113 miles to go. If all 25,000 homes in Phoenix are built in the zone between Phoenix and Tucson

The two cities will meet in the year 2358,
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2019, 11:03 AM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
6,753 posts, read 9,862,497 times
Reputation: 7915
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
When you figure that you can put 8 homes on an acre of land. When you figure that Phoenix grows in all directions. When you figure that 113 miles are between Phoenix and Tucson. When you figure that Phoenix grows by about 25,000 homes a year.

Take a 50 mile stretch along side of Phoenix that is 1 mile wide. 50 square miles. That is 32,000 acres of land. Plenty of space for 256,000 homes. It will take just over 10 years to build out the 50 square miles.

Of course we need to figure all the other stuff. Business space, retail, industrial, hospitals, parks, infrastructure. So why not split the land in to 1/3 sections. with housing getting 10,000 acres. On 10,000 acres you can build 80,000 homes.

At 25,000 homes a year, on a good year, 3 years to build out a one mile thick area, and 113 miles to go. If all 25,000 homes in Phoenix are built in the zone between Phoenix and Tucson

The two cities will meet in the year 2358,
And this is just taking into account the growth rate of metro Phoenix ... nothing mentioned about Tucson, which is growing at a snail's pace. My theory is: if the Tucson area grew as fast as the Phoenix area, if there were no reservation lands in the way, and if the smaller towns in between (Casa Grande, Eloy, etc.) grew & expanded more than they did, the Phoenix & Tucson areas would already be one consolidated metro area.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2019, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,276 posts, read 28,874,084 times
Reputation: 21722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
And this is just taking into account the growth rate of metro Phoenix ... nothing mentioned about Tucson, which is growing at a snail's pace. My theory is: if the Tucson area grew as fast as the Phoenix area, if there were no reservation lands in the way, and if the smaller towns in between (Casa Grande, Eloy, etc.) grew & expanded more than they did, the Phoenix & Tucson areas would already be one consolidated metro area.
With my assumption you would need to figure that all homes built in the area are in the 50 mile corridor on the side closest to Tucson. So all building in the Phoenix area would head toward Tucson.

Of course I left out that homes are being built in the Tucson area as well. So lets take the idea that both Phoenix and Tucson are growing toward each other. In my original post, I mentioned that all housing built would need to be built in the same area, directly between both Phoenix and Tucson, within a 50 mile wide space. You still would end up with more than 200 years of building before both communities met. And realize my numbers pointed to the largest number of homes built not years where things slowed down.

Unfortunately that is not nor will it ever be the case. Two of my sisters bought in Surprise and that city is heading further North West. Other communities are building to the East. Some places are building North.

Building happens all over the perimeter of each of these communities, and within the circle of influence. It takes time to grow out past the perimeter.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2019, 12:09 PM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
6,753 posts, read 9,862,497 times
Reputation: 7915
Even if the Phoenix and Tucson areas would somehow join via outward growth, I still think they should be classified as two separate metro areas. Other metro areas around the country that seem to be conjoined by rather short distances (L.A./San Diego, Austin/San Antonio, New York/Philadelphia) are still separate metro areas. The exceptions to this would be the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex, and the Bay Area which includes 3 large cities.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top