Gilbert, Arizona is #3 best place to buy a home (Phoenix: to live in, design)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

With the exception of San Antonio, your comparisons are to cities which are much smaller in population than Phoenix is. Houston & Dallas have active downtowns with much more majestic skylines, despite both cities being very sprawling (Houston encompassing 671 square miles, Dallas encompassing 383 square miles, and both containing roughly the same population density as Phoenix). I think you, like many others, are reaching for excuses for why the central core isn't taller & more active than it is. I definitely agree that certain parts of Phoenix don't need to be in the city limits, and should be separate communities.

I googled "why doesn't downtown phoenix have more skyscrapers".

The answer from one POV is the proximity to Sky Harbor. "...Valley National Bank wanted its new headquarters to be even taller, but the plan was quashed by the FAA" Read https://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue...yscrapers.html

That same article mentioned the lack of major headquarters. Also, the lack of vision/ambition by developers.


When you talk with the horse's mouth ( Phoenix's deputy director of planning), he said something not exactly profound: "One reason was the city's development around the automobile, Bednarek said. Phoenix is not a compact city. Currently, it covers about 520 square miles of land.... With infrastructure and technology allowing increased accessibility to the entire Valley, residential and business patterns never created pressure to develop work and living space in the city's core. " Does that sound familiar? Read https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...er/3332681002/

[Sno0909]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

As I explained earlier: Gilbert still calls itself a "town", their landmark structure is a water tower, and their downtown area resembles Old Town Scottsdale from the '70s. Those things are small townish for a place with a population of over 250,000. I'm not saying it's a bad place to live, but at the very least, they could drop the "town of Gilbert" ID, and refer to it as a city like it should be. That would be a good start.

Why does everything need to be a bustling metropolis with you? Like you said, it's a bedroom community. It's full of families. Who cares if a water tower is a landmark? I don't get the problem. Sure, they are not a town, and 250,000 people is a lot. But I will say that they do a good job of still giving off that small-town vibe. A lot of farmer's markets, community concerts, events, etc. Living in Gilbert, I don't feel like I'm in a big city - and that's a good thing. If I wanted that, I'd move to Phoenix or Tempe.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Sno0909

Why does everything need to be a bustling metropolis with you? Like you said, it's a bedroom community. It's full of families. Who cares if a water tower is a landmark? I don't get the problem. Sure, they are not a town, and 250,000 people is a lot. But I will say that they do a good job of still giving off that small-town vibe. A lot of farmer's markets, community concerts, events, etc. Living in Gilbert, I don't feel like I'm in a big city - and that's a good thing. If I wanted that, I'd move to Phoenix or Tempe.

I've noticed that there are a number of suburbanites who think that everyone else but them should live in downtown high rise and use light rail. They want others to build that vibrant downtown so that when they go to the occasional concert they can have the big city "vibe" before they scoot back to their green grass back in the 'burbs. You are not alone. In fact, by far, far and away, people living here and coming here want to live in the "Gilberts" not downtown.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I googled "why doesn't downtown phoenix have more skyscrapers".

The answer from one POV is the proximity to Sky Harbor. "...Valley National Bank wanted its new headquarters to be even taller, but the plan was quashed by the FAA" Read https://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue...yscrapers.html

That same article mentioned the lack of major headquarters. Also, the lack of vision/ambition by developers.

I'm familiar with the "rogue columnist", who is Jon Talton. He used to have a weekly column in the Republic, and he had some great ideas & spoke the truth about many things, although he did come across as a bit negative at times. The lack of vision/ambition is probably the most honest reason of all as to why downtown Phoenix didn't grow taller or become more vibrant. As I said many times before: a city like Phoenix will not act its size as long as the defeatist "we don't need it here" attitude is present. This is precisely why I have no use for NIMBYs.

Originally Posted by Sno0909

Why does everything need to be a bustling metropolis with you? Like you said, it's a bedroom community. It's full of families. Who cares if a water tower is a landmark? I don't get the problem. Sure, they are not a town, and 250,000 people is a lot. But I will say that they do a good job of still giving off that small-town vibe. A lot of farmer's markets, community concerts, events, etc. Living in Gilbert, I don't feel like I'm in a big city - and that's a good thing. If I wanted that, I'd move to Phoenix or Tempe.

I never said Gilbert has to be a bustling metropolis, but it seems to be trying awfully hard to retain that old small town scenario for some odd reason (even though it's now the 6th most populated municipality in the state). Downtown Gilbert doesn't really need tall condo towers or light rail stations, but why does it need to keep clinging to the past when it was a small farming town? I think Chandler does a much better job in acting their size. Like Gilbert, it's very suburban with good neighborhoods, but they no longer have the old farm town image that was also in tact 40+ years ago, and their downtown area is better (although not spectacular).

[asufan]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I'm familiar with the "rogue columnist", who is Jon Talton. He used to have a weekly column in the Republic, and he had some great ideas & spoke the truth about many things, although he did come across as a bit negative at times. The lack of vision/ambition is probably the most honest reason of all as to why downtown Phoenix didn't grow taller or become more vibrant. As I said many times before: a city like Phoenix will not act its size as long as the defeatist "we don't need it here" attitude is present. This is precisely why I have no use for NIMBYs.



I never said Gilbert has to be a bustling metropolis, but it seems to be trying awfully hard to retain that old small town scenario for some odd reason (even though it's now the 6th most populated municipality in the state). Downtown Gilbert doesn't really need tall condo towers or light rail stations, but why does it need to keep clinging to the past when it was a small farming town? I think Chandler does a much better job in acting their size. Like Gilbert, it's very suburban with good neighborhoods, but they no longer have the old farm town image that was also in tact 40+ years ago, and their downtown area is better (although not spectacular).

I mentioned this in another thread, but driving around the San Tan Mall area recently taking my son for practice, I was blown away by the new, high density and walkable development in that part of Gilbert. Things like 4-story multi family development right up to the street, rooftop decks, etc plus the mid rise hotels and Rome Tower in the same general area, it's really starting to grow. I'm talking the area near Top Golf and South towards the freeway at Val Vista. Downtown Gilbert is called the "Heritage District", which I assume is the reason they're embracing the old buildings and agricultural roots in that area. The Agritopia area is also changing quickly. It's not Tempe or Phoenix but it's plenty for people that live in the area.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I googled "why doesn't downtown phoenix have more skyscrapers".

The answer from one POV is the proximity to Sky Harbor. "...Valley National Bank wanted its new headquarters to be even taller, but the plan was quashed by the FAA" Read https://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue...yscrapers.html

That same article mentioned the lack of major headquarters. Also, the lack of vision/ambition by developers.


When you talk with the horse's mouth ( Phoenix's deputy director of planning), he said something not exactly profound: "One reason was the city's development around the automobile, Bednarek said. Phoenix is not a compact city. Currently, it covers about 520 square miles of land.... With infrastructure and technology allowing increased accessibility to the entire Valley, residential and business patterns never created pressure to develop work and living space in the city's core. " Does that sound familiar? Read https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...er/3332681002/

The Tempe entertainment district that the Coyotes were crowing about is running into to the same height problems that the skyscrapers and a proposed Cardinals stadium did. It would have planes flying over at only 400 feet! So it is probably dead on arrival.

[Hschlick84]

Why does Gilbert refer itself to town instead of city? Is it a cultural reference or a Federal municipality density reason? Small towns in other states with less than 20k population are called a city while some larger in AZ are towns.

[Sno0909]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I never said Gilbert has to be a bustling metropolis, but it seems to be trying awfully hard to retain that old small town scenario for some odd reason (even though it's now the 6th most populated municipality in the state). Downtown Gilbert doesn't really need tall condo towers or light rail stations, but why does it need to keep clinging to the past when it was a small farming town? I think Chandler does a much better job in acting their size. Like Gilbert, it's very suburban with good neighborhoods, but they no longer have the old farm town image that was also in tact 40+ years ago, and their downtown area is better (although not spectacular).

Again, not sure why it matters. Chandler is Chandler. Gilbert is Gilbert. If they are trying to hold onto something of the past, good for them. Not everything needs to have this progressive, need-to-change vibe. Gilbert would be the last place I would expect some neo-progressive environment, like you seem to be promoting (which is odd for your supposed political stance). And like ASU said, the area around Higley and Ray is popping - not to mention the new area that is currently being developed at Williams Field and Recker. Gilbert is doing their own thing - trying to be hip while also holding on to the legacy of the town. It's different. It's unique. And it's cool.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by asufan

I mentioned this in another thread, but driving around the San Tan Mall area recently taking my son for practice, I was blown away by the new, high density and walkable development in that part of Gilbert. Things like 4-story multi family development right up to the street, rooftop decks, etc plus the mid rise hotels and Rome Tower in the same general area, it's really starting to grow. I'm talking the area near Top Golf and South towards the freeway at Val Vista.

That's good to know. If I'm ever in the SE Valley, I'll definitely try to check that out for curiosity purposes.
()

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Why does Gilbert refer itself to town instead of city? Is it a cultural reference or a Federal municipality density reason? Small towns in other states with less than 20k population are called a city while some larger in AZ are towns.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? But as Sno said: Gilbert is Gilbert, and they seem to be content with the "town" ID and remaining in a time warp.

Originally Posted by Sno0909

Again, not sure why it matters. Chandler is Chandler. Gilbert is Gilbert. If they are trying to hold onto something of the past, good for them. Not everything needs to have this progressive, need-to-change vibe. Gilbert would be the last place I would expect some neo-progressive environment, like you seem to be promoting (which is odd for your supposed political stance).

Not sure why you're bringing politics into this. Being progressive, conservative, or whatever has zilch to do with what I'm referring to. If Gilbert still had a population of 5,000 as it did in 1980, then the small town atmosphere would be fine. The "need to change vibe" has been blatantly obvious in Gilbert because it changed enormously from a small town to one of the metro's largest municipalities in a 40 year timeframe.

What it comes down to is keeping things in the proper perspective. I'm very much a "to each his own" kind of person, but I'm also scratching my head as to why a large, fast growing suburb still wants the image of something which doesn't really exist there anymore. I find that to be very odd. Just from my own point of view, if I wanted to live in a smaller "town" within the metro area that has million dollar homes, and be far away from the city atmosphere (but still close enough when needed), I'd pick Fountain Hills.

[DetroitN8V]

^it’s because the wine moms and dad bods love to play make-believe that they live in a farmhouse. The facade is somehow wholesome to them. It’s the contrived environment that many love. It’s really quite simple.