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.
All that said, I don't want a 1000 foot Phoenix bird or something that tall "resembling" a Phoenix bird built. They'd mess it up, and our natural landmarks (Camelback, Piestewa Peak, South Mountain, and the ever changing artwork of the SUNSETS) work just fine for me.
Being the nations' fifth largest city, Phoenix could use something more cosmopolitan for iconic symbols besides sunsets, or brown hills that pass for mountains. There are plenty of mountains outside of the Valley that are much taller and more scenic ... and there are much better sunset views in many parts of Arizona, such as Grand Canyon, Sedona, etc. Phoenix can't keep pushing mountains, sunsets, and climate as attractions for one of the nation's largest metro areas! Those days are gone.
I have more faith in the enduring quality of those natural landmarks than I do in TPTB to build something that would be an appropriate and popular symbol of this city analogous to some of the others you describe. Most of those buildings and structures that are now symbols in other cities weren't built for the sole purpose of being a symbol; they became symbols after appearing in countless pictures.
I can't give any kind of priority to setting out to spend time and money to "build a symbol" (whether it's a 1000 foot tower (a building, or just a tower) that "resembles" a Phoenix bird, or something else) for the city of Phoenix. There are major cities that don't have a single symbol. It's not something Phoenix really NEEDS. Would it improve the quality of life for the citizens of Phoenix? Would it make more people come here to visit, boosting the economy? I don't think so.
I have more faith in the enduring quality of those natural landmarks than I do in TPTB to build something that would be an appropriate and popular symbol of this city analogous to some of the others you describe. Most of those buildings and structures that are now symbols in other cities weren't built for the sole purpose of being a symbol; they became symbols after appearing in countless pictures.
I can't give any kind of priority to setting out to spend time and money to "build a symbol" (whether it's a 1000 foot tower (a building, or just a tower) that "resembles" a Phoenix bird, or something else) for the city of Phoenix. There are major cities that don't have a single symbol. It's not something Phoenix really NEEDS. Would it improve the quality of life for the citizens of Phoenix? Would it make more people come here to visit, boosting the economy? I don't think so.
Ya know, I don't really agree with the second part of your post. Obviously a mountain will last longer than a building, but the rest of it just seems kinda not thought out.
I'll give you a perfect example: Duluth, MN. Small city of about 85k, with a "metro" population of close to 200k. We have very nice natural scenery, with Lake Superior, etc. But people come from MILES and STATES and even COUNTRIES away to see our lift bridge. People come from all around to see the Space Needle in Seattle, etc. Other than the beautiful natural scenery and weather, there's not a lot to attract most tourists to Phoenix. Phoenix needs a defining landmark (or two ). It doesn't necessarily have to be a 1000 ft tall sculpture of a Phoenix, but something defining would help establish itself.
People really go to Seattle just to visit the Space Needle? Maybe because I saw it as a child at the Seattle World's Fair (we were in Oregon for the summer), but I've been to Seattle since and didn't bother. I don't get people coming from abroad to see a lift bridge, either, but. . ..
What would we build, then? You use the term "defining landmark" . What would it be? And what is so wrong with tourists JUST coming here for the scenery and the weather that we have to BUILD something to bring them here? Or with a mountain as a "defining landmark" (Mount Hood works for Portland)
People really go to Seattle just to visit the Space Needle? Maybe because I saw it as a child at the Seattle World's Fair (we were in Oregon for the summer), but I've been to Seattle since and didn't bother. I don't get people coming from abroad to see a lift bridge, either, but. . ..
What would we build, then? You use the term "defining landmark" . What would it be? And what is so wrong with tourists JUST coming here for the scenery and the weather that we have to BUILD something to bring them here? Or with a mountain as a "defining landmark" (Mount Hood works for Portland)
You musn't be used to flocks of tourists that come there then. I don't know, I can't comment on tourists in Phoenix, because I have absolutely no clue if tourists go there as a primary destination. I will tell you though, that people from the midwest do come to Duluth. I've had customers from as far as Sweden come to Duluth. I've even had customers that drove all the way from Alaska to Duluth. Personally, I don't see what's so amazing about the lake or the bridge, but many people find that fascinating.
Personally, I don't know what Phoenix would/should/could build. I don't live there as of yet, so again, it's hard for me to comment on what the city should do or could do.
But it's always nice to have something that distinguish your city from the rest.
You musn't be used to flocks of tourists that come there then. I don't know, I can't comment on tourists in Phoenix, because I have absolutely no clue if tourists go there as a primary destination. I will tell you though, that people from the midwest do come to Duluth. I've had customers from as far as Sweden come to Duluth. I've even had customers that drove all the way from Alaska to Duluth. Personally, I don't see what's so amazing about the lake or the bridge, but many people find that fascinating.
Personally, I don't know what Phoenix would/should/could build. I don't live there as of yet, so again, it's hard for me to comment on what the city should do or could do.
But it's always nice to have something that distinguish your city from the rest.
I've never been to Duluth, so I'll for sure take your word for it. But there again, it's partly the lake that is the appeal. I just don't think we need to build something just for the sake of building a symbol. The bridge in Duluth obviously wasn't built for that purpose, either. Its extra appeal to tourists, even if neither of us understand it, is a bonus.
With the huge tourism industry we have here, I suspect it IS the weather and the desert scenery that distinguishes Phoenix from other cities.
What would we build, then? You use the term "defining landmark" . What would it be? And what is so wrong with tourists JUST coming here for the scenery and the weather that we have to BUILD something to bring them here? Or with a mountain as a "defining landmark" (Mount Hood works for Portland)
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer53
With the huge tourism industry we have here, I suspect it IS the weather and the desert scenery that distinguishes Phoenix from other cities.
That thinking is a little backward. People come to ARIZONA to see the natural scenery. They often fly into Phoenix, then rent a car to drive to places like Grand Canyon, Painted Desert, Sedona, etc. There's very little to keep the tourists in Phoenix ... so it's not really correct to say that they come to the Phoenix metro area specifically for the natural scenery. You can get lots of scenic attractions and a true taste of Arizona beauty in many other areas of the state ... not in Phoenix.
Phoenix is a completely different entity than the rest of the state. We are a large bustling metropolis ... in fact, one of the largest in the nation. I certainly don't live in Phoenix for the the sunsets, the monotonous weather, or the views of the ugly brown hills that are called mountains. Why deny Phoenix the opportunity to build an iconic symbol of the city that would attract tourists and give us a point of pride? It works in other cities. Look at St. Louis. There isn't much happening there, but the Gateway Arch presents a sense of pride for the city, and draws many tourists.
Okay, I'll ask this one more time. WHAT do we build, if we are doing it purposely to be a symbol to draw tourists? I'm not denying the city the opportunity. They can do whatever they want, but the hue and cry from spending public money on that will be heard all the way to every border of the state. If it's an office building (you used Transamerica Tower as an example) that is built with corporate money and just happens to add something truly distinctive to the skyline, that's fine, (but that's not happening anytime soon either). And funny thing about that building... people like to look at it from a distance, to see it in the skyline. Does anyone go VISIT it? (I haven't, on many trips to SF) I suspect it looks awfully ordinary when you are standing in front of it.
Either way, I'm not convinced that Phoenix NEEDS some sort of constructed " thing" to symbolize this city. Not every major city has one.
By the way, you've been here all your life. What DO you still live here for (since you told us what you don't live here for)? I'm actually curious, as I might as well be a native myself.
Okay, I'll ask this one more time. WHAT do we build, if we are doing it purposely to be a symbol to draw tourists? I'm not denying the city the opportunity. They can do whatever they want, but the hue and cry from spending public money on that will be heard all the way to every border of the state. If it's an office building (you used Transamerica Tower as an example) that is built with corporate money and just happens to add something truly distinctive to the skyline, that's fine, (but that's not happening anytime soon either). And funny thing about that building... people like to look at it from a distance, to see it in the skyline. Does anyone go VISIT it? (I haven't, on many trips to SF) I suspect it looks awfully ordinary when you are standing in front of it.
I already stated the proposal: build a replica of the mythical Phoenix Bird that would soar to a height of 1,000 feet (or a height that is significantly taller than the Chase Tower), and have it equipped with an observation deck. In no way does it have to be publicly funded. After all, the Stratosphere in Las Vegas, the Space Needle in Seattle, and the Empire State building in New York City were all constructed with private capital. In fact, practically all highrise towers are privately financed & privately owned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer53
Either way, I'm not convinced that Phoenix NEEDS some sort of constructed " thing" to symbolize this city. Not every major city has one.
Something like a giant Phoenix Bird, or some other iconic towering symbol would certainly be more majestic and worthwhile than a floating piece of mesh financed by public money! That thing certainly isn't worth two million dollars.
No, not every major city has a landmark like Space Needle or Gateway Arch ... however, practically all of the nation's ten most populous cities have some kind of structure that is considered their "crown jewel". What "crown jewel" does Phoenix have? And I don't mean something like South Mountain or Piestewa Peak!
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer53
By the way, you've been here all your life. What DO you still live here for (since you told us what you don't live here for)? I'm actually curious, as I might as well be a native myself.
Important reasons! My career and family top the list ... but I also admire Phoenix for its right to work/non union atmosphere. The wide streets laid out in a grid pattern, and the modern freeways are also a plus. The variety of higher end shopping & restaurants are also factors. Weather & climate are not top priorities with me, but I admit that I also like our winters that are free of snow & ice. I also like the fact that I can escape the summer heat by driving a reasonable distance from Phoenix and be 30 degrees cooler!
Being the nations' fifth largest city, Phoenix could use something more cosmopolitan for iconic symbols besides sunsets, or brown hills that pass for mountains. There are plenty of mountains outside of the Valley that are much taller and more scenic ... and there are much better sunset views in many parts of Arizona, such as Grand Canyon, Sedona, etc. Phoenix can't keep pushing mountains, sunsets, and climate as attractions for one of the nation's largest metro areas! Those days are gone.
Though I generally agree with you regarding more cosmopolitan icons, I think the mountains in Phoenix are a perfectly legitimate selling point! They are not huge by any means, but they are scenic, and standing atop one and looking out over the valley is still quite impressive. Personally I always found the sun setting below the White Tanks to be amazingly beautiful even when compared to Sedona or Grand Canyon sunsets.
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.
). It doesn't necessarily have to be a 1000 ft tall sculpture of a Phoenix, but something defining would help establish itself.
is a bonus.
