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.
Why should a city need any kind of a landmark? What happened to just being a clean and safe city? Is having some stupid off the wall symbol better than no grafitti, no kidnappings and no slums? Impossible, yes I know.
Well sometimes landmarks are a normal part of the cityscape but are designated as such because of their timeless design and their prominence in the city. For instance, landmarks in Phoenix are the Hotel Westward Ho, Luhr's Tower, Biltmore Hotel, Wrigley Mansion, Tovrea Castle, etc.
Well sometimes landmarks are a normal part of the cityscape but are designated as such because of their timeless design and their prominence in the city. For instance, landmarks in Phoenix are the Hotel Westward Ho, Luhr's Tower, Biltmore Hotel, Wrigley Mansion, Tovrea Castle, etc.
Exactly. That's why we don't need to spend money on some ornamental tower just to have a "landmark".
Exactly. That's why we don't need to spend money on some ornamental tower just to have a "landmark".
While this is an old thread, I think it would be relevant to acknowledge the success of the park and sculpture; even though it is still a short term acknowledgment. However, there are always people at the park, and not bums and homeless, LOL. There are a lot of people from the metro and the surrounding neighborhoods that go with their kids to the park to see the sculpture and the water/grass/lights/tree features along with the historic rehabbed building in the middle of the park. I've met countless people who stop by because of the park and sculpture. Granted many of these people happened to run into the park by chance from the light rail or traveling to/through downtown. I still see countless out-of-state cars slow and even stop to take pictures, especially at night. Another thing to remember, this wasn't funded with tax-payer money, but with public art funding both public and private. They didn't collect our taxes and not use them for police to build the thing.
And while some landmarks were built for the sole intention of being a landmark attraction (the Space Needle for the 1963 (???) World's Fair, same for the St. Louis Arch and Eiffel Tower) however, those are rarities. Also, some have lost their lure. The Space Needle and Seattle had to come up with a new vision for the landmark because of falling revenue and lack of tourists. So, the city built the "Experience the Music Museum" that warps around the needle and has again brought the tourists. I think some of the natural landmarks around Phoenix are huge tourists draws as well. Countless out of towners traverse the paths of the mountains around Phoenix thanks to the top notch and world renowned resorts like the Biltmore, Phoenician, Point South Mountain, Royal Palms, etc. that sit near or at the base of said mountains. And just think, the city didn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a fake, man made observation deck 1,000ft in the air when mother nature already supplied them. Phoenix actually is a huge tourist town. We have millions of visitors that stay for days, weeks, months in Phoenix alone. A 1,000ft tower of a Phoenix would be an architectural engineering feat that the city would be wise to avoid. The cost, the complications, how would it be built? It would look ridiculous by those dimensions as well. A very tall, thin, and awkward bird stretching 1,000ft in the air, ugh, ghastly. And the COST! Hundreds of millions of dollars! Not a wise move by any city. Let's not forget, many of the mountains around town aren't an ugly brown, but a beautiful reddish color that offers a spectacular landmark setting during sunsets and the light shows of dawn illumination. LOL!
Last edited by fcorrales80; 07-17-2009 at 09:20 PM..
And while some landmarks were built for the sole intention of being a landmark attraction (the Space Needle for the 1963 (???) World's Fair, same for the St. Louis Arch and Eiffel Tower) however, those are rarities. Also, some have lost their lure. The Space Needle and Seattle had to come up with a new vision for the landmark because of falling revenue and lack of tourists. So, the city built the "Experience the Music Museum" that warps around the needle and has again brought the tourists. I think some of the natural landmarks around Phoenix are huge tourists draws as well. Countless out of towners traverse the paths of the mountains around Phoenix thanks to the top notch and world renowned resorts like the Biltmore, Phoenician, Point South Mountain, Royal Palms, etc. that sit near or at the base of said mountains. And just think, the city didn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a fake, man made observation deck 1,000ft in the air when mother nature already supplied them. Phoenix actually is a huge tourist town. We have millions of visitors that stay for days, weeks, months in Phoenix alone. A 1,000ft tower of a Phoenix would be an architectural engineering feat that the city would be wise to avoid. The cost, the complications, how would it be built? It would look ridiculous by those dimensions as well. A very tall, thin, and awkward bird stretching 1,000ft in the air, ugh, ghastly. And the COST! Hundreds of millions of dollars! Not a wise move by any city. Let's not forget, many of the mountains around town aren't an ugly brown, but a beautiful reddish color that offers a spectacular landmark setting during sunsets and the light shows of dawn illumination. LOL!
Oh yes, our mountains are so beautiful, aren't they ... especially on a sunny July day when it's 115 degrees. Let's all hike up Piestewa and get heat stroke! Let's oooh & ahhh at the awesome sunsets, sing a verse of "Kum Ba Yah" and soak up all this natural beauty. Come on! Don't you think the nation's fifth largest city should be known for something more cosmopolitan besides mountains and sunsets?!
As I stated before: if people want natural beauty, there are thousands of places within Arizona that are OUTSIDE of the Phoenix metro area which are much more scenic & attractive (and cooler for that matter). I thought you of all people would acknowledge the fact that a large city should be recognized for urban amenities such as unique architecture and the like ... not a bunch of hills that somehow pass for mountains.
About the Phoenix Bird structure: it's merely a vision, and its chances of becoming reality are probably slim to none. The only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that something like this CAN be done with private funds ... just as the various icons in other cities were constructed. If somebody wants to construct a massive symbol for Phoenix someday, why should it be anybody's concern how much money is spent on it, as long as public money isn't used?
Oh yes, our mountains are so beautiful, aren't they ... especially on a sunny July day when it's 115 degrees. Let's all hike up Piestewa and get heat stroke! Let's oooh & ahhh at the awesome sunsets, sing a verse of "Kum Ba Yah" and soak up all this natural beauty. Come on! Don't you think the nation's fifth largest city should be known for something more cosmopolitan besides mountains and sunsets?!
As I stated before: if people want natural beauty, there are thousands of places within Arizona that are OUTSIDE of the Phoenix metro area which are much more scenic & attractive (and cooler for that matter). I thought you of all people would acknowledge the fact that a large city should be recognized for urban amenities such as unique architecture and the like ... not a bunch of hills that somehow pass for mountains.
About the Phoenix Bird structure: it's merely a vision, and its chances of becoming reality are probably slim to none. The only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that something like this CAN be done with private funds ... just as the various icons in other cities were constructed. If somebody wants to construct a massive symbol for Phoenix someday, why should it be anybody's concern how much money is spent on it, as long as public money isn't used?
Don't you just hate it when an evening is ruined by drunk friends who can't control themselves!!! UGH...
Any how, no I don't think the fifth largest city should "try to create" something cosmopolitan and pass it off as such. Such projects often lose their authenticity and are ugly to boot. Even though I LOVE Seattle, the Puget Sound, the evergreen and mountain sparkle of the Emerald City, I don't think the Space Needle is very attractive. It looks like it should depart for space any minute. Same for the tower in Dallas, Montreal, and Houston...they are hideous and I don't find them particularly cosmopolitan. Even the storied Eiffel Tower lost its luster in recent history and as such the City of Paris "adorned" it with grotesque lights and a laser beam shooting straight up, and let's not forget the lamented Millennium Clock and New Years Clock. It is now the mockery of Paris by Parisian standards. Many of my Parisian friends hate what it has become in the name of tourism. The lights are a bit much. Besides a historic, timeless, and significant Statue of Liberty in New York, that city lacks any ungodly "tower" with an observation deck and I'd hardly fail New York for such an "oversight."
While not everyone can hike the peaks in July or August, they can for the other 10 months of the year...the other months, might I add that are considered tourist season in Phoenix. I hike the peaks year round including the summer, however, I am acclimated, trained, and athletic so I would not encourage casual hikers and unprepared hikers to trek the peaks this time of year.
Still...yes, the mountains are still very attractive and even more so in the summer when some of the evening skies are at their most brilliant. It is like a fire in the sky often. Turning the mountains purple, copper, or dark red. I find the mountain preserves and kept up trails very cosmopolitan !! Instead of allowing "Hollywood Hills" type of development on the "hills that pass for mountains" in Phoenix, the city and urban planners and preservationists were wise enough to save these gems amidst the sprawl; leaving the 5th largest city a respite and get away in our own backyards. There were many plans to turn the sides, hills, and ridges of the peaks, mountains, and preserves into immense and very expensive neighborhoods much like the southern face of Camelback Mountain. Imagine trying to get a hike in but being sued for trespassing by untold numbers of millionaires claiming their piece of the "hill."
Funny you mention the mountains passing as hills...if they were just hills, I don't see why it would be so daunting to climb them any time of year; even summer. I guess that makes them a little more than just some insignificant hills. As for the Civic Space Park and the Sculpture, it doubles as a quad for the downtown ASU campus. It is very green, well thought out, and brilliantly decorated. The idea to "lift" a piece of artwork off the ground to preserve as much space as possible in the relatively small urban park is an outstanding idea. This piece of work isn't so much a towering landmark, as it is a smallish and appropriate form of public art. The park as a whole is much more of a landmark as is the sculpture alone.
While there may not be towering skyscrapers in Phoenix yet, I don't really think we need one to be a cool and cosmopolitan city. I don't think we need to develop an envy (of a particular male part) because we don't have a 1,000ft skyscraper as of now. Yes, it would be cool and nice to have one but this isn't the time, economy, or situation to bid for such a project. At one time, before the savings and loan scandal, Phoenix was to be the sight of the tallest building in the U.S. surpassing the Sears Tower, ahem, Willis Tower (LMAO!!!) in Chicago. However, we all know what happened with all the great investments of those days. Phoenix will have a towering skyscraper in time; don't know when but it will happen. What we don't want is to rush a project and have it sitting nearly vacant for a decade because of the immense square footage available in one massive tower. Remember the history of the ill-fated Twin Towers in NYC. They were built during the financial crisis of the 70's and were the joke of the day; sitting with nearly a 70% vacancy rate for almost a decade. It caused a lot of heart-ache, misfortune, and tax-payer money via the Port Authority before winning the hearts of New Yorkers and finally filling up. That would be plain unwise business planning for our time in any city...even NYC. Patience my dear Valley Native, patience.
Last edited by fcorrales80; 07-18-2009 at 02:13 AM..
One more thing to add. Seattle, L.A. Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Dallas, and countless other cities that are considered "cosmopolitan" (LOL, Portland and Denver seem more granola and REI, respectively than cosmopolitan to me) don't have buildings OR towers that are 1,000ft tall. The observation deck of the Space Needle is 520ft. off the ground and 605 ft. in total height. It hardly "towers" over Chase Tower, but is taller. Even Philadelphia and Miami have tallest buildings under 1,000ft. Chicago, New York, and Houston (1,002ft) are the only U.S. cities I can think of with buildings surpassing the 1,000ft range. Boston falls under 800ft and Washington, D.C. has a restriction of less than 555ft, the height of the Washington Monument and the tallest inhabitable building in D.C. is 329ft tall; shorter than Chase Tower.
And with the Space Needle, I poke fun at it because it looks like it will take off for space, granted it is called the "Space" Needle; however, it looks like a toy...a flying saucer and hardly a cosmopolitan creation. And to be fair or accurate, the City and organizers for the World Fair did design the needle to look futuristic and kiddish because the Seattle Expo's theme was about space and Boeing or something (go figure). So I hardly think cosmopolitan landmark was high on the list. But, that is IMO. I am sure and know I am not alone in that thinking.
the space needle doesn't tower over the city and it's not even really in the city core
for those travelling who want some tremendous aerial views, hit up the columbia center ----- it goes up over 900ft and the views from the observation deck are astounding
also keep an eye if they build the american commerce center building in philadelphia ..... would go up in excess of 1,500 ft
they've done a lot of building there since i've moved out with the completion of at least 2 pretty decent sized buildings
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.
!! Instead of allowing "Hollywood Hills" type of development on the "hills that pass for mountains" in Phoenix, the city and urban planners and preservationists were wise enough to save these gems amidst the sprawl; leaving the 5th largest city a respite and get away in our own backyards. There were many plans to turn the sides, hills, and ridges of the peaks, mountains, and preserves into immense and very expensive neighborhoods much like the southern face of Camelback Mountain. Imagine trying to get a hike in but being sued for trespassing by untold numbers of millionaires claiming their piece of the "hill."
