Phoenix's urban push (long)
Posted 07-15-2008 at 07:31 PM by miamiman
Recently, on the Phoenix sub-forum, there was a debate over whether or not high-rise growth in downtown Phoenix was a good thing for Phoenix.
Those of you who have never been to Phoenix might not realize that Phoenix is the 5th most populous city in the United States, just ahead of Philadelphia. The Phoenix metro, or the Valley as many residents like to refer to it, is home to about 4.5 million people. Even with these population numbers, Phoenix's skyline is relatively small when compared to cities with similar population.
Part of the issue deals with the fact that in many respect Phoenix is the newest large city in the country. Much of the city was constructed after World War II when car ownership mushroomed. The city and metropolitan area was built around the car. The metro area now sprawls to over 14,500 square miles, larger than the state of Maryland, with much of that land being uninhabited and undeveloped.
As a result, development in Phoenix and environs is, for the most part, low density. There are some areas with much higher densities, including Tempe, home of Arizona State; Central Phoenix; the Camelback Corridor; South Phoenix (Phoenix's version of South Central LA); parts of Mesa; parts of Scottsdale; and parts of Glendale. Many of these areas feature either dense single-family housing or mid-rise architecture clustered in a very suburban manner, not pedestrian-friendly, at all.
Many cities across the Valley blend into one another; if driving a long-distance of a surface street or freeway it can become difficult to tell if you're in a different city than you started out in, unless you catch of glimpse of the street signs. Many cities autocentric metropolitan across the Sunbelt were designed in this manner. Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas are all prime examples of this homogeneity. However, many Phoenix trash-talkers have solely highlighted Phoenix as being "just one big suburb," or something to that effect. Phoenix is unapologetically suburban. Except for the high-rises that already exist in Downtown and Midtown Phoenix, walkable, dense urbanism is largely missing.
On the Phoenix sub-forum, as well as SkyscraperPage.com, some posters have literally spent YEARS getting super excited about high-rise building proposals all over Phoenix, many of which were eventually scrapped by fierce opposition, or NIMBYism ([B]N[/B]ot-[B]I[/B]n-[B]M[/B]y-[B]B[/B]ack[B]y[/B]ard). Posters on both forums, especially SkyscraperPage, hurled nasty and angry remarks at the NIMBYs, who were usually those who were to be most affected by development.
Greedy Donald Trump attempted to put in a high-rise across the street from single-family homes. NIMBY rallying was so strong that Donald Trump was not only chased out of Phoenix, but he said that he would NOT return. The insults toward the NIMBYs from the skyscraper enthusiasts started flying, despite the fact that blocked mountain views, traffic, noise, and light-pollution were all effects that neighborhood residents, many life-long, would have to contend with. Quite a few developments came and went, largely due to similar issues.
Still lamenting about Phoenix's non-stereotypical urban nature (lack of pedestrianism, little perceived draw downtown, poor public transportation), I realized that many pro-skyscraper and old-style urbanism supporters in Phoenix were blithely unaware of a couple of things.
[B]1[/B]: Phoenix has limitations due to our environment. Pedestrian in Phoenix will ALWAYS be limited due to our notorious summers. Many who seem to glamourize walkable urbanism, seem to forget that 100 degree+ temperatures are commonplace from mid to late-May through mid-September. Temperatures that hot have occurred as early as March and as late as mid-October.
[B]2[/B]: No person who has done research or who has been to Phoenix more than two minutes expects it to be urban. Phoenix is a suburban city. People who live here know that there a few options of getting around efficiently than driving. The vast majority of people are here have cars, the ones who don't find a way to cope (using the bus, borrowing cars from friends or family members, walking, or biking). Try to set up a Disneyland sort of fake pedestrianism in Downtown Phoenix is stupid. This is not a walkable city. There is no way to make it one. There are plenty of other cities where walking is the dominant form of transportation.
[B]3[/B] Phoenix lacks the industry that allows high-rise construction. Many other major cities around the country (Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, New York, Miami, LA) have large skyline because they are regional, national, or global headquarters for various companies. Dallas and Houston with oil, Atlanta with banking, Fortune 500 companies, and the federal government, Chicago, LA, and New York with a plethora of Fortune 500 companies, banking, media, etc., and Miami, largely with banking and being a regional hub for Latin American interests, all have skylines for good reasons. Phoenix is home to several regional and national headquarters, some of which are located in existing high-rise downtown, others on the periphery. Point blank: you don't build skyscrapers just because. No developer is going to invest billions of dollars in building a 70-story skyscraper not knowing if there will be any tenants. Some seem to have a difficult time wrapping their heads around that concept.
[B]4[/B] There are many downsides to dense, high-rise clogged, pedestrian areas. It is brutally apparent that many trying to push the traditional urban model on Phoenix have only chosen to remember some of the positives from ths type of development. As someone who has lived outside of New York, and who has traveled extensively, I know some of the ills that come along with this kind of development. The extremely putrid smells from urine, garbage, and people with poor hygiene, the vermin who make an appearance because of poorly cleaned streets, the homeless population who take advantage of the high pedestrian traffic to beg for change, the congestion from cars trying to get through streets that are too narrow, the general feel that you're breathing in filthy air, the claustrophobic feeling of a poor street width to building height ratio, proliferatio n of the urban heat island, ust to name a few.
With many people moving to the Valley from Chicagoland, Cleveland, New York, etc. in search of a new, cleaner environment, this type of development is not all right. A large contingent of Valley residents do not want this type of development, or they would have stayed where they were. Face it. Some people like sprawl. If you don't like sprawl, Phoenix is not the place for you.
Those of you who have never been to Phoenix might not realize that Phoenix is the 5th most populous city in the United States, just ahead of Philadelphia. The Phoenix metro, or the Valley as many residents like to refer to it, is home to about 4.5 million people. Even with these population numbers, Phoenix's skyline is relatively small when compared to cities with similar population.
Part of the issue deals with the fact that in many respect Phoenix is the newest large city in the country. Much of the city was constructed after World War II when car ownership mushroomed. The city and metropolitan area was built around the car. The metro area now sprawls to over 14,500 square miles, larger than the state of Maryland, with much of that land being uninhabited and undeveloped.
As a result, development in Phoenix and environs is, for the most part, low density. There are some areas with much higher densities, including Tempe, home of Arizona State; Central Phoenix; the Camelback Corridor; South Phoenix (Phoenix's version of South Central LA); parts of Mesa; parts of Scottsdale; and parts of Glendale. Many of these areas feature either dense single-family housing or mid-rise architecture clustered in a very suburban manner, not pedestrian-friendly, at all.
Many cities across the Valley blend into one another; if driving a long-distance of a surface street or freeway it can become difficult to tell if you're in a different city than you started out in, unless you catch of glimpse of the street signs. Many cities autocentric metropolitan across the Sunbelt were designed in this manner. Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas are all prime examples of this homogeneity. However, many Phoenix trash-talkers have solely highlighted Phoenix as being "just one big suburb," or something to that effect. Phoenix is unapologetically suburban. Except for the high-rises that already exist in Downtown and Midtown Phoenix, walkable, dense urbanism is largely missing.
On the Phoenix sub-forum, as well as SkyscraperPage.com, some posters have literally spent YEARS getting super excited about high-rise building proposals all over Phoenix, many of which were eventually scrapped by fierce opposition, or NIMBYism ([B]N[/B]ot-[B]I[/B]n-[B]M[/B]y-[B]B[/B]ack[B]y[/B]ard). Posters on both forums, especially SkyscraperPage, hurled nasty and angry remarks at the NIMBYs, who were usually those who were to be most affected by development.
Greedy Donald Trump attempted to put in a high-rise across the street from single-family homes. NIMBY rallying was so strong that Donald Trump was not only chased out of Phoenix, but he said that he would NOT return. The insults toward the NIMBYs from the skyscraper enthusiasts started flying, despite the fact that blocked mountain views, traffic, noise, and light-pollution were all effects that neighborhood residents, many life-long, would have to contend with. Quite a few developments came and went, largely due to similar issues.
Still lamenting about Phoenix's non-stereotypical urban nature (lack of pedestrianism, little perceived draw downtown, poor public transportation), I realized that many pro-skyscraper and old-style urbanism supporters in Phoenix were blithely unaware of a couple of things.
[B]1[/B]: Phoenix has limitations due to our environment. Pedestrian in Phoenix will ALWAYS be limited due to our notorious summers. Many who seem to glamourize walkable urbanism, seem to forget that 100 degree+ temperatures are commonplace from mid to late-May through mid-September. Temperatures that hot have occurred as early as March and as late as mid-October.
[B]2[/B]: No person who has done research or who has been to Phoenix more than two minutes expects it to be urban. Phoenix is a suburban city. People who live here know that there a few options of getting around efficiently than driving. The vast majority of people are here have cars, the ones who don't find a way to cope (using the bus, borrowing cars from friends or family members, walking, or biking). Try to set up a Disneyland sort of fake pedestrianism in Downtown Phoenix is stupid. This is not a walkable city. There is no way to make it one. There are plenty of other cities where walking is the dominant form of transportation.
[B]3[/B] Phoenix lacks the industry that allows high-rise construction. Many other major cities around the country (Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, New York, Miami, LA) have large skyline because they are regional, national, or global headquarters for various companies. Dallas and Houston with oil, Atlanta with banking, Fortune 500 companies, and the federal government, Chicago, LA, and New York with a plethora of Fortune 500 companies, banking, media, etc., and Miami, largely with banking and being a regional hub for Latin American interests, all have skylines for good reasons. Phoenix is home to several regional and national headquarters, some of which are located in existing high-rise downtown, others on the periphery. Point blank: you don't build skyscrapers just because. No developer is going to invest billions of dollars in building a 70-story skyscraper not knowing if there will be any tenants. Some seem to have a difficult time wrapping their heads around that concept.
[B]4[/B] There are many downsides to dense, high-rise clogged, pedestrian areas. It is brutally apparent that many trying to push the traditional urban model on Phoenix have only chosen to remember some of the positives from ths type of development. As someone who has lived outside of New York, and who has traveled extensively, I know some of the ills that come along with this kind of development. The extremely putrid smells from urine, garbage, and people with poor hygiene, the vermin who make an appearance because of poorly cleaned streets, the homeless population who take advantage of the high pedestrian traffic to beg for change, the congestion from cars trying to get through streets that are too narrow, the general feel that you're breathing in filthy air, the claustrophobic feeling of a poor street width to building height ratio, proliferatio n of the urban heat island, ust to name a few.
With many people moving to the Valley from Chicagoland, Cleveland, New York, etc. in search of a new, cleaner environment, this type of development is not all right. A large contingent of Valley residents do not want this type of development, or they would have stayed where they were. Face it. Some people like sprawl. If you don't like sprawl, Phoenix is not the place for you.
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
I don't think we need a lot of skyscapers to make the city look hip and pretty. We have these gorgeous sunsets and mountains all around us!
And the only bad thing about the "sprawl" is the transportation system here. The light rail was a waste of money IMO....a better bus schedule and later running buses would have been better.Posted 03-26-2010 at 11:26 PM by phoenixscorpiogirl
-
I've been through the PHX airport many times but have never driven through (don't hate me for that). I wonder if people there would have issues with underground, air-conditioned places underneath downtown streets like in Vancouver. That place has a network of pedestrian tunnels, if I remember correctly. That might be a solution for more residential density in that area, and NIMBY's would be far less numerous than in wealthy suburban areas. People could then avoid the heat and car exhaust in summer. Security and cost might be an issue though.
I'm not advocating a Miami-like transformation, just making downtowns more interesting.
Dallas is trying to improve its CBD, and Houston has been somewhat successful. San Diego went on a building binge and it looks nicer than it did, but I don't know many people live and work there vs. capacity. San Antonio has a bunch of hotels in its downtown, but relatively few offices and probably fewer residents, though the last number has grown. LA is in a different category with its density. Smaller cities have tried to make their downtowns better with varying success (mostly limited). Austin's has grown quite a bit, but they have the "benefit" of having terrible traffic and attractions close by. Lubbock has a plan, but it remains to be seen how successful it will be. It has a draw with the large university a mile away, but needs more attractions.
Anyway, with two major league stadiums in downtown Phoenix and over 4 million residents in the area, there shouldn't be any reason why its downtown isn't bigger in a few years.Posted 03-28-2010 at 01:34 AM by shoe01
