[Don B.]

This sampling of public comments from an Arizona Republic story on super-tall skyscrapers provides some interesting insight into the mindset of many Arizonans:

We dont need skyscrapers in phoenix, who wants to be in an elevator for an hour?

The valley is too pretty to put those ugly tall buildings around.

So are elevator's in those type buildings fully furnished; lounge chairs, mini bar, T.V.? Take a long fucking time to get to your office if you happened to work somewhere near the mile high mark....

Who cares about a tall building

We don't need tall buildings in Phoenix. We have plenty of land and can keep building further and further out into the desert in all directions.

And the point of all this is . . . ? These new super-high towers are ugly. This new one in Dubai, just wait until those high desert winds blow and that thing sways enough to make everyone near the top get "sea-sick."

All there doing is building a larger target for terrorist

I think it's a monstrosity. I visited the Sears Tower in Chicago.. the skydeck is 1,353 ft. I guess one would have to be used to living/working in tall buildings, but it was a very uneasy feeling

Where were you...when they built the tower to heaven...nine eleven...nine eleven..."Tower to heaven? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of!" - South Park

We should fly a few planes into it! Payback is a #$#%!

Think... Tower of Babel...

I guess we need to ask Al-Qeada if its OK to build skyscrapers now? Heck no!

:crazy:

As I wrote on Wikipedia once, Arizonans like their governments and their buildings small. :D

--don

P.S. The source article:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0914dubai14-on.html#comments

[IdahoMountainBoy]

"We don't need tall buildings in Phoenix. We have plenty of land and can keep building further and further out into the desert in all directions."

I'm simply consternated...

[Cementglow]

^I read all the comments, and I think the person who wrote that was being sarcastic.

[plinko]

Phoenix doesn't have many skyscrapers because the companies that have chosen to relocate there have not typically been the skyscraper type.

Most of the homegrown large companies have been in towers at some point (Valley Bank, Arizona Bank, Western Savings, Greyhound-Dial, U-Haul, Del Webb, Phelps Dodge) but the simple reality at those companies have been few and far between. The valley corporate economy had much more to do with companies with little use for towers like Honeywell, Motorola, GM, Raytheon, Allied Signal, Catapillar.

And then over the years with corporate takeovers and the push for cheaper suburban office parks, its no wonder that nearly all of those initial companies I initially listed either don't exist anymore or have moved to the burbs (Phelps Dodge and U-Haul being notable exceptions).

This whole NIMBYism thing you guys rail on and on about is a relatively new (last 10 years) phenomenon (with several notable exceptions such as Eugene Pulliam). Yes, there have always been people to complain, but up until recently they held to real sway or public power. Not so much the case anymore.

Arizonans may like their government small, but the buildings are short because of short-sighted economics and market type, not because of some overriding public loathing of skyscrapers.

If Phoenix had a more diversified and corporate driven economy over the years, the towers would be there. Plain and simple.

[soleri]

We don't need tall buildings in Phoenix. We have plenty of land and can keep building further and further out into the desert in all directions.

This is pretty much reality - cheap land, cheap oil, lots of water. The die was cast immediately after WWII. Worse, the momentum is self-sustaining. Density becomes less feasible because the infrastructure is almost entirely oriented to horizontal growth. Every new freeway we build ensures the infrastructure remains fixed that way. And it means mass transit is that much more difficult to implement.

The counterargument is necessarily political. If don't talk about the long-term costs and sustainability of this arrangement, you're not making much sense. It's one reason why Arizona's political climate is so surreal.

[HX_Guy]

Hey hey! Soleri is back. :)

Any development updates for us Soleri? How are sales at 44 Monroe, you seem to usually be informed about those.

[BTinSF]

I think a majority of Arizonans just fundamentally don't like CITIES. They prefer their wide open spaces and are too ignorant to realize that they might have more wide open spaces in the future if they concentrated growth in a downtown core, especially if they allowed it to grow vertically rather than horizontally.

[Don B.]

Phoenix doesn't have many skyscrapers because the companies that have chosen to relocate there have not typically been the skyscraper type.

Most of the homegrown large companies have been in towers at some point (Valley Bank, Arizona Bank, Western Savings, Greyhound-Dial, U-Haul, Del Webb, Phelps Dodge) but the simple reality at those companies have been few and far between. The valley corporate economy had much more to do with companies with little use for towers like Honeywell, Motorola, GM, Raytheon, Allied Signal, Catapillar.

And then over the years with corporate takeovers and the push for cheaper suburban office parks, its no wonder that nearly all of those initial companies I initially listed either don't exist anymore or have moved to the burbs (Phelps Dodge and U-Haul being notable exceptions).

This whole NIMBYism thing you guys rail on and on about is a relatively new (last 10 years) phenomenon (with several notable exceptions such as Eugene Pulliam). Yes, there have always been people to complain, but up until recently they held to real sway or public power. Not so much the case anymore.

Arizonans may like their government small, but the buildings are short because of short-sighted economics and market type, not because of some overriding public loathing of skyscrapers.

If Phoenix had a more diversified and corporate driven economy over the years, the towers would be there. Plain and simple.

I completely agree with you. I also think (as I wrote in the Wikipedia article on Phoenix some time ago) that other major factors contributing to our lack of skyscrapers include:

* Phoenix was the youngest and smallest of the Sunbelt Sprawlers (tm) to grow. In 1950, San Diego was three times larger than Phoenix, Denver and Dallas were more than four times larger, and Houston was almost six times larger. As a result, we came late to the party. Phoenix's metro area didn't hit 1 million until after 1970, well after our peers.

* Other major cities in the Southwest siphoned away some of the high-rise construction that might have otherwise occurred here. I'm thinking of Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas, Houston and San Diego in the 1950-1990 time frame, and Las Vegas since 1990.

* Arizona's western mentality doesn't bode well for tall skyscrapers. Phoenix was essentially an overgrown cowtown in the middle of nowhere until just a few decades ago and definitely lacked sophistication with respect to urbanity and high-rises. Even to this day, Phoenix's building codes require hideous setbacks and onerous parking requirements that makes it difficult to get high-rises built, compared to single-family home sprawl on the fringe.

--don

[wrendog]

Why yes, yes I have wondered that.

[andrewkfromaz]

Excellent points, Plinko. In my experience people who have lived in Phoenix for any length of time recognize the fact that a healthy downtown is good for Phoenix is good for the entire metro area. In general, Phoenicians who are also suburbanites also hope for the ultimate success of the light rail system. I've certainly heard my share of the people who automatically write it off as a failure, but the people whose opinions I respect tend to be less inclined to be pessimistic about it, considering they have little experience with transit in Phoenix or elsewhere from which to base their assumptions.

I also think that while many Phoenicians and Metro residents would not prefer to live in a more dense environment, they do not object to other people living in them. In my mind, the reason Phoenix has fewer skyscrapers than even other Western cities is not related to any objections to the building type, but more to the market conditions that exist here (cheap, plentiful land, healthy middle class job market, relatively light traffic problems, people's desire to own and live in a single-family home in a good school district, and so on.) Obviously, there are the NIMBYs, as well as people, who for whatever reason don't like skyscrapers, but I don't think they have THAT much to do with the problem.

[Cranetastic]

The beauty is that vertical cities will become the norm and these NIMBY's won't have much of a choice, the only problem with that is that it is so far off we won't see it in our lifetime. Think Star Wars - Coruscant. Supertall buildings covering the entire planet. Granted I don't think it will be that bad, but a lot of movies have the future correct in my opinion. Burj Dubai, Tokyo's proposed Sky City etc. all give us a hint as to where thing will end up. Even the Nanotube to space gives us a clue. I recently read an article in Popular Science about 30 story agricultural skyscrapers. It was an awesome way to incoporate farming into central cities such as New York and all of their abandoned buildings. The conversions wouldn't cost much for the hydroponic (spelling?) wonders. Needless to say the people that love land will should enjoy it while they can, otherwise understand what is to come and support it now before the land that does exist gets consumed. The footprint of a skyscraper is a lot smaller than that of an Anthem development. Wow! That last statement was kind of deep sounding. I should have put qoutes around it. If anyone wants to use that one it will cost you $9.95 per iteration. Thank you. :)

[vertex]

I think a majority of Arizonans just fundamentally don't like CITIES. They prefer their wide open spaces and are too ignorant to realize that they might have more wide open spaces in the future if they concentrated growth in a downtown core, especially if they allowed it to grow vertically rather than horizontally.

Many people move here to get away from urban areas, and they do love their wide open spaces.

But people want to live in those wide-open spaces too, and not go back to living on top of one-another. So it's hard to convince people that increased densities, along with growth limits/boundaries, are the way to go.

I do believe that one day (in our lifetime), most cities in the state will pass growth boundaries.

[andrewkfromaz]

It's a known fact that as cities age, they naturally become more dense. Even LA is experiencing this, so I think Phoenix has a bright future as an increasingly dense metro area. I also think this applies to the entire metro area, not just urban cores, although the "known fact" status of this part of the opinion has not yet been established.

Also, many cities that have been sprawling are coming up against other natural growth boundaries. Chandler, Glendale, Scottsdale, even Goodyear have a limited amount of growth (at least in the long run - Goodyear in particular has a long, long way to grow) before they run out of land to annex. Cities on the fringe - Buckeye, Peoria, Maricopa, Apache Junction, Eloy, Florence, Mesa, Casa Grande, and so on don't have as much incentive to begin developing differently today, but I'm hopeful that the future will bring changes in the market. In other words, the single-family home of the 50s will give way to a new kind of living and sprawl as we know it will begin to slow and finally reverse itself.

[HooverDam]

^Statistically, the Valley is getting denser every day, not less dense!

[andrewkfromaz]

Well, that idea applies even within pre-defined boundaries. Say, from Bell Rd. to Shea Blvd., 32nd St. to Tatum Blvd. will have more dwelling units per acre, a higher floor/area ratio in ten years than it does today. In other words, more dense. The entire Valley is becoming more dense b/c of sprawl, i.e. development is occurring where once was vacant land. But the point I was trying to make is essentially that redevelopment will occur, and will increase densities in general. Some redevelopments do not increase density, look at what Chicago is doing with Cabrini Green, for example. But in the whole, redevelopment (and time) will increase Phoenix's density.

[soleri]

It's true Phoenix will get denser over time, but it's a bit misleading to think that this will somehow transform the suburban template to an urban one. The problem here, of course, is transit. The one-person, one-car transportation system will not allow effective mass transit. Instead, we'll be looking at much worse traffic congestion over time.

Light rail in metro Phoenix will eventually account for maybe 2% of all commutes, and that's an optimistic scenario. What it will do, if we're lucky, is create a density corridor from central Phoenix to central Mesa. Yes, this will be an improvement but it hardly alters the basic paradigm.

LA is much denser than Phoenix, has much better mass transit, and has a fairly significant downtown core/employment hub. But getting around LA requires a car. Everyone knows that. Retrofitting the suburban template with mass transit upgrades and TOD will offer marginal relief for a problem that is structural by nature. Mayor Villaraigosa's $4 billion subway to the sea is a great idea but is an awfully expensive proposition for the pain relief it offers.

Urban growth boundaries were a late-in-the-day solution when it failed as a ballot proposition in 2000. With Phoenix's growth edge getting closer and closer to Tucson's, the chances that any meaningful sprawl curbs will eventually slow the madness become remote. The curbs when they do come will likely derive from resource depletion: water and oil. But by that time, the damage will be irremediable.

[combusean]

The problem with that 2% of commutes figure is that it's apples to oranges of 20 miles of light rail compared to hundreds of miles of surface streets and freeways. Ergo, to get 2% with our starter line doesn't sound half-bad.

The Wilshire subway is a long time coming, connecting that super dense corridor with the jammed coastal areas. $4 billion gets you one really good corridor in LA, but, for two or three times that, we might be able to retrofit the whole damn metro with rails:

http://emvis.net/~sean/ssp/rhctn.png

These things are expensive, but a lot of rail in the recent passage of Prop 400 didn't get it killed by the freeway-loving hillbillies that we think dominate the paradigm here. That extra scrutiny the anti's demand, however, get us better plans--to pull something like this off in most multi-agency California metropolii could be a long shot. Another half-cent county wide would make the above map a reality. Get Scottsdale on board and it's a done deal.

Secondly, the sprawl that defines us could ironically be our biggest asset as we build up--we have a plethora of large or easily assembled lots to build dense on. This is happening already in Tempe with outdated industrial buildings falling to big projects like Sotelo.

While NIMBY's bitch about height, light rail in Phoenix is putting up 105 and 136 foot projects near the 12th Street station. We can expect corridors of midrises where we put tracks. But farther away, if we look at our old arterial streets as endless strips of C-3 zoning, 48 feet within the variance limit is enough to build dense, possibly affordable/attainable 4-over-1 projects with ground floor retail like Fillmore 555.

We have urban growth boundaries--it's where the city stops its planning area and where another city's planning area starts, or, where the national forests, wildlife refuges, Indian reservations, etc are that we bump up against. The campaign for a denser metropolis starts in the city--it's stepping up at public hearings for infill projects and patiently riding out the sprawl to the county line or whatever. It means actually taking a look at the General Plan when it comes up for renewal and avoiding areas where low density, single use crap predominates and look to mixed use instead. Some cities are enlightened--Phoenix's plans for the area on the other side of the 17 from New River include lots of mixed use. It means fighting for transit for all the reasons above. It means campaigning to bring central city amenities in line with the perceived benefits of the outer-ring: better schools, libraries, museums, etc will keep the draw inward.

Sprawl is the de-facto alternative when we don't have better expectations of the city--when we limit them to maybe pick up the garbage and build streets and provide public safety, we get Mesa and they can't even afford doing that. But when we vote for bonds, put tracks in the street, and start demanding more, we get downtown Tempe and central Phoenix and all the good things those areas' growth implies.

[JI5]

/\/\/\

I would settle for an urban community within the giant mass of sprawl, so that even if the region as a whole is auto-dependent there is an area that is not.

[PhxSprawler]

:previous: That map up above makes complete sense. It would get me to work with only one transfer (when I actually have to go in the office)! Also, it would make it a heck of a lot easier for tourists - and help keep them off our streets.

Back to the point, the scrapers will come with time. There is still a premium in the valley to live in the central area. The demand to live in the core is growing equally to the demand to live in the sprawl areas. Sprawl is destined to lose in the long run as the suburbs become too crowded and distance is no longer worth the cost savings.

[HooverDam]

Sean, did you make that map? If so, nice work, it looks like it took quite a bit of time and thought. One thing I would change though is having a small spur go north to connect to the whole Desert Ridge/City North area, which is going to be fairly dense and mixed use when complete.

It also seems like Anthem/the extreme north-Central areas would be the prime place to run commuter rail. But I assume your map just calls for it along where tracks currently exist.

[Cranetastic]

We see an example of what happens when a mature city reaches its boundaries. Tempe is a prime example. With extremely little to no land left for development they have no choice but to go up. The main reason is that they need the additional tax dollars to support the city operations. Without creating more living space and jobs for people they start to incur a shortage. Since they are landlocked on all sides, they have no choice, but to begin building up instead of out. It becomes a catch 22 for those people that live there who refuse to let them build up. They must move otherwise their city will deteriorate of their own accord.

[combusean]

I didn't make the map ... it's one that was floated around by a consultant some years ago and rehashed recently into the Commuter Rail Stakeholders group meetings stuff. There's another one more current pushed by Rick Simonetta of Metro Rail that I will someday get my hands on.

One thing I wish that was on the map--a streetcar (maybe even light rail) on Thomas, running from about Desert Sky in west Phoenix to Pima or Granite Reef in Scottsdale.

[andrewkfromaz]

Another thing I've noticed is more and more well-planned sprawl. The area of the east valley known as Superstition Vista, the expansion towards the south of Goodyear, parts of Peoria, hopefully Mesa's GM Proving Grounds project, are all some pretty huge master-planned projects that come to mind that have potential to be somewhat self-sustaining, containing a mix of everyday uses, and possibly fairly walkable. This may not offer us skyscraper lovers much to drool over, but it's certainly preferable to the kinds of sprawl we saw in the nineties.

Additionally, I have hope that especially these types of new developments will make accommodation for transit in the future, in particular some type of shuttle/BRT system, which I see as the most practical in these more distant areas. If we don't have the money or foresight to build tracks or designate lines today, a more investment-intensive solution such as commuter rail won't happen. Which is not a problem in itself; BRT and similar solutions can and will emerge to fulfill people's transportation needs.

[mikeelm]

Who gives a shit if they don't.

Just because a city doesn't have many highrises doesn't make it look bad.


Let's worry about other thing besides that.

[combusean]

Another thing I've noticed is more and more well-planned sprawl. The area of the east valley known as Superstition Vista, the expansion towards the south of Goodyear, parts of Peoria, hopefully Mesa's GM Proving Grounds project, are all some pretty huge master-planned projects that come to mind that have potential to be somewhat self-sustaining, containing a mix of everyday uses, and possibly fairly walkable. This may not offer us skyscraper lovers much to drool over, but it's certainly preferable to the kinds of sprawl we saw in the nineties.

Additionally, I have hope that especially these types of new developments will make accommodation for transit in the future, in particular some type of shuttle/BRT system, which I see as the most practical in these more distant areas. If we don't have the money or foresight to build tracks or designate lines today, a more investment-intensive solution such as commuter rail won't happen. Which is not a problem in itself; BRT and similar solutions can and will emerge to fulfill people's transportation needs.

I'm not convinced that the neo-sprawl that DMB could put up would break any trends in the Blob-like Southeast Valley. They certainly don't have much of a tract record putting up super significant stuff when they have a whole lot of land at their disposal.

Every development on a whole bunch of land can be looked at with one simple equation: If they put Y houses on X acres, simply dividing Y/X gives us a calculation used by land geeks everywhere: "dwelling units per acre." If that number is less than 10, what the Sierra Club considers "smart suburban," it's more of the same we've seen.

Only about a tenth of Sonoran Valley (http://az-goodyear.civicplus.com/DocumentView.asp?DID=3298), the 67-square-mile stretch that Goodyear annexed without putting to voters, could at least be considered 'smart suburban.' Check the dark orange, dark brown, and striped patterns on page 50. And the plan still sucks--they put the bulk of the "general industrial" miles away from freight rail.

Maybe that 10% is the tipping point for something remotely self-sustainable. To grow and flourish, the numbers just keep having to go up. But we can't keep barely getting it right 67 square-miles at a time.

And, andrewk, about transit to these places...I guess I have to ask one basic question: tracks to what? One chance for improvement: freight/commuter rail ROW connecting the branch line up north to the UP mainline down south along that proposed 303 alignment.

[SnyderBock]

I always thought Phoenix had a strict height limit on all CBD buildings because of the proximity of the airport to downtown and the flight paths that go over the CBD. Everyone knows that one!

[plinko]

Some of which tower 1000'-1600' over the city! :D

Just thought I should share, I don't know that I've ever posted these full size before...ah the joys of old school film and scotch tape!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Phoenix/phx158.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Phoenix/phx048.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Phoenix/phx125.jpg

[sundevilgrad]

Take a look at the link and read some of the comments:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0929view0929.html

Here's the article from the AZRepugnant on this topic:

New buildings too tall? Depends on your view
Diana Balazs
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 29, 2007 12:00 AM

As new buildings stretch skyward throughout the Valley, residents, developers and politicians are embroiled in a debate over who has a right to a view.

They all believe they do, from the developer building to showcase one, to the homeowner fighting to keep one, to the civic leader trying to manage one.

Homeowners who for years enjoyed postcard views of Camelback Mountain, Mummy Mountain and other landmarks say they are losing out as new, taller and larger buildings, including homes, are built next door.






"When it comes to views, they are a community asset," said Paradise Valley resident Christine Larkin said. "I believe they belong to the community."

That is becoming increasingly more difficult as developers go vertical with their projects. To minimize the cost of land and maximize profits, developers are building up.

The battle is being played out across the Valley:


• Tempe already has at least 15 multistory condo projects on its books, and Chandler is poised to grow vertically.


• Two 13-story luxury condo towers are part of the Scottsdale Waterfront project along Camelback Road.


• New homes up to 30 feet high are popping up in Phoenix's ranch-style Arcadia neighborhood.


• So-called McMansions, homes up to 11,000 square feet on 1-acre lots, are becoming common in Paradise Valley's older neighborhoods.

Government leaders say they are limited in what they can do as they attempt to balance the property rights of existing and new property owners.

"I think everyone has the right to the view," said Dave Roderique, Scottsdale's director of economic vitality. "It's a matter of what kind of an impact you create on people who are there vs. what kind of impact you create on a neighborhood if it continues to deteriorate because no one can do any redevelopment."

Epicenter of battle

In Paradise Valley, residents are increasingly complaining about the height and size of new homes built in estab- lished neighborhoods. Existing homes are being torn down and replaced with homes up to 24 feet in height. That is the maximum allowed for a single-family residence on a 1-acre lot, the town's zoning standard. In many instances, views of Camelback and Mummy mountains are blocked by the new construction.

Paradise Valley requires home builders to center the bulk of a new residence away from adjoining homes to maintain view corridors between properties, but the results aren't always successful.

From her backyard, Larkin looks to the west at a new home under construction.

She has lived in her 32-year-old Southwest-style home for 22 years. Larkin said developers are building spec homes for short-term profits, not realizing the long-term effects.

"People who have a commitment to their community and their neighborhood should not suffer because of someone's short-term profit-taking," she said.

Larkin added that Rancho Valencia, a seven-home subdivision under construction behind her house near McDonald Drive and Mockingbird Lane, will further impact her views.



Jonathan Wainwright is a partner with Calvis Wyant, a Scottsdale-based luxury-home builder. He said the company tries to be a good neighbor when building a new home. He said building in the town is more restrictive today than it was in the past.

Wainwright, who grew up in Paradise Valley, said having an unobstructed view is important when he is selecting a lot.

But he added that buyers should recognize that someday the property behind or next door could be redeveloped.

"It's unrealistic to expect that I've got mine so nobody else should have the right to build a house either," he said.

Arcadia also building up

In Arcadia, low-rise, ranch-style homes also are being torn down and replaced with much larger homes that can rise up to 30 feet, eliminating views of Camelback Mountain.

In addition, Arcadia neighbors are fighting multistory redevelopment projects proposed for three of the four corners of 44th Street and East Camelback Road.

The Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association, a citizen watchdog group, regularly attends hearings to weigh in on new-home and commercial construction. Most recently, the group mobilized residents in opposition to the CamelSquare and Arcadia Place projects at 44th and Camelback. The Phoenix Planning Commission placed both projects on hold so it can study the impact.

Paul Barnes has lived in Arcadia since 1975. He said he moved there for the good schools, large lots, open space and great views.

"Camelback Mountain itself was a huge attraction," he said.

The problem occurs when a developer wants to snatch the views that others have enjoyed for years, Barnes said.

"Basically, what they are doing is they are taking the rights away of the people who already live there."



Government juggling act

Roderique, Scottsdale's economic vitality director, said the height of a new building remains a sensitive issue as the city adjusts to the realities of the marketplace and also takes into account residents' quality of life concerns.

"This goes way back even in the days of (Mayor) Herb Drinkwater who swore up and down that we would never have a building taller than 36 feet in Scottsdale," Roderique said of the man who served as Scottsdale's mayor for 16 years ending in 1996.

But, today, replacing an existing three-story building with a new three-story building doesn't work financially, Roderique said.

"In most cases, either the city had to financially subsidize or provide other benefits to a project. If we're truly going to see continued positive revitalization of the community, I think we're going to have to allow some higher heights and some greater densities in certain areas of the community," he said.

Danley said communities are trying to balance the town's quality of life and the property rights of its residents.

"I think many of the municipalities, Paradise Valley especially, have done a good job of walking the tightrope between allowing owners to do what they would like with their land within reason and protecting the view corridors of everybody," he said.

Arizona's natural beauty is a draw.

"What we don't want to do is end up sandwiching houses together every five feet and ruining what drew people here in the first place," Danley said.