« 'A Christian thing' | Main | Conservative history »

April 05, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

CityScape reminds me more of Scottsdale Galleria than Arizona Center. There has been some major road changes created to aid this mall. As the Galleria never had an anchor tenant and instead turned to caviar taste small stores at incredible per sq ft prices, so the CityScape turns to over-priced bowling alleys and upscale shopping.

It didn't even work in SCOTTSDALE.

What has worked and flourished and been supported are the small local businesses with small footprints and aspirations. Something to identify with, a place where everyone knows your name, taste and you find your friends hanging there, too.

It will be interesting to see if CityScape goes the way of AZ Center with the lack of street-visibility dooming the retail shops (they oriented the service and garage entrances along the busiest streets and the retail to the interior, instead of the opposite...WTF? they learned nothing!)

Aside from the lack of a grocery store (the replacement for snooty A.J's is an even snootier and wine/cheese/sandwich shop. A huge, huge loss) The tenants are better than I expected. Urban Outfitters, La Grande Orange, Gold's Gym are a few of the services that will support activity downtown.

Unfortunately, the office leasing is not much new life, as most of the tenants are vacating downtown space - just recycling the current activity.

When Phoenix decided in the late 60s to construct Civic Plaza, it erased some key elements of its history, including the old Goldwater's, Montgomery Ward's and Sear's buildings. Wiping the slate clean to build a convention center didn't seem like a bad idea since the buildings were empty anyway. Cities across the country were doing the same thing - the can-do spirit of a Robert Moses was considered visionary.

The difference for Phoenix was the smallness of the existing downtown footprint. Central Phoenix was tightly woven prior to World War II, but by the 50s, many blocks had been scraped for parking lots. New government buildings were cold and sterile. The new downtown bank buildings of the early 70s took out more streetfront retail By 1975, the glorious Fox Theater was razed for a bus depot.

Virtually everything we did made the problem worse. Still, it seemed that all we really needed was some new lollapalooza project to make all the sterility come alive with "synergy" (a word that downtown boosters recited like a mantra). For years, the great hope was Square One at Central and Washington. It would have been a stand-alone project designed by Jon Jerde (the architect of San Diego's Horton Plaza). Arizona Center ended that dream but its own vaunted "synergy" fizzled.

After the less-than successful Collier Center of 2000, CityScape was supposed to take lollapalooza to the next level. The irony is that it will end up looking like Collier Center's twin. By 2006, RED had taken out the luxury pricing points from the projected condo towers. The real-estate implosion was already a towering black cloud on the horizon. CityScape's essential size and weight were capsized in the storm.

There's a Potemkin village air to downtown Phoenix because most of it feels artificial and force fed. New development could not capitalize on existing downtown resources because there weren't enough in the first place. The next project, we were told, would finally catalyze the inert beast. That siren song is now a Golden Oldie.

Gardens.

Mr. Talton wrote:

"It took over the dismal Patriot's Square, which had been created by tearing down a block of historic, irreplaceable buildings, as well as adjoining vacant lots, which also once held viable commercial structures."

Note that state law encourages this:

"However, [Tempe Mayor Hugh] Hallman said he is frustrated by limitations in state law on how cities can spend their property-tax revenues - limitations that force cities to tear down "perfectly good" old buildings and erect new ones because some taxes can be used only for construction and not maintenance. He said cities would be able to give residents more for their money if cities could use property-tax revenues to repair and modernize older buildings and expand programs."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonare
public/news/articles/2010/04/04/20100404arizona-city-tax-worth.html

Mr. Talton wrote:

"It baffles me that the Downtown Phoenix Partnership and the Phoenix Community Alliance have ignored this crisis, failed to adequately reach out to existing employers (why, why, didn't they and the city do what was required to keep Wells Fargo downtown rather than putting 20,000 employees in Chandler?) and have no strategy to lure new companies."

Why? Political economy:

"Newer communities such as Gilbert and Chandler were able to adopt a different strategy as they started to build out. By assessing impact fees on new homes, and requiring private homeowners' associations to maintain neighborhood open space during growth spurts that started about 20 years ago, they have been able to achieve some of the Valley's lowest taxes and fees.

"These tactics, which weren't conceived when the older parts of Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe were built, save taxpayers millions of dollars in infrastructure costs."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl
es/2010/03/27/20100327arizona-city-tax-comparisons.html

Regarding that "open space":

"Chandler fought for decades to protect expanses of vacant land around Price Road and the municipal airport from homebuilders' zoning pressures. Now, the city is reaping the reward as national corporations such as Intel, Rockefeller Group and Covance establish themselves in the city.

"By setting aside hundreds of acres for future commercial development when homebuilders were eager to buy land but big businesses were not, Chandler set the stage for an influx of businesses and jobs that generate tax revenue, Strachota said."

Talk about "Snotsdale" may have some validity, but it's also suspect and possibly facile:

"Scottsdale's upscale image and revitalization projects brought high property values and upscale retailers that for years kept tax revenues high and rates relatively low. That has left it with the third-lowest property tax rate of the 10 major Valley cities, although that is offset by one of the highest water rates.

"In contrast, what seemed like frugal moves in Mesa to rein in government spending on aging commercial areas has left a wasteland of vacant buildings and dwindling tax revenues."

Note also that while other cities have been cutting back in the post-recession environment, "Snotsdale" has continued to invest in local infrastructure:

"For many people, though, it's not government services or amenities that make a city a good place to live. It's often the intangible elements.

"For Allan Friedbauer, it's living near a bicycle trail and tennis courts and being able to walk to the library. The 55-year-old former Foreign Service employee said tennis facilities and greenbelt persuaded him to move to a central Scottsdale neighborhood. Now, he said he can't imagine not being in a place "where we can walk to the dentist, to church, to the library, downtown." "

Mr. Talton wrote:

"Then there's metro Phoenix's below-average wages and incomes. People in the few nearby neighborhoods don't have the scratch to patronize at a level that they do in, say, downtown Seattle. Those who do, go to Scottsdale, which is, to paraphrase Matt Taibbi, a giant vampire squid sucking the lifeblood out of the city of Phoenix."

You can't have it both ways. If Phoenix residents are too poor, generally, to buy much locally, they won't patronize Scottsdale. Unless, that is, there is some reason to do so:

"More people are crossing city lines to buy big-ticket items in places where the lower sales tax will save them money. To counter the shift and protect revenues, many Valley cities have launched "shop local" campaigns to remind residents that sales taxes fund hometown services.

"Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert and Tempe have all ramped up "shop local" campaigns in recent months, aimed at convincing residents to make taxable purchases within city limits."

Phoenix is missing from that list. Note, however, that the operative phrase is "big-ticket items". What big ticket items does downtown Phoenix have that central or downtown Scottsdale does not? For that matter, what does downtown Phoenix have in terms of art galleries, restaurants, or anything else that comparable portions of Scottsdale don't do better?

And yet, Phoenix is the Center connecting all of the surrounding areas and providing the infrastructure necessary to get from one to another:

"As the Valley's largest municipality, Phoenix is saddled with costs tied to regional demands, said Jason Harris, deputy director of community and economic development. . . Phoenix also is expected to provide roads and mass transit that connects surrounding cities and can't discontinue services that affect neighboring communities."

Perhaps Phoenix has to make surrounding communities pay their fair share for the roadways, mass transit, and other assets they're indirectly benefitting from?

Mr. Talton wrote:

"A big and little remarked challenge will be the suburban values of the metro area's residents. They don't understand quality urban, most having lived in suburban settings their entire lives. They have no attachment to central Phoenix, many if not most having never seen much of it. They don't have "we" values that would encourage them to, for example, patronize local or downtown businesses. They have no memory, like me and Soleri, of when downtown was Arizona's busiest retail center (even competing against Park Central, now gone)."

Where's the beef, Talton? Where's that "urban quality" in downtown Phoenix? Who would know if it existed, and how? Why should memory motivate those too young to possess it, or even those old enough to if contemporary reality doesn't stack up against their memory (whether or not embellished) of lost Golden Years?

I'm not being contentious: I'm pointing out that the ones most likely to patronize downtown Phoenix are the local residents, not those who have to drive in from the suburbs: and elsewhere in your admirable essay (see above) you allude to the "few nearby neighborhoods".

The economy is demand driven. If the city's economic policies encourage flight and impoverished residential areas near the downtown, it's quixotic for anyone to expect a "vibrant city center" because by "vibrancy" we mean all of the activities which require consumer activities to support. It's that simple. Even the businessmen lured to the convention center can see that the "downtown" is an artificial construct, not a living community; and you can be they tell their friends and business partners.

P.S. A correction: my impressions of
Scottsdale were based in part on infrastructure investments that were proposed during or immediately following the Great Recession, but which were ultimately overturned.

Still, Scottsdale seems to have weathered the storm better than many municipalities, with less cutting. Here's an interesting case, not in North Scottsdale, but in South: well worth reading!

"Because residents were willing and able to take on a challenge, the Hacienda del Rey community near Hayden and McDowell roads in south Scottsdale has received a much-needed face-lift.

"The community was required by law to upgrade the pool and spa," said Dana Close, the Hacienda del Rey landscaping director. "The time had come for the houses to be painted, and the private streets needed to be resurfaced. The landscaping needed a much more environmentally appropriate approach, and two tennis courts were in serious disrepair. . ."

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/03/11/20100311Hacienda-del-Rey-facelift.html

I'm really interested in getting at solutions to some of these city-center / downtown development problems. The best approach is probably to canvass downtowns nationwide, find out what the successful ones did and how they did it, and emulate it when possible.

Since I don't have access to that information, I have to think generally and originally, from first principles: an approach which can sometimes yield highly productive results, but can also produce a great deal of uninformed and misleading suggestions. So, in response to what follows, I'd like to solicit constructive input (including corrections and/or modifications).

I'm not asserting ANY expertise but I am trying to boil things down to a few essentials, if only as a starting point to an interesting discussion: if I'm full of it, say so, but reasonably politely and with the concrete detail necessary to establish this. Let me know which of the following premises you strongly disagree with, and why:

(1) It's the economy, stupid! (OK, strictly gratuitous.)

(2) The economy is demand driven.

(3) Local retailers and other consumer services are largely driven by local demand (except in a tourist economy).

(4) There is little local demand for downtown Phoenix services because local neighborhoods proximate to downtown are mostly impoverished or non-existent. Local demand for downtown services (to the extent that it exists) is driven by the work-hours needs of local employees and by business "tourists".

(5) Downtown Phoenix has little hope of becoming vital from the effects of tourism alone, since downtown Phoenix offers few tourist attractions. Most downtown workers commute from elsewhere (sometimes from considerable distances) and their patronage is generally limited to business-hours needs (e.g., lunch).

Proposed solution: Create local demand. To build local demand:

(A) Attract residential development in and near downtown Phoenix. Residential development has led the standard development model for good reason: businesses locate to serve existing and prospective demand. This is especially true for small (less than 20 employees) businesses, which provide roughly 3/4 of net new jobs.

Together with landscaping, architecture, local transit design and layout, etc., it is small business that provides "local character" to an area, not big-box stores or malls full of chain stores. Collectively, and with the residents (and their socio-economic demographics), this is what provides a sense of community life.

What are the factors that attract residential development?

(i) Available land, but at prices which are competitive relative to other existing options (e.g., suburban or exurban comunities).

(ii) Tax and fee structures which (again) are attractive to residential developers compared to other, actually existing options.

(iii) Construction costs and/or renovation costs.

(iv) Profits, either current or projected, based on expected revenues from the sale, lease, and rent of developed properties.

Note that it's the combined effect of these factors on the bottom line, which counts. Some items may be higher or lower than average, but if the net result is attractive, development will occur.

Item (i) can be influenced by the city, since much of the banked, downtown land in Phoenix is city-owned; and much of the privately owned land held by speculators can be subjected to special property taxes penalizing blight and lack of development, while rewarding active development and property maintenance (thus incentivizing the sale and/or development of such privately held land: but only if the city is willing to put community building above the siren-song attraction of making a killing on big development projects.

Item (ii) is also strongly city influenced.

Item (iii) could be strongly city influenced, especially regarding the cost to rebuilt/modernize basic infrastructure, but only if state law is modified to allow city property taxes to be used more broadly for renovation and not merely new construction.

Now we can ask: what attacts residents (as opposed to residential developers)?

(a) Competitive rents and/or property prices.

(b) New / renovated construction.

(c) (Perception of) public safety.

(d) Local ambience.

(e) The prospect of local employment (implying short commutes) and general convenience.

It's questionable how much the city can influence (a) since private owners ultimately determine residential charges; but it's possible that development contracts could stipulate rental concessions, to be offset by development incentives.

Items (b), (c), and (d) can obviously be strongly city influenced (see above). Item (e) is a function partly of business development (which will follow naturally, given residential development) and partly a function of city influenced factors such as local transit options. The presence of free circulating buses operating on a 15 minute frequency in the downtown area might well influence potential residents, IF sufficiently touted and if local employment options materialize.

P.S. The question can be asked, what would motivate the city to give big price breaks and other (tax, fee) incentives now? The obvious answer is, long-term property and sales tax revenues; this and the fact that chronically undeveloped or underdeveloped areas bring nothing now, regardless of pie-in-the-sky possibilities for making a killing with Big Development Deals.

This may be heresy, but is the concept of a "vibrant city center" both difficult and perhaps dated. Example: what if Chandler were to become more of a live/work/play magnet? They seem to be headed in that direction.
This certainly does not excuse all the crappy strip centers that blight the landscape, but it does acknowledge the possibility that a new model (decentralized downtowns) might be emerging whether we like it or not.

I don't have time to go through all of friend Emil's contentions. As for friend Jim, I fear all my years of trying to explain why Phoenix needs a real urban downtown and will be held back without it, have been for naught. Perhaps in a future post I'll try again. But, as I say, Phoenix is a place of suburban values.

A real urban downtown has public spaces, diversity, the government center, the hub of transit, edge, as well as offices, shopping, 24/7 live-work-play. Chandler may have a very white suburban "town centre" and Snottsdale benefits from a very, very white affluent population. Both offload their social problems on Phoenix. And neither are real downtowns.

The problems of downtown Phoenix spread and are symptomatic of broader economic weaknesses and lack of offering choices, one of which is quality urban living. This is another reason to address them. And, again, the future will be unkind to decentralized, car-dependent metros.

So does a downtown matter in a metro of 4 million people? I say, yes. Without it, Phoenix can't attract the talent that wants a real downtown...not Chandler, not Scottsdale. So they won't consider living in metro Phoenix. To reiterate: Every winning metro has a real downtown, plus suburbs. The depression in Phoenix is partly because of the years of bad policies that wrecked the center city.

Enough said for now.

Mr. Hamblin,

I'm hampered by lack of familiarity with Chandler (and the lack of online time to research and consider what I read about Chandler). That said, I'm willing to shoot from the hip here, just to stimulate discussion.

First, I think we ought to be clear about the terms we use, otherwise we won't know what we're talking about.

What, for example, would "decentralzed downtowns" (plural) mean? The term "downtown" has a fairly definite (if flexible) meaning, but by definition it is neither multiple nor decentralized.

If Mr. Hamblin simply means isolated office parks, or isolated areas of concentrated business development linked though areas of less concentrated development, he might say so. If he means something else, he should specify, because in my ignorance of Chandler, I find myself confused by the terminology.

But the main point I wanted to make is that a blighted, centrally located area tends to spread to neighboring areas.

After all, not only are the same socio-economic influences in play which caused the flight from downtown to suburban or exurban areas to begin with, but these same influences continue, insofar as sprawl remains an economically viable alternative.

A tax structure insufficient to support additional developed land area requires choices to be made as to what WILL be supported with the available funding; and under an expansion model of development, this can only leave behind the most vulnerable (i.e., oldest) neighborhoods, since those require the most money to maintain.

So, not only are the surrounding areas eroding in turn as they, only slightly younger, continue to age; but also, the blight and associated crime which exists in the still older city center, where employment is even scarcer, tends to spread to and erode the surrounding neighborhoods. Even parasites cannot survive where no host exists, and fleas know enough to jump to the nearest warm body.

So, a centralized blight affects all neighborhoods on the outside edges of the downtown/central "circle", and this tends to accelerate decay in the areas outside that circle but existing around it, on the circumference, with the result that the circle expands.

A "city" cannot exist with an ever widening hole of blight in the center: and a set of disconnected surburban areas (only temporarily viable without a healthy, connective "tissue") do not constitute a city, but rather a group of increasingly vulnerable de facto townships.

Think of the city as a whole as a "brain", and the existence of blighted pockets, spreading from the city center, as a kind of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Can the brain prosper, over the long term, in isolated, temporarily healthy lobes? The analogy may seem far-fetched, but that is largely the result of a difference in time-frames required to notice major differences. The presence of multiple blighted pockets (implied by a model of multiple vital areas separated by less than vital areas) might actually accelerate rather than contain the spread of the disease.

Note that, insofar as such fringe developments are no longer economically viable (due to the collapse of the sprawl development model), the only areas subject to development efforts -- because the rest has already been developed or else cannot be further expanded -- are those blighted neighborhoods of the city center which have been left vacant and/or decrepit by the (now no longer viable) wave of outward expansion.

Consider for example the case of Detroit, a much older city whose industrial base has eroded much as Phoenix's construction/sprawl model has (perhaps only begun to) unravel:

"Detroit was once the 4th largest city in America and it held the title of Motor City because most of America’s cars came from there. Flash forward 40 years, and Detroit’s population has dwindled from a high of 2 million people to just over 800,000. The average price for a home in Detroit is $15,000, the lowest in the country. With so many empty spaces, criminals have no shortage of hideouts and drug factories. And with America’s auto industry still reeling from the recession, as well as having outsourced many jobs to other states (or countries), the future looks bleak for Detroit’s long-deferred recovery."

http://gas2.org/2010/01/22/detroit-from-motor-city-to-urban-farm/

If I may intrude rather late in the discussion, I think that Mr. Hamblin is referring to "New Urbanism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism), as it can apply to suburban environments like ours. We certainly adhered to it in the days before the freeways, and it seems entirely plausible to reinstate as a guiding philosophy to rein in sprawl with what we have today.

"pt", I clicked on that Wiki link but received an error message:

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

A lot of odd comments today.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz