speaking of los angeles, the national planning conference for the american planning association is going to be held in los angeles in april. this month's issue of planning magazine has several articles on los angeles. most of them require you to be a member to view but the 'web only' content is viewable.
http://planning.org/planning/

Our older son went to PVHS 94-98. We were so underwhelmed by the experience that we had his younger brother go to Arizona School for the Arts.

Less than 150,000 people in L.A. use its subway. It won't end in Santa Monica either, but miles from the sea near Wilshire and under the VA Hospital. L.A., for a megalopolis of its size should have over 1 million boardings for rail (not including commuter)...it is FAR below that (about 170,000 for light rail; 300,000 all rail combined including commuter). Most Angelinos drive; over 85% in single occupancy vehicles so yes, no one uses mass transit in the larger scope. Furthermore, the worst smog in the L.A. basin is beyond the marine layer so that isn't a valid argument. It is a relatively dense "urban area" but far from the densest of cities. It still has a ways to go to catch Chicago, Philly, San Fran, and is light years away from NYC. Just over 8,000 per square mile compared to over 30,000 per square mile in NYC.

L.A.'s moderate density is also disjointed in that there is no powerful urban core (like most major cities) and instead spreads out jobs and residential neighborhoods everywhere. One reason why single occupancy vehicular traffic will undue L.A. in the future when sustainable practices will be a must. This is why I am against the Mayo clinic bio-med campus; it will cause Phoenix to continue spiraling towards unsustainability and ultimately lead to Phoenix's downfall if it continues.

Interestingly, I had a similar conversation about L.A. on another site. I took the 1 million ridership statistic from another's comment...

People do not want to use mass transit, for the most part. In places where they do use it, I believe they see it as a necessary evil because it's faster than driving..but if it were to take the same amount of time, I would guess 9/10 people would rather take their own car.

On a side note...sort of related..are you guys seeing new housing developments popping up around the Valley again?

Four new or previously stalled housing developments have started up within ~5 miles of my house and for some reason, it makes me happy...give me a sense of optimism.

I guess it was so common to see before the bust, then it stopped pretty sudden and places under construction either halted with half finished streets or signs with "Coming soon" slowly deteriorated over time, it was pretty depressing.

This is in the NW Valley north of the Arrowhead area.

My daughter is in 7th grade at ASA. She loves it.

150,000 (179,000 if you add the purple line spur) daily riders for a subway line of 16 miles seems to attract a decent amount of passengers. LA's Blue line, 22 miles in length, serves about 88,000 daily passengers, one of the highest LR lines in the nation, 2nd to Boston's green line which has 4 separate LR lines feeding into the central subway and 25 more miles in length). The rider-ship numbers in LA are quite high considering how little mileage exists currently.

As for air pollution, its called smog in the west and haze in the east. It's highly visible along the coasts due to the high amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The number of pollution advisories in LA have dropped from the 100s in the 1930's-1970's to single digits. Ozone is responsible for most HPA days, and it happens to be colorless.

The LA basin is the most densely settled urbanized area in the US. Far exceeding Chicagoland and NY metro. I'm not talking about city proper, but regions.

Phoenix will continue to sprawl. Even if it were to become land-locked, outer suburbs will sprawl. The point being, Phoenix is fortunate to have landed the this project within the city limits, inside the Loop 101, close to infrastructure already in place.

Sunsfan has probably never even explored la. Dude I was as closed minded and misinformed as you once too, then I spent a few days there. It's an amazing city, and a lot of downtown feels very east coast big city'ish especially the jewelry district.

There is also a _____town for almost every ethnic group. There's even a little Ethiopia or some shit. I rode the red line subway and the platforms were fairly busy early afternoon in a weekday. Is it NY? No. But it's different in a good way too, there are still places you can go for peace and quiet at least.

Have you ever been to an east coast city? It doesn't come close to the dead zone of DT L.A. unless something is happening at L.A. Live or one of the arenas. But I just don't like L.A., personal opinion and I've been there too often. It isn't a real city and Phoenix is still following in its footsteps. So you sprawlmongerers don't have to worry about half-empty buildings near Mayo not being built (e.g. CityNorth)...

No facts just your opinions here. It is well documented that L.A. smog is amongst the worst in the world. There isn't a marine layer in much of the L.A. basin; call it haze or argue that it makes for wonderful sunsets, it doesn't negate the fact that it is a serious environmental concern and unsustainable:

"A new report released Wednesday ranks Los Angeles as the third most smoggy city in America. With 69 "smog days" in 2010, Los Angeles tied with Bakersfield in a study conducted by advocacy group Environment California.

The Riverside-San Bernardino metro area took home first place for smoggiest city in America, with unhealthy air recorded one out of three days last year. The Visalia-Tulare-Porterville metro area ranked second, with with 78 "smog days" last year.
http://www.atvn.org/news/2011/09/smo...e-they-thought

L.A. should have about 500,000 (or more) riding the subway alone. In Toronto and Montreal, cities with subway lines just a little over twice the length (40 miles), there are over 1 million subway users. L.A. has 80 miles of light rail, but total ridership is extremely low, pathetically so. As a comparison Boston's Green Line which is only 22 miles in length (similar to Phoenix's) attracts over 230,000 daily riders. That isn't far off the total for L.A.'s 80 miles of light rail. L.A's system isn't used like it should be or as expansive as it must be and most likely will not be until dire energy crises occur. But by that time, it will be too late to save much of L.A. (much like sprawling communities in Phoenix). That you people ignore that fact speaks to your ignorance. Phoenix will not continue sprawling like the mid 2000's because of the new reality in banking, house building, and costs of infrastructure that cities can no longer afford. We need to start planning for that reality and not putting up our blinders.

It doesn't matter if metro L.A. has a moderate population density, Phoenix ranks in the top 10 for metro area density, but as we know it doesn't mean it is quality density or a sustainably built urban environment.

:koko:

Last time I was in Los Angeles was last summer, during the week, and nowhere near LA Live or the Arenas (those aren't any more downtown than burton barr library is to downtown phoenix, BTW) and there was a lot going on. There were people everywhere, and a shit ton of shit happening. Not to mention that everything from downtown headed west is dense residental development. Go to Westlake and tell me it's not dense and nobody walks or uses public transportation. :tup:

I've spent time in Chicago, NY, Phila, etc. One of the biggest dead zones I've ever been in is the loop after 6pm, and most cities CBD = deserted on the weekends. Downtown Phoenix is actually an anomoly in itself partially because the CBD is also trying to become a residental and shopping hub. If it's successful, it will join just a handful of cities in that aspect.

edit: you also seem to have no grasp on the fact that subway, light rail, and commuter rail are all relatively new forms of transportation to residents of LA. They are adopting a new thing whereas cities like Toronto, Boston, and Montreal which you're quick to reference, were literally built around the subway and rail lines.

Whether L.A. Live is downtown is a debate I'll leave to others but Anschutz doesn't make dumb Billion Dollar bets. If they build Farmer's Field it will be one more home run er touchdown in a storied life.

As far a CityNorth goes the Great Recession created havoc in a lot of areas including the office buildings along Central. Their idea of having signature retailers not the best, but once things get sorted out,
they redesign for an "urban village" plan, it will end up being hugely successful.

It may be unfortunate but the number of developers and lenders willing to make bets at Desert Ridge once the economy recovers is far more than in downtown Phoenix presently.

I agree with Vicelord: If you haven't been in Downtown LA in the past 5 years, you're missing a lot. There are so many new projects, mixed-use buildings, incredible hotels and nightspots. My friends and I often make the sojourn there from other parts of LA where they live to go hang out.

I'm not sure why all the hate on LA this week in here...

Is it a conventional city? No.
Is it a pretty city? Not really, but parts of it are.
Is it busy and comparatively dense compared to anywhere else in the states? Absolutely...over a huge area.

The City of Phoenix is at about 1/3rd the density of the City of Los Angeles and its peak density is about 1/10th. The notion that downtown LA specifically is neither dense or busy is just plain ignorant and I would seriously wonder how anyone who has spent any time down there (aside from a Lakers game) could come away with that impression.

Phoenix is DECADES away from even approaching LA in terms of either population or built density.

That being said, cities are no longer built the way they were 1000 or even 100 years ago. This notion of a solely centralized downtown when 40-80% of the people live in the suburbs is laughable.

Phoenix still has the ability to focus on employment and activity nodes and provide workable transit between them. Is it years away? Absolutely. Will it require cooperation at a regional level that currently doesn't exist? Absolutely. But can it happen? Yes. Will allowing some of these key nodes to develop with things that wouldn't occur anywhere else in the city (such as...say...Mayo Clinic) somehow take away from downtown? Not at all.

Phoenix is never going to be Chicago or Boston. It was never planned to be that way and now is past the point in time where cities were planned that way at a macro level.

Personally I think Phoenix should be looking at LA (as both good and bad) in terms of development, particularly in terms of rail systems.

There are better and "newer" cities that Phoenix should look to that have developed just as you say doesn't exist anymore; Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, etc etc. I don't think you guys get it and I won't change your minds, you won't change mine and that's "ok" since reality will hit those who don't understand future problems with energy, sustainability, and climate change the hardest. Other countries are developing cities like they did 100 years ago and are in much better positions to weather the storm compared to Phoenix or L.A. which is sad.

VL John, there may be some "dead zones" in the Loop in Chicago along certain commercial streets, but the entire Loop is far from dead; besides being a dense residential area (over 10,000 per square mile) there are a ton of nearly 24 hour shopping destinations and hotels that keeps the area active...Wabash? The theater district? State Street? Michigan Ave (The Magnificent Mile/Gold Coast)? Millennium Park? Near East Side? Dearborn Street? It sounds like you haven't been to Chicago...And L.A. Live, according to its own website is in DT L.A.: "L.A. LIVE is located in downtown Los Angeles, across from STAPLES Center..."
http://lalive.com/visitors/faq

Phoenix could be a leader in renewable energy and redesign of urban cores (since downtown is so lacking in density and the availability of vacant land). But with attitudes like those on this thread and thinking that L.A. is great won't get us there. L.A. is one of the nation's least sustainable cities (Phoenix is up there too). That L.A. is so big and occupies all of its available land means that it has little ability to rebuild like Phoenix. It is an awful city that does have a plethora of amenities given its industrial base, history, and economic diversity due to its size. It is, like I said, a moderately dense metro/urban area but it isn't built like a real city or sustainably. It will be hit hard in the future especially since transit is so lacking...just like Phoenix. L.A. will never have a real transit system like other cities; it's too far gone for that. Westlake in L.A. is ok, Koreatown is interesting and gritty but it is too car oriented (even though transit/subway has been around for more than 20 years); Alvarado Street and Wilshire just don't scream city to me but suburban density. The place is dense and there is some transit but it doesn't have that same walkable and urban vibe like Capitol Hill in Seattle, or Belltown also in Seattle (there is so much newness thus it can be a real model for Phoenix)...

http://www.belltownview.com/wp-conte...pt2010-188.jpg

For now but those "developers" have a stake in sprawl but they are in for hard times ahead. They can choose to rethink their business model or cease to exist. Desert Ridge/CityNorth will probably be half built and half empty forever due to externalizes and slowed population migration. People aren't moving to Phoenix and probably never will again like in the 2000's. We'll probably end up growing slowly from here on out like Seattle; we should look at that city's urban plan as a model for future slowed growth in Phoenix.

Attract quality employers downtown, continue expanding transit in the core, continue developing downtown housing and employment centers and we will be alright and will be able to absorb the loss of development in the fringes. We also must take commuter rail out to those in the far reaches of the metro in order to give them a lifeline when they can no longer fully afford their lifestyles...Phoenix is still small enough to save and that we really didn't grow as fast as pre-2010 census figures estimated is a good thing.

Most of those places you just named are not in the loop. The shopping, hotels, tourist areas, magnificent mile, etc are on the other side of the Chicago river north of the loop. The Gold Coast is waaay north of the loop.

I used to work in the loop. After 6pm there isn't a soul in sight. You are conflating "the loop," which comprises the financial district and many government buildings, with the rest of downtown Chicago, which comprises tourist destinations, parks, museums, and shopping.

WOW, you guys are missing the point...and yes Millenium Park/Museums are in the Loop (if they were east of the Loop they would be in Lake Michigan), Gold Coast and Mag Mile also extend into the Loop even if most of the shopping is north of the river and the Near East Side is in the NE corner. This is why I said that VL John was inaccurate of his assessment of the Loop and why it isn't dead. A map of the Loop (Randolph is the southern boundary of Mag Mile BTW):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3/Loop_Map.png

phxSunsfan...
Except for Desert Ridge, I couldn't agree more with you. Desert Ridge unless one just insists on having a Scottsdale address (or maybe Chandler) is as prime for Phoenix as it gets.

As for your 2nd paragraph, it would seem to echo most of the comments I've made along the the way. Have I not lauded the Mayor Gordon era (frequently)? Has not the accomplishments of the last decade
been precisely what you wish for (Even if Phoenix had to subsidize the hell out of them)?

plinkos reference to employment and activity nodes whether fortunate or not is apt for this area, as is transit between them. Again unfortunately but when exit2lef makes reference to "Decentralized living can
at least be supported by a hub-and-spoke transit system...." that may work nicely in Denver, but not in Phoenix. Best I've thought of is some kind of dual hub system.

Vancouver, built with billions from Asia is certainly a "global" city: http://denverinfill.com/blog/2010/06...vancouver.html
so maybe hope for Asian "rain" .... but they seem to prefer NYC and the West Coast as far as where they stash their cash.

Phoenix Metro needs to create a metro-wide transit district, something Denver did 25 years ago, in order to coordinate and financially support a regional transit system.

As I've previously suggested downtown needs (at minimum) another Office Tower that could attract companies and people that work there which creates activity and all kinds of demand.
But it's a chicken/egg thing, isn't it? Until the mid-town towers are (mostly) filled up there will be no speculative office space built downtown.

It's a hopeful situation at best and we all are hoping and cheering for the best. It's a good time for some apartment cranes.... hear hear, I'll toast to that.

At least the Suns have a good chance to beat the team that is moving into the most transit friendly and accessible arena in the league tonight. GO SUNS.

TakeFive, before I sign off for the night, I think there are more "prime" addresses in Phoenix than Desert Ridge. The historic districts, Biltmore, Arcadia, Ahwatukee, North Central, etc...

The total population of NE Phoenix is extremely low and one reason why development stalled and infrastructure will be prohibitively expensive in the future. The area failed for a reason. Vancouver attracts Asians and Phoenix still attracts people from cold climes; but it is struggling to attract the young, talented and educated whom seek out urban living.

That is what needs to be developed in downtown Phoenix. The hub and spoke transit plan is what other cities, not L.A., do well. It only works when you have a major employment hub (downtown/midtown). That can still work in Phoenix and it would stabilize the entire region if it happens (even the suburbs).