SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Southwest (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=643)
-   -   Southwest Coffee Talk (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=173766)

Don B. Oct 19, 2009 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4512953)
I am not being a dick, im just making the point that you arent a prominent public figure who everyone wants out of the blue updates on.

I quote from your post on the first page of this thread:

I'm gonna be a lame ass with you guys and introduce myself to a room full of people who already know me.

I'm 24, I live downtown and I work at the premier boutique resort in the area as a concierge and guest recognition. I have two motorcycles, one fast and one slow, and a baller status '99 buick regal. I work part time in the adult industry which is where a majority of my income stems from, no I don't act. I also do consulting and marketing with local restaurants. This is a new endeavor I have started which has been very fruitful to me so far. I have little to or no education and it shows from my incoherent postings.

Photography, anything wilderness related or redneck associated, golf, traveling, dining, and firearms are my favorite hobbies.

If anyone needs to know anything about Phoenix or Arizona, I probably know, and I'm more than happy to share.


A tad hypocritical, are we? The defense rests...

--don

Leo the Dog Oct 20, 2009 3:53 PM

Looks like Coffee Talk should be changed to Bar Brawl.

Vicelord John Oct 20, 2009 4:03 PM

I like bar brawls. And don, i was responding to everyone introducing themselves quite a while ago, not jumping in thr middle of a conversation to tell people about how i am single and like to wear things which people freak out about.

Don B. Oct 20, 2009 5:20 PM

^ And how is that any different from you making a comment about working in the porn industry? Which, since I've seen you, I have no idea how you could be making a dime in anything other than modeling barrels, but I digress. I also didn't realize there was only a narrow window that people could introduce themselves in this thread, since I wasn't around then when that was going on. Thanks for your time, though.

--don

Vicelord John Oct 20, 2009 5:25 PM

So now you've moved on to personal insults regarding my appearance? Thats a very low blow.

And your reading comprehension sucks, since i said i don't act.

Leo the Dog Oct 20, 2009 5:30 PM

Don comes in with the left hook, John counters with a jab...

Don B. Oct 20, 2009 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4514345)
So now you've moved on to personal insults regarding my appearance? Thats a very low blow.

And your reading comprehension sucks, since i said i don't act.

According to you, this is just how people on the internet are supposed to act towards one another. I don't agree with your previous statements in this regard, but it is funny how when the shoe is on the other foot, it's not so fun, is it? Or, put another way, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. I get it now.

See, all of this could have been avoided if you could have refrained from making your rude remark to my post in the first place. But, you are relatively young and new here. With age comes wisdom and maturity. As my Mom used to say, if you don't have anything nice to say, it is generally best not to say anything at all, Mr. Forum Police.

--don

TAZ4ate0 Oct 20, 2009 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 4514168)
Looks like Coffee Talk should be changed to Bar Brawl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 4514354)
Don comes in with the left hook, John counters with a jab...

I'll get the popcorn. Just don't let anybody spill my brew while I'm away, or there will be hell to pay. :sly:

:D

scottkag Oct 20, 2009 7:23 PM

Welcome back Don. John missed you.

BrandonJXN Oct 20, 2009 9:46 PM

I'm taller than all of you.

HooverDam Oct 21, 2009 2:19 AM

Why dont John and Don just fuck already and get it over with?

Leo the Dog Oct 21, 2009 4:11 PM

I was thinking the other day, how much early American cities were able to accomplish and develop into what they are with much smaller populations in the city and basically no suburbs at such an early time, before technology and the wealth of the common citizen. These early developments have held their own over the centuries and usually are the most desired areas of most metro areas today.

This lead me to think about CS and just how long it takes to get anything done. Even once construction begins, it is a rarity for the original plans to ever get built due to funds. Could anyone envision Phoenix building a Georgetown or a Back Bay today, consisting of blocks upon blocks of dense residential. We have the open land in downtown, but we don't have the means to do it anymore. Just look how long and difficult it was to build Alta Phoenix.

Think about how hard it is for Phoenix to develop and build a modern mass transit system. The extensions are already delayed indefinitely and are even in question due to funding. In 1898 Boston built America's first subway tunnel. The pop. in 1900 was only 560,892. Could any of us imagine Phoenix being able to do this today with a pop well over 1.5 million? How about the city of Mesa, pop over 450k, they can't build anything on their own, and cannot even maintain what they do have (streets, sewer, police etc).

Imagine if New York was not capable of building subways in Manhattan in the early 1900's, where would the city be today had they not been able to construct that? And could they be able to do it today if needed? I think not. Just take a look at lower Manhattan and how long it is taking to rebuild down there.

Just seems that as much as we think we have progressed, cities have actually regressed in these areas. What do you guys think?

PHX31 Oct 21, 2009 5:05 PM

I've thought about the same thing, Leo, i think it 100% has to do with lawyers and the threat of being sued. Everything these days is 10000000000% safety first and CYA (cover your ass). From the city standards to the premitting process to the construction process. It takes forever to jump through all of the red tape, get all of your ducks in a row, make sure the site is safe, etc., etc., etc.

Before it was a few rich as hell people throwing money to everyone that needed a job (who were skilled laborers back in the day) and they just got things done, safety/CYA be damned.

Don B. Oct 21, 2009 5:34 PM

Anyone who thinks that American cities were some sort of utopia circa 1900 needs to read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. The fact is, we enacted a lot of these protections like zoning to protect the quality and safety of human lives, both those who built the project, as well as those who lived near it.

Yes, sometimes I think the permitting process is asinine, because we solicit input from all sorts of nincompoops who shouldn't have a say, and of course they often piss and moan about everything ("building skyscrapers makes Phoenix hotter" is still one of my all time favorite NIMBY comments ever). Nevertheless, I would not advocate a return to the slash and build development patterns of a century ago, where the rich ran amok over the poor and the weak. They still do today, but there are protections built into the system.

The problem with Phoenix is really the automobile. This has always been an auto-centric city and it always will be. Phoenix was built around the car and didn't develop a dense pre-war core like old, big eastern cities. Phoenix got big when automobiles were king.

Just to compare Phoenix to Kansas City (MO and KS):

In 1900, Kansas City had 240,000 people and Phoenix had 5,000. KC was 48 times the size of Phoenix.

In 1940, at the beginning of World War II, KC had 520,000 and Phoenix had 65,000. KC was eight times bigger in size.

1950: KC - 580,000; Phx - 106,000. KC was 5.5 times
bigger.

1960: KC - 630,000; Phx - 430,000.

1970: KC - 660,000; Phx - 580,000.

In fact, it wasn't until the mid-70s that Phoenix finally caught up to, and then passed, KC in population.

1980: KC - 620,000; Phx - 740,000.

1990: KC - 600,000; Phx - 970,000.

2000: KC - 580,000; Phx - 1,321,000

2007 (est.): KC - 570,000; Phx 1,500,000

--don

Vicelord John Oct 21, 2009 5:56 PM

why do we always have to compare phoenix to some ghetto midwestern cow town? Let's try using a real city for comparison. I'd much rather see Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Pittsburg, Boston, etc.

mwadswor Oct 21, 2009 6:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 4516224)
I was thinking the other day, how much early American cities were able to accomplish and develop into what they are with much smaller populations in the city and basically no suburbs at such an early time, before technology and the wealth of the common citizen. These early developments have held their own over the centuries and usually are the most desired areas of most metro areas today.

This lead me to think about CS and just how long it takes to get anything done. Even once construction begins, it is a rarity for the original plans to ever get built due to funds. Could anyone envision Phoenix building a Georgetown or a Back Bay today, consisting of blocks upon blocks of dense residential. We have the open land in downtown, but we don't have the means to do it anymore. Just look how long and difficult it was to build Alta Phoenix.

Think about how hard it is for Phoenix to develop and build a modern mass transit system. The extensions are already delayed indefinitely and are even in question due to funding. In 1898 Boston built America's first subway tunnel. The pop. in 1900 was only 560,892. Could any of us imagine Phoenix being able to do this today with a pop well over 1.5 million? How about the city of Mesa, pop over 450k, they can't build anything on their own, and cannot even maintain what they do have (streets, sewer, police etc).

Imagine if New York was not capable of building subways in Manhattan in the early 1900's, where would the city be today had they not been able to construct that? And could they be able to do it today if needed? I think not. Just take a look at lower Manhattan and how long it is taking to rebuild down there.

Just seems that as much as we think we have progressed, cities have actually regressed in these areas. What do you guys think?

The difference is the automobile. Suburbs are extremely difficult if not impossible without the automobile, which forces density in the city and makes rail transit (the only real mass transit option before internal combustion) a necessity. Density and mass transit costs do not really go up that much with the invention of the automobile, but the cost of building suburbia plummets, not to mention the appeal of being able to drive yourself around and live on your own land. These great dense accomplisments you refer to were all built in an era when they were much more feasible relative to the alternatives. If you ignore the obvious environmental and social catastrophy that has been modern suburbia and realize that the majority of people vote with their wallet first and their short-term self-interest and sense of entitlement a close second, then suburbia is much more feasible than density in many modern cases.

Not to start a political debate, but the other major differences in cost are minimum-wage, unions, and immigration policy. Say what you will about human rights but tens of thousands of cheap irish immigrants and cheaper ex-slaves get infrastructure built for a nice sounding price. Use cut and cover construction through the ghettos with no thought to environmental or social consequences and the cost starts sounding even better. Minimum wage, unions protecting the human rights of labor, EIR processes, etc. make construction much more expensive.

Perhaps that's the better question. Imagine how much infrastructure the US could get built if we offered illegal aliens citizenship in exchange for X years of free labor living in a government provided tent and eating potato soup.

Vicelord John Oct 21, 2009 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwadswor (Post 4516506)
Perhaps that's the better question. Imagine how much infrastructure the US could get built if we offered illegal aliens citizenship in exchange for X years of free labor living in a government provided tent and eating potato soup.

I like it!

Though I would also require english fluency before admitting them as a citizen.

HooverDam Oct 22, 2009 2:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don B. (Post 4516387)
Anyone who thinks that American cities were some sort of utopia circa 1900 needs to read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair.

Anyone who reads that book and thinks the majority of it is true or accurate needs to get their head fixed. That guy was a Socialist looking to prove a point.

I dont think Leo was saying America (or any place) in the early 1900s was a paradise on Earth, it certainly wasnt. In world history things are always getting better (2009>1909>1809, etc). However from the standpoint of urban building and getting construction things were much more streamlined back then. Part of it is because of the lawyers as mentioned ,the other big thing is government regulation that slows everything down. Zoning laws are so confusing, so restrictive and so poorly planned its impossible to build much good even if you wanted to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4516612)
Though I would also require english fluency before admitting them as a citizen.

Why? Don't worry about if they can speak English or not, 2nd generation children of immigrants all speak English fine and become fully Americanized. Whoever the first people to come over on a boat in your family probably didnt prescribe to American norms, speak good English, or whatever, but their kids and grandkids turn out fine.

mwadswor Oct 22, 2009 2:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4517308)
Why? Don't worry about if they can speak English or not, 2nd generation children of immigrants all speak English fine and become fully Americanized. Whoever the first people to come over on a boat in your family probably didnt prescribe to American norms, speak good English, or whatever, but their kids and grandkids turn out fine.

:yes:

HooverDam Oct 22, 2009 2:57 AM

On another topic...

There was an article in this months "Arizona Highways" about the installation of solar panels on top of a visitor center at the Grand Canyon. It also mentioned lots of desert land being sold for future use as solar farms. Im all for solar and hope theres a major breakthrough in it soon as that would be huge for the city and state, but is anyone concerned about losing desert to the development of these farms? I suppose its better than typical sprawl, but its certainly not w/ out its downside.

It got me to thinking of course about the need for a wider proliferation of rooftop units. Of course those photovoltaics cant match the output of the heat using arrays built out in the boonies.

My thought was, would it be possible/a good thought to build solar farms above our freeways? If you look at the top of ASUs parking garages theyve installed panels that follow the sun, as well as shade cars. Id love for this to become more widespread in parking garages (perhaps even made mandatory in some sort of phased implementation) but I figure you could also do it above the freeways. I was on the I-10 west of downtown today which is basically sunken between two large berms. Couldnt you build a huge system thats miles and miles long about the same height as the bridges to create energy? That way you get the energy, aren't using up any of the new land, and are having solar in a more visible place which gets people thinking about it.

I dunno, maybe its dumb. But I like the idea of a 'solar highway'.

EDIT: Ive also been at Sky Harbor today and I wish theyd take a more aggressive approach with solar. Every garage, lot, building, etc should have panels. Sky Harbor is the first thing a lot of people see when they come to Phoenix and it would be a great image for the city to project.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.