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)

Vicelord John Oct 14, 2009 4:46 PM

What the fuck is up with all this zombie stuff lately? It's retarded. It all started in denver when some kid on the street asked me "are you ready for the impending zombie apocalypse?"

THE FUCK????

Leo the Dog Oct 14, 2009 6:32 PM

W - What coulda been.
 
http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/a...9/CIMG2564.jpg

Went back to Boston recently. The W is opening 10/09. Its located in a great location, the Theatre District. Located in the heart of Boston, near the Financial district, Boston Common, subway access to the green/orange lines, BRT silver line, consists of hotel rooms and private residences.

Just imagine if Phoenix built a W near USAC.

Vicelord John Oct 14, 2009 10:24 PM

Somewhat off topic rant.......

I feel sorry for the next person who asks me "what city" when I tell them I live downtown. I am ready to punch a motherfucker.

When someone says downtown, it means downtown, not Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe, or any other city. it means DOWN FUCKING TOWN.

HooverDam Oct 14, 2009 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4504835)
What the fuck is up with all this zombie stuff lately? It's retarded. It all started in denver when some kid on the street asked me "are you ready for the impending zombie apocalypse?"

THE FUCK????

Its just a fad. First it was people obsessed with 'Pirates vs Ninjas" then Chuck Norris, then Zombies, now the Vampire fad is coming into vogue.

The question you should be asking is "whats next?" so you can capitalize on it!

For my money its got to be yetis/bigfoots/abominable snowmen. I dont know how to profit on it just yet, but theres money in abominable snowmen I tell ya.

Vicelord John Oct 14, 2009 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4505389)
Its just a fad. First it was people obsessed with 'Pirates vs Ninjas" then Chuck Norris, then Zombies, now the Vampire fad is coming into vogue.

The question you should be asking is "whats next?" so you can capitalize on it!

For my money its got to be yetis/bigfoots/abominable snowmen. I dont know how to profit on it just yet, but theres money in abominable snowmen I tell ya.

Abominable snoman could be phase two?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nomes_plan.png

mwadswor Oct 14, 2009 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4505389)
I dont know how to profit on it just yet, but theres money in abominable snowmen I tell ya.

"ARE YOU SAFE FROM THE PHOENIX SNOWMAN??????" t-shirts?

TAZ4ate0 Oct 15, 2009 12:37 PM

^ or how about t-shirts that read something like:

"Abominable snowmen need hugs too"

or

"Have you hugged your Yeti today?"

or

"Kiss my Bigfoot" :P

or

"Have you seen my Abominable Snowman?"

or

"Bite my Yeti"

NorthScottsdale Oct 15, 2009 5:21 PM

It's because that new Zombie movie came out a week or two ago.. Apparently it was pretty big for Zombie fans...

Vicelord John Oct 15, 2009 7:26 PM

I got a call from the city of Phoenix traffic director, that was a wasted 30 minutes.

He basically told me the way they were doing it is the best way.

PhxPavilion Oct 16, 2009 7:05 AM

What a surprise.

Leo the Dog Oct 16, 2009 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4506736)
I got a call from the city of Phoenix traffic director, that was a wasted 30 minutes.

He basically told me the way they were doing it is the best way.

Just do as your told, don't ask questions, they know what's best for you. Don't ever insult their intelligence...he's an expert.

What is wrong with these people??

HooverDam Oct 16, 2009 11:31 PM

So I was planning on heading Downtown tonight for the Third Friday event/opening of the AE England building and then over to the Trunk Space to watch the all marionette movie about Winnie Ruth Judd, Murderess. From what I can find online though it looks like currently theres no shuttles/circulators that go up Lower Grand, is that correct? I guess I had assumed there was one since it seems sensible, but maybe its only a First Fridays thing?

I was planning on taking the LRT from Tempe, but if I then have to walk the 1.3 miles between the Park and Trunk Space there and back, that seems like a pretty unappealing option.

EDIT: Welp there definitely wasn't any kind of shuttle up Grand, ah well, had to drive. The good news is the lights on "Her Secret is patience" were about 80% on, so it looked better than it has, but not quite as cool as it did initially.

HooverDam Oct 17, 2009 8:34 PM

So from this article about the Tempe Flour Mill redevelopment there was this quote:

Quote:

Before new development to preserve the building could begin, Archaeological Consulting Services was hired by Tempe to evaluate the mill’s conditions from 2005 to 2007.

The investigation was funded by a $1.5 million grant from Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.....
I also remember hearing a while back about one of the Indian tribes donating money to help the Downtown Public market. I assume that both of these donations and others like it are part of some agreement related to Indian Gaming. Does anyone know what the exact rules are with this stuff? I assume the tribes have to give some percentage of their gaming profits to community/charity projects or something and I know they sort of vaguely mention it in pro gaming ads but Im kinda curious about the specifics.

Tito714 Oct 17, 2009 9:14 PM

^^^
I was reading about that in yesterday's State Press and how they plan to redevelop the mill by adding shops or something to bridge the gap from mill ave. to the waterfront. I'll look for the article.

Don B. Oct 19, 2009 3:13 PM

Wow...I'm still alive after all. The last few weeks has been a zoo of activity.

Let's see: I'm 42, single, and live in a condo in central Phoenix. I'm finally back to the city after 13 years in Scottsdale, and it is so nice having a 5 minute ride to everything. I finished law school in May but still can't find a legal job at all. I work part time for Hike In Phoenix, taking tourists out on guided hikes around the city, and several other odd jobs as well. I also own a photography business (website at www.aroundphoenix.com). I'm a member of the Imperial Court of Arizona, and we do various charity fund-raisers around the state. I follow a good exercise regimen and I'm down to 212 lbs. from 260 lbs. three years ago.

The last several weeks have been spent moving (twice; the listing agent listed and sold the wrong condo to my landlord; thus I had to move a second time) and simplifying my life. Last Friday, I was at Fetish Ball at the Venue of Scottsdale, taking and selling portrait photos. I was in Tucson for Gay Pride (drove in the parade and 4th Avenue is the bomb down there) and did Rainbows Festival here. I also drove to San Francisco for Folsom with two friends at the end of September. Before that, I was in Las Vegas for a few days. I like to wear outrageous costumes to fuck with the mind of the sheeple, as there is too much conformity in our society. Be your own person. Don't let others dictate to you how you should dress and live.

So there it is. That and 79 cents will get you a cup of coffee at Circle K.

--don

Vicelord John Oct 19, 2009 4:40 PM

Whats up with the out of left field novels about don's life?

Upward Oct 19, 2009 4:52 PM

Perhaps you're confusing the coffee talk thread with the development thread?

Anyway, I won't bother with an update with my life, because anyone who might care (or even remember me) already knows through personal communication.

Vicelord John Oct 19, 2009 5:10 PM

Thats sort of what i was getting at...

Don B. Oct 19, 2009 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicelord John (Post 4512446)
Whats up with the out of left field novels about don's life?

Thanks for the warm welcome back. Last time I checked, this is the coffee talk thread. Of course, while I was gone (had no internet for almost a month), perhaps you were appointed the SW forum police or something. Regardless, I see you are still a dick.

--don

Vicelord John Oct 19, 2009 9:16 PM

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.

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.

mwadswor Oct 22, 2009 4:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4517356)
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.

Creating "solar farms" with photovoltaic panels will always be a stupid idea I think. Photovoltaics make a lot of sense on rooftops, on parking garages, etc. I live in an apartment, so I'm biased, but something I would very much like to see done is more marketing/city codes encouraging solar at apartment complexes. Most apartment complexes have tons of covered parking, not to mention all the rooftops, I'd like it if some of the organizations that put in the panels and then charge for usage would spend some time marketing their product to apartment complexes and probably managed office parks too rather than just property owners such as home owners or large public entities.

While I agree to a degree that interstates could be utilized as photovoltaic corridors, you eventually run into a problem with the technology. I don't know where the limit is, but at a point you reach a percentage above which photovoltaic is no longer a useful technology. It doesn't provide power in the evenings when the usage is the highest, or through the night. Solar panels look space age and they sell well to the self-supporting crowd, but it does little good to provide power during the day when you still have to fire up the coal/oil/nuclear plants to provide power in the evening and at night. Coal/oil/nuclear plants take relatively little fuel to run, they use the most fuel by far when they are being started up. Sure photovoltaic is useful to a point especially during the summer and in replacing inefficient peak plants such as natural gas plants, but it is simply not a replacement technology for base load plants.

More importantly, it is still relatively very expensive, especially if you don't count the subsidies (which I'm still in favor of btw, it's still a good idea to promote greener technologies even if they need subsidies). I haven't done the research and I don't know the numbers, but once you get private home owners and other property owners to put up solar panels, I don't know that it makes sense to cover the interstates in solar panels too. Or maybe someone will do the research and prove me wrong, I'm ok with that, but I don't think it will happen.

The heat type of solar plants that they put out in the boonies are a much more practical replacement for base load plants because they can produce power late into the evening and through the night. It's not just about the amount they produce, it's about when they produce it. While it's a distasteful option, we may have to surrender a large amount of desert to these types of plants because it's still a better option than fossil fuel and nuclear. Better to cover the desert in mirrors than soot and smog. And better financially to rely on a type of power that's not guaranteed to get perpetually more expensive until it runs out.

Finally, (sorry for the long post), I whole heartedly agree with the idea of covering every feasible inch of sky harbor in the coolest yet most conspicuous looking solar panels that can be found. I love the idea of turning this major gateway into the valley into a solar icon to help cement the image of Arizona as the sort of Saudi Arabia of solar power. I won't go so far as to suggest that they cover the runways in solar too :D

mwadswor Oct 22, 2009 4:13 AM

On the power issue, I had the thought a while back, as politically incorrect as it is, why don't we use Mexico more for this type of infrastructure? I'm all for reducing our foreign energy consumption, but not all foreigns are created equal and I'd much rather give money to Mexico than OPEC. It's good to increase domestic power production, and with government subsidies it may make more economic sense to do it in the US, I don't know, but if NIMBYs and expensive labor are going to be a pain here, why don't we cover northern Mexico in the heat-type solar plants and wind farms? There's plenty of sun and wind in Mexico, and it's not that far to run power lines. Obviously we can't just barge in there and start building stuff, but I really don't think the Mexicans are going to object to the US pumping loads of money into their economy on an ongoing basis and as red, white, and blue as some people can be, I really don't think they'll object that much to loads of cheap, green power just because it comes from across the border. If we're going to whine so much about illegal immigration it might behoove us to help build some infrastructure in Mexico to better their economy so fewer people are so desperate to get here.

The main downside I can see to facilitating international power transmission is that it might backfire on the environmentalists. I would hate to do this to facilitate cheap, green power coming from Mexico and end up having it happen in the same bill as a carbon tax and have power companies start just building fossil fuel plants in Mexico to bypass the carbon tax.

End rambling for the night :notacrook:

HooverDam Oct 22, 2009 4:17 AM

Well I guess I wasnt specifically saying over the interstates would be photovoltaic. Is there something about the heat catching type of solar arrays that would make it impossible for them to be suspended above highways? Perhaps theyre currently too large, I really dont know enough about it.

mwadswor Oct 22, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam (Post 4517542)
Well I guess I wasnt specifically saying over the interstates would be photovoltaic. Is there something about the heat catching type of solar arrays that would make it impossible for them to be suspended above highways? Perhaps theyre currently too large, I really dont know enough about it.

They require mirrors to focus the sunlight and heat the oil/salt to the required temperature. Molten salt's out because you need to focus the heat on a tower.

As I think about it, perhaps you could use the heated oil type. Basically it's a thin pipe of oil at the focal point of a curved mirror. The mirror focuses sun light on the pipe, super heats the oil, and it flows to a generator where it heats water into steam which turns a turbine (just like any other power plant once you've made the steam). I'm not sure, but perhaps you could line the sides of the freeway with mirrors and have occasional turbines next to the freeway. That would be sort of a nice double use of public land, but it wouldn't provide the shade you're talking about.

As I think a bit more, the other reason it wouldn't work is because why would you pay to suspend something over the freeway when you could do it at ground level right next to the freeway for so much cheaper? From a social/environmental perspective, sure, but from a financial perspective it seems like it would be sort of like building HSR from Phoenix to LA by building an L above the freeway instead of running it mostly at grade in the median/next to the interstate. It would be ludicrously more expensive to elevate it when land in the desert is so cheap.

PHX31 Oct 22, 2009 9:50 PM

Which one of you belongs to this post in the downtown Phoenix Insider??


The Saguaro Tower

Quote:

Downtown Phoenix has been under a major renaissance and has at long last begun to live up to its name of mythical origin. The city is rising from the ashes and becoming something beautiful and powerful. I like the symbolism and am captivated with my romanticized version of what the City of Phoenix can become. We face overwhelming obstacles for many reasons (zoning, bureaucracy, negative perceptions, etc.) any change for the better will take time and patience.

The city needs to understand what it is, what it is not, and accept those facts. The city needs to embrace its identity, and most importantly, the city needs the freedom and creativity of many different people and ideas. The old model of growth and development has failed. The costs of our sprawl are too great, and many of these costs are not easy to see, nevertheless, they exist. I’m speaking in terms of the cost of tearing up more of the desert and paving over it with blacktop to create parking lots and roads, the costs of fuel, the costs of time spent commuting, the costs of traffic and the damage to air quality and physical health, the cost of not having walkable neighborhoods, the loss of community and a sense of our history.

Despite these things, I love Arizona and I know I’ll live and die here. I’m o.k. with that because it is an exciting time to be a Phoenician. Arizona is charming and has a lot to offer. We are known for warm and sunny weather, the natural and awe inspiring beauty of the Sonoran Desert, Sedona, the Grand Canyon, we have prestigious universities, a rich influence of Native American and Hispanic cultures, and the best Mexican food on the planet. But Phoenix certainly isn’t known for inspiring architecture.

Honestly, the person who designed the Wells Fargo building must really hate humanity. It’s clunky and boxy and as inspiring to look at as that stuff my beagle threw up the other day. I can feel the seething disgust of the architect towards architecture and the city, as if he drew that building maliciously and created it to sneer at the world.

Architecture is art, although it serves multiple purposes as art and as a structure for shelter. Like any art, it expresses the artist’s value judgments and sense of life. Art should say something. Architecture, as art, can and should be beautiful. Phoenix deserves a beautiful skyscraper. I was excited about the CityScape project being built at Washington and Central because it had the potential to bring us a step close to good architecture. The original renderings and plans were, for the most part, pretty great. Then the project got scaled back, then the buildings were redesigned, then the height of the towers were cut, then the project was divided up into phases. (And as history has taught us, Phase II of any project in Downtown Phoenix has never been completed.) I’m happy that something is being built on that spot in downtown and I’m thrilled that the hideous Patriots Square Park (and I use the term “park” loosely) is gone, never to be an eye sore again. But the new tower is just average, it’s not inspiring, it’s not innovative (ok, the blue glass is different) but it looks like all the other towers downtown: safe. Aesthetically it’s just, well, boring.

If I was an architect (and I’m not) or if I had a lot of money to finance a new tower (and I don’t) I’d design and build, what I would call, the Saguaro Tower, which would really be three towers in one. It would be built on a dusty lot downtown because there are certainly a lot of them and no reason to raze another piece of history. My tower would be built up to the sidewalk to encourage pedestrians; no plazas that push the streetscape away will be allowed. Extreme care would be taken to eliminate any dead zone on the street. The middle part of the tower would cut upwards toward the sky, then about halfway up, the building would extend out and up, like the arm of a cactus. The arm would be solely for condos, the main tower for offices. On the other side of the main tower, another arm would rise up and extend to the max height allowance. This would be the hotel. An observation deck would be built on top, along with a restaurant. On top of the other “arm” would be a pool. Back down on the pedestrian friendly street level, I would surround the building with old bungalow houses; the little gems still scattered around town. I’d move them from their locations and use them at the base of the tower as a coffee shop, art studio, writers studio, bookstore, etc. Anything that encourages people to walk and be outside and interactive.

I know I’m a dreamer, but like a wise man once said, “I’m not the only one.” I wonder if anyone ever thought a rural farming community in the middle of the desert would grow to become the 5th largest city in the United States. I imagine some people said that could never happen. But it did. And even if my Saguaro Tower remains forever a vision in my head, I can hope that something, some beautiful skyscraper will someday grace the Phoenix skyline and be a point of pride, something unique that expresses the beauty of the desert, and a tower that declares, “We are proud of our city and our heritage. This is Phoenix!”

Why not?


HooverDam Oct 23, 2009 3:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwadswor (Post 4517555)
As I think a bit more, the other reason it wouldn't work is because why would you pay to suspend something over the freeway when you could do it at ground level right next to the freeway for so much cheaper? .

Well I dont think you can, thats my point, plus theres less room. Imagine the SR 51 in your mind, especially the parts where youre in a concrete crevasse. My thought is youd just extend panels to span that gap from the walls on both sides.

Or like on the I-10 West of Downtown to Buckeye you have those big berms, I suppose you could put panels on them, but what happens when a Hummer flys off the road and destroys them all? It seems like the dirt and plants being there help slow down accidents.

oliveurban Oct 23, 2009 9:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHX31 (Post 4518699)
Which one of you belongs to this post in the downtown Phoenix Insider??

The Saguaro Tower

I was wondering the same thing when I read it yesterday.

Leo the Dog Oct 23, 2009 3:44 PM

The Saguaro Tower...really? That sounds extremely tacky. The last thing this city needs is a hideous tower shaped like a cactus. What we need is dense, urban row houses to fill up those dusty lots, quality inner-city residential districts that residents take pride in. More people, more money being spent locally, creates more entertainment/shopping in downtown.

NorthScottsdale Oct 23, 2009 4:33 PM

/\ I think a Saguaro tower would be awesome.. What better idea for an iconic tower for our desert city? Or why not a big tower designed to look like a barrell cactus? Use green glass, you could have steel protruding to look like the cactus thorns.. it could be really cool if you design it right..

mwadswor Oct 23, 2009 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthScottsdale (Post 4519941)
/\ I think a Saguaro tower would be awesome.. What better idea for an iconic tower for our desert city? Or why not a big tower designed to look like a barrell cactus? Use green glass, you could have steel protruding to look like the cactus thorns.. it could be really cool if you design it right..

Wasn't a barrel cactus supposed to be the inspiration for the new Cardinals' stadium?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 PM.

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