Phoenix Development News (3)

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

Here is a more detailed PDF about the master plan for Hance Park. I have read some of the criticism about the park, mostly from J, but have to disagree, this design is actually a huge upgrade from what we have. There are more entrance markers than you guys give it credit for, and the cloud could indeed become a type of landmark above central.

http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@dept/@parks/documents/web_content/108663.pdf

A huge upgrade from what we have? Sure. But what sort of accomplishment is that? The park is a skid row, anything will be an improvement. The question is not "is this better than what exists?" the question should be "is this the best possible plan?"

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

A huge upgrade from what we have? Sure. But what sort of accomplishment is that? The park is a skid row, anything will be an improvement. The question is not "is this better than what exists?" the question should be "is this the best possible plan?"

Can I be honest? I have lived here my entire life and I'm right near downtown and have never been to Hance Park. When I moved here from the east Valley I never knew "those trees above the tunnel" were a park. Nor did I, or do I now, know an easy way to get to it or know it's even there when I'm in the area. The point is, if I'm someone who loves downtown and all the new development and don't know that it's there, how does the average person? And will these improvements change that?

I'm not saying it will ever become a Balboa or Central Park, but those both have multiple, grand entrances that people know exactly how to get to. I would like it for Hance Park to as well.

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

Can I be honest? I have lived here my entire life and I'm right near downtown and have never been to Hance Park. When I moved here from the east Valley I never knew "those trees above the tunnel" were a park. Nor did I, or do I now, know an easy way to get to it or know it's even there when I'm in the area. The point is, if I'm someone who loves downtown and all the new development and don't know that it's there, how does the average person? And will these improvements change that?

I'm not saying it will ever become a Balboa or Central Park, but those both have multiple, grand entrances that people know exactly how to get to. I would like it for Hance Park to as well.

And if you look closely at the design, those are the main issues that it is trying to address, the entrance plazas start to become entrance markers to it. This is not Central Park, nor Balboa; it does not have the sheer size to be able to become that for the city. That is where most people are missing the concept. This is not meant to be a the grand park for the entire city, but rather a great park for downtown and the community that surrounds it. Instead of looking as Central Park as a reference, look at the Sculpture Park in Seattle (which spans above rail road tracks).

Also, what will drive the homeless away is not ordinances or police enforcement (although they will help), but rather increased usage. Homeless people gather there because it is a place where they can be without being bothered. Having people there often will drive many of them away. Not all, but that is part of living in a big city.

We can continue to aspire for the extreme ideals in this site, but there will never be a perfect solution. The days of Haussmann and taring down cities to bring up an ideal vision died in the 19th century. Even more recent attempts such as Burnham in Chicago only had minimal parts of their master scheme achieved. The reality is that the city is what it is, and we have to work within its framework. Great projects can be created, and some of the damages can be fixed, but Phoenix will always be Phoenix. We must understand that this is the park that we can get from the budget that Phoenix is able to afford and within the context of what the city can do. Would it be cool to take over other lots to expand it and create grander entrances, sure, but it is not going to happen. It is good to have ideals, and wish for nothing but the best, but we can't criticize every single project just because it doesn't meet them. And unfortunately this is what this forum has become. We need to support the people that are trying to improve our city, not just criticize any little short coming we can find in their design. They do the best they can to work within the complexity that is doing anything in Phoenix ( I can tell you that the group that is designing Hance has wanted to do a lot more than this, but they also have struggled greatly to stay within the boundaries that are set upon them). Otherwise, we will continue to get more of the same stuff that has plagued the city throughout its history.

[gymratmanaz]

I agree Arquitect!!!!!!

[poconoboy61]

I think a lot of us understand that Hance is not supposed to be the "Central Park of Phoenix," but it will not serve as a community park either, because, frankly, there is no community surrounding it east of Central. The blocks south of Hance, east of Central, honestly look like a desert version of Detroit. Who in their right mind would traverse from Downtown or even Roosevelt northward through ruins to get to this place? I'll admit that the neighborhoods surrounding Hance on the west side of central are more intact and that side has a much better shot at becoming more of a community park. East of Central, IMO, is a completely lost cause until all those empty lots fill in, if they ever do. The entrance markers will not help any. They will just be tagged by high school students ditching school and will be yet another eyesore. I really wish I was more positive about this development, but I live in the area and know it too well from walking and biking around. Lastly, Phoenicians do no go to parks like other cities. The sun is too strong, there are not enough shade trees, and it is just too hot. Knowing this city, they'll throw in some scrawny Palo Verdes, Mesquite, Desert Willow, Texas Ash, Chinese Pistache trees and call it a day. Again, I apologize for all the negativity, but this redesign isn't going to do anything.

[soleri]

I'd like to see this space referred to as Deck Park instead of honoring one of Phoenix's most anti-urban mayors, Margaret Hance. I can't help but wonder whether her spirit still hovers over this space, frustrating the city's ineffectual attemtps at placemaking. When the park was new in 1990, and before the central library was constructed, the vistas were startling. From Kenilworth School to Grace Lutheran Church, it brought out and melded some of the city's neglected treasures. The library soon cut the panorama in half, and much of the magic fled. It leads me to think the problem is less the park itself than a city that plops down major buildings without reference to scale and relationship. The convention center is another example here. Where St Mary's Cathedral once dominated its corner of downtown, the exhibition hall across the street from it now hovers like a dark and malign specter.

Phoenix has so few wonderful old buildngs and neighborhoods that I'm actually bullish about the park itself. In a metroplex with more freeways than heritage, near-downtown has some gems. The treasures are mostly minor but we shouldn't complain. They can remind us of a time when Phoenix was coherent and beautiful. Maybe those days are all in the past, but they can still inspire. Phoenix is not going to write its future in Desert Ridge or Anthem. There's nothing there except consumer products posing as a city. The little bit of charm and character that exists in Phoenix is in and around downtown. This park can help us sharpen our focus to that reality.

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

And if you look closely at the design, those are the main issues that it is trying to address, the entrance plazas start to become entrance markers to it. This is not Central Park, nor Balboa; it does not have the sheer size to be able to become that for the city. That is where most people are missing the concept. This is not meant to be a the grand park for the entire city, but rather a great park for downtown and the community that surrounds it. Instead of looking as Central Park as a reference, look at the Sculpture Park in Seattle (which spans above rail road tracks).

Also, what will drive the homeless away is not ordinances or police enforcement (although they will help), but rather increased usage. Homeless people gather there because it is a place where they can be without being bothered. Having people there often will drive many of them away. Not all, but that is part of living in a big city.

We can continue to aspire for the extreme ideals in this site, but there will never be a perfect solution. The days of Haussmann and taring down cities to bring up an ideal vision died in the 19th century. Even more recent attempts such as Burnham in Chicago only had minimal parts of their master scheme achieved. The reality is that the city is what it is, and we have to work within its framework. Great projects can be created, and some of the damages can be fixed, but Phoenix will always be Phoenix. We must understand that this is the park that we can get from the budget that Phoenix is able to afford and within the context of what the city can do. Would it be cool to take over other lots to expand it and create grander entrances, sure, but it is not going to happen. It is good to have ideals, and wish for nothing but the best, but we can't criticize every single project just because it doesn't meet them. And unfortunately this is what this forum has become. We need to support the people that are trying to improve our city, not just criticize any little short coming we can find in their design. They do the best they can to work within the complexity that is doing anything in Phoenix ( I can tell you that the group that is designing Hance has wanted to do a lot more than this, but they also have struggled greatly to stay within the boundaries that are set upon them). Otherwise, we will continue to get more of the same stuff that has plagued the city throughout its history.

Oh I never meant to imply that this is or ever will be a Balboa or Central park, I simply meant if this is "our version" we should try to replicate the few things we can from those parks to make Hance as great as it can be.

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

Oh I never meant to imply that this is or ever will be a Balboa or Central park, I simply meant if this is "our version" we should try to replicate the few things we can from those parks to make Hance as great as it can be.

But how can we replicate parks of such scale in such a small space? Our true Central or Balboa is Papago Park, but that is another huge mess that we could begin to argue forever about. The Deck Park does not have the space for the infrastructure those parks have. Besides the library (which I am a big fan of), there are no other cultural anchors. Balboa and Central have museums, zoos, among many other things that drive people to the park beyond just spending time in a community space. That is why I don't think it should be judged in comparison to those types of parks. There are plenty of other parks of similar scale and program that we could look at instead. Even some which are also deck parks over highways, such as the deck parks of Seattle (which suffers some of the same issues that Hance has). That doesn't mean that because it is a smaller park it can't be a great focal point for the city. Battery Park in NYC is a fraction of the size of Central Park, yet it is a great park. Similarly, the Highline is even smaller, yet it has transformed the West side of Manhattan in an extremely positive way. Both of these parks did not to try and cram a ton of the amenities of what Central Park offered into their small footprint, but rather found a way to meet the needs of their localized community. Even if it was something as simple as having a walkaway surrounded by trees in a city that is used to concrete and traffic. That is what I like about this design. It doesn't try to cram too much into the deck, but rather creates different zones and addresses some of the needs. Not all of the needs, but many.

As for the comment above stating that Phoenicians never using parks, I think that is a bit misconstrued. I often go running at Indian School Park, Encanto, and Tempe Town Lake, and there are always people there. Even in the middle of summer. Yes, all of these parks are different than Hance, but there is a park culture (especially among Hispanic families) in our city.

[combusean]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

I don't know much about the laws in this city regarding the homeless and where they can and cannot congregate, like NYC has, but is it out of the question to create policy here? Central Park isn't crawling with homeless people and if this is going to be Phoenix's Central Park then can't the city do a better job with enforcement? You would think with all the money they are putting in to it there has to be someone talking about how to deal with this. Maybe the months of construction and activity down there will force them to find a new area. If it isn't addressed, it ends up becoming uncontrollable, like it is in the Tenderloin in San Fran.

Central Park isn't crowded with homeless because its the only expansive green area surrounded by millions of people. The area around Hance Park is surrounded with vastly lower densities--there aren't enough built in users in the neighborhood for its sheer size.

The Tenderloin's problems lie in a serious lack of regional policing and an massive proliferation of SRO affordable housing in a remarkably dense area. Phoenix doesn't have that fortunately.

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

But how can we replicate parks of such scale in such a small space? Our true Central or Balboa is Papago Park, but that is another huge mess that we could begin to argue forever about. The Deck Park does not have the space for the infrastructure those parks have. Besides the library (which I am a big fan of), there are no other cultural anchors. Balboa and Central have museums, zoos, among many other things that drive people to the park beyond just spending time in a community space. That is why I don't think it should be judged in comparison to those types of parks. There are plenty of other parks of similar scale and program that we could look at instead. Even some which are also deck parks over highways, such as the deck parks of Seattle (which suffers some of the same issues that Hance has). That doesn't mean that because it is a smaller park it can't be a great focal point for the city. Battery Park in NYC is a fraction of the size of Central Park, yet it is a great park. Similarly, the Highline is even smaller, yet it has transformed the West side of Manhattan in an extremely positive way. Both of these parks did not to try and cram a ton of the amenities of what Central Park offered into their small footprint, but rather found a way to meet the needs of their localized community. Even if it was something as simple as having a walkaway surrounded by trees in a city that is used to concrete and traffic. That is what I like about this design. It doesn't try to cram too much into the deck, but rather creates different zones and addresses some of the needs. Not all of the needs, but many.

As for the comment above stating that Phoenicians never using parks, I think that is a bit misconstrued. I often go running at Indian School Park, Encanto, and Tempe Town Lake, and there are always people there. Even in the middle of summer. Yes, all of these parks are different than Hance, but there is a park culture (especially among Hispanic families) in our city.

I think people on this board start typing their response before they finish reading what someone is really saying. I didn't say we should replicate those parks. I said we should replicate, or apply, what key learnings we can from those great parks to ours. Whether it be Hance Park, Papago, Indian Steele. Etc. All of our parks are sorely lacking and I was stating that I hope the new plans looked to some of the more successful parks around the country to replicate key learnings WHERE they can, not everywhere they can. Obviously Hance Park, nor any others can or should be Balboa or Central, that wasn't the point.

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by rocksteady

I think people on this board start typing their response before they finish reading what someone is really saying. I didn't say we should replicate those parks. I said we should replicate, or apply, what key learnings we can from those great parks to ours. Whether it be Hance Park, Papago, Indian Steele. Etc. All of our parks are sorely lacking and I was stating that I hope the new plans looked to some of the more successful parks around the country to replicate key learnings WHERE they can, not everywhere they can. Obviously Hance Park, nor any others can or should be Balboa or Central, that wasn't the point.

No, I read your response, but what would you replicate from one of those parks? You throw these examples out, as if they were successful because of singular aspects of them. What makes these massive parks successful is the sum of their parts. That they become a beacon of many uses in high density areas, becoming the back yard for an entire city. That is the case with Central Park, with Golden State Park, with Balboa. You can't "learn" from them for a park like Hance the same you can't "learn" from the successes of the Empire State building when designing a single family home. If you look at it that way, Hance park actually took the most iconic and successful part of Central Park (the Great Lawn) and copied it; as every other park tried to replicate in the past century.

I'm not trying to completely reject your views, but we must compare apples to apples. I've been following this blog for a long while, and in the past couple years it has really become a huge complain fest about how Phoenix does everything wrong, and how nothing is good enough. People throw around comparisons with New York, San Fransisco, Paris, etc as if they were valid points of reference. Each city has its unique set of issues. Phoenix can't be those cities, the same way those cities can't be Phoenix. We have idealized views even of those cities, when in reality they have also huge sets of problems that you don't see as a tourist. So instead of judging our Downtown because it isn't like Manhattan or downtown San Francisco, we should try to explore the projects that are actually improving our downtown within the context of Phoenix.

[poconoboy61]

Regardless of if our parks are lacking or not does not overshadow the fact that this will never be a park city. No one wants to go to a park with the sun beating down on them in 100+ degree weather with sparse tree cover. This is our reality. Looking at San Diego, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or Seattle will do us no good because they do not share our climate. The park in Phoenix that is closest to our Central Park, IMO, is Encanto Park and that is nearly empty almost every time I pass it. Is it because of its lack of features? No. It's because this is Phoenix and we do not go to parks for the reasons I mentioned above.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

Regardless of if our parks are lacking or not does not overshadow the fact that this will never be a park city. No one wants to go to a park with the sun beating down on them in 100+ degree weather with sparse tree cover. This is our reality. Looking at San Diego, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or Seattle will do us no good because they do not share our climate. The park in Phoenix that is closest to our Central Park, IMO, is Encanto Park and that is nearly empty almost every time I pass it. Is it because of its lack of features? No. It's because this is Phoenix and we do not go to parks for the reasons I mentioned above.

I really don't understand this pessimism about parks. We have a nicer climate than Chicago or New York most of the time. Nobody has a better climate than SD so that is just a foolish thing to compare.

That Being said, our weather is perfect for parks from October through May and the greenbelt in Scottsdale and Tempe parks are quite busy. Even through most of the summer the weather is nice in the morning.

Most major cities have bone chilling winters for 3 or four months while we have hot for 3 or four months (which I actually find easier to deal with) and entire weeks of crappy cold and rain in the spring and fall.

If anything Id say Phoenix should have extremely busy parks outside of July and August afternoons. And out\r mountain preserves like Papago, South mountain, Dutchman's and Cammelback more or less prove that because they are packed all of the time.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

Regardless of if our parks are lacking or not does not overshadow the fact that this will never be a park city. No one wants to go to a park with the sun beating down on them in 100+ degree weather with sparse tree cover. This is our reality. Looking at San Diego, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or Seattle will do us no good because they do not share our climate. The park in Phoenix that is closest to our Central Park, IMO, is Encanto Park and that is nearly empty almost every time I pass it. Is it because of its lack of features? No. It's because this is Phoenix and we do not go to parks for the reasons I mentioned above.

Encanto Park is one of Phoenix's best examples of the City Beautiful movement from the early part of the last century. It was built in an non-commercial area and so was destined to be used by either close-by residents or, more likely, driven to. Up until the late 1960s, it was spectacular - the swans in the lagoon, the bandshell (now a parking lot), and overgrown foliage (removed because of crime concerns). It's still nice but the old glory is gone.

Deck Park might eventually fulfill its promise as an urban park but it's going to require a real city growing up around it. There's no shortcut here. Some lollapalooza intervention - say The Pin - won't rescue it. As I stated above, its advantages are that it's located in a place where there is actually a bit of charm around it. Phoenix being Phoenix (real-estate hustles matter more than civic pride), crucial elements of our heritage are now empty lots. But as we used to say in classroom discussions, "compare and contrast". Where else in Phoenix can you walk your dog and see a few lovely buildings, and maybe people watch (even if the people are, shudder, homeless.) People will come even when its hot if you give them shade, water features, and access to urban amenities. To make this park happen, you'll first need a downtown and midtown with greater walkability (street trees with real shade, please). You'll need a lot more people living close by. Most importantly, you'll need citizens willing to bear some unpleasantness for the greater pleasure of encountering one another. We used to do this quite regularly in America. We can do it again. But slaying the dragon of our autocentric tyranny won't be easy. A park by itself can't do it. But you can. Get on your bicycles or don your jogging gear. You are the solution.

[poconoboy61]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I really don't understand this pessimism about parks. We have a nicer climate than Chicago or New York most of the time. Nobody has a better climate than SD so that is just a foolish thing to compare.

That Being said, our weather is perfect for parks from October through May and the greenbelt in Scottsdale and Tempe parks are quite busy. Even through most of the summer the weather is nice in the morning.

Most major cities have bone chilling winters for 3 or four months while we have hot for 3 or four months (which I actually find easier to deal with) and entire weeks of crappy cold and rain in the spring and fall.

If anything Id say Phoenix should have extremely busy parks outside of July and August afternoons. And out\r mountain preserves like Papago, South mountain, Dutchman's and Cammelback more or less prove that because they are packed all of the time.

It's not pessimism, it's reality. I was not comparing the climates of those cities with Phoenix, I was responding to the assertion that we need to take a look at cities with successful parks and apply the principles that have made them successful here in Phoenix. All those cities are vastly different from Phoenix, primarily climate wise, so it makes no sense to examine them for best practices. Our climate will always work against us and is truly a blockade in keeping us from having an active park system.

It is a stretch to claim that it is hot here for only three months out of the year. It's closer to five, if not pushing six, especially for people who are supposed to be visiting a park in direct sunlight. Our problem is that during our supposed nice season, kids are in school, which really takes away from the activity that you would normally see in a traditional park in other cities. Also, people still go to parks in colder climates regardless of the season. People may not laze around in the winter as they might in the summer, but you still see people walking, jogging, and biking, as it is not consistently bone chilling as people here seem to believe. Here, the summer heat prevents the desire to linger outside for any purpose for most people. You're not going for a comfortable leisurely stroll in 109 degree, cloudless weather.

People go to our mountain parks because they enjoy hiking and for exercise. Unlike our parks, most of are trails are not littered with the homeless and mentally unstable.

There are many ways that Phoenix excels, but city parks will not be one of them. That's just fact.

[nickw252]

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a federal lawsuit against Florida-based Barron Collier Co. seeking $66.5 million related to parcels of land located at Central Avenue and Indian School Road.

The lawsuit was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and looks for money owed to the U.S. government by the real estate developer.

Barron Collier acquired 72 acres of Phoenix land from the federal government in 1996. The deal involved a land exchange in which the U.S. government received 108,000 acres of Florida Everglades swampland. Part of the deal was to include payments for American Indian education programs. The land was the site of the former Phoenix Indian School. It has never been developed.

Barron Collier stopped paying the federal government in 2013, saying the economics of the deal were untenable.

The Florida company also developed the Collier Center/Bank of America building in downtown Phoenix has development rights to a parking lot parcel just east of CityScape and south of US Airways Center.

Jay Thorne, a spokesman for Barron Collier, declined to comment on the federal lawsuit.

“We are aware of the action taken by the Department of Justice, and at this time have no comment on pending litigation,” he said.

Diane Enos, president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and president of the Inter Tribal-Council of Arizona, said Barron Collier’s default on payments have hurt Native American youth and education programs they were supposed to fund.

“These are real impacts felt by Arizona’s tribes,” she said.

If the U.S. government takes back the central Phoenix land, it could become a complicated process of who actually owns the parcels and there are scenarios where an Arizona tribe might also stake claim to parcels next to Indian Steele Park

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2014/02/03/doj-sues-barron-collier-co-over.html

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by nickw252

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2014/02/03/doj-sues-barron-collier-co-over.html

Great to see one of the city's worst land-bankers get slapped by Karma!

[Arquitect]

Originally Posted by poconoboy61

It's not pessimism, it's reality. I was not comparing the climates of those cities with Phoenix, I was responding to the assertion that we need to take a look at cities with successful parks and apply the principles that have made them successful here in Phoenix. All those cities are vastly different from Phoenix, primarily climate wise, so it makes no sense to examine them for best practices. Our climate will always work against us and is truly a blockade in keeping us from having an active park system.

It is a stretch to claim that it is hot here for only three months out of the year. It's closer to five, if not pushing six, especially for people who are supposed to be visiting a park in direct sunlight. Our problem is that during our supposed nice season, kids are in school, which really takes away from the activity that you would normally see in a traditional park in other cities. Also, people still go to parks in colder climates regardless of the season. People may not laze around in the winter as they might in the summer, but you still see people walking, jogging, and biking, as it is not consistently bone chilling as people here seem to believe. Here, the summer heat prevents the desire to linger outside for any purpose for most people. You're not going for a comfortable leisurely stroll in 109 degree, cloudless weather.

People go to our mountain parks because they enjoy hiking and for exercise. Unlike our parks, most of are trails are not littered with the homeless and mentally unstable.

There are many ways that Phoenix excels, but city parks will not be one of them. That's just fact.

Our mountain parks are part of our park system! They are a successful typology in which Phoenix has exploited one of its greatest strengths. You can't dismiss them as "non-city-parks just because they don't look like your typical park.

As for people running in summer. I often run in our parks in summer, and I am not the only one out there. People do brave the heat, just like people in colder climates go out in winter.

The excuse that Phoenix is too hot is used too much as a cop-out. Yes it does get really hot here, but it is not like the city seizes to exist once the thermometer goes above 100.

The reason I am aggressively arguing this is because we have to change this everything-is-a-failure mentality. As my name might indicate, I am an architect, and part of my job includes going to city meetings. At those meetings, I and fellow architects tend to get a lot of opposition. The NIMBYers are always a given, I don't let myself be affected by them. I could be putting a money tree that blew $100 bills onto their front porch every time the wind blew, and they would still oppose it. But the ones that do disappoint me are the fellow urbanists, those who want to make a better city. Why? Because they argue fervently against everything if it doesn't match their extremely high expectations, often with little understanding of what it takes to bring such a project to life. They complain about lack of retail, about not enough height, and if you have parking prepare yourself for the worst. My clients are not the big guys, they don't have extremely deep pockets. They are trying to improve their city in the best way they can. They can't afford for retail spots to sit empty for years, they can't afford to build a high-rise, and they know that it is impossible to actually rent out an apartment building in Phoenix without having parking. Yet their projects would be a huge improvement for the city, taking over vacant land or empty parking lots. It is people like us in this forum that should be cheering for them, encouraging them, allowing them to succeed so the next time they take an even bigger risk. Instead, we end up being just a poisonous as the NIMBYers! If we keep shutting down the people who are trying to make a difference, we are going to keep getting the Barron Colliers and other land-bankers who couldn't care less about the city even if they tried. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, but there are a lot of local and outside people trying to do really interesting things in the valley right now, and we have to take advantage of this momentum, not shut them down before they even get started.

[PHX31]

Great post Arquitect.

[phoenixwillrise]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

Our mountain parks are part of our park system! They are a successful typology in which Phoenix has exploited one of its greatest strengths. You can't dismiss them as "non-city-parks just because they don't look like your typical park.

As for people running in summer. I often run in our parks in summer, and I am not the only one out there. People do brave the heat, just like people in colder climates go out in winter.

The excuse that Phoenix is too hot is used too much as a cop-out. Yes it does get really hot here, but it is not like the city seizes to exist once the thermometer goes above 100.

The reason I am aggressively arguing this is because we have to change this everything-is-a-failure mentality. As my name might indicate, I am an architect, and part of my job includes going to city meetings. At those meetings, I and fellow architects tend to get a lot of opposition. The NIMBYers are always a given, I don't let myself be affected by them. I could be putting a money tree that blew $100 bills onto their front porch every time the wind blew, and they would still oppose it. But the ones that do disappoint me are the fellow urbanists, those who want to make a better city. Why? Because they argue fervently against everything if it doesn't match their extremely high expectations, often with little understanding of what it takes to bring such a project to life. They complain about lack of retail, about not enough height, and if you have parking prepare yourself for the worst. My clients are not the big guys, they don't have extremely deep pockets. They are trying to improve their city in the best way they can. They can't afford for retail spots to sit empty for years, they can't afford to build a high-rise, and they know that it is impossible to actually rent out an apartment building in Phoenix without having parking. Yet their projects would be a huge improvement for the city, taking over vacant land or empty parking lots. It is people like us in this forum that should be cheering for them, encouraging them, allowing them to succeed so the next time they take an even bigger risk. Instead, we end up being just a poisonous as the NIMBYers! If we keep shutting down the people who are trying to make a difference, we are going to keep getting the Barron Colliers and other land-bankers who couldn't care less about the city even if they tried. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, but there are a lot of local and outside people trying to do really interesting things in the valley right now, and we have to take advantage of this momentum, not shut them down before they even get started.

I am a firm believer that we ought to have a few parks that are water free save water zones. By that I mean we should have a few parks where they can grow any type of shade tree and plant that looks great and it doesn't have to be southwest eco friendly. My "use as much water as you need zones" would include Encanto, Hance, and Indian School Parks. Make all 3 real gathering places with outdoor band shelters and stages and gazebo's and water elements to no end. Places that will be shady and inviting and be comfortable even in the freaking summer in the mornings and evenings. Places with walking paths where trees come up and over the top of them providing complete shade with ground wood chip walking trails underneath the trees. We can go eco water southwest friendly on all other parks just declare these three special and make them special.