Phoenix Development News (3)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Even if they did opt to go somewhere away from downtown, by the time a new stadium would be ready we are talking 2025-2030 at the earliest

I think downtown will have enough of its own population and draw that it wouldn’t be such a big deal, we may be happy to see them go to open up that land for development.

Even so I don’t see why they would move more suburban when they’ve had great success downtown, but that’s just me.

While nothing particularly specific is yet known I suspect they're looking closer to 2022/23 to be in their new digs. Per ABC15

The Diamondbacks' current lease at Chase Field is active until 2027, but per the MOU, the team will be allowed to leave the stadium without penalty as soon as 2022, provided the new stadium is located in Maricopa County...

Additionally Sarver would like help with a new Suns arena from Phoenix but I have no idea how likely that is. What makes the most sense would be to build a new arena that would accommodate both the Suns and the Coyotes.

Originally Posted by exit2lef

I hope you're right, but I still fear a situation like what happened in Atlanta, where the Braves left the heart of their city for a suburban stadium.

I'm sure this is exactly the model and inspiration they've drawn from.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

While nothing particularly specific is yet known I suspect they're looking closer to 2022/23 to be in their new digs. Per ABC15

Additionally Sarver would like help with a new Suns arena from Phoenix but I have no idea how likely that is. What makes the most sense would be to build a new arena that would accommodate both the Suns and the Coyotes.

I'm sure this is exactly the model and inspiration they've drawn from.

Yes but building a 40-60k person stadium with full professional amenities takes a long time, it will take them 1-3 years just to get the design, financing approvals, land etc, it will take another several years to build.

Nobody is going anywhere anytime soon

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yes but building a 40-60k person stadium with full professional amenities takes a long time, it will take them 1-3 years just to get the design, financing approvals, land etc, it will take another several years to build.

Nobody is going anywhere anytime soon

Diamondbacks would be looking to ~40,000 seat stadium. Sun Trust Park per Wikipedia:

Broke ground September 16, 2014
Opened March 31, 2017
Construction cost $622 million

Sun Trust Park utilized a P3 but I wonder if they're not thinking of a totally private deal with maybe some 'reservation assistance'? I dunno... but Kroenke is spending $2.5 billion to build the new Rams/Chargers stadium in Inglewood. I suspect they've already done some preliminary design work.

[Classical in Phoenix]

Just took light rail to Camelback and Central. They are fencing off the SWC of the intersection. Talked to a guy working on the fence. He said right now all they are doing is putting in a diagonal pathway from the train station to the corner on the Intersection and then holding to build. Seems like a lot of fencing for just that.

[biggus diggus]

This would be the second time I remember them fencing off that parcel, I'm convinced nothing will be built there as long as any of us are alive.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

While nothing particularly specific is yet known I suspect they're looking closer to 2022/23 to be in their new digs. Per ABC15

Additionally Sarver would like help with a new Suns arena from Phoenix but I have no idea how likely that is. What makes the most sense would be to build a new arena that would accommodate both the Suns and the Coyotes.

I'm sure this is exactly the model and inspiration they've drawn from.

Atlanta's burbs are much more dense and not as far out as Phoenix. If the Dbacks build a stadium out in the burbs, they would be looking at a situation similar to what the Coyotes are facing. They're not going to fill games during the weekdays if everyone has to drive 40 mins to get there from 1/2 of the metro. We're not talking Spring Training with a much smaller stadium and retired snowbirds from out of town going to the games. Regular season will be a whole different scenario.

Also, there's the funding. They aren't going to pay for a new arena themselves. The taxpayers are probably going to say no since we will have an empty stadium that was already tax-funded. That leaves only the tribe to pay for a new stadium. Is this what they are going for?

[biggus diggus]

There's enough money in Scottsdale that if they built a stadium around Talking Stick to draw attendance. The reason it didn't work in Glendale is you're near poor people who have to work. Enough upper-middle to upper class people are in Scottsdale who can take the afternoon off, they'll have no issues with attendance over there.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Classical in Phoenix

Just took light rail to Camelback and Central. They are fencing off the SWC of the intersection. Talked to a guy working on the fence. He said right now all they are doing is putting in a diagonal pathway from the train station to the corner on the Intersection and then holding to build. Seems like a lot of fencing for just that.

It would still be great to have a pathway and hopefully it will remain if ever the land is developed.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

There's enough money in Scottsdale that if they built a stadium around Talking Stick to draw attendance. The reason it didn't work in Glendale is you're near poor people who have to work. Enough upper-middle to upper class people are in Scottsdale who can take the afternoon off, they'll have no issues with attendance over there.

I'm sure this is their thinking. Consider that presently they only draw about 18-23,000 for most weekday games. When you look at the 101 access from Glendale to Chandler is reasonable. With broadcast revenues being more important a more intimate, more premium experience at a ballpark is what they want. Some of the newer, nicer ballparks are 41,000 or less. PNC Park in Pittsburgh is really nice at ~38,000. The newer At&T Park in San Francisco is 41,900. In hindsight Chase is a Hot Mess.

[Phoenix22]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

Atlanta's burbs are much more dense and not as far out as Phoenix. If the Dbacks build a stadium out in the burbs, they would be looking at a situation similar to what the Coyotes are facing. They're not going to fill games during the weekdays if everyone has to drive 40 mins to get there from 1/2 of the metro. We're not talking Spring Training with a much smaller stadium and retired snowbirds from out of town going to the games. Regular season will be a whole different scenario.

Also, there's the funding. They aren't going to pay for a new arena themselves. The taxpayers are probably going to say no since we will have an empty stadium that was already tax-funded. That leaves only the tribe to pay for a new stadium. Is this what they are going for?

PHoenix is much denser than Atlanta

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by Phoenix22

PHoenix is much denser than Atlanta

As much as I love Phoenix, it is not much denser than Atlanta. Atlanta beats Phoenix in City, Urban and Metro density #'s as of the 2017 estimate. I would post numbers, but city comparisons aren't allowed here. I suggest looking them up.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

As much as I love Phoenix, it is not much denser than Atlanta. Atlanta beats Phoenix in City, Urban and Metro density #'s as of the 2017 estimate. I would post numbers, but city comparisons aren't allowed here. I suggest looking them up.

There is a metric for Urban Area density that is more about relative density that phoenix has Atlanta beat but Im not 100% sure what the methodology for that stat is.

[Phoenix22]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

As much as I love Phoenix, it is not much denser than Atlanta. Atlanta beats Phoenix in City, Urban and Metro density #'s as of the 2017 estimate. I would post numbers, but city comparisons aren't allowed here. I suggest looking them up.

here you go

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...d-density.html

[Phoenix22]

Originally Posted by Obadno

There is a metric for Urban Area density that is more about relative density that phoenix has Atlanta beat but Im not 100% sure what the methodology for that stat is.

Atlanta might have more Skyscrapers than Phoenix, but is not denser.
I have lived in both cities and Phoenix is much denser.
Atlanta sprawl way more than Phoenix in all directions.

[nickw252]

Originally Posted by Phoenix22

here you go

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...d-density.html

That doesn't surprise me. Phoenix's suburbs are pretty dense for suburban standards - hard not to be when a million houses are plopped down side by side on 4,000 square foot lots. Contrast that with older cities in the east (such as Atlanta) and the minute you get out of the urban area you have mostly quarter acre or larger lots.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by Phoenix22

Atlanta might have more Skyscrapers than Phoenix, but is not denser.
I have lived in both cities and Phoenix is much denser.
Atlanta sprawl way more than Phoenix in all directions.

This is the official census numbers as of this year:

• Atlanta:
City
472,522
City Density
3,547/sq mi

Urban
4,975,300
Urban density
5,180/sq mi

Metro
5,789,700
Metro density
1,350/sq mi

• Phoenix:
City
1,615,017
City Density
3,119.94/sq mi

Urban
3,629,114
Urban density
3,165.2/sq mi

Metro
Estimate (2017) 4,737,270
Metro density
308.2/sq mi

[azliam]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

This is the official census numbers as of this year:

• Atlanta:
City
472,522
City Density
3,547/sq mi

Urban
4,975,300
Urban density
5,180/sq mi

Metro
5,789,700
Metro density
1,350/sq mi

• Phoenix:
City
1,615,017
City Density
3,119.94/sq mi

Urban
3,629,114
Urban density
3,165.2/sq mi

Metro
Estimate (2017) 4,737,270
Metro density
308.2/sq mi

The urban area (I assume) numbers for Atlanta look WAY off. The Atlanta UA density in 2010 was just slightly higher than half the density of the Phoenix UA - it should be closer to 1700 since the Phoenix UA was 3165 in 2010. I'm thinking their definition of "Urban" is something completely different or they just messed up the number.

In any case, just wanted to point that out.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by RonnieFoos

This is the official census numbers as of this year:

• Atlanta:
City
472,522
City Density
3,547/sq mi

Urban
4,975,300
Urban density
5,180/sq mi

Metro
5,789,700
Metro density
1,350/sq mi

• Phoenix:
City
1,615,017
City Density
3,119.94/sq mi

Urban
3,629,114
Urban density
3,165.2/sq mi

Metro
Estimate (2017) 4,737,270
Metro density
308.2/sq mi

The point made above is that a better metric, especially for metro area density, is weighted density. This is especially true since the Phoenix metro density number counts all of Maricopa County, much of which is uninhabited desert. Weighted density factors out those areas by looking at concentrated density and averaging the densities of the different census tracts.

By weighted density, Phoenix is ~4,372.6 per square mile. Atlanta is ~2173 per square mile.

https://www.census.gov/library/publi...2010sr-01.html

Curious, what is the 'urban density' number you're listing?

[Mr.RE]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

There's enough money in Scottsdale that if they built a stadium around Talking Stick to draw attendance. The reason it didn't work in Glendale is you're near poor people who have to work. Enough upper-middle to upper class people are in Scottsdale who can take the afternoon off, they'll have no issues with attendance over there.

A possible good location would be near the proposed Phoenix rising Stadium on the tribal land and create an environment similar to Westgate on the North side of the 202 and McClintock on the Tribal Lands. Enough freeway interchanges and ways to access the area would make it a prime spot plus near tempe marketplace and the new rio 2100 office parks / cubs spring training.

[CrestedSaguaro]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

The point made above is that a better metric, especially for metro area density, is weighted density. This is especially true since the Phoenix metro density number counts all of Maricopa County, much of which is uninhabited desert. Weighted density factors out those areas by looking at concentrated density and averaging the densities of the different census tracts.

By weighted density, Phoenix is ~4,372.6 per square mile. Atlanta is ~2173 per square mile.

https://www.census.gov/library/publi...2010sr-01.html

Curious, what is the 'urban density' number you're listing?

Urban Density is generally defined as the primary city and adjacent suburbs that directly connect to the primary city or to another suburb adjacent to the primary city. (i.e. Chandler, Mesa, even Goodyear would be counted as Urban. Places like Maricopa or Black Canyon City would be counted as Metro, but not as Urban). I believe Urban is probably more like weighted density you describe. It's just Urban is officially defined by census.