The Gateway to fresh folly in Phoenix

Here we go again.

According to the East Valley Tribune, DMB Associates has made public the plans for its part of the old GM Proving Grounds near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. But wait,

Dense, urban spaces, narrow pedestrian pathways to a nearby coffee shop
or bookstore, a short drive to work. That’s the kind of urbanism
southeast Mesa can expect in the future, if things go as planned by the
developer of 3,200 acres of property.

My friend Grady Gammage, the land-use lawyer, adds: "We’re hoping to hit the sweet spot where we embrace the 21st-century dynamic nature with something significantly urban." But then comes the story’s money shot:

To embrace its moniker of "21st-century desert urbanism," DMB would
like a flexible framework to work with, one that develops as the market
dictates over the years. Under this new type of planned district, which Mesa approved last
September, a developer gets to create a zoning ordinance for a property
and is able to get some flexibility in future development.

What’s wrong with this? Almost everything.

One sad truth is that DMB is one of the more progressive developers in Phoenix, and Drew Brown, one of its leaders, has worked hard, often behind the scenes, on a variety of good causes. But like the rest of the region’s power-brokers, the company can’t imagine a future that is much different than the past. Thus: more sprawl.

The DMB bigs have been flirting with New Urbanism, but they can’t quite make the leap. Thus, Verrado has a bit of a main street and a pinch of classic civic design — but it’s mostly single-family houses, many quite isolated from the "core" — plus golf. In other words, same old development model with a New Urbanist wash. To make matters worse, Verrado is cut off from transit, isolated from even its "city" (Buckeye), and dependent on an antiquated, two-lanes-each-direction freeway.

For the proving grounds project, the line about flexibility "as the market dictates" shows the mindset. These very smart developers don’t really think much will change, so they need the ability to develop wall-to-wall houses if the boobs from the Midwest moving to Arizona are put off by even half-measures at a dense core, mixed use and neighborhood businesses. They need to make it like the rest of Mesa, albeit with a resort and DMB’s push for "upscale" developments.

What if the market conditions do change, but in a different way? Gas prices make far-flung suburbs less attractive, especially ones as isolated and removed from transit options as in the Gateway area. Arizona’s weak economy and non-existent economic development strategy fails to turn the airport into a "major employment hub." Local warming, global warming, pollution, the growing underclass, crime-on-wheels and general nastiness of the region cause fewer people to move there. (Psst: What if there’s not enough water?) None of the bigs are thinking about this. They believe it’s fanciful, or it would be business suicide to act in a different fashion.

The huge chunk of state trust land south and east of Mesa has long been the wet dream of "East Valley leaders," development interests and everybody who cashes in on "growth." Policy wonks have been called in to rationalize developing this virgin desert and make it sound "sustainable." The Gateway area has been touted as the "employment hub" that will make it all possible. There are several problems with this scenario.

First, Gateway isn’t a viable passenger airport, whatever little operations come and go. It’s too far away and too hard to reach. Sky Harbor is more convenient and is cost-effective for the airlines. LA and San Francisco developed other airports because LAX and SFO became too costly, and there was actually a diverse economy to support the other airports. Nor can Gateway be a decent logistics base — again, too isolated for trucks (being killed by fuel), and not on a rail main line. (And why is Mesa allowing housing to be developed near an airport touted as a major reliever for the future? "787 ate by golf ball, Vern!")

Second, Arizona isn’t competitive enough to attract, build, retain and grow enough employers to make Gateway the big "hub" its boosters promise. It could change this, but the state has shown no willingness to adopt the practices of its successful rivals. The people with real economic power don’t want major change, because they believe the old growth machine will kick to life again. So there may be spec building at Gateway, but if the old pattern holds true, the buildings will mostly just steal existing businesses from elsewhere in the region. And mortgage boiler rooms do not create high-paid knowledge jobs.

ASU Polytechnic? It’s trying hard not to look like the remains of an old Air Force base with some bright new banners added. But it is trying to grow amid a continuing funding shortage for higher education. It must compete with larger and/or better positioned campuses of ASU. And it’s so isolated, hot, car-dependent and bleak — sounds like the college experience I’d have wanted.

Third, there’s no realistic plan for building and funding 21st century infrastructure to make Gateway viable. A drawing of one freeway spur is not 21st century infrastructure. This is a problem throughout the "Superstition Vistas" fantasy. Phoenix lacks even commuter rail, and its light rail is years late. Six- and eight-lane highways (what are called "city streets" in metro Phoenix) are not 21st century infrastructure — or consistent with walkable, urban neighborhoods.

Fourth, it’s part of Mesa, a basket-case city. Mesa is more populous than Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati or Atlanta and what does it have to show for it? Except for an excellent police chief, Mesa has made a mess of what was once a pleasant small city (near which my great grandparents built a farm). It can’t/won’t solve its existing urban problems. Its downtown, which should have real dense urbanism, is a tragic case of abandonment and struggles by the remaining businesses. The city hall looks like a fourth-rate mortgage office. How’s Mesa going to do with Gateway? It relies on Phoenix to run its bus system. It’s more than a pathetic sideshow, though. Mesa is a drag on the region, not pulling its weight economically and often is a millstone in the way of solving regional urban challenges.

Fifth, all these new projects will be based on the "master planned community" model that has done so much damage in urban Arizona. They are, by design, segregated from the cities they are nominally a part of, making the organic development of urban connectivity and quality of life impossible. They are segregated by class. They have no public spaces — even the "parks" and "town squares" are private property. As they decompose and the original residents move out, they can become linear slums or, lately, just ghost towns.

Finally, expansion of the urban footprint is the problem. There should be no more development outside the existing developed area. The region can’t even serve the 1,500-or-more urbanized/suburbanized square miles it has now with infrastructure, schools, hospitals or law enforcement. As newer areas are developed, there is a corresponding downward cycle for older areas, and large chunks that should be prime infill are left to collect blight. Expansion adds to the already horrific heat island and smog. (And did I mention water?) Developing the GM Proving Grounds or removing any more agriculture is exactly the wrong response to the alarms sounding. All the green talk and green wash and ginned up studies in the world won’t change this reality.

If DMB has the urban jones, it ought to be developing in the abundant empty or nearly abandoned land along the light rail line, in central cities, in the footprint of the old Salt River Project, which has the best shot at surviving in the future.

Sustainability is not finding rationales to keep doing what we’re doing. It will require changes. Yet the dreams of development around Gateway show it’s business as usual in central Arizona. Surprise, surprise.