Could Phoenix pass Houston(city population)?

I'm going to say no. You have too many boomburbs that are going to limit Phoenix's annexation capabilities (as hard as that is to believe right now). Scottsdale is to the east, Glendale and Peoria to the west, Mesa and Chandler to the southeast, the South Mountains to the south, and Yavapai County to the north. Beyond these, you have the Salt River Indian Reservation to the east, the Gila River Indian Reservation to the south, Goodyear to the southwest, and Buckeye to the west. Phoenix can really still grow up I-17 past Anthem to Black Canyon City. The only other land really available for annexation is along US 60 from Sun City to Wickenburg, but Peoria and Surprise block Phoenix from connecting to that (and Surprise has already annexed a little bit of that land). Phoenix can, at least in theory, annex established areas like Sun City. How hard that would be to do is another matter.

Well I need to come in here and clear up some things.


1. City pop is meaningless its all about metro, Houston and Phoenix are both growing fast and it would take a long time to surpass Houston at current rates unless something drastically changes.


2. Despite popular opinion since the 2008 crash hit the city so hard it has diversified immensely in Tech, Aerospace, Semi Conductors, logistics, Healthcare, Financials and of course the god old Tourism and construction and agriculture etc. There is currently about 10 20+ story buildings under construction or in the pipeline for downtown alone, we absorbed as much office space as Chicago last year.


3. PHOENIX IS NOT GOING TO RUN OUT OF WATER.


I don't know why this is passed around and why so many people think it would happen.


Arizona as a fantastic water plan, we could support millions more than we currently do. Phoenix is not surrounded by sand dunes its built on very productive farm land because it rests in an arid flood plain at the confluence of two rivers the Gila and Rio Salado and a number of creeks. It is watered by a system of canals and reservoirs which were built mostly to prevent flooding which the area has suffered the most recent one being fairly catastrophic in the late 70's


The City is very much like Baghdad or Cairo and has had significant population for THOUSANDS of years. (significant is a bit relative)


Nearly 5 million people live in the metro, 7 million in the state and many of our cities make the top growth lists year after year. Growth is not slowing down nor does any reputable group, think-tank or study expect it too.


Its also far greener than most people think.

CNB30 said:

Because it's a sterile plastic modern Sunbelt Republican sunbelt city. Literally the only thing that isn't awful about it is the light rail.

Click to expand...

You're one of those "I hate everyone and everything that isn't NYC" People. How terribly uninteresting.


Places and peoples are different, that's what makes the world interesting, try not to be so provincial. You'll be happier and more likeable.

obadno said:

You're one of those "I hate everyone and everything that isn't NYC" People. How terribly uninteresting.


Places and peoples are different, that's what makes the world interesting, try not to be so provincial. You'll be happier and more likeable.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And don't forget injecting stereotypes about the politics of a region they have likely never visited. Most urban areas are more progressive. Period.

CNB30 said:

Because it's a sterile plastic modern Sunbelt Republican sunbelt city. Literally the only thing that isn't awful about it is the light rail.

Click to expand...

I used to think that until I started learning more about the place. I don't think Phoenix is that sterile(and what used to be sterile 30 years ago is now colorful and retro). Arizona will be a next generation swing state and start to be more like Colorado.

They booted Sheriff Joe this year. AZ used to be defined as the home of Barry Goldwater and the mecca for ornery old white retirees.

But as the population grows and grows, the relative influence of those decline. The future is Phoenix as a massive "purple" voting city that also comprises the vast majority of the state's total population. The reliably tea party/far right vote in rural areas gets countered by the reliably left wing latino vote along the border, leaving the balance in the hands of middle class suburbanites.

A centrist Democrat who is pro-gun and has realist views on immigration(yes on 'dreamers' and doesn't scapegoat 'illegals' but also supports border enforcement and deporting criminals) and successfully go out the vote in a place like Tempe would do well. Look at Colorado or Nevada.

The reality is any place could be red or blue, depending on the candidate. California, New York, and Vermont all voted Republican for Reagan and Nixon back in the day (1984, 1980, 1972). Democrat Jimmy Carter won his election carrying almost all of the South, whereas Republican Gerald Ford carried Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey. So hating a place because of how they vote is not only childish, but short-sighted, because any place could turn red or blue down the road.

Back to the topic at hand...

obadno said:

You're one of those "I hate everyone and everything that isn't NYC" People. How terribly uninteresting.


Places and peoples are different, that's what makes the world interesting, try not to be so provincial. You'll be happier and more likeable.

Click to expand...

NYC has it's pluses and minuses.

It's a touch modern and not-to-human-scale in some areas (EX midtown, and much of the new construction). Plus there are some ok nearby cities like Albequerque. Denver also seems like somewhere that isn't too bad either (albeit a lot of new construction there is sterile and Robotic).

Also, on the topic of politics, that's only a small part of it, and the kind of Socially Liberal Fiscally Centrist Dems popular in the Sunbelt are not my cup of tea.

BTW, who gives a damn about being popular when you can be correct?

CNB30 said:

NYC has it's pluses and minuses.

It's a touch modern and not-to-human-scale in some areas (EX midtown, and much of the new construction). Plus there are some ok nearby cities like Albequerque. Denver also seems like somewhere that isn't too bad either (albeit a lot of new construction there is sterile and Robotic).

Also, on the topic of politics, that's only a small part of it, and the kind of Socially Liberal Fiscally Centrist Dems popular in the Sunbelt are not my cup of tea.

BTW, who gives a damn about being popular when you can be correct?

Click to expand...

You clearly don't know anything about the southwest and have never been here, midtown is the least "human scale" part of the city other than of the suburbs of course.


There are "Okay" - what does this even mean ? "Nearby" if you consider 6 hour drive or a 14 hours drive nearby. And ABQ ??? what? ABQ has much more of an urban deficit than Phoenix?

Your complaint is just with western cities and anything that happened get built in the last 40 years. Im sorry you don't like post ww2 architecture I guess.

If you look at the average density per square mile of urban area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas Its actually mostly western cities topping the list

Phoenix has a higher average density than Seattle, Dallas, Philly, Houston, Baltimore, Cleveland, Richmond etc etc Its actually pretty high on the List.

East coast bias and complete lack of knowledge, or even willingness to learn, about the western united states borders on the absurd.

CNB30 said:

Hopefully Fauxnix will run out of water, and people will have to leave the sterile sunbelt.

Click to expand...

sorry to disappoint you but Arizona has a better plan for conserving water than most so called liberal states, including states like California.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...w-assured-our-100-year-water-supply/73802356/

Coming back to the whole point of the thread. The real question is whether Phoenix metro can one day surpass Houston metro? With the recent disastrous flooding in Houston, I think climate change is going to hurt Houston's prospects in the next couple of decades. Plus with the impending doom of the oil and gas sectors and considering their contribution to the growth of Houston over the past century, I think the road ahead is tough for Houston.

I still feel the Houston metro economy is more diversified, especially in therms of value-added production / services. According to Wikipedia, metro Phoenix's top 10 sectors are: real estate ($31B), financial services ($21.3B), manufacturing ($16.8B), health care ($15.7B), retail ($14.9B), wholesale ($12.9B), professional services ($12.8B), construction ($10.4B), waste management ($9.1B), and tourism ($6.8B). When a quarter of your metro economy is tied up in real estate and construction (almost 1/3 if you throw in waste management), you're still stuck in 1990s Sun Belt mode.

One thing Phoenix has over Houston is that it's the state capital. And as Arizona gets more purple, the state legislature will inevitably become more city-friendly. Arizona is a lot more likely to turn purple or flip blue from time to time than Texas. Houston may currently be the more progressive city, but Phoenix will see the outsized benefits of pro-urban state lawmakers in a manner similar to how Atlanta gets a boost from being a blue capital of a red state, or perhaps down the road, how Boston benefits massively from being the capital of a pro-urban blue state.