Out of nowhere this week from the well-respected international newsmagazine The Economist came a brutal depiction of the Phoenix metro area*: the city's high crime rate, low-rated public education system and awful pollution were cited as evidence that Phoenix is in decline; the magazine went so far as to call the city "a crime-ridden mess."
In an unusually ponderous article, The Economist pointed to several factors as reasons for our problems: meth smuggled from Mexico, lack of opportunity for minorities (evidenced by the proliferation of chain restaurants), and even light rail. But the article seems to settle on one factor as being the cause of our woes-- growth. The article makes the case that Phoenix's rapid urban growth has both overwhelmed our civic infrastructure such as prisons and courts, and that the lack of any sort of shared history among all the newcomers makes for a city of transients who not only fail to care about their adopted home but also are easy pickings for criminals.
Interesting comments, for sure. And incredibly timely (not to mention painful) in the wake of Friday's tragic one-two punch in which two news copters crashed into each other chasing a carjacker and, later on, a young policeman was murdered following up a report of a forged check.
But is growth the main culprit for these problems? Or something else? I have long believed that the rapid growth and turnover in this city make for a very disconnected place in which cultural institutions struggle for donations and our sports teams play in front of stadiums filled by fans of the visiting team. But is the transient nature of Phoenix even more malignant than that, as The Economist seems to think? Phoenix's leaders need to steer the city through its collective mourning and then start asking the big questions as to how to fix the "mess."
* = I refer to the entire metropolitan area as the "city" and "Phoenix," as does The Economist in the article. Jon Talton used to decry the use of "Valley" to describe the metro area, and I agree-- no one outside Phoenix has ever heard of the "Valley" (except to refer to Silicon Valley, perhaps).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
To use a term likely to appear in the Economist, the article was rubbish. It began with several factual errors:
1)Michael Zistatsis owns Alexi's Grill, which is in Midtown, not Downtown.
2)Light rail will not connect Phoenix to Scottsdale. Scottsdale is not participating; only Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa are involved at this time.
3)It's nonsense to say that the city, or the Valley, or whatever is overrun by chain restaurants when in fact there are interesting Vietnamese, Thai, El Salvadoran, etc. places in strip malls throughout the metro area. Chain restaurants are certainly big here, but so are they everywhere else. Even Times Square in NYC is full of chain restaurants these days.
If the Economist gets it wrong on so many details about Phoenix, how can we trust it for accurate coverage about the big issues? In an interesting coincidence, my subscription to the print edition of the Economist is up for renewal this month, and I've been on the fence about whether to sign up for another year. This article made the decision easy.
By the way, I wonder if John Talton is now working for the Economist? That would be one of the few plausible explanations for the exaggerated negativity of this article.
Sorry. Just realized I got Talton's first name wrong: "Jon" instead of "John." Otherwise, I stand by my unfavorable views of Talton's columns and the Economist's distorted article about Phoenix.
While The Economist piece seemed a bit thin in terms of detail, it does support a kind of take on Phoenix that other media corroborate (most famously, the late 80s piece in Barron's). The problems themselves are secondary to the perception of them, and if there's an honest accounting here of them locally, I'd be very surprised. Part of this stems from the primacy of real-estate as our economic engine. An even more telling factor is the lack of a newspaper that can crystallize the community conscience. For the most part, we're all on our own here, and no Jon Talton or Pat Murphy is going to explain what's actually happening.
There have been various poor bargains Phoenix has made during its tumultuous boom, and there's no stand-out villain here to hiss and boo. We've all been drunk at this party to one extent or another. The problem is that beyond public relations, there's not much we can do to recalibrate the future of Phoenix. Every dollar made in cheap real estate has pretty much sealed our fate in asphalt and stucco.
Talton used to say that Phoenix is sunny and dumb. It became so easy to make money here selling the easy life that we forgot to tend to the other civic and economic functions. Power shifted to the suburbs and an "I've got mine" attitude took over politically.
As long as Phoenix upholds its end of the bargain as the dormitory for the growing underclass, things will continue as before. City goverment recognizes that it can no longer simply grow its way out of these problems. But given the scope of these problems, it's not likely any initiative will help buck the trend. We had a paradise here once and sold it, usually to the bidders deserting California. There's nothing much left to do now but to demarcate Eden into rich and poor precincts.
Silverbear and Walt, thanks for your comments. Personally I think the truth is in the middle of your views: while Phoenix does have its problems (crime, a poor educational system and more chain restaurants than other cities (try finding an independent restaurant in Gilbert or Surprise)), I believe there's good reason to be hopeful.
Real urban housing options have finally sprung up downtown and it seems like every week we get a new, cool restaurant or bar downtown. I also agree that The Economist got some details wrong and I am skeptical about the overall thesis that growth is the leading cause of Phoenix's woes. There are some problems here...I just believe things are turning around.
Your blog is very insightful. I 'm from downtown Cleveland and it seems that downtown Phoenix is in a very similar position. Both have amazing things going for them that are severely overlooked by people in the burbs. Cleveland is also used as a scapegoat by the media (although probably much more frequently). I'm interested in moving to downtown Phoenix, and I am glad to see that there is so much growth!
Justin, thanks for the comment. I was in downtown Cleveland a couple years ago and I agree that downtown Phoenix faces some similar hurdles-- although in my brief time in downtown Cleveland I did feel less safe than when I'm in Phoenix. I think you'll enjoy downtown Phoenix if you move here, however, and with all the projects that are underway and planned for the area, I think downtown's best days are ahead.
Post a Comment