Log in

Crawford: How do you want to choose?

What kind of city do we want to see Scottsdale become

Posted

I’ll be honest with you. If, 10 years ago, you’d have told me I would care enough about local events to write something like this, I would have given you a large dose of side-eye and gone about my day.

However, with all the ruckus going on about this, standing by and not saying anything just isn’t an option anymore.

Let’s begin with a few things: I am not a Scottsdale native. I am just a dude who lives here, decided to put down roots, and love the city and state that I now call home.

I do own property here, and faithfully pay my tax bill, albeit I was once late by about 25 days.

I am not a “rich developer,” just a small time landlord with lofty ideals. My life/career of six years here has watched the population of the Valley --- and Scottsdale --- explode, and the cultural and generational conflict manifest themselves as something truly ugly. We all live in a wonderful city, and these issues are important, but not life and death, and certainly not anything to insult your fellow (wo)man over.

Whether you like it, love it, hate it, or just don’t care, the fact remains that our Valley is much more crowded than it used to be, and redevelopment is just a part of the process. More people in a given area means new and better infrastructure and buildings are needed. More mouths to feed, and all that good stuff.

Technology now touches every facet of our lives, and “growth” today looks a lot different than it did even 10 years ago. “Green” tech and redevelopment carries with it both the promise of a cleaner world, as well as the threat of massive changes to the lives we live and have grown accustomed to.

It is a double-edged sword with which we all must come to our own peace.

And I get how uncomfortable that can be. Truly, I do.

Demographics are changing. The population is aging. The younger generations, who will inherit the earth, prioritize differently, and we all have to figure out how to make that happen in a way that works. For us all.

I for one, as a member of Gen X, don’t want to be stuck with a world full of poorly designed buildings thrown up with zero thought for the future. Not even a little bit.

Yes, ladies and gents, this is about the Southbridge II development. This is about a misinformation campaign being run to stall a good (not perfect, mind you) project, and dictate what an individual can do with their own property. It is about accepting that the world is changing, and making a choice, as a city, and as a people, to implement and embrace long term, sensible development that strikes a reasonable balance in the changes we all face.

There is no perfect solution. I’ll be the first to admit it.

Yes, higher buildings, more traffic, tenant displacement, and construction headaches are going to occur. No argument from me there. However, this development, and the “campaign” to try and stop it sadly reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.

The person who oversimplifies a very complex decision in the name of, well, I don’t really know. Fear? Disagreement? Resistance to progress?

This is about how we, as a city, and a community, want to react to the massive market forces at work in all of our lives. Do we want our development to be dictated by out of state owners, who do not care about how the city turns out?

They do not have to sit in our traffic, or suffer through our urban heat islands, or stay indoors during our most polluted days, or listen to loved ones cough in the face of declining air quality.

Or do we want to accept that nothing is perfect, and embrace the massive efforts, risks, and truly thoughtful design of the current plans? I for one, say we do.

Do we want a walkable area, where the admittedly increased traffic is directed to park (in more spaces than is required by code!), and pedestrians need to continue on foot? Do we want a local developer and owner who lives here, and will actively seek small, local, non-chain businesses to occupy their retail spaces? Someone who will bring in locally grown produce and groceries, and support our state’s economy and our collective health?

Or do we want to bow to a select few, with loud voices, and incomplete information, to dictate what a private property owner can do? One who is clearly vested in the community, who has worked for over 25 years with his family doing the tough, expensive research and fulfilling (and exceeding in some cases!) the onerous workload that the city and neighborhood have imposed on them.

Your mileage may vary, but my opinion is a hard no. A few loud voices should not dictate what a private property owner may do within the confines of the law. Not even a little bit OK.

The fact remains, that living, working, and playing in the same place is how life used to be. The long expansion and suburban living model we all either got to enjoy, or witness second hand, has started to reverse.

Living above your workplace, and shopping for your food, clothing, and entertainment in the same place negates the need for a car for daily transportation. Fewer car trips mean cleaner air, less money spent on fuel, and overall less traffic on the roads.

More walking improves health and longevity for our citizens. Local businesses improve our economy, and help keep money local, as well as provide tax revenue to fund streets, schools, and infrastructure.

Well designed buildings and shade plans can mitigate urban heat islands, provide efficient housing and workspaces, bring consumers and local small businesses together, and last for generations.

On the flip side, a car-based, commute-based lifestyle carries with it tons of hidden costs. Yes, it’s cheaper in the short run, but are we going to be the people with short-sighted vision? Are we going to look at something that might be a little different, or not exactly what we as an individual might want with disdain, or with curiosity? Are we willing to acknowledge the true cost of a commute, of more air pollution, of the “throw-away” nature of current construction and the lack of walkability of our own city? Are we really going to pretend the sweat pouring off of us in summer isn’t made worse by the heat of thousands of cars and acres of black asphalt?

Do we, as a city, as a community, want to continue to support out of state developers and owners who continue to develop the kind of properties with massive ancillary costs (commuting, air quality degradation, traffic congestion, bland architecture, no local businesses), or do we want to support our local visionaries, who want local (not chain) businesses, who care about the long-term vision for the city, and are willing to take on the massive financial and personal risks of executing such a project, as well as risking the wrath of their peers, in person and on-line, community members and the world at large, in order to make a positive, long-term impact on our city?

What message are we going to send?

Are you going to just stand by and let this happen?

Editor’s Note: Darwin Crawford is a Scottsdale resident.