MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona

East Valley Partnership

Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce

Greater Phoenix Economic Council

Greater Phoenix Leadership

Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce/ Scottsdale Partnership

Julie Alvarado, Motorola

John Benton, Benton-Robb Development

Steven Betts, Gallagher & Kennedy

Jerry Bisgrove, StarDust Companies

Richard Bowers, City of Scottsdale

Gary Brown, City of Tempe

Wayne Brown, Mayor, City of Mesa

Jay Butler, College of Business, Arizona State University

Sam Campana, Mayor, City of Scottsdale

Frank Fairbanks, City of Phoenix

Joanie Flatt, East Valley Partnership

Grady Gammage, Jr., Gammage & Burnham

Neil Giuliano, Mayor, City of Tempe

Terry Goddard, U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Andrew Gordon, Coppersmith & Gordon, PLC

Phil Gordon, City Council Member, City of Phoenix

Lloyd Harrell, City of Chandler

Timothy Hogan, Center for Business Research, Arizona State University

John Keegan, Mayor, City of Peoria

Michael Kelly, City of Phoenix

Paul Koehler, Peoria Unified School District

Diane McCarthy, WESTMARC

Sharon Megdal, MegEcon Consulting

Chris Mulholland, Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce

Margaret Mullen, Urban Realty Partners

John Ogden, SunCor Development Company

Kevin Olson, Steptoe & Johnson

A. J. Pfister, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University

Charles Redman, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University

Skip Rimsza, Mayor, City of Phoenix

Mark Schnepf, Mayor, Town of Queen Creek

Elaine Scruggs, Mayor, City of Glendale

Tom Simplot, BRS Group

Frederick Steiner, School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Arizona State University

Martin Vanacour, City of Glendale

Rick Weddle, Greater Phoenix Economic Council

Mike Welborn, Bank One Arizona

Keven Ann Willey, The Arizona Republic

Richard Bowers, City Manager, City of Scottsdale

R. Thomas Browning, Executive Director, Greater Phoenix Leadership

Robert Bulla, President, Executive Division, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona

John DeGrove, Director, Joint Center for Environmental & Urban Problems, Florida Atlantic University

Frank Fairbanks, City Manager, City of Phoenix

Ed Fox, Vice President, Environmental, Health, Safety & New Technology Ventures, APS

Grady Gammage, Jr., Attorney, Gammage & Burnham

Terry Goddard, State Coordinator, U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

John Hall, Professor, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University

Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, City of Chandler

Edward W. Hill, Professor, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

Linda Hollis, Senior Research Associate, Solimar Research Group

Jim Holway, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources

Bruce Katz, Director and Senior Fellow, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution

Robert Lang, Director, Urban and Metropolitan Research, The Fannie Mae Foundation

Diane McCarthy, President, WESTMARC

Frank Mizner, Planning Director, City of Mesa

Rolf Pendall, Assistant Professor, City and Regional Planning, Cornell University

A. J. Pfister, Distinguished Research Fellow, Arizona State University

Luther Propst, Executive Director, Sonoran Institute

Charles Redman, Director, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University

Judy Richardson, First Vice President, School Finance Consulting Services,

Peacock, Hislop, Staley & Given, Inc.

Ethan Seltzer, Director, Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, Portland State University

Frederick Steiner, Director, School of Planning: Landscape Architecture, Arizona State University

Martin Vanacour, City Manager, City of Glendale

Rick Weddle, President, Greater Phoenix Economic Council

Acknowledgments Many people and organizations contributed to the preparation of this report.

The work of scores of people and the support provided by public-and private-sector organizations are acknowledged gratefully. Nevertheless, the views expressed here remain solely those of Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Any errors of fact or interpretation are the responsibility of Morrison Institute. The Institute specifically thanks the following people and organizations.

Morrison Institute for Public Policy

School of Public Affairs | College of Public Programs | Arizona State University

P. O. Box 874405, Tempe Arizona 85287-4405 Voice (480) 965-4525 Fax (480) 965-9219 http://www.asu.edu/copp/morrison

Mary Jo Waits, Associate Director - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Rebecca L. Gau, Senior Research Analyst - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Mark Muro, Senior Research Analyst - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Tina Valdecanas, Senior Research Analyst - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Tom R. Rex Research Manager, Center for Business Research - Arizona State University

Leonard G. Bower, Economist

Elizabeth Burns Professor, Department of Geography - Arizona State University

Lisa DeLorenzo Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs - Arizona State University

William Fulton, President - Solimar Research Group

Patricia Gober, Professor, Department of Geography - Arizona State University

John Hall Professor, School of Public Affairs - Arizona State University

Alicia Harrison, Research Associate - Solimar Research Group

Kent Hill, Assistant Research Professional, Department of Economics - Arizona State University

Glen Krutz, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science - Arizona State University

Scott Smith, Support Systems Analyst - Information Technology Research Support Lab GIS Services, Arizona State University

Jamie Goodwin-White, Graduate Assistant - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Christina Kinnear, Graduate Assistant - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Laura Valenzuela, Graduate Assistant - Morrison Institute for Public Policy

With Assistance From:

Rob Melnick, Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Karen Heard, Chalk Design

Nancy Welch, The Insight Group

Cherylene Schick, Morrison Institute for Public Policy

H I T S AN D M I S S E S : FAST GROWTH IN METROPOLITAN PHOENIX

Hits and Misses: Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix is the first product

of a comprehensive effort to describe and analyze the region's growth. The

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy in

Washington, D. C. presented the opportunity for this project to Morrison

Institute for Public Policy.

The Brookings Institution has been engaging leading local scholars to

study the role of government policies in growth and development patterns

in various metropolitan areas in recent years. As part of this urban agenda,

the Brookings Center invited Morrison Institute to prepare a case study of

the Phoenix region to supplement reports on the other five cities already

involved in the national research. Soon thereafter, Morrison Institute invit-ed

a number of metropolitan Phoenix cities, businesses and civic alliances

to provide financial support for this new investigation. The supporting

organizations were eager to obtain fresh, quality information about growth

in the area at a time of increasing anxiety about the topic. They also saw the

benefit of showcasing metropolitan Phoenix' sometimes surprising story

within Brookings' larger set of case studies.

The formal Phoenix case study will appear next year as a chapter in a

Brookings Institution book with national distribution. However, the pressing

public debate about growth issues in metropolitan Phoenix obliged Morrison Institute

to make its findings available locally now. This detailed

document offers significant data and discussion not included in the formal

Brookings case study. It also features a finer-grained local focus for local

audiences. Morrison Institute hopes the analyses and recommendations will

foster a better understanding of the dynamics at work in this region and

support wise decisions in the future.

Some readers will wonder why Hits and Misses does not take a specific

stand on the growth management measures on the November 2000 ballot.

The two measures represent a key moment in both Phoenix' and the state's

growth history, so this report's silence on the proposals may seem peculiar.

However, in keeping with this study's purpose to identify the causes of

growth patterns, the Morrison Institute team chose to pass over discussion

of particular ballot items in favor of offering fresh data and new options for

thinking about the challenges and opportunities of rapid growth. Such an

approach sacrifices topicality in favor of a potentially longer-lasting effect

on the region's future.

The story of growth in metropolitan Phoenix is a complicated, often

surprising, tale. There is much to be proud of in the region. Yet there is also

much to worry about, and much that needs to be done. Hits and Misses will

have been successful if it becomes a catalyst for getting started.

A NOTE ABOUT DATA Any study of this kind depends on accumulating a

comprehensive and up-to-date body of research that can inform regional policy making.

Fortunately, many cities in the region as well as the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG),

the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project at Arizona State University,

the state of Arizona and the federal government maintain large bodies of useful data on the region's

job market, population, land-use and transportation trends. However, assembling a comprehensive

statistical picture of the region remains problematic. Differences in collection efforts among

metropolitan Phoenix cities and agencies make the assembly of consistent, city-by-city

databases difficult. Hard figures do not exist for numerous topics. Or, relevant numbers date

back a number of years. The U. S. Bureau of the Census most detailed statistics covering small

geographic divisions, for example, date to either the 1990 census or the MAG 1995 special census,

precluding more up-to-date accountings. Clearly this lack of timely data creates

difficulties when speaking of a fast-changing region such as metropolitan Phoenix.

Nevertheless, Morrison Institute remains confident the trends it highlights here hold for the region.

1 MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

THE SHAPE OF FAST GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Population is Booming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Metropolitan Phoenix is Becoming Denser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Employment Remains Concentrated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Road Building is Accelerating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

The Fringe is Exploding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

The Phoenix Region is Using a Lot of Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

The City of Phoenix' Resources are Balanced Compared to Its Largest Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Region is Becoming More Diverse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Schools are Divided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Aggressive Annexation is a Metropolitan Phoenix Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

WHAT'S BEHIND THE TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Timing and National Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Coming of Age in the Auto Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

The Advent of Air Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Local Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Topography and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

The Real Estate Crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Government Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Policies and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Water, Land and Transportation Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Securing Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Holding onto Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Delaying the Freeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

What this Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Growth Management Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Paying for Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Keeping the Center Vital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Protecting Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

What this Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Western Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Strong Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Weak Regional Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Polarized Civic Agendas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Spotty State Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

What this Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

WHAT TO DO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Understand the Full Range of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Overcome Near Catch-22's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Be Alert to Upcoming Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

THE FUTURE AT A GLANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Notes and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

HITS AND MISSES: Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix

Phoenix is often viewed as the quintessential Sunbelt metropolis: young,

fast-growing, auto-centered, and sprawling. While some facets of the stereo-type

are accurate, the complete picture of metropolitan Phoenix is more

complex. In some notable ways, metropolitan Phoenix' story is one of success.

For example, compared to other urban regions, the Phoenix metropolitan

area is fairly compact with relative equity between its core city and its suburbs.

Prospectively, however, the challenges are great. The desert landscape is

changing and some educational and economic divides are obvious, plus the

mechanisms available to cope with problems may be insufficient to handle

many rapidly-evolving situations.

Hits and Misses is based on a wide-ranging set of projects undertaken

by scholars at Morrison Institute for Public Policy (School of Public Affairs,

Arizona State University) during the past year. Overall, this research provides

an updated and expanded view of regional growth and development trends

and the pressures that will challenge the region's residents and policy makers

This has been a complicated inquiry, given the tangle of events, trends

and circumstances that affect and shape any region. Still, two things stand

out about metropolitan Phoenix' growth experience.

1) Metropolitan Phoenix has grown differently from other urban regions

and in ways that defy conventional wisdom.

° Density is increasing. Given residents' dependence on cars, most

people would not expect the Phoenix region to be showing increases

in population density from its core to its edges. But it is Ð making

it one of only a handful of large areas in the country to do so.

Population grew 263 percent between 1960 and 1990, while the

urbanized area expanded 199 percent during the same period. By

contrast, metropolitan Chicago gained 4 percent in population while

urban land area increased 47 percent. Metropolitan Atlanta consumed

nearly twice as much land as metropolitan Phoenix to accommodate

approximately the same number of people.

° The region's center is holding. Employment remains concentrated in

the metropolitan Phoenix core, unlike in many other urban regions. Jobs

in the area's center account for 32 percent of the region's employment.

In addition, both population and employment rose in the heart of the

metropolitan area in the 1990s, although the rate of expansion was less

robust than in other parts of the region. Still, these healthy signs belie the

"hollowing out" that has plagued many other regions.

° The region's core city and its major suburbs are quite balanced. In

keeping with the vitality of its center, metropolitan Phoenix is also

fortunate to retain a measure of balance among its major cities. The

absence of glaring disparities between the center and the next largest

cities Ð at least in terms of housing values, jobs and retail activity Ð

stands in contrast to other metropolitan areas and bodes well for the

future of the core and the entire region.

° People and businesses keep coming. To stay the same in today's

world usually means going backward. Metropolitan Phoenix still is

experiencing phenomenal growth with nearly 700,000 new residents

(31 percent more) and approximately 500,000 more jobs in just less

than 10 years. Between 1997-1998 alone, approximately 1,300 new

business establishments were counted in metropolitan Phoenix. The

region now ranks 13th in high-tech jobs.

2) Metropolitan Phoenix faces extraordinary challenges because of local

circumstances and the effects of past public policy decisions.

° Residential development is moving outward very swiftly. Overall

in the last five years, the urban edge has advanced nearly one-half mile

per year. In the southeast, the fringe pushed out an average of three-fourths

of a mile each year. The region's heaviest home building is

now occurring in a ring some 18 to 21 miles from downtown Phoenix.

It is fair to ask: How far out will the ring of development need to be

pushed to accommodate the 1.6 million additional residents projected

in the region by 2020?

° Metropolitan Phoenix is using up its agricultural and desert land.

Calculations from aerial photographs show that between 1975 and

1995 some 40 percent of all agricultural land and 32 percent of all

undeveloped desert land was lost to urbanization. The vivid Sonoran

Desert is what makes metropolitan Phoenix unique and gives it a

special character. Losing huge tracts of land threatens the region with

the loss of its most famous lifestyle and environmental asset.

° A regional divide exists by race, poverty and schools. For years, the

sections north and northeast of downtown Phoenix, including

Scottsdale, have been affluent areas with attractive housing, good

schools, and enviable amenities. Also for years, poor whites and

low-income minorities have been concentrated in neighborhoods

in the central and southern portions of the city of Phoenix. The

demographic divide plays out in schools as well, with few poor and

minority students in high-achieving school districts.

° The region's rapid growth disturbs the majority of residents. Since its

inception three years ago, the Morrison Institute quality of life survey

has documented the breadth and depth of residents' discontent with

growth. In 1999, 80 percent of residents said they were "concerned" or

"very concerned" with the region's growth. Most dramatically, nearly

half reported that they would leave Phoenix tomorrow if they could.

Two-thirds added that the region was doing a "poor" or "fair" job of

preserving the desert and open space.

THE RESPONSE: THREE STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

As the region's leaders and residents decide what to do next, actions in three

strategic areas seem imperative.

First, the Phoenix region needs to understand the full range of issues that

shape its growth and development patterns. The region's emerging divisions,

transportation challenges, loss of desert lands, and the many other growth

issues that threaten metropolitan Phoenix' quality of life are inextricably

linked and cut across jurisdictional boundaries.

The smartest regions today have embraced the "four E's" of a strong

economy, healthy environment, social equity and civic engagement as a

framework for analyzing problems and building regional advantages. They

recognize that everything is connected.

Metropolitan Phoenix' leaders can disregard the relationships among

the region's education, social, economic and environmental challenges and

hope for the best. But they would do better if together they "connected the

dots" among the issues and created new partnerships capable of responding

to growth's problems and paradoxes.

Second, the Phoenix region must overcome the near "Catch-22s" that

are rooted in its history. These Catch-22s will not succumb to old ideas or big

ideas borrowed from a Seattle or a Denver. Bold, innovative policy decisions,

based on the region's circumstances, will be needed. The Catch-22s include:

° Looming transportation and land use conundrums. In contrast

to other regions, highway building in metropolitan Phoenix has

supported the region's central area. The present round of suburb-to-suburb

freeway extensions, however, could create problems. By making

jobs and homes away from the center more accessible, the presence of

freeways will intensify land consumption on the fringe. But should

employment remain concentrated in the cores and home building

continue to move outward, commute times could worsen. The chal-lenge

to unraveling this Catch-22 will be finding transportation and

land-use initiatives that create dispersed mixed-use clusters of greater

residential and employment density that do not detract from the

vitality of downtown Phoenix, the region's signature core.

° State trust land questions. Large tracts of state-owned trust land near

the urban fringe constitute an irreplaceable asset for the region's quality

of life. This land could serve as a growth boundary that provides a vast

reservoir of open space. However, the state constitution requires that

these lands be managed to maximize revenues for Arizona's educa-tional

needs. The mandate bars wholesale conservation of the lands

and increases the likelihood of future land sales to developers. The

challenge for the region will be to amend the Arizona constitution and

state enabling act to allow for trust land to be dedicated to open space

while maintaining the ability to fund schools.

° Growth agendas in the smaller cities. Eighteen less-populous cities

on the urban fringe now control nearly as much land as the city of

Phoenix and the five largest suburbs combined. These areas also lag

behind the region in open space protection and use of growth man-agement

tools. This means that the municipalities in the region least

equipped to deal with the effects of fast growth will soon be making

decisions with enormous implications for the entire region. The chal-lenge

will be to bring a regional perspective to the planning efforts of

all cities while respecting the region's tradition of local control.

° Fixing the schools of the core. The region has reason to worry about

the education of children in central Phoenix and the southwest portion

of the region. Individual economic success correlates particularly with

education attainment (the number of years of school completed). The

weak schools of the center present a powerful impetus for decentral-ization.

Schools with high proportions of low-income, minority or

underachieving students may influence where people and businesses

choose to locate. This increases the viability of the fringe at the expense

of the core. Ironically, though, the region and its cities possess limited

authority to address the unique problems of schools. The challenge

will be encouraging more effective collaboration between school

districts and city leaders and including education issues in both fringe

growth management and core revitalization strategies.

° Conflicting views on sprawl and density. Residents of metropolitan

Phoenix decry sprawl, but they also dislike density. Unfortunately, con-trolling

one usually means encouraging the other. To confront this

Catch-22, regional leaders and residents will need to find an acceptable

way to promote greater density with "quality" development that fosters

convenience, diversity, transit options and access to open spaces. One

approach will be to re-evaluate traditional zoning ordinances with their

rigid and segregated land uses and consider new rules that foster

acceptable combinations of residential and commercial uses.

° Regional authority dilemma. Although valuable, especially as the 18

less-populous communities become a stronger force in the regional

dynamics, city-to-city coordination will only go so far. However, the

creation of a binding regional authority has been rejected so often that

implementation of such a concept appears unrealistic for metropolitan

Phoenix. The challenge will be to reap the benefits of regional "gover-nance"

without having to adopt a formal "regional government" structure.

° An on and off relationship with Washington. The region historically

has benefitted from federal assistance with water and public works

projects that have sustained a growing population. In recent years,

state leadership Ð executive and congressional Ð has disdained federal

help with similar projects, believing that the state should be more

independent from Washington. This stance handicaps the region's

ability to finance major growth management initiatives, such as light

rail or open space acquisition, that neither the state nor any single

municipality can afford on its own. The challenge will be to get back

to a long-term regional agenda so compelling that it would be

unthinkable for any elected official not to support it.

° Tensions that surround state support of metropolitan Phoenix. In

today's economy metropolitan regions are increasingly overtaking

states as the drivers of growth. The situation in Arizona is no

exception; the metropolitan Phoenix region currently accounts for 70

percent of the state's total personal income and is responsible for over

70 percent of new job growth. Thus, ensuring a viable metropolitan

Phoenix should be a top priority of state government. However, other

communities across Arizona have needs that also must be addressed at

the state level. The challenge will be to support the Phoenix region in

a way that does not neglect the needs of other localities, but accepts

that prosperity brought forth by a strong regional driver benefits the

° Water's changing role. Although the region has ample water for its

current population, water management will be more important given

that there are no potential projects on the scale of the Central Arizona

Project to increase the future supply of water. As such, water manage-ment

will be increasingly related to growth management, as water

becomes an invaluable regulator by influencing where homes and

businesses may locate. However, discussions on water management

and growth management currently take place in entirely separate

spheres. The challenge will be to bring together the water mavens and

the urban planners to come to an understanding of how water policies

could be used to manage growth.

This report's final suggestion is for the region to be alert to the demo-graphic,

technological and cultural trends that are shaping the next

metropolitan era. New faces, a new economy, and a new geography of

amenities may be as profound a determinant of the size, shape and prospects

of cities and their surroundings in the coming years as the post-war suburban

boom was. How a region chooses to take what it has and put it into play

amid these emerging trends will determine the region's competitiveness and

4 HITS AND MISSES: Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix

Then and Now: How the Metropolitan Phoenix Region Has Changed

1970s 1990s* FAST GROWTH AND INCREASING DENSITY

Total Population 971,228 2,783,779

Population Density (people/ square mile urbanized area) 2,228 2,707

Average Lot Size for New Homes (square feet) 7,500 6,677

MAJOR CHANGES IN LAND USE Percent Urbanized Area 15 41

Percent Agriculture Area 32 19

Percent Desert Area 49 33

Distance of Fringe from Downtown Phoenix (miles) 10-11 18-21

STRONG CENTER Employment Concentrated in Two Central Areas 32% of jobs are on 4% of land area

Population Remaining in Core Percent in the city of Phoenix 60 43

Percent in the five largest suburbs** 25 39

Percent in the balance of the county 15 18

MORE EXTENSIVE ROAD SYSTEM Total Lane Miles per 1,000 Residents (freeways, major arterial roads, minor arterial roads) 3.5 4.1

Vehicle Miles Traveled (per person per day) 14 24

Transit Miles (per capita) n/ a 7

BALANCE BETWEEN THE CORE AND THE FIVE LARGEST SUBURBS Housing

Housing value in the city of Phoenix $48,500 $76,700

Housing value in the five largest suburbs $59,400 $92,600

Employment Number of jobs for every 100 residents in the city of Phoenix n/ a 58

Number of jobs for every 100 residents in the five largest suburbs n/ a 49

Retail Sales Retail sales per capita in the city of Phoenix $8,600 $7,500

Retail sales per capita in the five largest suburbs $8,500 $10,600

INCREASING DIVERSITY Percent of Ethnic Minorities in Metropolitan Phoenix 19 28

DEEPENING DIVIDE Concentration of Minorities

Percent of population in south Phoenix that is minority 47 77

Percent of population in the city of Phoenix that is minority 22 36

Percent of population in the five largest suburbs that is minority 13 22

Concentration of Poverty Percent of persons in poverty in central and south Phoenix 24 36

Percent of persons in poverty in Phoenix 12 14

Percent of persons in poverty in the five largest suburbs 9 10

Schools Performance (Stanford 9 reading score percentile rank) Percent of students nationwide scoring above the average score of students in central Phoenix n/ a 67

Percent of students nationwide scoring above the average score of students in the northwest quadrant n/ a 61

Percent of students nationwide scoring above the average score of students in the northeast quadrant n/ a 27

Percent of students nationwide scoring above the average score of students in the southeast quadrant n/ a 41

Percent of students nationwide scoring above the average score of students in the southwest quadrant n/ a 66

* NOTE: Except for the following, data is given for 1970 and 1998. Data for population density in the 1990s is based on data for 1990; land use compares percents in 1975 and 1995; housing values compare median figures for 1970 and 1990 (in 1990 dollars); employment figures are for 1995; retail sales comparisons are for 1980 and 1995; overall ethnic minority

comparison is for 1980 and 1995; poverty comparison is for 1969 and 1989; minority concentration for central and south Phoenix is for 1980 and 1995; and minority concentration for Phoenix and the region is 1980 and 1995.

** The five largest suburbs are: Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe.

5 MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Cities are the ultimate embodiments of their times, and metropolitan

Phoenix is no exception.

Nothing has determined the shape and tenor of metropolitan Phoenix'

development more than the fact that it has taken place almost entirely in the

post-World War II era of cars. The Phoenix region, in a word, has grown in

the largely suburban, horizontal way it has because that is how virtually all

cities grew during the past 50 years. The strengths and problems of the

Phoenix region are in that sense very much of their time.

Yet now a new time is beginning to shape metropolitan Phoenix and the

choices open to it. This era is the era of the Internet and the new economy.

So the region that came of age in the auto era is now sensing that new values

and new ways of living are going to rearrange the metropolitan fabric as

thoroughly as the suburban boom did.

Laptop gypsies with blue hair writing code at the Starbuck's; "yuppie

seniors" wired for semi-retirement; new immigrants and smaller firms: All

these are coming, and they will influence the layout and priorities of metro-politan

Phoenix as surely as did all those Chevy-driving defense workers of

the 1950s. Yet how, precisely, the newcomers will do this, and to what degree,

remains a riddle. Moreover, it remains unclear how the region that rose to

prominence by mass production will adapt its form to the new era of clus-tering,

networks and "quality of place." Change is everywhere. The world is

changing; cities are changing; and so are the possible solutions to the problems

faced by metropolitan areas.

This report, in order to help make sense for policy makers and the

public of this extraordinarily dynamic moment, endeavors to detail the

trends that are now shaping metropolitan Phoenix. Along the way, it identifies

the side effects of rapid growth that threaten the region's future. And it ponders

how the region may ensure it prevails as a competitive, high-quality region

Yes, cities embody their times, but that does not mean they need be

confined to the forms and problems of just one era. A new time is always

coming, and the trick for metropolitan Phoenix is to begin adapting

creatively and quickly to the new imperatives of region building.

Fortunately, as the following pages make clear, the region begins this evolution

from a position of surprising strength.

Snapshot of the Metropolitan Phoenix Region

The metropolitan Phoenix region is contained within Maricopa

County. At 9,226 square miles, the area of the county is larger

than New Jersey and four other states.

J U R I S D I C T I O N S

The region consists of only 24 cities and towns. The total

population in 1998 was almost 2.8 million.

C E N T R A L C I T Y

The city of Phoenix is the central city. With a population

of nearly 1.2 million, it covers 470 square miles.

L A R G E S U B U R B S

Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Tempe are home

to 39 percent of the region's residents.

L E S S -P O P U L O U S M U N I C I PA L I T I E S

The 18 municipalities house only 11 percent of the population

and have grown 446 percent since 1970.

6 HITS AND MISSES: Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix

Salt River Indian Community Paradise Valley

Fort McDowell Indian Community

North Mountain Preserve

Phoenix Mountains Preserve

South Mountain Preserve

Superstition Mountains

Tonto National Forest

White Tank Mountain Preserve

Gila River Indian Community

1971 or later Map prepared by Arizona State University

IT Research Support Lab -GIS Services

Data Sources: Maricopa County Dept of Transportation; Arizona Land Resource

Information System; U. S. Dept of Transportation.

Landmarks in Metropolitan Phoenix 10

7 MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

The Shape of Fast Growth

Growth affects every dimension of the region's identity, including its population, employment,

transportation arrangements, land-use patterns and social landscape. This section tells what

changes are unfolding and what those trends might mean for the Phoenix region.

Guide to Official Descriptions of Metropolitan Phoenix

DATA NOTE According to the U. S. Bureau of the Census, the "Phoenix metropolitan area"

consisted only of Maricopa County until 1990 census results became available,

when Pinal County was added. For historical consistency,

and because little of Pinal County is part of the Phoenix urbanized area,

references in this report to the Phoenix metropolitan area equate to

Maricopa County unless otherwise noted. Other geographic units

occasionally referred to include (1) Phoenix urbanized area.

This geography closely follows the developed area, but only

decennial census data are produced for urbanized areas. Discussions of population

density use this geography, which in 1990 was only 8 percent of the county's land area.

(2) The Maricopa Association of Governments defines a planning area that includes

the current developed area plus land projected to be largely developed by 2020.

It is about one fifth of the county's land area. (3) The Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term

Ecological Research project defines a study area larger than the MAG planning

area, but still substantially smaller than Maricopa County. It is used in discussions of land use.

CAP-LTER Project Area 4,422 square miles

MAG Planning Area 1,768 square miles

Maricopa County 9,226 square miles

U. S. Census Bureau Urbanized Area 741 square miles

Phoenix Metropolitan Area

CAP-LTER Project Area

Basically, these pages show that the region's story conforms to neither

the "traditional" model of urban development, nor the popular image of

Under the traditional model, associated most often with older east coast

and midwestern cities, metropolitan areas frequently feature a distressed

central city confined to its boundaries by fast-growing suburbs. There in the

center, the old downtown becomes a catch basin for the region's poor and

minority residents, while middle-class families, corporations and job

growth migrate to the suburbs.

Popular views of the Sunbelt, by contrast, constantly assume metropolitan

Phoenix exemplifies the unpopular word "sprawl." Phoenix in this view is

denounced as a vast, auto-centered collection of retirement communities

and a sea of red-tiled roofs. Or worse, it is portrayed as a low-density urban

behemoth that lacks both a center and an "edge," as the architectural critic

Michael Sorkin had it in a 1997 review in Architectural Record. "Phoenix

has become the dreaded polycentric automotive metropolis," Sorkin wrote. 2

To be sure, aspects of both of these accounts of metropolitan Phoenix

growth hold true. But for the most part the picture of the region's develop-ment

that emerges from the research reported below is subtler than either

the traditional or popular view.

In this fashion, the trends that follow belie easy preconceptions.

Concepts and labels continue to be tossed about like footballs in the

growth debates. However, the data and other information presented here

stick closely to what is actually happening as metropolitan Phoenix gets

bigger and challenge the region's discussions with a number of surprises.

These pages show that the region's story conforms to neither the

"traditional" model of urban development, nor the popular image of Sunbelt growth.

The trends that follow belie easy preconceptions.

8 HITS AND MISSES: Fast Growth in Metropolitan Phoenix

Population is Booming

TREND: Growth driven by vast in-migration is occurring almost everywhere in

metropolitan Phoenix even near the core. But the most dramatic gains are

at the outer edges of the current urbanized area.

Metropolitan Phoenix grew faster than any

other large metropolitan region between 1970

and 1998.* From just 1990 to 1998, the region's

population increased 31 percent thanks in large

part to the arrival of an average of 57,000 new

residents a year.** Among the 25 largest metro-politan

areas in the nation only Atlanta grew

similarly (27 percent) during the 1990s.

About one-third of the region's population

growth between 1990 and 1998 occurred in the

city of Phoenix. Another fifth went to cities close

to the core - Tempe, Scottsdale and Glendale.

Tempe grew by 18 percent, Phoenix by 21

percent, Glendale by 32 percent, and Scottsdale

by 50 percent (see Table 1). The city of Phoenix

added 210,000 residents from 1990 to 1998.

Tempe, Scottsdale and Glendale together added

At the same time, 8 out of the 24 cities in the

Phoenix metropolitan area experienced a popu-lation

increase of more than 50 percent from

1990 to 1998. Cities with the fastest population

growth are at the urban edge. Avondale, Carefree,

Chandler, Fountain Hills, Gilbert, Goodyear,

Peoria and Surprise all extend along the metropolitan

area's outer ring. Map 1 shows these areas

in light blue and dark blue. The cities with over

50 percent growth accounted for about 200,000

new residents to the region during the 1990s.

The city of Phoenix' share of the regional

population dropped from 60 percent in 1970 to

43 percent in 1998 (see Figure 1).

The growth rate in the southern and central

portions of the city of Phoenix trailed the

numbers recorded elsewhere in the region.

South and central Phoenix (indicated in red on

Map 1) added only about 15,000 people (9 per-cent)

between 1990 and 1995. The metropolitan

area's largest pockets of population decline were

also in these areas.

Explosive population growth has enriched metropolitan

Phoenix' talent pool and enlarged its local markets, but it is also challenging the