“It is a reflection of the Valley maturing as a metro area when the value of land closer in becomes more valuable and demands higher uses or basically more density,” said Mark Stapp, a growth expert and director of the Master of Real Estate Development program at Arizona State University.
Land doesn’t “demand” anything, and certainly not more density.
Likewise, the increase in land values (which is a good thing) is partially due to land owners looking to cash in on municipalities willing to subsidize developers by lowering development standards. Reagor’s article would have you believe this is some sort of organic effect, when it is anything but.
South Scottsdale, known as SoSco, which is drawing Millennials to its new apartments and older neighborhoods with more affordable porch homes. Apartment rents jumped 20 percent in this area last year.
Only the idiots at the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce and the Scottsdale Area Association of Realtors use the made-up term “SoSco.”
Some may question whether light rail has drawn enough riders to be considered a success, but few dispute the train tracks have drawn development and created new Valley growth hubs.
Massive, ongoing operating subsidies on top of the highest per-rider cost of any form of mass transit by an order of magnitude…I don’t see how anyone could possibly debate the success of light rail. “Drawn development?” I think a stronger case has been made that it has “drawn development” away from areas not adjacent to the tracks.
Density means less water use.
No, higher density has less water use per capita. But if you increase density, water use always goes up.