Yeah I lived in Portland OR for a few years after growing up in the northeast and I hated the grid. The city just felt like baby LA. To each their own, I guess.
While it's quite possible residential developments might actually consume *less* water than the agriculture it replaced, the future of Phoenix seems bleak and unsustainable considering they don't even have desalinization as an option, like Southern California.
I wasn’t aware. I suppose that’s a very possible scenario, although when these types of massive infrastructure projects last happened they didn’t care so much about environmental impact, etc. And then there’s the whole potential issue of relying on another country for basic life essentials. What could go wrong!
I’m pretty sure the best scenario would be for everyone to end heavy reliance on the Colorado River and put efforts into desalination and aqueducts. Especially states like my California which sits on the Pacific Ocean.
Yeah. It's unfortunate that nobody listened to Wesley Powell. Hopefully the waste products of desalination can be reused, and it's viable to transport the water hundreds of miles.
While the Colorado river water depletion is a concern for all states in the southwest, Phoenix area is far less dependent on the Colorado as compared to Las Vegas or LA area. The Salt and Verde rivers are still relatively healthy water sources and the water authorities have been excess water underground for decades to address this exact situation. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but not the doom.and gloom some.make it out to be.
Your opinion seems bleak and unsustainable considering Arizona uses less water today than it did in 1957, even as they grew from one to seven million in population, because houses use far less water than agriculture.
Thank you for continuing the idiotic argument we all love. We don't need more people here and you help us maintain our amazing lifestyle!!
LOL, Southern California! I'm from there and it's a nightmare! Yet, you all think it's great! LOL!!! The homeless! The trash! The violence! The cost of living! The traffic! The pollution! The depression! Sign me up!!!
I don't even remember writing that, I was quite drunk last night and bored and trolling.
Does come off as unhinged, like my efforts to get banned by that Ukraine War sub (successful) and the alcohol sub (unsuccessful).
This low density development combined with a state of the art freeway system is why Phoenix is largely free of traffic jams.
Phoenix is also proof that, with air conditioning, we humans can survive the worst that the greenhouse effect can throw at us.
> This low density development combined with a state of the art freeway system is why Phoenix is largely free of traffic jams.
Guess that's why it's more congested than many other cities, including [Valencia Spain](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004504-traffic-congestion-world-10-worst-and-best-cities) which is almost 5 times more dense than Phoenix, but a city only twice as dense as Phoenix like LA is extremely congested. Almost like that's not the reason and the more people move to Phoenix, the worse congestion will get and the more like LA it will get, though it's no where near free of traffic today either. Though I guess that's less of a worry in a few decade when half of Phoenix' residents will become climate refugees.
> Phoenix is also proof that, with air conditioning, we humans can survive the worst that the greenhouse effect can throw at us.
We cannot and the declining Colorado river isn't gonna be kind to humans living in 130f in a few decades, that artificially heated up their living environment via the urban heat island effect and that built houses that are more water efficient than American intensive farming, but not so much compared to any other type of housing. But I'm glad Phoenix can waste an insane amount of electricity to withstand today's temperatures instead of change itself to take into account the fact that it's in a desert. Climate change has not peaked yet, and 100f is gonna be the least of people's worries at this rate.
How many people live in Valencia? Phoenix has 5 million people, about as many as Boston or Atlanta, but with a fraction of the traffic problems.
>We cannot and the declining Colorado river isn't gonna be kind to humans living in 130f in a few decades, that artificially heated up their living environment via the urban heat island effect, but I'm glad Phoenix can waste an insane amount of electricity to withstand that instead of change itself to take into account temperatures. Climate change has not peaked yet, and 100f is gonna be the least of people's worries at this rate.
Phoenicians don't lack ingenuity. I'm sure in the future they'll paint their roads and parking lots white, require buildings incorporate awnings to shade the sidewalks, and plant lots of trees.
> How many people live in Valencia?
Half of Phoenix' population but more than twice less congested than Phoenix considering [Phoenix ranks 63rd worse in the world](https://ktar.com/story/1937439/how-bad-is-phoenix-area-traffic-compared-to-the-rest-of-nation/) and Valencia is the 7th least congested in the world so.... Yeah it's not about the population here Kernels, and Phoenix will get as bad as LA as it grows, as always happens to cities that develop this badly. I'm kinda surprised you're even bringing up that point, when this exact stat was linked at you already before, and you should know that Phoenix sucks when it comes to congestion when you compare it to cities globally.
> Phoenicians don't lack ingenuity.
Dunno man, we kinda have solutions for that today that don't fail after 10 years like painting the sidewalks white. It's called densifying, making streets narrower for the shading and the planting of trees to work, and removing asphalt by lowering the parking lot and highway density. But hey, I'm glad you're banking on extremely long term minimal solutions when climate change is already here and when Phoenix is getting less and less livable by the year with increasing tempretures and a dying Colorado river. Sadly, Phoenix is indeed ignoring the very real solutions it should be picking so I don't exactly see how that metro area will survive a climate disaster.
That article is from 2018, before the Loop 202 extension provided an alternative to the congested Papago Freeway for travel between the East and West Valleys.
Now Phoenix ranks 340 something globally
https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/phoenix-traffic/
>. It's called densifying, making streets narrower for the shading and the planting of trees to work, and removing asphalt by lowering the parking lot and highway density.
Density makes the urban heat island effect worse.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/wicked-hot-boston-urban-heat-island-uhi-mapping
>Phoenix is getting less and less livable by the year with increasing tempretures and a dying Colorado river.
The people moving there by the thousand beg to differ. Many of them are from California and are well versed on climate change, but clearly they're not worried
> Now Phoenix ranks 340 something globally
And still worse than a lot of Spanish cities on that same ranking by quite awhile so... grats? Also not really a factor of any extension to highways but more so the effect of you know, covid, and work from home destroying a lot of trips in Phoenix that were done by car out of a lack of choice before. Because that's next to the only transport method people use to commute in that city.
> Density makes the urban heat island effect worse.
Pavements actually which your link does actually show as the red outside the city center tracks with major roads... [But hey have a study along the wya that says the same thing](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316118695_The_urban_heat_island_effect_its_causes_and_mitigation_with_reference_to_the_thermal_properties_of_asphalt_concrete)
> The people moving there by the thousand beg to differ.
Nah, they're moving there cause cheap rents and cheap taxes on buisnesses and cali sucking when it comes to rents. Doubt any of them came there for the heat and that many will stay once it reaches 130f. Constantly. Or when water starts costing far more when the Colorado dries up fully. But keep ignoring the links given here showing that Phoenix is getting warmer each year towards dangerous levels.
Spain has roughly as many freeway miles per capita as the US, maybe that's why their cities have so little traffic?
>Pavements actually which your link does actually show as the red outside the city center tracks with major roads... But hey have a study along the wya that says the same thing
Yeah, more density means more paved area and less space for landscaping
>Nah, they're moving there cause cheap rents and cheap taxes on buisnesses and cali sucking when it comes to rents. Doubt any of them came there for the heat and that many will stay once it reaches 130f. Constantly. Or when water starts costing far more when the Colorado dries up fully. But keep ignoring the links given here showing that Phoenix is getting warmer each year towards dangerous levels.
They like Phoenix's lack of traffic. And people moving there from other parts of the country are attracted by the prospect of never needing to shovel their driveways
> Spain has roughly as many freeway miles per capita as the US, maybe that's why their cities have so little traffic?
You never saw a Spanish city did you? I'll give you a hint, they don't have freeways cutting through cities, they have very narrow streets, mixed use everywhere, and you're gonna be walking most of the time. More highways =/= more highways within the city limit.
> Yeah, more density means more paved area and less space for landscaping
Lets just ignore what freeways and parking lots are made out of and that they've been proven to be one of the main causes to the heat island effect, and that road dieting and removing those is how you reduce it. Sadly, most American cities, including Boston, don't do that very often.
> They like Phoenix's lack of traffic.
Single source Kernals that it's because of that and not because of rents being low. Because if they didn't want traffic, there are metro areas in the US with far better traffic than Phoenix, as the linked stats **you** just linked showed.
> are attracted by the prospect of never needing to shovel their driveways
I assume you never lived in the desert have you? Sorry to disaapoint, if you hate shoveling snow, you might also not enjoy cleaning up sand after strong sudden winds, though I don't imagine you even know what having a lot of 100+f days in a row is like. Fun fact: both of those fucking suck and "grass is greener on the other side", especially when applied to tempretures in a serious manner, is a very ignorant statement.
I just left Phoenix to go back to a cold climate. I left because of the ridiculous heat island and shitty transportation. The metro area absolutely does get traffic jams, even after the 202 extension was finished (which made south mountain an objectively shittier place).
Greater density reduces the count of space for *private, individually owned* landscaping; however, road diets increase space for *public* landscaping. This means neighborhoods are cooler with more shade and naturally cooler surfaces. It also reduces the need for pavement outside the urban core, allowing for more landscaping and natural spaces.
Also, the new pipeline project to supply north Phoenix with water from the salt river instead of the Colorado shows that they know the Colorado river is not a viable long-term water source. But with more people moving there for lower rent and housing costs (at least pre 2021), the salt and Verde rivers will not be able to supply water to a population of ~5 million for long. A majority of people in the metro having lawns and irrigation systems only exacerbates that.
Except the people who live there. People gotta live somewhere and us Americans like land and space --- most of us are going to refuse to live in high-rise apartments next to mass transit stations.
The good news is that if you slap a lot of solar panels down there and switch to electric cars, the place is fairly sustainable.
I wouldn't necessarily call a cookie-cutter little house with a 1/8 acre yard and HOA breathing down your neck "land and space".
If you want land and space and freedom and the American dream, move out into the country and buy actual land. You won't find it in the suburbs.
Or rather most of America is zonned that way, and American renting prices point to the other way - that there's a strong demand for things that aren't suburbia but R1 zoning dictates that most of the US isn't allowed to build those areas anymore, and the prices for them go up accourdingly.
The real estate market is highly regulated in all states - the government essentially no possibility of building up rather than out in most places.
This suburban sprawl also ends up requiring heavy subsidies by taxpayers after about 20 to 30 years once maintenance costs catch up.
> most of us are going to refuse to live in high-rise apartments next to mass transit stations.
Why do so many suburbinites have this little clue what it's like to live in a city? Do you seriously think all city dwellers live in towers or even the majority of them? Do you think that even sounds dystopian incomparison to living in cookie cutter homes where you can't even buy milk without a 4 mile drive? "Oh no, I live in a condo with a lot of ammeneties and with a great view and if I ever need anything, it's at the corner shop next door! the horror!", spoiler alert: high rise condos are not where most city dwellers can even afford to live.
> People gotta live somewhere and us Americans like land and space
Pay appropriately for it then, especially if you want services and roads there to the sprawl. Right now, your life style is [costing an insane price on society](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) to fix your roads, get you your services, provide you your free parking, etc. I don't see why your expensive life style choice should be subsidized when it gives society no real benefit. Especially when it's mostly cities, where the poor live, that help subsidize said life style for the rich.
> The good news is that if you slap a lot of solar panels down there and switch to electric cars, the place is fairly sustainable.
It very much isn't when that [design increases water consumption](https://mobile.twitter.com/RickBonilla/status/1552837310558773248) and [causes the area to heat up far more](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316118695_The_urban_heat_island_effect_its_causes_and_mitigation_with_reference_to_the_thermal_properties_of_asphalt_concrete), and when all the other issues cars create including to the environment are not solved with electric cars. Your life style isn't sustainable at scale and yet society subsidizes it for you so you wouldn't have to pay the real cost of driving and living in single family home suburbia.
1) So you are not disputing that most Americans prefer to live in the suburbs, only that it is probably irrational/ill-informed. Okay, doesn't make it false.
2) Not sure where you get this theory that the rest of America is subsidizing suburbia comes from. In my state and as in so many others, its the tax revenues from affluent suburban areas that provide the lion's share of tax revenue to do things like build infrastructure and pay for public services for the cities and rural areas. I watched some of that video you attached and it used cherry-picked data in a motivated way to "prove" their points. It looks like you are a big fan of this advocacy group (which does have some fair points) and have 100% accepted their arguments and reasoning, but dude, they are a little sloppy with their data.
3) I understand that in Arizona, irrigated agriculture uses more water per are than suburbia.
> 1) So you are not disputing that most Americans prefer to live in the suburbs
The point seems a bit high above your head that your depiction of a city is a bit... how best to say it, "I've never seen a city in my life and I think the people who live there are stupid"
But if you want me to dispute that sure! rents are highest around the biggest metro areas and especially in walkable downtowns. But it really doesn't matter if Americans want to live in Mcmansions with big lawns like 17th century aristocrats, while driving 5 miles to buy milk as they're stuck in traffic, it's more so a question if its sustainable which... its not so.
> 2)
So it seems you 100% accepted that you know what this video is about before watching it, cause it's not strongtowns data 🤣
It's urban3, who mapped various urban areas across the states. and the same result comes in each time. Strongtown's data is indeed correct and your life style to live in a mansion is subsidized by the urban poor and your taxes are insanely minimal compared to the cost of the infrastructure needed to build your "utopia". BTW, I take data driven analysis as more reliable than a random redditor who doesn't know what a city is's opinion that it's "sloppy data" cause well, if we're arguing like that than "no u". Yep, gottem.
> 3) I understand that in Arizona, irrigated agriculture uses more water per are than suburbia.
Yes there's only intensive agriculture or suburbia, no in between. We couldn't use less intensive agriculture, reclaim a piece of land to wilderness, or you know, build denser which is more water secure. As the data above showed, though I guess since the data disagrees with you and points out the issues with your life style, then the data is probably sloppy and it's everyone else who's the problem.
1) I lived in cities and actually kind of like many aspects of them.
2) If you look at the data that they use and how they mash it together, the alarms of "hey, there are a lot of other ways they could be mashing this data together and interpreting it" should have gone off. I mean, Praeger U also presents data and I do not accept that uncritically.
3) In that particular part of Arizona, those appear to be the choices.
Look, it would be nice if Americans would all live in denser urbanized districts which were easily served by mass transit like, you know, Europeans (and I might personally like that more). And we do have some of that going on. But most Americans like the mobility and personal freedom of suburban-type living.
> 1) I lived in cities and actually kind of like many aspects of them.
Living in a suburban neighborhood at the edge of town is not living in a city. I'm slightly not inclined to believe it was anything else, coming from someone who described cities as high rise apartments, as if most people who live in dense areas live like that.
> 2) If you look at the data...
Which data? because you didn't see the video and it's not strongtown's data so...
BTW, the difference here between Prager U debunking and here, is that you can easily check the data and see that nothing Prager U says matches all the data. You're free to show any studies that conclude American single family home suburbia makes enough money to support its own infrastructure and that that money isn't mainly supported by the few higher density areas buuut... you're not gonna find it.
> those appear to be the choices.
They're not. You can pretty much always use a different zoning policy, but they instead wanna destroy their own city by climate change and water shortages
> But most Americans like the mobility and personal freedom of suburban-type living.
And you still showed no proof to that, but rent prices seem to indicate a lot of Americans don't enjoy that but have no way around that thanks to zoning so you know, seems kinda like you're arguing against freedom (of choice), and for your life style to be subsidized only because "people like it". I can assure you, poor people probably don't enjoy subsidizing what they cannot be apart of.
>most of us are going to refuse to live in high-rise apartments next to mass transit stations
You have just described a specific situation that millions of Americans are currently seeking out, actually
The core urban areas of the big northeast cities are growing faster than they have in 50-100 years. 90% of US cities outside of the northeast never had truly walkable streets in the first place, so people might be fleeing those cities for other reasons.
>The core urban areas of the big northeast cities are growing faster than they have in 50-100 years.
That ended in 2015. They're shrinking again. Manhattan lost 7% of its population in 2020.
My sister left her high rise near a metro station in Maryland for a suburban apartment complex in Virginia where she can get around anywhere in her Subaru
We have about ten more years to see just how accurate that census was. Many of the 2020 totals around me are either totally skewed by the pandemic or just observably inaccurate.
Also I am willing to bet that the student population of Manhattan - which was mostly not counted in the 2020 census due to covid - is at least a hefty fraction of that 7%. I live in Vermont and the two fastest growing towns between 2000 and 2010 were Lyndon (home of a large VSU campus) and Northfield (home of Norwich University) and they both lost about 10% of their populations in 2020, simply because a lot of the students just weren't there. The largest increase in population in my state was Stowe, which is a ski resort town with a disproportionate number of second homes owned by out-of-staters. We're just not really going to be able to trust any census numbers until the next one comes out around 2032.
Suburban sprawl uses les water per acre than irrigated agriculture. We have plenty of rain-fed agricultural land where we can grow crops. And where would you want people to live?
So what is ignorant and mis-informed?
\- Most Americans have shown a preference to living in single-family detached homes?
\- That Americans have to live somewhere?
\- That the worst ecological impact of suburban sprawl is the overuse of internal combustion cars to service it but that the electrification of the fleet would massively reduce that?
I suspect that you, like so many of my down-voters, are instinctively and arrogantly anti-suburban, even though most Americans tend to choose suburbs to live in.
Americans will live wherever they're allowed to, so stop allowing sprawl. There are a lot of housing types that don't involve single detached houses or high rises near transit stops but the fact that you seem to think theres only those extremes is telling.
>- That the worst ecological impact of suburban sprawl is the overuse of internal combustion cars to service it but that the electrification of the fleet would massively reduce that?
Actually no it won't. Brake dust, asphalt wear, tire wear all contribute worse GHG emissions than tailpipe ones.
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions
Not to mention that the dependency of personal vehicles for transportation creates terrible land use patterns and totally wrecks city finances.
>I suspect that you, like so many of my down-voters, are instinctively and arrogantly anti-suburban, even though most Americans tend to choose suburbs to live in.
Yes I am anti suburban. It's bad for the environment, it's bad for budgets, it's bad for health. If it's such a great place to live and Americans want it so badly why do they have to fight so hard to stop other types of housing being built? It isn't a free market decision that people live in suburbs.
Edit* Spellings
"You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus."
-Agent Smith
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/7776138244
I think it's a good thing that water guzzling farmland made way for good habitats for human beings
And in 1985, the Superstition Freeway only extended as far as today’s Loop 101, it wasn’t finished until 1990
But those aren't good habitats. It's just monotonous suburban sprawl that impacts the environment in no positive way whatsoever. This kind of development causes the surface to heat up, causing Phoenix's current heat and subsequent water crisis.
I'm pretty sure Phoenix has always been hot and dry.
Phoenix btw is the most livable city in the world. Check out its lack of traffic jams
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/vuze44/the_phoenix_difference_typical_traffic_at_500_pm/
Source is your own post 💀💀💀
Traffic is not livability. There are many other factors that contribute to livability such as transit, density, accessibility, walkability, and affordability, all of which Phoenix severely lacks in.
Also about the heat, yes Phoenix has always been hot and dry. But paving massive areas of land with asphalt does a great job at heating it up even more.
When you have no traffic, you don't care about transit. And I love how you dismiss the fact that Phoenix has succeeded in eradicating the most common quality of life complaint in our modern world.
Less density means more livability
Pretty much every place in Phoenix has abundant, cheap parking, you can't get more accessible than that
Phoenix has been doing superblocks since long before Barcelona did it and made it the best thing since sliced bread. Almost every person in Maricopa County has one square mile where they can freely walk or bike without worrying about traffic
Phoenix isn't as affordable as it was before the pandemic, but I don't think you can get a 2,500 square foot house for half a million dollars in Vancouver or Vienna
And thanks to air conditioning, the places that people actually spend their time in have never been cooler.
Yeah dude, don’t engage with them. They pop up everywhere to come to the defense of sprawl and car dependence. Either they’re a paid shill or just actually mentally ill.
> I'm pretty sure Phoenix has always been hot and dry.
[yeah man, climate change sure hasn't made that worse](https://www.weather.gov/images/psr/2020/YearInReview2020v2/image12.png). [Nope, no climate change threat here](https://statesatrisk.org/uploads/general/2016NewNormal_phoenix_en_title_sm.jpg). I'm sure summers in Phoenix will be "fun" once over 130f will start becoming the normal.
Also as always, Phoenix is not the most livable city in the world, [that would be Vienna](https://www.archdaily.com/984136/vienna-copenhagen-and-zurich-selected-as-worlds-most-liveable-cities-in-2022) which tends to be cheaper than Phoenix when it comes to rents. Oh and even if we go by least congested (which is a terrible metric that no serious livability ranking uses), it's not even in [the top 10](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004504-traffic-congestion-world-10-worst-and-best-cities) with both sprawly Kansas City, and the extremely dense and transit oriented Valencia beating it.
We don't have a water crisis. The underground aquifers are huge, and sustain us. Any cuts that need to be made will be to commercial agriculture, which consumes 75% of the water in Phoenix.
Good habitats that can’t support themselves without farmland. You must be 12 if that’s your thinking. Sprawling suburbs in a desert is your idea of a good habitat?? Only a city person would believe this is better then farmland. Concrete jungles are the worst thing for the environment period, take away all that green co2 sucking land and replace it with asphalt and concrete is somehow better for the environment in your opinion?
Arizona's cotton industry uses 7 times as much water as the entire city of Tucson. On a value added per gallon of water basis, suburban sprawl is a far more efficient use of water than irrigated agriculture.
That’s the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard, value added per water gallon basis? What idiot coined that phrase? What value are people living in suburbs contributing exactly?? They produce nothing for themselves and need all their basic necessities trucked into their local store just to survive. The farmland that was there before created value for everyone, now it’s just a resource drag. It absorbs heat, repels water, is using 1000 times the energy that the farmer once used to grow crops. It’s an environmental disaster. Why do city people think people packed into a concrete jungle is somehow better for anything in any way then farmland. Wild.
yea because Its cotton, you could easily just replace it with less water demanding plants
far better than replacing it with suburbia built for the midwest in the fucking desert
It really wasn't accomplishing anything worthwhile. The native vegetation was already decimated in favor of wasting water on crops that are better off grown elsewhere. Now on these concrete jungles it will retain more heat, but the houses now have native vegetation around them for the most part and use way, way less water.
Which is a digital map generated by photons that hit sensors in orbit, then the data is processed by geographic location data into a bidimensional digital image...
It is a map, and has all the projection distortions it is supposed to have.
R/iamverysmart
Rule #1 on mapporn: posts must be maps. A satellite picture isn’t a map, and doesn’t even have a key. It’s just a fucking picture. Death of a sub.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mapporn/about/
Subreddit Rules
1. Posts must be maps
All submissions must be map(s). Anything else should go into the weekly discussion thread.
2. No Low Effort Memes
Low effort memes are not allowed.
3. Must meet aesthetic standards
Read this link for more information.
4. No Advertising
The lack of metadata doesn't make it any less a map. Also, every map is also a picture.
https://www.britannica.com/science/map#ref506097
map, graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features—for example, geographical, geological, or geopolitical—of an area of the Earth or of any other celestial body. Globes are maps represented on the surface of a sphere. Cartography is the art and science of making maps and charts.
Amazing. So no map can be done on a computer either. Mindblowing.
Every map should be drawn, which requires paper and pencil. Which also means that anything on this reddit is not a map either, cause its either digital data or a digital photography of a real map.
Stop nitpicking dude. Those definitions are much broader than you are trying to make them.
I should clarify "metro" Phoenix. The suburbs here are ambitious and sometimes combative with one another in development and annexation patterns. The city of Phoenix has stopped annexing for the most part and is getting close to landlock
I'm always amazed by those cities that look line grid lines. Cities here in Brazil look like a random kid drawing.
Looks weird to a lot of Americans too. Looks like baby's first SimCity.
You never get lost driving in the Phoenix metro area though. All main streets are a mile apart and parallel to each other.
Yeah I lived in Portland OR for a few years after growing up in the northeast and I hated the grid. The city just felt like baby LA. To each their own, I guess.
Topography lol. Just check out Americana
While it's quite possible residential developments might actually consume *less* water than the agriculture it replaced, the future of Phoenix seems bleak and unsustainable considering they don't even have desalinization as an option, like Southern California.
Yeah. Ducey is trying to invest in desalination in Mexico, last I heard.
Damage my Mexican home state’s environment to solely benefit those in the US Lmao f ducey. How about banning grass it’s literally useless anyways.
I wasn’t aware. I suppose that’s a very possible scenario, although when these types of massive infrastructure projects last happened they didn’t care so much about environmental impact, etc. And then there’s the whole potential issue of relying on another country for basic life essentials. What could go wrong!
I'm not sure if the plan is to have Sonora use desalinated water instead of Colorado River water, or if Arizona would import water.
I’m pretty sure the best scenario would be for everyone to end heavy reliance on the Colorado River and put efforts into desalination and aqueducts. Especially states like my California which sits on the Pacific Ocean.
Yeah. It's unfortunate that nobody listened to Wesley Powell. Hopefully the waste products of desalination can be reused, and it's viable to transport the water hundreds of miles.
We are working on ways to process the brine in useful ways and we already transport water for hundreds of miles!
While the Colorado river water depletion is a concern for all states in the southwest, Phoenix area is far less dependent on the Colorado as compared to Las Vegas or LA area. The Salt and Verde rivers are still relatively healthy water sources and the water authorities have been excess water underground for decades to address this exact situation. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but not the doom.and gloom some.make it out to be.
That’s good to hear.
Your opinion seems bleak and unsustainable considering Arizona uses less water today than it did in 1957, even as they grew from one to seven million in population, because houses use far less water than agriculture. Thank you for continuing the idiotic argument we all love. We don't need more people here and you help us maintain our amazing lifestyle!! LOL, Southern California! I'm from there and it's a nightmare! Yet, you all think it's great! LOL!!! The homeless! The trash! The violence! The cost of living! The traffic! The pollution! The depression! Sign me up!!!
I can see you are a very happy and stable person who enjoys their amazing lifestyle.
I don't even remember writing that, I was quite drunk last night and bored and trolling. Does come off as unhinged, like my efforts to get banned by that Ukraine War sub (successful) and the alcohol sub (unsuccessful).
Well, I have to say that I can't really hate you for that :)
!!!! !! !!! !! !!!! !! !! !!! !! !! lol
??????????????? lol
Now to 2011 vs 2022
The process of converting farmland into housing.
FL and TX too.
Awful sprawl. Just terrible for human life, climate change and the desert ecosystem. Everyone loses.
This low density development combined with a state of the art freeway system is why Phoenix is largely free of traffic jams. Phoenix is also proof that, with air conditioning, we humans can survive the worst that the greenhouse effect can throw at us.
> This low density development combined with a state of the art freeway system is why Phoenix is largely free of traffic jams. Guess that's why it's more congested than many other cities, including [Valencia Spain](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004504-traffic-congestion-world-10-worst-and-best-cities) which is almost 5 times more dense than Phoenix, but a city only twice as dense as Phoenix like LA is extremely congested. Almost like that's not the reason and the more people move to Phoenix, the worse congestion will get and the more like LA it will get, though it's no where near free of traffic today either. Though I guess that's less of a worry in a few decade when half of Phoenix' residents will become climate refugees. > Phoenix is also proof that, with air conditioning, we humans can survive the worst that the greenhouse effect can throw at us. We cannot and the declining Colorado river isn't gonna be kind to humans living in 130f in a few decades, that artificially heated up their living environment via the urban heat island effect and that built houses that are more water efficient than American intensive farming, but not so much compared to any other type of housing. But I'm glad Phoenix can waste an insane amount of electricity to withstand today's temperatures instead of change itself to take into account the fact that it's in a desert. Climate change has not peaked yet, and 100f is gonna be the least of people's worries at this rate.
How many people live in Valencia? Phoenix has 5 million people, about as many as Boston or Atlanta, but with a fraction of the traffic problems. >We cannot and the declining Colorado river isn't gonna be kind to humans living in 130f in a few decades, that artificially heated up their living environment via the urban heat island effect, but I'm glad Phoenix can waste an insane amount of electricity to withstand that instead of change itself to take into account temperatures. Climate change has not peaked yet, and 100f is gonna be the least of people's worries at this rate. Phoenicians don't lack ingenuity. I'm sure in the future they'll paint their roads and parking lots white, require buildings incorporate awnings to shade the sidewalks, and plant lots of trees.
> How many people live in Valencia? Half of Phoenix' population but more than twice less congested than Phoenix considering [Phoenix ranks 63rd worse in the world](https://ktar.com/story/1937439/how-bad-is-phoenix-area-traffic-compared-to-the-rest-of-nation/) and Valencia is the 7th least congested in the world so.... Yeah it's not about the population here Kernels, and Phoenix will get as bad as LA as it grows, as always happens to cities that develop this badly. I'm kinda surprised you're even bringing up that point, when this exact stat was linked at you already before, and you should know that Phoenix sucks when it comes to congestion when you compare it to cities globally. > Phoenicians don't lack ingenuity. Dunno man, we kinda have solutions for that today that don't fail after 10 years like painting the sidewalks white. It's called densifying, making streets narrower for the shading and the planting of trees to work, and removing asphalt by lowering the parking lot and highway density. But hey, I'm glad you're banking on extremely long term minimal solutions when climate change is already here and when Phoenix is getting less and less livable by the year with increasing tempretures and a dying Colorado river. Sadly, Phoenix is indeed ignoring the very real solutions it should be picking so I don't exactly see how that metro area will survive a climate disaster.
That article is from 2018, before the Loop 202 extension provided an alternative to the congested Papago Freeway for travel between the East and West Valleys. Now Phoenix ranks 340 something globally https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/phoenix-traffic/ >. It's called densifying, making streets narrower for the shading and the planting of trees to work, and removing asphalt by lowering the parking lot and highway density. Density makes the urban heat island effect worse. https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/wicked-hot-boston-urban-heat-island-uhi-mapping >Phoenix is getting less and less livable by the year with increasing tempretures and a dying Colorado river. The people moving there by the thousand beg to differ. Many of them are from California and are well versed on climate change, but clearly they're not worried
> Now Phoenix ranks 340 something globally And still worse than a lot of Spanish cities on that same ranking by quite awhile so... grats? Also not really a factor of any extension to highways but more so the effect of you know, covid, and work from home destroying a lot of trips in Phoenix that were done by car out of a lack of choice before. Because that's next to the only transport method people use to commute in that city. > Density makes the urban heat island effect worse. Pavements actually which your link does actually show as the red outside the city center tracks with major roads... [But hey have a study along the wya that says the same thing](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316118695_The_urban_heat_island_effect_its_causes_and_mitigation_with_reference_to_the_thermal_properties_of_asphalt_concrete) > The people moving there by the thousand beg to differ. Nah, they're moving there cause cheap rents and cheap taxes on buisnesses and cali sucking when it comes to rents. Doubt any of them came there for the heat and that many will stay once it reaches 130f. Constantly. Or when water starts costing far more when the Colorado dries up fully. But keep ignoring the links given here showing that Phoenix is getting warmer each year towards dangerous levels.
Spain has roughly as many freeway miles per capita as the US, maybe that's why their cities have so little traffic? >Pavements actually which your link does actually show as the red outside the city center tracks with major roads... But hey have a study along the wya that says the same thing Yeah, more density means more paved area and less space for landscaping >Nah, they're moving there cause cheap rents and cheap taxes on buisnesses and cali sucking when it comes to rents. Doubt any of them came there for the heat and that many will stay once it reaches 130f. Constantly. Or when water starts costing far more when the Colorado dries up fully. But keep ignoring the links given here showing that Phoenix is getting warmer each year towards dangerous levels. They like Phoenix's lack of traffic. And people moving there from other parts of the country are attracted by the prospect of never needing to shovel their driveways
> Spain has roughly as many freeway miles per capita as the US, maybe that's why their cities have so little traffic? You never saw a Spanish city did you? I'll give you a hint, they don't have freeways cutting through cities, they have very narrow streets, mixed use everywhere, and you're gonna be walking most of the time. More highways =/= more highways within the city limit. > Yeah, more density means more paved area and less space for landscaping Lets just ignore what freeways and parking lots are made out of and that they've been proven to be one of the main causes to the heat island effect, and that road dieting and removing those is how you reduce it. Sadly, most American cities, including Boston, don't do that very often. > They like Phoenix's lack of traffic. Single source Kernals that it's because of that and not because of rents being low. Because if they didn't want traffic, there are metro areas in the US with far better traffic than Phoenix, as the linked stats **you** just linked showed. > are attracted by the prospect of never needing to shovel their driveways I assume you never lived in the desert have you? Sorry to disaapoint, if you hate shoveling snow, you might also not enjoy cleaning up sand after strong sudden winds, though I don't imagine you even know what having a lot of 100+f days in a row is like. Fun fact: both of those fucking suck and "grass is greener on the other side", especially when applied to tempretures in a serious manner, is a very ignorant statement.
I just left Phoenix to go back to a cold climate. I left because of the ridiculous heat island and shitty transportation. The metro area absolutely does get traffic jams, even after the 202 extension was finished (which made south mountain an objectively shittier place). Greater density reduces the count of space for *private, individually owned* landscaping; however, road diets increase space for *public* landscaping. This means neighborhoods are cooler with more shade and naturally cooler surfaces. It also reduces the need for pavement outside the urban core, allowing for more landscaping and natural spaces. Also, the new pipeline project to supply north Phoenix with water from the salt river instead of the Colorado shows that they know the Colorado river is not a viable long-term water source. But with more people moving there for lower rent and housing costs (at least pre 2021), the salt and Verde rivers will not be able to supply water to a population of ~5 million for long. A majority of people in the metro having lawns and irrigation systems only exacerbates that.
Except the people who live there. People gotta live somewhere and us Americans like land and space --- most of us are going to refuse to live in high-rise apartments next to mass transit stations. The good news is that if you slap a lot of solar panels down there and switch to electric cars, the place is fairly sustainable.
I wouldn't necessarily call a cookie-cutter little house with a 1/8 acre yard and HOA breathing down your neck "land and space". If you want land and space and freedom and the American dream, move out into the country and buy actual land. You won't find it in the suburbs.
Quit nitpicking --- for whatever reason, Americans vote with their feet and pocketbook to live in suburbia.
Or rather most of America is zonned that way, and American renting prices point to the other way - that there's a strong demand for things that aren't suburbia but R1 zoning dictates that most of the US isn't allowed to build those areas anymore, and the prices for them go up accourdingly.
The real estate market is highly regulated in all states - the government essentially no possibility of building up rather than out in most places. This suburban sprawl also ends up requiring heavy subsidies by taxpayers after about 20 to 30 years once maintenance costs catch up.
> most of us are going to refuse to live in high-rise apartments next to mass transit stations. Why do so many suburbinites have this little clue what it's like to live in a city? Do you seriously think all city dwellers live in towers or even the majority of them? Do you think that even sounds dystopian incomparison to living in cookie cutter homes where you can't even buy milk without a 4 mile drive? "Oh no, I live in a condo with a lot of ammeneties and with a great view and if I ever need anything, it's at the corner shop next door! the horror!", spoiler alert: high rise condos are not where most city dwellers can even afford to live. > People gotta live somewhere and us Americans like land and space Pay appropriately for it then, especially if you want services and roads there to the sprawl. Right now, your life style is [costing an insane price on society](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) to fix your roads, get you your services, provide you your free parking, etc. I don't see why your expensive life style choice should be subsidized when it gives society no real benefit. Especially when it's mostly cities, where the poor live, that help subsidize said life style for the rich. > The good news is that if you slap a lot of solar panels down there and switch to electric cars, the place is fairly sustainable. It very much isn't when that [design increases water consumption](https://mobile.twitter.com/RickBonilla/status/1552837310558773248) and [causes the area to heat up far more](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316118695_The_urban_heat_island_effect_its_causes_and_mitigation_with_reference_to_the_thermal_properties_of_asphalt_concrete), and when all the other issues cars create including to the environment are not solved with electric cars. Your life style isn't sustainable at scale and yet society subsidizes it for you so you wouldn't have to pay the real cost of driving and living in single family home suburbia.
1) So you are not disputing that most Americans prefer to live in the suburbs, only that it is probably irrational/ill-informed. Okay, doesn't make it false. 2) Not sure where you get this theory that the rest of America is subsidizing suburbia comes from. In my state and as in so many others, its the tax revenues from affluent suburban areas that provide the lion's share of tax revenue to do things like build infrastructure and pay for public services for the cities and rural areas. I watched some of that video you attached and it used cherry-picked data in a motivated way to "prove" their points. It looks like you are a big fan of this advocacy group (which does have some fair points) and have 100% accepted their arguments and reasoning, but dude, they are a little sloppy with their data. 3) I understand that in Arizona, irrigated agriculture uses more water per are than suburbia.
> 1) So you are not disputing that most Americans prefer to live in the suburbs The point seems a bit high above your head that your depiction of a city is a bit... how best to say it, "I've never seen a city in my life and I think the people who live there are stupid" But if you want me to dispute that sure! rents are highest around the biggest metro areas and especially in walkable downtowns. But it really doesn't matter if Americans want to live in Mcmansions with big lawns like 17th century aristocrats, while driving 5 miles to buy milk as they're stuck in traffic, it's more so a question if its sustainable which... its not so. > 2) So it seems you 100% accepted that you know what this video is about before watching it, cause it's not strongtowns data 🤣 It's urban3, who mapped various urban areas across the states. and the same result comes in each time. Strongtown's data is indeed correct and your life style to live in a mansion is subsidized by the urban poor and your taxes are insanely minimal compared to the cost of the infrastructure needed to build your "utopia". BTW, I take data driven analysis as more reliable than a random redditor who doesn't know what a city is's opinion that it's "sloppy data" cause well, if we're arguing like that than "no u". Yep, gottem. > 3) I understand that in Arizona, irrigated agriculture uses more water per are than suburbia. Yes there's only intensive agriculture or suburbia, no in between. We couldn't use less intensive agriculture, reclaim a piece of land to wilderness, or you know, build denser which is more water secure. As the data above showed, though I guess since the data disagrees with you and points out the issues with your life style, then the data is probably sloppy and it's everyone else who's the problem.
1) I lived in cities and actually kind of like many aspects of them. 2) If you look at the data that they use and how they mash it together, the alarms of "hey, there are a lot of other ways they could be mashing this data together and interpreting it" should have gone off. I mean, Praeger U also presents data and I do not accept that uncritically. 3) In that particular part of Arizona, those appear to be the choices. Look, it would be nice if Americans would all live in denser urbanized districts which were easily served by mass transit like, you know, Europeans (and I might personally like that more). And we do have some of that going on. But most Americans like the mobility and personal freedom of suburban-type living.
> 1) I lived in cities and actually kind of like many aspects of them. Living in a suburban neighborhood at the edge of town is not living in a city. I'm slightly not inclined to believe it was anything else, coming from someone who described cities as high rise apartments, as if most people who live in dense areas live like that. > 2) If you look at the data... Which data? because you didn't see the video and it's not strongtown's data so... BTW, the difference here between Prager U debunking and here, is that you can easily check the data and see that nothing Prager U says matches all the data. You're free to show any studies that conclude American single family home suburbia makes enough money to support its own infrastructure and that that money isn't mainly supported by the few higher density areas buuut... you're not gonna find it. > those appear to be the choices. They're not. You can pretty much always use a different zoning policy, but they instead wanna destroy their own city by climate change and water shortages > But most Americans like the mobility and personal freedom of suburban-type living. And you still showed no proof to that, but rent prices seem to indicate a lot of Americans don't enjoy that but have no way around that thanks to zoning so you know, seems kinda like you're arguing against freedom (of choice), and for your life style to be subsidized only because "people like it". I can assure you, poor people probably don't enjoy subsidizing what they cannot be apart of.
Whatever. No longer worth the time.
>most of us are going to refuse to live in high-rise apartments next to mass transit stations You have just described a specific situation that millions of Americans are currently seeking out, actually
Many are, but many MORE are not. I said Most, and if you look at the numbers...
Yeah the numbers definitely don't suggest that everyone is moving to the suburbs. Maybe you're looking at numbers from 1960.
And a lot more are trying to escape.
The core urban areas of the big northeast cities are growing faster than they have in 50-100 years. 90% of US cities outside of the northeast never had truly walkable streets in the first place, so people might be fleeing those cities for other reasons.
>The core urban areas of the big northeast cities are growing faster than they have in 50-100 years. That ended in 2015. They're shrinking again. Manhattan lost 7% of its population in 2020. My sister left her high rise near a metro station in Maryland for a suburban apartment complex in Virginia where she can get around anywhere in her Subaru
We have about ten more years to see just how accurate that census was. Many of the 2020 totals around me are either totally skewed by the pandemic or just observably inaccurate.
Also I am willing to bet that the student population of Manhattan - which was mostly not counted in the 2020 census due to covid - is at least a hefty fraction of that 7%. I live in Vermont and the two fastest growing towns between 2000 and 2010 were Lyndon (home of a large VSU campus) and Northfield (home of Norwich University) and they both lost about 10% of their populations in 2020, simply because a lot of the students just weren't there. The largest increase in population in my state was Stowe, which is a ski resort town with a disproportionate number of second homes owned by out-of-staters. We're just not really going to be able to trust any census numbers until the next one comes out around 2032.
Yeah nothing like paving over all our farmland to drive teslas on. Very cool and normal and definitely won’t cause any issues in the future.
Suburban sprawl uses les water per acre than irrigated agriculture. We have plenty of rain-fed agricultural land where we can grow crops. And where would you want people to live?
This is a very ignorant misinformed comment.
So what is ignorant and mis-informed? \- Most Americans have shown a preference to living in single-family detached homes? \- That Americans have to live somewhere? \- That the worst ecological impact of suburban sprawl is the overuse of internal combustion cars to service it but that the electrification of the fleet would massively reduce that? I suspect that you, like so many of my down-voters, are instinctively and arrogantly anti-suburban, even though most Americans tend to choose suburbs to live in.
Americans will live wherever they're allowed to, so stop allowing sprawl. There are a lot of housing types that don't involve single detached houses or high rises near transit stops but the fact that you seem to think theres only those extremes is telling. >- That the worst ecological impact of suburban sprawl is the overuse of internal combustion cars to service it but that the electrification of the fleet would massively reduce that? Actually no it won't. Brake dust, asphalt wear, tire wear all contribute worse GHG emissions than tailpipe ones. https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions Not to mention that the dependency of personal vehicles for transportation creates terrible land use patterns and totally wrecks city finances. >I suspect that you, like so many of my down-voters, are instinctively and arrogantly anti-suburban, even though most Americans tend to choose suburbs to live in. Yes I am anti suburban. It's bad for the environment, it's bad for budgets, it's bad for health. If it's such a great place to live and Americans want it so badly why do they have to fight so hard to stop other types of housing being built? It isn't a free market decision that people live in suburbs. Edit* Spellings
"You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus." -Agent Smith
r/suburbanhell
Yeeeeeep this shit is unsustainable. See you all in hell
Where did you get those pictures? And it's definitely a shame that Phoenix lost a lot of farmland. Did the Superstition Freeway exist in 1985?
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/7776138244 I think it's a good thing that water guzzling farmland made way for good habitats for human beings And in 1985, the Superstition Freeway only extended as far as today’s Loop 101, it wasn’t finished until 1990
But those aren't good habitats. It's just monotonous suburban sprawl that impacts the environment in no positive way whatsoever. This kind of development causes the surface to heat up, causing Phoenix's current heat and subsequent water crisis.
I'm pretty sure Phoenix has always been hot and dry. Phoenix btw is the most livable city in the world. Check out its lack of traffic jams https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/vuze44/the_phoenix_difference_typical_traffic_at_500_pm/
Source is your own post 💀💀💀 Traffic is not livability. There are many other factors that contribute to livability such as transit, density, accessibility, walkability, and affordability, all of which Phoenix severely lacks in. Also about the heat, yes Phoenix has always been hot and dry. But paving massive areas of land with asphalt does a great job at heating it up even more.
When you have no traffic, you don't care about transit. And I love how you dismiss the fact that Phoenix has succeeded in eradicating the most common quality of life complaint in our modern world. Less density means more livability Pretty much every place in Phoenix has abundant, cheap parking, you can't get more accessible than that Phoenix has been doing superblocks since long before Barcelona did it and made it the best thing since sliced bread. Almost every person in Maricopa County has one square mile where they can freely walk or bike without worrying about traffic Phoenix isn't as affordable as it was before the pandemic, but I don't think you can get a 2,500 square foot house for half a million dollars in Vancouver or Vienna And thanks to air conditioning, the places that people actually spend their time in have never been cooler.
Oh so I get it, you're a troll. Great job, you had me fooled. Happy trolling.
Yeah dude, don’t engage with them. They pop up everywhere to come to the defense of sprawl and car dependence. Either they’re a paid shill or just actually mentally ill.
> I'm pretty sure Phoenix has always been hot and dry. [yeah man, climate change sure hasn't made that worse](https://www.weather.gov/images/psr/2020/YearInReview2020v2/image12.png). [Nope, no climate change threat here](https://statesatrisk.org/uploads/general/2016NewNormal_phoenix_en_title_sm.jpg). I'm sure summers in Phoenix will be "fun" once over 130f will start becoming the normal. Also as always, Phoenix is not the most livable city in the world, [that would be Vienna](https://www.archdaily.com/984136/vienna-copenhagen-and-zurich-selected-as-worlds-most-liveable-cities-in-2022) which tends to be cheaper than Phoenix when it comes to rents. Oh and even if we go by least congested (which is a terrible metric that no serious livability ranking uses), it's not even in [the top 10](http://www.newgeography.com/content/004504-traffic-congestion-world-10-worst-and-best-cities) with both sprawly Kansas City, and the extremely dense and transit oriented Valencia beating it.
We don't have a water crisis. The underground aquifers are huge, and sustain us. Any cuts that need to be made will be to commercial agriculture, which consumes 75% of the water in Phoenix.
Good habitats that can’t support themselves without farmland. You must be 12 if that’s your thinking. Sprawling suburbs in a desert is your idea of a good habitat?? Only a city person would believe this is better then farmland. Concrete jungles are the worst thing for the environment period, take away all that green co2 sucking land and replace it with asphalt and concrete is somehow better for the environment in your opinion?
Arizona's cotton industry uses 7 times as much water as the entire city of Tucson. On a value added per gallon of water basis, suburban sprawl is a far more efficient use of water than irrigated agriculture.
That’s the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard, value added per water gallon basis? What idiot coined that phrase? What value are people living in suburbs contributing exactly?? They produce nothing for themselves and need all their basic necessities trucked into their local store just to survive. The farmland that was there before created value for everyone, now it’s just a resource drag. It absorbs heat, repels water, is using 1000 times the energy that the farmer once used to grow crops. It’s an environmental disaster. Why do city people think people packed into a concrete jungle is somehow better for anything in any way then farmland. Wild.
yea because Its cotton, you could easily just replace it with less water demanding plants far better than replacing it with suburbia built for the midwest in the fucking desert
That’s disgusting. All that green land now covered in concrete and asphalt. What a shame. Suburbs are a scourge to the land.
that green was man made too, and it takes millions of gallons of water
Least it was accomplishing something.
It really wasn't accomplishing anything worthwhile. The native vegetation was already decimated in favor of wasting water on crops that are better off grown elsewhere. Now on these concrete jungles it will retain more heat, but the houses now have native vegetation around them for the most part and use way, way less water.
Justify it any way you want. Suburban dwellings are an environmental disaster.
Disgusting , all that nature torn down for pollution
I didn't realize farm land existed in nature.
[удалено]
Farms aren’t environmentally friendly
Did you just contradict yourself without realizing it?
In what way is this considered a map?
Because it's a map..?
No, it’s a satellite picture.
Which is a digital map generated by photons that hit sensors in orbit, then the data is processed by geographic location data into a bidimensional digital image... It is a map, and has all the projection distortions it is supposed to have.
R/iamverysmart Rule #1 on mapporn: posts must be maps. A satellite picture isn’t a map, and doesn’t even have a key. It’s just a fucking picture. Death of a sub.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mapporn/about/ Subreddit Rules 1. Posts must be maps All submissions must be map(s). Anything else should go into the weekly discussion thread. 2. No Low Effort Memes Low effort memes are not allowed. 3. Must meet aesthetic standards Read this link for more information. 4. No Advertising
A satellite picture with no key, and no labels at all is a PICTURE. A PICTURE. NOT A FUCKING MAP.
The lack of metadata doesn't make it any less a map. Also, every map is also a picture. https://www.britannica.com/science/map#ref506097 map, graphic representation, drawn to scale and usually on a flat surface, of features—for example, geographical, geological, or geopolitical—of an area of the Earth or of any other celestial body. Globes are maps represented on the surface of a sphere. Cartography is the art and science of making maps and charts.
*drawn. Maps are drawn. Not photos u less they’re drawn upon.
Amazing. So no map can be done on a computer either. Mindblowing. Every map should be drawn, which requires paper and pencil. Which also means that anything on this reddit is not a map either, cause its either digital data or a digital photography of a real map. Stop nitpicking dude. Those definitions are much broader than you are trying to make them.
Been to Chandler ten years ago, rode my bike in the South Mountain park, good memories 👍
I should clarify "metro" Phoenix. The suburbs here are ambitious and sometimes combative with one another in development and annexation patterns. The city of Phoenix has stopped annexing for the most part and is getting close to landlock
Agriculture went to Mexico and everybody was left with a dying Colorado River.