skip to main |
skip to sidebar
There are certain things in life that I think I will just never understand. One of those things is the "modern" or "contemporary" movement in architecture and design. I just cannot wrap my head around it.
I just can't see the appeal in bare, hardwood floors, track lighting, and wacky furniture. Who wants to live in a place furnished with $4,000 Swiss-designed ergonomic chairs and a wine bar? Why are people so eager to live in houses that look like art museums? It's ironic how the more "minimalist" an apartment is, the more it costs.
A perfect example of where you'll find such minimalist accommodations is the new Cityscape project currently under construction in downtown Phoenix. The developers behind the project are building two high rise towers of "living spaces," with prices ranging from $300,000 up to $3 million dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. Three million dollars...for a luxury condo in downtown Phoenix.
First, let's take a look at the term "living spaces." It sounds like a politically correct, sanitized term for "condominium." Who gets so offended by the word "condominium" that we had to switch to "living space?" People live in apartments, condos, and houses, not "living spaces." What a stupid made-up word!
The press is gushing with love and adoration for the Cityscape project, but I am still not convinced that it's a great idea. You might even say I am disgusted with the situation. I'll do my best to explain why.
The fact is, Phoenix was established in the 1860s as an agricultural community to grow crops for the workers of the now-defunct Vulture Mine near Wickenburg. It is and has always been a working-class city for everyday people. Of course, once word got around about the excellent climate and cheap land, the cat was out of the bag.
According to the US Census Bureau, the population of Phoenix increased by 35% between 1990 and 2006 with over 529,000 new residents. With a total population of over 4.1 million people, Phoenix is the 5th most populated city in America.
It should come as no surprise that our perennial blue skies and comparatively low cost of living are attracting people from other big cities in droves. The problem is that they're bringing their big-city ideas and attitudes with them.
New high-rise housing developments like Cityscape and the boondoggle light-rail project have invaded our humble, working-man's town! Next thing you know, our already-sprawling metropolitan statistical area will be even larger than the Beltway or Chicagoland. Every square foot of desert will be landscaped and paved over and we'll look just like all the other big cities out there.
Today, Phoenix has a bit of an identity crisis. On the one side you have the die-hard Phoenix natives who promote the historic preservation of landmarks, support museums and cultural centers, and seek to preserve our heritage. They're proud of Phoenix and its rich history of mining, ranching, agriculture, and water management.
On the other hand, you have hundreds of thousands of transplants who relocated to the Valley of the Sun to escape the high cost of living in other large cities. Their visions of concrete, steel, and glass monoliths towering over the desert with their "sleek, contemporary, and modern lines" just turns my stomach. So what if a couple of historic buildings have to get torn down? It's all in the name of progress.
These deep-pocketed developers see themselves as messiahs who will bring culture and contemporary art to the Valley and revive our struggling downtown neighborhoods. I wish they'd just pack up and go back where they came from.
We have our own culture here already. If I wanted the crowded feel of urban living, a bunch of overpriced boutiques and a coffee shop on every corner, I'd move to New York. Don't bring your pretentious, big-city ideas here.
The idea of a $3 million dollar condominium is simply absurd, and yet the Cityscape project will trump other luxury housing projects like the Grigio Lakefront Lofts in Tempe and the Optima Camelview condos in Scottsdale which go for a measely $1.6 million dollars. I was hoping the madness would not spread to Phoenix, but it looks like it's coming whether I like it or not.
The last thing I want in my hometown is a bunch of latte-sipping artists and interior designers squawking about dust devils blowing through their wine-and-cheese parties, scorpions in their boots, and the wicked hot summer heat.
Phoenix was never the shoot-em-up kind of stagecoach stop like in the old-Western TV shows and movies. It does however have its own unique culture and history. Phoenix has never been a "form over function" kind of place. Let's keep it that way.
[Note: This article was originally written February 1, 2008 and revised February 9, 2009.]
In these uncertain economic times, it seems that change is the only certainty. Wild fluctuations in gas prices over the last few years are taking their toll on American drivers, who are once again demanding smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles. It's almost as though we had forgotten everything we went through in the 1970s! The news media reports that the era of gas-guzzling Sport-Utility Vehicles has come to an end. But is the growing demand for shrinking cars really all it's cracked up to be?
Let's look at some of the hottest selling compact and subcompact cars of today, such as the Honda Fit, the Toyota Yaris, and the Chevrolet Aveo. Compared to their mid-size and full-size counterparts which emphasize things like power, comfort, and performance, this new generation of super small vehicles sacrifices all of these attributes for the sake of economy.
By reducing everything from engine displacement to wheel size, subcompact vehicles can achieve more miles per gallon because they are significantly smaller and lighter than competing models. You cannot get something for nothing however, and there are some serious trade-offs to consider when purchasing a subcompact economy car.
While it is true that small, narrow tires offer reduced rolling resistance, they also have a smaller contact patch with the pavement which results in reduced grip and handling. Vehicles made of lightweight materials such as plastic and aluminum instead of steel may provide the benefit of weight reduction at the cost of occupant safety. Finally, vehicles with tiny, underpowered engines may cause drivers to ride the accelerator more aggressively in order to maintain speed. When looking at the trade-offs necessary to achieve fuel economy, I have to question whether those few extra miles per gallon are really worth it.
Take for example the Smart car. This darling of the media industry has been highly praised as the leader of the pack: it is the smallest, the lightest, and the most efficient gasoline-powered vehicle for sale in North America. From 2004 to 2006, Smart cars were available only as grey market imports which were sold through independent dealerships. These import models were modified to meet US DOT safety standards and were not affiliated with Daimler AG, the German parent company that owns Smart. In 2006, Daimler announced that the Smart car would be available for sale in the US starting in 2008.
The main difference between the grey market imports and the 2008 Smart Fortwo is the motor. The small, turbocharged engine has been replaced with a larger, 1.0-liter non-turbo engine. The new engine has just 3 cylinders and puts out about 70 HP. The Fortwo still holds just two occupants (one driver and one passenger), and it boasts an EPA estimated mileage of 33mpg city and 41mpg highway (see fueleconomy.gov). The 2009 Fortwo starts at $11,590 for the base model, $13,590 for the Passion Coupe, and $16,590 for the convertible model.
It seems the timing of the Smart car couldn't be better, with gas prices soaring and drivers desperate for an easy answer. A reservation program launched in 2007 offered interested customers a spot on Smart's waiting list, which now has an estimated wait time of 12 to 18 months for delivery. Clearly, thousands American drivers are eager to get their hands on the Smart car.
To me, the Smart car phenomenon is absolutely baffling. I am shocked that American car buyers really are gullible enough to fall for the Smart car. Eleven thousand dollars for an EPA-combined 36 miles per gallon? Surely they must be joking! The Smart car strikes me as a rip off as both a driver and a consumer. There are plenty of ways to get better mileage without getting into this pitiful econobox of a car.
If miles per gallon are your top priority, you are probably the kind of person who has a panic attack every time gas jumps from $3.25 a gallon to $3.75 per gallon. The idea of paying more money and receiving less product just boils your blood! Well, that's exactly what buying a Smart car boils down to. Eleven thousand dollars for a car with no cargo space to speak of, a two-person capacity, and an engine that's less powerful than your average motorcycle. Hah! If you have ever considered buying a Smart car to save on fuel costs, consider the facts:
The 2009 Honda Civic and 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt both offer 4-passenger seating, an honest-to-goodness trunk, and 4-cylinder engines that are more powerful than the Smart car by 30 to 50 HP. Oh, and they get comparable mileage at 33 and 36 mpg combined, respectively. If you're going to buy a brand new car, why not get something you can actually use? Where are you going to put your groceries in a Smart car, on your lap? Are you going to pile in and take a road trip in that thing? The point is that the Smart car is not significantly more fuel efficient than a normal car, but its miniature size, high cost, weak engine, and limited cargo space make it significantly less practical to own.
It is not at all necessary to buy a brand new car to get good mileage. On Internet message boards, drivers routinely brag about squeezing 50 to 80 miles per gallon out of conventional gasoline vehicles. How are they doing this? By pairing the most efficient vehicles on the used car market with special driving techniques in a combination known as hypermiling. All you have to do is pick up a used Geo Metro, Ford Festiva, or Honda CRX-HF in the AutoTrader, check your tire pressure, and just drive the speed limit. I'm not joking; it really is that simple!
According to the The Kelley Blue Book, you should be able to find a Honda Civic hatchback in good condition for about $2,000 bucks. If you were to buy one and spend maybe $4,000 dollars fixing it up on things like new tires, a new stereo, and maybe some body work or what have you, you would still save a pile of money compared to anyone who spent $12,000 dollars on a Smart car. Not only that, but you'll enjoy equal or greater mileage depending on your driving style.
Finally, if you really hate paying for gasoline SO much that you would sacrifice everything fun about driving (such as performance, handling, safety, and comfort) by purchasing a Smart car, then maybe driving is just not for you. Find a job closer to your home and ride a bike to work. You could also move to an area with a good mass transit system and take the bus, light rail, or subway to work. The idea that anyone can justify cramming themselves into a Smart car for a 30 mile daily commute and feel good about themselves is just preposterous.
You know, I think it's pretty ironic that they call them Smart cars, because based on the facts you'd have to be pretty freaking dumb to buy one (or just really poor at math).[Note: This article was originally written October 16, 2008 and revised February 6, 2009.]December 2009 Update: The Smart Car has been voted one of the ten worst cars of the decade by automotive review site Jalopnik.com.
Posts
