Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The development feasibility of canal oriented development in the arid

southwest: Opinions of key stakeholders
Stephen Buckman ∗
University of Michigan, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2000 Bonisteel Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Phoenix Arizona is the quintessential polycentric desert city. Built for the car in an extreme climate, the
Received 4 September 2013 city both lacks walkability and substantial density within the built form that is often found in cities of
Received in revised form 29 January 2014 similar size. Yet within the boundaries of the metropolitan area, 181 miles of canals traverse the built envi-
Accepted 2 February 2014
ronment, providing an opportunity for walkable nodal development at strategic locations. This unrealized
potential offers the city a unique opportunity for mixed-use development within an already-constructed
Keywords:
infrastructure, but challenges remain. This paper explores the feasibility of canal oriented development
Canal Oriented Development
(COD) in Phoenix by analyzing: (1) opinions of key stakeholders, (2) the possibility of place based mixed-
Waterfront development
Phoenix
use walkable developments along the canals, and (3) the ability to create pockets of density. Results
Arizona indicate that COD in Phoenix will be driven by commercial development, which entails that municipal
Canals investment will be a greater catalyst for eventual success than the regional utility that maintains the
Walkability canal.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction the canals were important sites for culture and recreation until the
mid-twentieth century when the role of canals shifted back to a
The arid United States southwest owes its current form to the utilitarian identity. The strictly functional nature of the canal sys-
commodification and control of water. The cities of the region mir- tem would remain for much of the second half of the twentieth
ror Swyngedow’s (2004) notion of water and sustainability, that the century.
very sustainability of cities and the practices of everyday life that In recent years there has been a renewed interest in the canals
constitutes ‘the urban’ are predicated upon and conditioned by the as a means of economic development and as a cultural amenity,
supply, circulation, and elimination of water. The development and in addition to their utility. An important idea relative to the use
settlement of the southwest is reliant on the management of water of the canal as a form of economic development and as a cultural
(Simon, 2002), without which Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles hub is canal oriented development (COD), which entails mixed-use
could not assume their current form. neighborhood scaled developments on canal banks where the canal
Through the manipulation of water, particularly in the form intersects the street. In the same way that redevelopment has revi-
of the Colorado River Compact,1 cities of the southwest have talized the waterfronts of many seaside communities, CODs create
transformed themselves into economic hubs by constructing an areas that foster cultural and economic activities for landlocked
elaborate water delivery system. These networks transfer water cities
from distant lands to quench the thirst of cities in the region, creat- This paper looks at the viability of COD in the Phoenix region
ing landscapes of wealth and habitation. For instance, the impact of from a development perspective. It examines the pros, cons, and
water commodification and the network of canals in the Phoenix feasibility of COD, with particular emphasis on what would be
region toward the end of the nineteenth century created a land- required for developers to undertake COD. Through this analysis,
scape that developed the character of a desert oasis (Simon, 2002). this paper highlights the historical significance of the canal sys-
The canals that created this desert oasis were utilitarian by nature, tem to the Phoenix region, the importance of urban coalitions to
yet also played a key cultural role in the city’s growth. Historically the development process, critical design principles for a successful
COD and the results of a survey administered to key players within
the development community of the region.
∗ Tel.: +1 480 252 4234.
E-mail address: [email protected] The post-industrial waterfront
1
First drafted in 1922, the Colorado River compact allocated 17.5 million acre
feet (AF) annually to seven states, split between the Upper Basin (Wyoming, Col-
orado, Utah, and New Mexico) and a Lower Basin (California, Arizona, and Nevada) The impact of water as a development mechanism, central to
(Resiner, 1986). COD, is a mirror of how the waterfront is being portrayed in

0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.001
 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349 343

Image 1. Past canal landscapes.

Source: Simon (2002).

the post-industrial economy. Represented by service sector indus- system remains underutilized presenting an opportunity for devel-
tries and just-in-time production, the post-industrial economy has opment.
meant new challenges and roles for the waterfront. Much of the
remaining industrial waterfront activity became centralized, trans- Role canals play in the valley of the sun
forming it into a much more mechanized operation, leaving many
historic waterfronts empty. At the end of the twentieth and begin- The greater Phoenix area boasts 181 miles of canals that provide
ning of the twenty-first centuries, these neglected sites presented water to the region, many of which are the original canal basins of
the opportunity for waterfront development to be driven by a the ancient Hohokam Indians. The Hohokam developed an intricate
“theme park” (Sorkin, 1992) atmosphere of consumption and cul- canal system between 1000 and 1400 AD, enabling them to practice
tural reification. agriculture in the arid Salt and Gila River valleys (Simon, 2002).
In the post-industrial economy the new waterfront has capital- Sometime in the fifteenth century, the Hohokam left the region
ized on its historical significance in cultural and economic terms. leaving behind fallow fields and their canal systems. As settlers
The commodification of history and culture has become a key returned to the Salt and Gila River valleys in the late nineteenth
mechanism for redevelopment of the waterfront which embodies century, the canals that were abandoned by the Hohokam became
the primeval pull of water (Breen and Rigby, 1994), a major source the basis for the present day canal system that laces through the
of economic development. Valley. The canals that the settlers excavated would not only supply
While the waterfront has become a key economic development sources of water for the growing region, but would also become
source, this viewpoint has not always been the status quo. Accord- important areas for recreation and cultural life.
ing to Breen and Rigby (1994: 12) “American cities have neglected Throughout much of Phoenix’s history, especially the late nine-
the opportunities of their waterfronts with a regularity equaled teenth and early twentieth centuries, the canal was an important
by which European cities have accepted theirs.” Setting aside past source for the prosperity of the area and as a community gather-
views of neglect, the current shift in how the waterfront is repre- ing place, due in large part to its relatively cooler temperatures
sented has become a driving force for cities in their attempts to (Simon, 2002; Yabes et al., 1997). Residents of the area had a deep
revitalize their downtowns (Kotval and Mullin, 2001) and under- connection with the canal: homes were built near the canal and
used urban areas. Attempts at revitalization via the waterfront has neighborhoods had public access to them (Fifield et al., 1990). The
meant that in conjunction with other post-industrial urban design, canal was as much a part of the psyche and the day-to-day life of the
the waterfront is no longer home to heavy “blue collar” activity, community in addition, and contrast to, the desert, making Phoenix
rather it now presents a theme park persona of cute kitschy shops the quintessential canal city (Image 1).
and eateries creating an illusion of urban vitality (Kostof, 1992). Community connection with the canal would radically change
The post-industrial waterfront provides a place for commerce, after World War II. The Second World War was a source of prosper-
and has become a community resource. Waterfronts in many com- ity for the area, as the Valley became a key location for the military
munities function as gathering places presenting ideal sites for industrial complex that supported Luke Air Force base and the war
festivals and events (Breen and Rigby, 1994). This position of the effort. This facilitated a population boom, as many people who came
waterfront as a festival space was a prominent idea during the to work in the military factories remained in the Phoenix area after
1970s, when the idea a festival marketplace was popular. While the war. The influx of new people resulted in a population that did
short lived, it did help to make the public aware of the power of the not have a historic connection to the canal (Simon, 2002) and, in
waterfront as an economic development center and cultural tool, turn, did not understand the intricacies of the canal system.
and a potential place maker. Invariably, waterfront redevelopment The lack of societal interaction with the canal, the advent of
has become an important planning doctrine for waterfront cities air conditioning, and suburban tract home development all rele-
that wish to not only create both an economic development source gated the canal system to an afterthought, save for its functional
and a community asset (Heckscher and Robinson, 1977). use. With this combination of factors, local municipalities, the
While the waterfront development phenomenon is being har- U.S. Bureau of Land Management (which owns the canal system),
nessed by oceanfront cities, it also is being explored by landlocked and the Salt River Project (major energy supplier and controller
cities via COD. Landlocked cities that have tapped into the water- of 130 miles of the canal) decided to further distance the com-
front development idea include: Oklahoma City (OK), Irving (TX), munity from the canal. SRP, which operates large sections of the
Indianapolis (IN), and San Antonio (TX) with its famed Riverwalk to canal system and never outwardly sanctioned its non-utilitarian
name a few. Like these cities, the Phoenix Arizona area has begun water use, capitalized on the situation, labeling the canals
to look to its canal system for redevelopment, as much of the canal as dangerous places through both explicit and implicit means
344 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349

Table 1
Key players in the COD process.

Utility Water Agencies (Salt River Project);

Control public access to the canal;
Maintain efficient water movement (undisturbed utility usage);
Maintain and control needed right of ways along the canal; and
Be seen as members of the greater community.
Neighbors
Maintain/increase property values;
Minimize mobility traffic impact;
Increase mobility choices;
Improve access to transit, services, and jobs;
Enhance neighborhood livability; and
Foster development.
Local government
Maximize tax revenues;
Foster economic development;
Please constituents; and
Redevelop underutilized land.
Image 2. Barren canal landscape. Federal government
Source: Canalscape.org. (2013). Protect “public interest” and set limits on how federal investment can be
used.
Developers/lender
Maximize return on investment;
Minimize risk; complexity; and
(Fifield et al., 1990). Explicitly, SRP and local municipalities ran Ensure value in the long term.
marketing campaigns which discouraged the use of the canal for The structure of the COD is sourced from pieces of Belzer et al. (2004: 44) chart of
recreational purposes. Implicitly they created an unwelcoming key players in the TOD process.
canal environment by cementing the canal banks and destroying
over 20,000 trees during the 1950s, destroying the riparian envi-
ronment of the canal system (Simon, 2002). Houses were built As both Fifield et al. (1990) and Simon (2002) established the
further and further away from the canal, altering the urban devel- foundation for renewed interest in the canals as a development
opment pattern so that the community had little interaction with source, recent proposals have accelerated thinking about canal
the canal except for the occasional jogger and bicyclist (Yabes et al., development. Most prominently Professor Nan Ellin and Arizona
1997). These changes in the perception of the canal remained for Forward have explored the concept of Canalscape to revitalize
the majority of the second half of the 20th century (Image 2). the canal banks. Canalscape envisions hubs of mixed use activ-
The banal and uninspired view of the canal banks began to wane ity connecting paths along the Phoenix canal system. Originally
in the late 1990s and early 2000s as organizations and cities redis- an academic exercise spearheaded by former Arizona State Uni-
covered the canal banks as both a source of recreation and economic versity faculty Nan Ellin, that involved students both from ASU
development This was further was assisted by SRP’s willingness to and the University of Colorado at Denver (Buckman et al., 2013;
see the recreation potential of the canal system, by improving over Canalscape.org.; Ellin, 2010a), has now been adopted by the Arizona
fifty miles of canal. The Scottsdale Waterfront in Scottsdale, Arizona Forward Association of Phoenix (valleyforward.org.), a nonprofit
represents an example of how a community who shunned a canal, environmental stewardship organization, as a test project for sus-
that they once embraced, only to reconsider it as an economic and tainable urban development (Image 3).
cultural driving force.
The Waterfront development in Old Town Scottsdale has
become the driving force behind renewed interest in the canal COD design principles
banks. The result has been a mixed use development of upscale
condos, shops, restaurants and bars along the waterfront, becoming The Scottsdale Waterfront development, was accomplished via
a high profile venue for festivals and events. During the Super Bowl private public partnerships, which shows that the creation of a
in 2008 a large majority of the main gala parties occurred there and COD is a complicated development process. Taking place within
ESPN used the Waterfront as its home base, some 30 miles away urban areas, in established neighborhoods and on working utility
from the game site at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale company owned waterways, various established “entities” must be
(Image 3). balanced to have a successful COD (Table 1).
While The Waterfront is the most tangible example of what Developing on urbanized waterways creates different chal-
can be done on the canal banks, other measures and ideas have lenges than greenfield development or standard urban infill
also been put forth. Cities in the area have examined various canal development. Not only should partnerships and neighborhood
oriented planning doctrines, such as the City of Scottsdale’s 1991 dynamics be taken into account, but safety, water utility companies’
Arizona Canal Master Development Plan which laid the ground work interests, and water infrastructure must be addressed. In develop-
for The Waterfront development. The following two documents ing a COD certain design principles must be acknowledged that
standout as key sources of what the canal can be and what the highlight issues that are prominent in developing on urbanized
canal has meant to the area. Simon’s 2002 dissertation entitled waterways (Image 4).
Mixing Water and Culture: Making the Canal Landscape in Phoenix, SRP and many municipalities within the Phoenix region have
presented a rich dialogue of the historical importance of the canal their own set of canal design guidelines which range from setback
system to the area as a cultural and economic asset, but arguably allowances, right of ways, and ecological impacts. One prevailing
the most important single document that has influenced present principle that runs through all sets of guidelines is the role of diver-
canal visionaries is Fifield et al. (1990). This document presented sity in maintaining the uniqueness of the city and neighborhoods
clear ideas as to what could be done on the canal and laid out guide- that are adjacent to the canal. Fifield et al. (1990) laid out seven
lines to make it a reality. The guidelines presented by Fifield et al. key principles to a successful canal development: preservation,
(1990) are still referenced today when designing CODs in the area. integration, accessibility, identity, continuity, diversity, and safety
 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349 345

Image 3. Scottsdale Waterfront.

Image 4. Canal transformation.

Source: Rendering by Jens Kolb in Canalscape.org. (2013).

(Table 2). While these seven principles are not comprehensive, they walking distance of transit stops; create pedestrian friendly street
represent important building blocks for a successful COD. networks which directly connect local destinations; provide a mix
Many of the design principles of COD adhere to design ideas and of housing types, densities, and costs; preserve sensitive habitat,
guidelines that drive transit oriented development (TOD). In defin- riparian zones, and high quality open space; make public spaces
ing TOD Calthorpe states that the concept of a TOD2 constitutes the focus of building orientation and neighborhood activity; and
“moderate and high-density housing, along with complimentary encourage infill and redevelopment along transit corridors within
public uses, jobs and services that are concentrated in mixed-use existing neighborhoods” (1993: 43).
developments along strategic points along the regional transit sys- Similar to TODs, CODs will ideally be situated where canals
tem” (1993: 41). Furthermore, Calthorpe highlights that TOD needs meet significant transportation routes and connections with the
to “place commercial, housing, jobs, parks, and civic uses within community. A close connection to transportation networks (bus
and light rail) will allow residents of CODs to move more easily
between the COD and the larger community, without being depen-
dent on private automobiles, highlighting the sustainability aspects
2
“A transit-oriented development (TOD) is a mixed-use community within an of CODs.
average 2000 foot walking distance of a transit stop and core commercial area. TODs In its most basic case CODs will transform a stark canal landscape
mix residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a walkable environment,
into an inviting oasis that will be scaled to and connected with a
making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot,
or car” (Calthorpe, 1993: 56). community, becoming a cultural and recreational amenity.
346 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349

Table 2 Survey results

Canal development design principles.

Preservation Canals are one of the only open-space systems that is In examining the responses to the questions a large amount
common to all Valley cities and need to be maintained as of the respondents saw the canal as either an asset (47%) or an
the “public realm”. opportunity (52%) with only three of the respondents having not
Integration Canals need to be integrated (landscape and built
heard or were unaware of proposals to improve or develop the canal
environment) into the lives of Valley residents which
implies multiple uses.
banks. This also resulted in the majority (82%) of the respondents
Accessibility Includes not only physical but also visual and temporal, seeing the canal as an “untapped asset” for real estate develop-
with the best uses being for the public. ment with 23.5% viewing the canal as having very real potential for
Identity The identity of the canal is tied to its primary characteristic development.
and has the potential to promote a popular regional image.
More nuanced qualitative responses hinted at the notion of
Continuity Canal development must keep in mind that the canal is a
continuous circulation system thus there must be potential real estate development along the canals. These centered
continuity of design. on the issues of vision, enhanced landscape, increase of parks and
Diversity There must be diversity in the developments, the recreation, business development, and the idea of increasing social
landscape and its use.
amenities. For instance, one survey respondent stated that: “with
Safety A safe canal environment that is accessible, popular and
usable requires coordination with individual city
proper vision and design response, the canals would be a viable
standards and practices. asset to development for several reasons–micro-climate, associa-
tion with water, connectivity/linkage and curb appeal.” Another
Fifield et al. (1990).
survey respondent acknowledged the importance of water in that:
“The canals are the most underutilized existing infrastructure
asset in the Valley. The view of and sound from the water is
Methods a calming and cooling influence, especially during the torrid
AZ summers. The canals present a unique opportunity to take
To examine the pros, cons, feasibility and the measures required advantage of this. In much the same way that Tempe has cho-
to undertake COD, a mixed methods survey was administered to sen to exploit its’ previously (mostly) dry riverbed, the rest of
key stakeholders in the Phoenix development community. Gov- the Valley could do so along the canal ways – likely in smaller
ernment officials, consultants, developers, land use attorneys, scales.”
planners, commercial realtors, and urban activists were solicited
for their input. The survey was sent to 50 participants, of which 17 The connection between neighborhoods and the canal was an
surveys were returned for analysis.3 The survey was administered important factor of many respondents, who saw the business
via email and consisted of 11 multiple choice questions, 5 Likert impact of COD nodal densities as being necessary in orienting
scale oriented questions and 6 open-ended questions that asked to business towards the canals. They believed this would provide
clarify and add to their responses in the multiple choice and Likert opportunities for direct connections to neighborhoods, offering the
questions. potential for nodal density and the establishment of cores.
The survey questions asked about the participant’s views of Survey questions also prompted respondents to suggest and/or
the canal as an asset, past proposals, the canal as real estate acknowledge incentives for development to overcome initial bar-
development, hurdles to development, factors that constitute a riers: 47% felt increased assistance from the city was needed to
successful COD, the importance of water as a development mech- initialize projects, 29.4% saw community support being important,
anism, and the success of the Scottsdale Waterfront. In many of and 17.6% felt financial incentives were important, yet none of the
these questions the participant was asked to further elaborate on respondents considered tax incentives to be important. The most-
their reasoning for choosing a particular answer via an open ended cited major hindrance to development was the economy (47%)
response. while 27% felt the city and county interference was a hindrance. An
Further analysis of responses was performed using cross- additional 17.6% expressed concern with utility companies (who
tabulations in SPSS statistical software, which allowed for statistical control the canal) and only 5.8% saw community opposition being
comparisons between different groups of respondents for certain an issue to development.
survey questions. The use of SPSS allowed for a richer analysis of While city support was the prevailing factor to making canal
what respondents were thinking and what was important to certain development a reality in the closed response question, when asked
professions. to expand upon their answer on the open-ended response commu-
While the number of surveys that were returned does not nity participation was the overwhelming primary response. The
present an appropriate sample size required for certain-traditional overarching idea was that if the community drives the process city
statistical procedures (i.e., chi-square tests, comparison of means incentives will follow. As one survey respondent an employee of
tests, etc.), it does supply rich qualitative data, that helps to high- the City of Scottsdale noted there “needs to be a ‘grassroots’ level
light key factors and development trends that are important to COD of awareness of the potential benefits of canal related development
in the Phoenix region. To further clarify these trends and the ideas that in turn will provide compelling momentum for the political,
of the survey participants an interview was conducted with SRP to financial and utility interests to join in support.” Many respondents
understand if the views of the development community and SRP echoed this sentiment believing it’s necessary to change the per-
were aligned. ception of the canal and that once that perception changes, canals
will be seen as a valuable recreation and community asset.
To contrast responses that asked about development hin-
drances, the survey also asked about what would constitute a
3
Of the seventeen (17) respondents one (1) came from the residential develop- success. Questions in this category asked what the most important
ment community, three (3) from the commercial development community, one (1) factor besides financial return on investment would be, the most
came from mixed-use development community, two (2) from the planning commu- important outcome from a successful development, and whether
nity, two (2) labeled as other, one (1) from the architecture community, two (2) land commercial or residential use is more important. The respondents
use attorneys, three (3) local government, and two (2) consultancy. It is important
to note that these labels are self administered by the participant, which could be
felt growth around the development and pedestrian activity (each
different than what the general public would view as their area of expertise. at 35.2%) were equally important factors and they considered
 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349 347

neighborhood integration (41%) and the need for mixed-uses than a residential project. Government saw the canal as an asset
(35.2%) as being the most important outcomes of a successful that promised increased pedestrian activity, an important factor for
development. Very little significance (each at 5.8%) was placed on development, while consultants saw the canal as an opportunity.
either government support or proximity to public transit. A large Developers were unsurprisingly concerned primarily with financial
majority felt that commercial development (58.8%) was more viability in their responses, citing the importance of commercial
important than residential development (29.4%) to a successful development reliance, as well as seeing the Scottsdale Waterfront
COD, which was corroborated by the SPSS analysis. as somewhat of an asset and believed the economic climate was
The physical access to water did not hold much significance as the greatest hindrance to COD in the Valley.
only 29.4% of the respondents felt that physical access to water was
somewhat important and 23.5% saw that access was not important
How the canal is viewed
at all. While access to water was not considered to be an over-
whelmingly critical factor towards success, its mere presence in
Survey respondents were given the options of the canal being
any development is seen as an important factor (41.1%) highlight-
an opportunity, an asset, indifferent or an eyesore. All of those who
ing that the presence of water can help to spur excitement for the
viewed the canal as an asset and 66.7% of those who saw it as
development.
an opportunity were aware of proposals. This hints at the notion
The Scottsdale Waterfront encapsulates many of the success-
that increased exposure to canal development could make these
ful themes for a functioning COD within the greater Phoenix area.
projects more realistic and viable in the minds of stakeholders.
While the Waterfront is an extreme example of what COD pro-
Those who saw it as an asset also felt that the Scottsdale Waterfront
poses, it does represent a significant real estate development on
was both an economic and cultural success and that pedestrian
the Phoenix area’s canal banks. There were mixed views of water
activity would be the driving force for development. Interestingly,
as an asset as 11.7% saw the Waterfront to be very important with
they saw the potential for development in the Phoenix region as
the majority 35.2% being indifferent to its impact on development.
a whole to be low. On the other hand those who saw it as an
Even though a small portion of the respondents saw the Waterfront
opportunity felt the development potential to be high and com-
as an asset; 70.5% felt it was an economic success and 52.9% saw it
mercial projects would be the driving force. This shows that those
as a cultural success.
in favor of commercial development foresee a much brighter future
for the canal. This attitude could be attributable to the Scottsdale
Cross-tabulation results
Waterfront, which over the last few years saw the residential side
of the development economically struggle with foreclosures while
Cross tabulation within SPSS highlighted survey themes and
the commercial component continued to thrive.
quantified them in terms of relative importance. The key themes
that grew out of the survey results centered on issues of the canal
being an asset and/or opportunity, the importance of water, hin- Salt River Project Reaction
drances to development, what support was important to success,
and what form of development constituted success. These factors As the results of the survey show there is a reliance on the
along with core business were cross tabulated with the survey community to be the driving force in any canal development.
questions resulting in three main themes having the most promi- In the mind of SRP the process of canal development will be a
nent impacts: what it would take for development to happen; core multi-faceted course of action involving the community, develo-
business; and how the canal is viewed. pers, municipalities and SRP. While all of these stakeholders work
together to get development built, and the community can pressure
What it would take for development to happen on the canals? the city into a canal development, the city itself (especially the plan-
ning and development services departments) will be the key player
The question of what it would take for development to happen via financial incentives and document streamlining that will entice
on the canal centered on three main areas: assistance from the city a developer to build, according to SRP. As Jim Duncan with SRP
(plans review, permitting, etc.), financial support from the city, and points out “the community can put pressure on the city, but on the
community support. Respondents that felt assistance from the city ground the city will be the most important player in the canal devel-
was the most important factor, that commercial development was opment process due in large part to the fact that developers have
an important aspect for success, and that the Scottsdale Waterfront not reached a threshold where canal development is a financially
is an economic success, all of which implies that commercial devel- beneficial option, as compared to other development options, with-
opment and assistance from the city are connected. Those who felt out city incentives.” This is further highlighted by the fact that many
financial support from the city was important leaned towards high developers are unwilling to build directly on the canal due in large
development potential of a mixed-development approach to suc- part to the restrictions that are in place such as right of way issues,
cess. This includes growth around the development with a reliance as well as public access restrictions and allowances that take away
on commercial development as the driving force and the ability to developable land. As SRP is often unwilling to reconsider restric-
be near water as being important. In contrast those who leaned tions in relation to the canal aside from beautification projects, the
toward community support not only felt the development poten- loss of profits from developable land in turn must be offset by the
tial on the canal to be low, but also felt that if COD was to be a city.
success, it would be driven primarily by residential development. The restrictions that are placed directly on development along
the canal bank do not mean that canal development cannot take
Core business place. Instead in the eyes of SRP the kind of development that will
take place will be adjacent to the canal, with potential access from
Core business was bracketed into four areas: government, the development to the canal, creating nodes and access near the
consultants, developers, and other. Both the government and canal, but not directly on its bank. This type of development entails
developers saw commercial development as the key aspect to a much less restriction while still allowing the canal to be part of the
successful COD. This idea of success dovetails with the govern- development.
ment’s need for increased tax dollars and a developer’s wish for A prime example of an adjacent canal development is the cor-
higher returns both of which are greater with a commercial project ner of 40th street and Camelback in the Biltmore area of Phoenix
348 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349

The support of the community will also allow for increased inte-
gration which is one of the seven design principles stated by Fifield
et al. (1990). Furthermore community integration is one of the
main principles of COD as it looks to build developments that flow
and interconnect with the community at large. Survey respondents
stressed this by acknowledging that integration and accessibility of
a COD from a planning and development perspective, needs to be
associated with larger connectivity, such as linear feeder parks and
pathways that connect deeper into the fabric of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
The integration of COD into the community, also creates aesthet-
ically pleasing environments, something not seen along the canals
in Phoenix in some time, and allows for a diverse environment.
While there have been proposals put forth such as Canalscape (Ellin,
2009a,b, 2010a), there continues to be a disconnection surround-
ing how the community perceives the canal. Opinions about their
development potential range from a harsh barren landscape to an
untapped asset for development. One way to achieve this change in
perception was highlighted by a number of the respondents who
stressed that reintroduction of many of the large trees that once
existed along the canal could make a significant difference in the
comfort of users and the perception of the space.
As the necessity of showing canals in a new light and the role
of community are critical aspects in moving forward, creating vis-
Map 1. Adjacent COD – Chelsea’s kitchen project area.
ible and viable demonstration projects such as Canalscape (Pela,
2009; Ellin, 2009a,b; 2010b) are of key importance. For many of the
where both Vincent’s Italian restaurant and Chelsea’s Kitchen abuts respondents the successful completion of a few projects that are
the canal but are not located directly on it. Both of these restau- modest in scale, in contrast to the Waterfront will ensure future
rants allow access to the canal without blocking its right of way. success of COD. While respondents stressed the need for pilot
Along with these destination restaurants, a short walk from each projects to begin, there also tended to be a disregard for the Scotts-
is the Arcadia Village shopping center that houses other high scale dale Waterfront among some stakeholders. There was consensus
restaurants as well as an apartment complex (Capri Apartments) that the Waterfront was a success, but there was also concern with
across 40th street from Chelsea’s Kitchen that also abuts the canal its size and its privatized consumer nature. It was not the actual
(Map 1). development of the Waterfront that seemed to be the problem,
As SRP envisions developments adjacent to the canal the growth but the nature of the development in size and scope that drew
on canal banks will be in the words of Jim Duncan, a “quality of concern.
life issue” meaning greater awareness of the canal as an amenity Ironically, the Waterfront is a commercially driven develop-
via canal beautification projects (paved paths, low lying shrubs, ment, even though there is a large residential component. The
lighting, street crossings) and education projects (Bommersbach, commercial end (bars, restaurants, and retail) has kept the devel-
2009; Ellin, 2008, 2009a,b; MacEachearn, 2009). As SRP sees the opment stable while the residential has suffered through the
foreseeable future of the canal to be based on beautification they mortgage crisis.4
are not hesitant to believe that as the canal system becomes more The most striking outcome of the survey results was the lack of
important as a recreation and learning arena it may encourage cities importance and need for partnership with SRP. Since SRP controls
to implement incentives piquing that entice of developers. canal access, partnerships with developers would seem important
to successful canal development. Survey participants seemed to
Discussion feel that community support and affiliation would be more impor-
tant, cooperation with SRP, which would follow suit only when the
The results of the study highlight the impact that the community utility felt it was beneficial to do so, which was solidified in the
has as a driving force for COD to occur and shows that community comments of Jim Duncan with SRP. In general, it would have been
integration will be a key factor to its success. Commercial devel- assumed to be the reverse as SRP controls the size and scope of
opment will be more important than residential when integrated developments on the canal banks. Invariably the perceived lack of
with water. Water itself is an important development asset, but its importance of SRP shows that it is first important to create a robust
utility (boat, swim, etc.) is not as important as the need to be near dialogue of what the canal bank can be and that the technical and
water. The instinctual human capacity and desire to be near water legal aspects would follow if there is interest.
has been shown by Millspaugh (2001) and Martin (2003), is further
established in the views of key players within the Phoenix design Conclusion
community.
Community holds a key role, and allows for a smooth devel- With 181 miles of canals that run through the Phoenix region,
opment process, as COD is necessarily infill development instead the canal banks represent an untapped asset for recreation and
greenfield development. As Buckman (2011) has shown it is impor- development in a region that lacks focal points for nodal density.
tant to get community “buy in” for a project and to work with the Historically the canal banks represented the essence of community
community on how the development plan will proceed. If commu- and cultural activity within the region but, through implicit and
nity support is achieved it will open the door to other partnerships
with the city, utilities (SRP), and financial institutions. The inability
to obtain community support will create challenges to success and 4
The foreclosure rate for the 121 residences at the Scottsdale Waterfront’s two
could doom the project before it begins. towers as of February 2012 was 20% (Blockshopper Phoenix).
 S. Buckman / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 342–349 349

explicit campaigns by city governments and SRP, the canal system References
no longer holds a crucial role as a cultural nexus. The renaissance
Belzer, D., Autler, G., Espinosa, J., Feigon, S., Ohland, G., 2004. The transit-oriented
of the Phoenix canal system is on the horizon with developments drama and its actors. In: Dittmer, H., Ohland, G. (Eds.), The New Transit Town:
like the Scottsdale Waterfront and proposals such as Canalscape Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Island Press, Washington, pp.
and other canal beautification projects being driven by SRP and 41–55.
Bommersbach, J., October 2009. Canal vision: an ASU professor’s plan to create scenic
nonprofits such as Arizona Forward. villages around out unsightly canals could make Phoenix the Venice of the West.
Making COD a reality throughout the Valley first demands that Phoenix Magazine.
any discussion of developments along the canal bank needs to Breen, A., Rigby, D., 1994. Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim Their Edge. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York.
include the idea that partnerships enable developments whether
Buckman, S., 2011. Upper middle class NIMBY in Phoenix: the community dynamics
led by the community or the city. Partnerships become an impor- of the development process in the Arcadia neighborhood. Journal of Community
tant part of any development project especially that of COD, which Practice 19 (3), 308–325.
is primarily an infill development idea that must work with mul- Buckman, S., Ellin, N., Proffitt, D., 2013. Desert urbanism: canalscape for metropolitan
Phoenix. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 7 (1), 42–54.
tiple factions to make it a success. The idea from the survey that Calthorpe, P., 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the
the partnerships that are necessary for development to occur along American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
the canal bank would be led by the community and not with the City of Scottsdale, 1991. Arizona Canal Master Development Plan. Department of
Planning and Community Development.
city or with SRP shows the overarching idea that community pri- Ellin, N., March 26, 2008. Canal villages’ could become Phoenix legacy. Arizona
marily drives this type of infill development from the development Republic.
community’s point of view. Ellin, N., 2009a. In: Ellin, N. (Ed.), Canalscape. ASU, Tempe, pp. 3–5.
Ellin, N., 2009b. In: Ellin, N. (Ed.), Canalscape: An Authentic and Sustainable Urban-
This reliance on the community over other entities was an unex- ism for Metro Phoenix. ASU, Tempe.
pected component to come out of the survey as well as the notion Ellin, N., 2010a. Canalscape: practicing integral urbanism in metropolitan Phoenix.
that commercial development should be the driving force over Journal of Urban Design 15 (4), 599–610.
Fifield, M., Pihlak, M., Cook, E., 1990. Metropolitan Canals: A Regional Design Frame-
residential. With SRP in control of the right of way and activ- work. Report for Arizona State University’s Metropolitan Canal Study.
ity along the canal it could have been assumed that SRP would Heckscher, A., Robinson, P., 1977. Open Spaces: The Life of American Cities. Harper
be the most important player to partner within the COD pro- and Row, New York.
Kostof, S., 1992. The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History.
cess. With the initial hypothesis being that SRP would be the key
Bulfinch Press, Boston.
to development on the canal as they are the gatekeepers to any Kotval, Z., Mullin, J., 2001. Waterfront planning as a strategic incentive to downtown
type of canal development; the fact that they were not consid- enhancement and livability. In: Buraydi, M. (Ed.), Downtowns: Revitalizing the
ered to be an important entity for development was the most Centers of Small Urban Communities. Routledge, New York, pp. 179–196.
MacEachearn, D., July 12, 2009. Untapped: For a visionary group of land-use experts
surprising outcome of this survey. Either way it is tackled; part- and historians, it’s time residents stopped turning their backs on the Valley’s
nering with SRP first or last, SRP must still be considered a key canals. Arizona Republic.
player in the process as they continue to control access to the canal Martin, D., 2003. Place-framing as place-making: constituting a neighborhood for
organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93
bank. (3), 730–750.
It could have also been assumed that with the community play- Millspaugh, M., 2001. Waterfronts as catalysts for city renewal. In: Marshall, R. (Ed.),
ing a central role, commercial development would have been less Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. Spon Press, London, pp. 74–85.
Pela, R., November 5, 2009. Changing the channels: exhibit envisions Phoenix as the
important than residential, which would theoretically, be more next Venice or Frisco. Phoenix New Times.
seamlessly worked into the neighboring community. Rather the Resiner, M., 1986. Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water.
reliance on both community integration and commercial develop- Viking, New York.
Simon, A., (Dissertation) 2002. Mixing Water and Culture: Making the Canal Land-
ment shows the need of developers and government officials to scape in Phoenix. Arizona State University.
work with the community and the need of profit which has higher Sorkin, M., 1992. See you in Disneyland. In: Sorkin, M. (Ed.), Variations on a Theme
returns in commercial than residential. Park. Hill and Wang, New York, pp. 205–232.
Swyngedow, E., 2004. Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power.
Will Phoenix fully embrace the asset of the canals as a devel-
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
opment mechanism? Only time will tell. As the economic climate Yabes, R., Shetter, K., Schneeman, J., 1997. Urban waterways: changing historical
strengthens and development remerges out of the shadows of the use and users in a southwestern desert city. Landscape and Urban Planning 39,
recession, COD may present the opportunity to help change the 167–185.

urban landscape of the Phoenix area by creating hubs of activ-

ity which the area is sorely missing. In the end the success of Websites
COD in Phoenix will depend on re-representing the canal to the
Phoenix population as a place to be embraced rather than shunned. Blockstopper.com, 2013.
Developments and beautification along the canal will help to bring Canalscape.org., 2013.
people into Phoenix’s core by creating dense and inviting mixed Scottsdalewaterfrontshopping.com, 2013.
use environments that are community driven, while embracing the Valleyforward.org, 2013.
openness and recreational mindset of the community by connect- Interview
ing it to creational paths along the canal. James Duncan, Salt River Project, 11-19-12.