uh oh

From the Arizona Daily Star;

The Catalina Foothills, an area synonymous with growth and prestige for the past 70 years, is losing residents.

It was one of just three Pima County communities to show population declines in the 2010 census, along with the southeast-side neighborhood of Littletown and the old mining town of Ajo.

The Foothills, where household income approaches twice the norm in Pima County, lost nearly 3,000 people from 2010 to a population of 50,796, U.S. census figures show. It is the first time since the area was developed in the 1930s that it lost population, said David Taylor, a retired planner and longtime demographer who happens to live in the Foothills.

For as long as anyone can remember, the Foothills has been considered one of the most desirable places in Pima County to live. The average sales price for a home there runs about $375,000 today.

First developed in the 1930s by pioneer developer John Murphey, the Foothills has long proven attractive in part simply because it lies literally in the shadow of the Catalina Mountains, right next to the Coronado National Forest. It's also drawn many people because of its own rolling hills and ridges and because of the many large-lot subdivisions, particularly in older areas, that left plenty of natural open space.

Will Pew, a lifelong Foothills resident and president of a neighborhood association there, said he wasn't troubled at the reported population decline in the Catalina Foothills.

"Having grown up here, I don't necessarily think more people is a good thing. In the past, it felt like there was more wide open space here, and I'm not against people moving in, but it has not necessarily improved the quality of life here," said Pew, who is president of the Catalina Foothills Association, which was founded in 1956 to represent an area that was developed by pioneer builder Murphey.

____________________________________________________________________

I’m a former city kid – I grew up in NYC, lived in LA for a while and for 20+ years in Chicago – and have only been in the Foothills for 10 years now and, despite being a Realtor, I’m with Will Pew on this one. From what I’ve seen I also don’t think more people has necessarily improved the quality of life here in the Foothills. Amongst other things it has of course led to more development, and a fair amount of that development has changed the character of the old Foothills, and not for the better. With homes squeezed in on marginal lots, often by the side of the road, and has led to the breakup and subsequent over-development of many of the original Joesler estates. The 5 and 10 acre estates that lent breathing room to the old foothills. And gave it the feeling of openness, space, character and charm that Joesler and Murphey had the foresight to create.

On a more positive note I am very appreciative, and I think many residents are, that retail development in the Foothills has not been allowed to run rampant. And has been largely limited to the corners of Kolb & Sunrise, Swan & Sunrise, Campbell & Skyline and Campbell & River.

But read all about it> Foothills area sees 1st drop in population

see thefoothillsToday.com
to find your Foothills home

Comments

[john schneider]

I think you're right about an increase in affluent 2nd home ownership leading to a drop in full time ownership. And I think the same principles came into play at the lower end - in condos - when all the foothills rental apartments (which were largely occupied by full time residents) were converted to condos and sold - or tried to sell - to snow birds for wildly inflated prices - because they put in a little granite and some cheap carpeting. The full time residents were displaced - hence no longer counted as fulltime residents - they couldn't afford to buy those crappy condos & there were no more rental apartments in the foothills, so they moved elsewhere.

[bigdaddyj]

If anything, I think it might be a telling reflection of the economic changes over the last decade, with more wealth being concentrated at the top of the pyramid, that in an affluent, winter-home friendly community such as the foothills that population would decline logically as a result of more wealthy families being able to snatch up prime homes in prime locations as secondary homes, which then go counted as vacant and contribute to a population drop in the census count...

[bigdaddyj]

I think the drop in population is properly largely attributed to the number of homes owned in the foothills that are actually second homes/winter homes for "snowbirds"...there was a related article in (I think) the WSJ today that pointed out a flaw in the way the census bureau counts homes as "vacant", in that they count all second homes as being vacant, which actually puts a bizarre skew on home vacancies in upscale areas that are popular as summer/winter/ski/beach second home destinations among the affluent, so I wouldn't see this slight population drop as a reason to panic in anyway...