HAHA yeah when I'm reading on my Blackberry all my friends ask me if I'm "on the geek forum again.." hehe I just can't help it! Glad we all have our cyber place to gather.

:banana:

Oh my god, I'm a geek.

Fashion Place Mall Renderings

Not sure if these have been posted yet or not. But they look new to me.

Fashion Place Renderings.
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8...lace2ndlk9.jpg


http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7...lace3rdpx2.jpg


http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/7...lace4thbt1.jpg


http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3...lace355cn7.jpg
Renderings from www.mulvannyg2.com

What I think...
These renderings dose make the mall look more updated with design and fashion. However it's still just a indoor mall. I don't think I would even call it a redevelopment. It's more of a remodel. There will be a new Nordstrom that is now getting built on the North end. Just like the old Nordstrom the new store will be windowless with grant walls going all the way around. :( The old Nordstrom building will stay as part of the lifestyle and mall expansion. One thing I do like is that there will be a parking deck/garage on the North/east end just behind where the new Dillard's will go.
Over all this project isn't as great as the Cottonwood project or CCC. But it's still a improvement to what it is now.
What do you guys think?

East I-15
 

I know this a side topic but I have to say that I really do love how so many projects with noticeable hieght are being developed on the east side. I say this from a visual point of view, not to bring up cultural demographics. I was driving east bound on I-80 to go north bound on I-15. When i arrived at the top of the S. Bowl I could see all the east side from north to south. Starting from Downtown, then imagining what market station would look like, down to the IHC Hostpital then to the Jordan Commons Biulding thus imagining what those three proposed towers in sandy would add to the image. I am excited for the development taking place along the east and the density that will come with it.
[IMG]http://a549.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...efa7b482a740dc[/IMG]

:previous:

You would have been on 201, not I-80. Just a minor detail. :frog:

your right. 201.

Your right Timesaltlake. That will be a awesome view in a few years with all those new towers.

Family, mountains inspire Sandy complex architect

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...245727,00.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/5727932.jpg
The proposed Proscenium real-estate development includes a hotel, spa condominiums, a school and a Broadway-style theater. (Bts. Investments)

SANDY — Architect Russell Platt's designs for the Proscenium theater complex were inspired by his art-loving family and his daily runs in the mountains of the Wasatch Front.

The undulating curves of the proposed three glass towers are a tribute to the majesty of water-carved granite found in Utah's peaks, he said. And "green" elements such as walkability, high density, a garden atop one roof and wind-powered turbines disguised as sculptural elements will help ensure those mountains can be enjoyed for years to come.

The modernistic structures will achieve a timeless look with the curves, and use of space and materials, Platt said. The first building is expected to house a 2,400-seat Broadway roadhouse theater, a performing-arts high school, offices, a spa and hotel and high-end condominiums. A ritzy private club providing panoramas of the valley from 40 stories up could top off the project.


.

:previous:
40-stories?

lol!!!! Utah's tallest would be in Sandy?

That sounds like such a "Sandy" thing to do.

The part of the article that bothers me is that they state that they don't want the project in downtown SLC because of a light issue.

If that was the real reason, why wouldn't they just work with the city to build closer to I-15? Not much there to block the light.

I honestly don't see the buildings being built at 30 stories let alone 40. The people are complaining that 30 is to high.

Of course, if they do break ground for 30+ stories, I would expect a quick release and construction timetable to beat Sandy.

Nothing against Sandy but the project is just to big for them at this time. Scale down by 50% and I think it would fit a lot better.

:previous:
I agree with you Makid. Going from one 10 story building in Sandy to having 3 40 story towers is a huge jump for any city, quadrupaling the height and doing it 3 times. I don't think the demand is there right now.

I would think something like a two 20-25 story buildings in the initial phase with the infastructure to support a third or maybe even a forth tower down the road, maybe a 30+ and a 40+ in 5-20 years when the demand is there.

The quadrupaling of the height 3 times would be like a developer suddenly building 3 104 story towers in DT SLC. Ok since Jordan Commons in on the hill we'll only triple the actual elevation. So that would be like DT SLC getting three 78 story building. Somebody call Earl, tell him we think he should do it :tup:

:previous:
Could be in Sandy, It could be in Lehi. Come on Salt Lake City let's see a new tallest. :whip:

who's kidding who? fools dreaming?
 

40 story towers in Sandy? Towers evoking families and mountains? huh????
Yah, right? :jester: :jester: :jester: It's not so much about the design concept of mountains and families(I think all of that is somewhat made up), it's the ridiculous thinking that there is demand for that or that Sandy should have these kinds of towers. Someone please kick Tom Dolan out of office! He's an arrogant, ignorant, selfish, brat who doen't like to play fair with other kids his own age. I think this should be thrown away as a fool's dream. :jester: :jester: :jester: These guys are dreaming!!!! MARK MY WORDS: THIS WILL BE SCALED DOWN TO 10 STORIES, MAYBE, IF ANY GET BUILT AT ALL!
The reason these guys aren't proposing this in Salt Lake is because Salt Lake is too smart to believe in naieve little inexperienced developers who actually think their development is going to be be at this scale!

Yes I realize I am quoting myself but sometimes I really think I'm funny so I decided to post it again for those of you that didn't get a chance to see how funny I am. lol

Orlando, it seems that you and I finally agree on something. :tup:

I agree. At the very MOST this thing will be scaled back to a couple 10 story towers. I suspect, however, that this thing never sees the light of day.

I think the nail in the Proscenium coffin will be when SLC inks a deal for a theater in downtown. Sorry TOM! :( :lmao:

Ugly!!!
 

I think this Proscenium design is extremely ugly, FAR from timeless (looking VERY '80s) and remind me a lot of the crapfest known as the Westin-Bonaventure Hotel in downtown L.A.



http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1427/...2c80afaeda.jpg

How is Market Station doing? When will we see cranes and steel rise there? Anyone want to snap some pictures?

:previous:
I thought you out of all people would have more of a open mind towards the "Proscenium project" Am I the only one who thinks this project will be a good thing for the South end of the valley?
I do agree that I can't see this project getting three 40-story towers. But I do see it at least 20 stories. Sure this project could get scaled down a bit. But I believe with the growth on the South end of the valley that there is a enough of a demand to help support this kind of a project. I would like to see Sandy break the 10-story limit and get a few highrises. I don't think the Towers will look that bad. Can't be any worst then some of the new class condo towers getting built in Vegas. :yes:
But I guess time will tell. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Sandy, but I just don't think it will fly in this market. I think it would be awesome though.

:previous:
True. I'm also a little worried about the market. I just hope the market can hold out to support both the Sandy project and the South Salt Lake project. :tup:

I don't think anything higher than 10 stories should be built outside downtown SLC. For one thing, it makes taller bldgs less likely downtown when we dilute the critical mass needed to make downtown more vibrant.

:previous:
And that's where we disagree. Why should highrises only be in downtown. Other cities should have the right to built up.

:previous:
I don't think anything should be built above the ground outside of Salt Lake City proper... oops too late. :doh:

Projects, the reason why is simply stated by Stenar. Building something at that scale in SL metro as far out from the core as Sandy is, will dilute from the vibrancy of our already suffering downtown. The whole reason why the LDS church is bulding City Creek Center is to protect Temple Square from blight! The two downtown malls were suffering because of competition to the Gateway mall and suburban malls. And these malls in downtown were developed to compete with all the new mall springing up in the suburbs. The city was trying to prevent urban blight due to suburban flight. Do you get it now? Sandy should have development there for sure, but not at the expense of our capital city. People come to visit Salt Lake City, not Sandy. Let's make our city beautiful! :tup:

Sandy looks to give a lift to its skyline
First phase of planned development includes 40-story condo, office tower

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10011358

By Rosemary Winters
The Salt Lake Tribune

Sandy could grow to new heights.
Still weighing a code change to allow the burb's first 30- to 40-story skyscrapers as part of the planned Proscenium development, the Sandy City Council could allow 15-story buildings across the board in the central business district.
Currently, building heights in the district, which spans the Interstate 15 corridor from the South Towne Exposition Center near 9400 South to the South Towne Mall near 10600 South, are capped at 140 feet, or about 10 stories.
The council is considering extending that limit to around 200 feet, or roughly 15 stories.
"Besides The Proscenium, maybe we should allow greater height, in general," says Assistant Community Development Director Nick Duerksen. "We don't know that going above 140 feet is a bad thing."
A switch to 15 stories could mean taller office buildings on four undeveloped parcels near the Expo Center, Duerksen says, but the change would not help Orem-based Proscenium Development Inc.
Plans for the first of three, mixed-use towers near Interstate 15 and 10000 South have leapt from 30 stories to 40 stories. Sandy's planning staff is crafting a new zone that could accommodate a 500-foot-plus building.
"I don't think we'll see a lot more taller buildings. The Proscenium is probably a unique situation," City Councilman Bryant Anderson says. "It has a lot of significance to the city as an icon, especially with the arts district tied in."
The $560 million Proscenium would be built in three phases. The first phase, expected to open by fall 2010, would feature a 2,400-plus-seat Broadway-style playhouse, a performing-arts high school, a 500-seat venue and a black box theater in addition to a 40-story tower with office space, a hotel and condos.
Despite the dramatic makeover in store for Sandy's skyline, few residents have participated in public-comment periods on the topic.
Kim Lane, who lives in a neighborhood near The Proscenium site, has called the towers an environmental "blight" that would obscure Sandy's mountain views.
Cathy Spuck, the lone commentator at a recent hearing who worried about a "concrete jungle," is pleased council members have backed away from an ordinance that would have allowed builders, including Proscenium Development, to break the height limit with the approval of the Planning Commission.
"They've taken the time to really consider some other factors and look at it thoroughly," she says.
After attending a few meetings, Spuck no longer opposes a 40-story high-rise in Sandy because she agrees with the developer that it's the most cost-effective use of the land.
"I'm still concerned that I'm really the only one showing up to investigate," she adds. "I'd love to see more citizens get involved."


What's next

* At 7 p.m. on Tuesday , Sandy's City Council plans to consider a code change to allow additional height, perhaps 15 stories, or 200 feet, in the city's central business district. The meeting is at City Hall, 10000 S. Centennial Parkway (170 West).
* Sandy staff is crafting special zoning - allowing even taller buildings - for The Proscenium project's planned 30- to 40-story high-rises. The Planning Commission could review the ordinance as soon as Aug. 7. After that, it would go to the City Council for approval.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...iumTheater.jpg
.

Okay, I don't understand the reasoning behind the height restriction in Sandy. Usually a height restriction is so that some existing landmark isn't dwarfed or hidden, for example the temple or the capital. Without the height restriction in Washington DC, you'd have something like New York or Boston, which would totally destroy the character of the city. A 10- or 15-story restriction in Sandy seems very arbitrary. I'll bet the city council will okay any height you want.

Height restrictions
 

A lot of suburban communities have height restrictions because they simply don't want to live in an urban environment, which is why the people moved to the suburbs in the first place.

One example is the the community of Belmont outside Boston. It has height restrictions around 75 or 100 feet. When the LDS church wanted to build their temple there with 6 spires over 100 feet, people had a fit. If you've ever been to Belmont, you'd see there are absolutely no landmarks there to be blocked by tall buildings.

Orlando & Stenar
 

I just think (with my crazy way of thinking:D ) that cities like Sandy or Murray that are on the east bench are running out of land to built on. So with projects like the "Proscenium" seems smart to me since the developer wants to built 2,400-plus-seat Broadway-style playhouse, a performing-arts high school, a 500-seat venue and a black box theater in addition with office space, a hotel and condos all on a few acres of land. This projects saves alot of space and land by building upwards instead of outwards like most projects in the suburbs. Just think how much space this project would take it these hotels and condos buildings are only 3 or 4 stories each. How many buildings would they need to build to get the same S.F. And since Sandy is running out of land the city is now to the point that it will have to start building up. Otherwise the city would stop growing. We live in a valley and we can only built out so far. Beside I thought we all hated "sprawl". This project isn't sprawl.
My next point is that maybe not everyone who lives down on the southend of the valley want to drive to downtown SLC for EVERYTHING. Would it be smarter to build some office buildings and condos down on the south end of the valley to and keep more cars off the roads. With gas at $4 per gallon most people want to limit their driving. So with this "Proscenium project" since it's a mix-use project people can live on one floor and go to work on another floor with out ever leaving the building. How bad would our roads be if every office building was built in downtown SLC and everyone would have to drive to salt lake city for work? 1-15 would be a parking lot. ( I know I've make this point a few times before. )
I just feel people hate this project just because it's in Sandy. If it was in Salt Lake or South Salt Lake or even Murray I don't think people would be freaking out as bad.
What about the Market Station project in South Salt Lake? That isn't downtown but people seem to be ok with that. Should South Salt Lake be limit to only 5 story buildings? Why is it ok for South Salt Lake to built up but other cities like Sandy or Murray or P.G or Lehi can't.
Besides I like tall buildings and I welcome Sandy for trying to develop more of a city center. :tup:
That's just my thought.

What about TRAX? Can't they take TRAX?

I don't get why it's so hard to understand that this proscenium project is terrible for downtown? SLC is our capital and the regional economic center of the Wasatch front. If SLC isn't thriving, it hurts the region. People who come here to do business don't want to be driving all over a valley they aren't familiar with. They want their needs to be met downtown. They also might want to catch a broadway play while they're here, and they sure as hell aren't going to drive out to Sandy to do that. Having a vibrant downtown core not only benefits locals, it provides a nexus for national and international business to take place. If you build a 30 story commercial building in Sandy I guarantee most of the people that work there are not going to be living in Sandy... they will be commuting there. Build a large commercial building somewhere dense, like say DOWNTOWN, there will already be a larger proportion of workers living nearby.

The Denver Tech Center
 

Delts: I think there is more to the issue here than meets the eye.

First, the Denver Tech Center is a classic case of when urban development is not concentrated. The Tech Center, just south of the inner belt loop in Denver, sucked away much of the development that would have normally gone downtown. It also significantly contributed to the sprawl in the south end of the Denver metro area, much like the Sandy project would do to the sprawl occurring in southwest SL and northern Utah counties.

Second, and I think this might be the real reason, the proposed Proscenium development makes no sense from a lot of development perspectives. Where is the client base for high rise office development in the south end of the valley? If you look at all the development that has taken place along the Jordan River in South Jordan, those businesses are not the kind that are going to pay premium lease rates for high-rise offices.

Where are the home buyers going to come from to suck up the condos in the development? Not trying to being smug, but there is not much of a track record of urban development in the south end of the valley, so I suspect people with the means to purchase those condos will put their investments elsewhere.

Finally, the whole project hinges on artists wanting to live and work in the south end of the valley. The few artistic people I know in the area would gag at the thought of choosing Sandy over downtown SLC. Sandy is not exactly a bastion of creative thinking and free expression. Ironically, the lack of tolerance in Sandy for diverse opinions would seem to be the death knell for this project. The whole concept makes much more sense if it were anchored by the Gehry development in Lehi, whose designer is a renowned artist and very creative thinker. I'll take the Lehi project, which, by the way, is much closer to a major university with well developed arts programs, over Sandy if major high-rise development is going to occur outside of the SLC CBD, which must happen sooner or later.

:previous:
I'm sure more people are riding Trax due to high gas prices, Not everyone wants to ride Trax. UTA needs to build alot more trax lines and stations before alot more people will be willing to ride it. And they are doing that now with the West Valley line and the mid Jordan line. But no matter how many trax lines we get there will still be more people driving then riding Trax.

:previous:
:previous:

RFPCME, I think you might have attributed the wrong quote to me.:shrug:

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that it is actually right to do it. It's like a tragedy of the commons. But oh well, suburbs will do as they will and all we can do is hope for the best.

RFPCME brigns up one of the best examples in the tech center in Denver. While commercial nodes need to develop, they need to do so in a manner that respects their locale. I would rather see sandy develop something smaller scale, similar to what they have now. There is not problem with sandy wanting to create jobs, they should. But they need to do so in a moer sensitive way. I was at the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute conference a few years back and heard that there are more jobs in the Tech Center than all of downtown. It would take decades for SLC to recover from that type of impact. I do not know if they could.

Height restrictions serve many purposes, including reducing shadowing, reducing the need to have special emergency response equipement, urban desig (although probably not much of a consideration in Sandy), etc. I think the emergency response impacts are often under appreciated by people. Sandy is not equiped to provide this to a structure of this size, hell, not even SLC is. It would costs millions of dollars for equipment, personnel, training, and housing this equipment. I have no clue what types of impact fees sandy has, but this should be a consideration for this type of development. I think sandy would be very smart to limit their building heights to 5 stories and alter their building codes to allow wood construction up to that height. It would provide a huge incentive to builders because it is much cheaper to build.

I am not a huge fan of the Proscenium, I do think that proscenium has the potential to hurt DT but again as excited as the developer and the city are, the demand must be there for a development of that size.

I am not however opposed to Sandy gradually getting taller. As someone has said, Sandy is nearly built out and have very little developlable space reaming, with a few areas that could use some redevelopment. Many cities want to mature and grow up and I think Sandy is a natural city to do that. It is the 2nd largest city in the Valley that substantially faces I-15, the main commercial corridor in the state. Sandy and every other city will need to continue to spur economic development in order to maintian services and pay for improvements. I would rather see two 10 story buildings built at Sandy City Center than four 5 story typical suburban type buildings.

Just like SLC, Sandy is at a point were it needs to go vertical in order to continue to make it worth a developers time. 40 stories vertical just seems a little to much and I will say it again, if the market isn't asking for it, it won't get built.

My apologies
 

Sorry Delts. It was a quote from Projects.

:previous:
Agreed. That's why I like the "proscenium project" is because Sandy is trying to become different then most suburban type cities. :tup:

Now everybody remember, I love DT Salt Lake City and I would never suggest anything to hurt its economic future, and the following suggestion is due to the fact that dt slc has become such a huge and thriving economic, residential, commercial, retail and cultural hub that there is need for an additional node of such activity in the valley, with that said, picture this.

Sandy City alters their height restrictions to allow for The Proscenium or some other development to occur in the City Center. Maybe the Proscenium with 3 15-25 story towers, (we all know current demand won't call for anything larger than that) as the population in the valley continue to grow, maybe Sandy city center truly does become not "The other downtown" but "Another downtown" office demand near I-15 and transit increases in demand as does Urban style living, suburban style malls fall even more out of favor than they currently are and all of a sudden South Towne is 40-50 years old and there is no demand for space like that. The mall is demolished and the property is redeveloped over a period of time to become an additional urban core in the Salt Lake Valley, with a skyline of it's own, possibly with towers up to 40 stories. You must understand that by this point SLC will have easly breached the 50 story barrier and while Sandy will have a nice little skyline of it's own, it is still little brother to Salt Lake City and it's success is still dependant on the success of SLC. The Mall property bounded by State, 15 and 106th could easly convert to a grid system to transform into a nice urban setting.

While I would like to see other more traditional urban cores develop, like Provo. It seems as if Sandy is more progressive towards breaking some barriers and transforming itself. Ideally I would love to have three nice skylines along the Wasatch, one at each end (Ogden and Provo) and the most impressive one at the heart in SLC, but if that isn't the case four wouldn't be bad either. Provo needs to be agreessive in pursuing large tenants that demand presitigous space, otherwise Sandy or Lehi are going to lure them away and Provo will remain around 10 stories tall.

I like and agree with a lot of what your saying Future Mayor. Here's a couple of snapshots of L.A.'s three skylines within a close proximity to each other. Of course, L.A. has other skylines, such as Long Beach and also inumerable village core's that resemble Sugarhouse. These many skyline and urban village buildups/renovations started slowly in the 70's, took on more steam in the 80's, and continued in ernest in the 90's, until today. Los Angeles metro, in and around the Hollywood Hills merits considerable study from urban planners such as yourself, who plan on setting up shop along the Wasatch. The geographical barriers and attractive topography is amazingly similar. Understanding both Metro's intimately, for me the similarities become too numerous and burdensome to list on this forum. In certain ways, such as mass-transit, the Wasatch is ahead of the game over L.A. If L.A. had approached it's transit 40 years ago, as the Wasatch is doing now during this current build-up, "L.A. would be in much better condition as far as gridlock." Also, the local Wasatch metro governments,for all of their foibles, are far more fiscally responsible than much of L.A.

Just a little caution to those who would make the snap judgement that downtown Salt Lake will suffer the same plight as downtown L.A. suffered in the 70's-80's, if we have more than one skyline in the metro. If you fall in to that convenient assumption, then you donot have a thorough understanding of Los Angeles at all. There are many things that The Wasatch is doing right at this time, that unfortunately were not the fashion in L.A. at that time, or that local corruption and greed prohibited from happening.

Downtown Glendale, which is just minutes east, up the 5 from downtown L.A. This would be the same approximate distance as say downtown Sandy from Downtown Salt Lake. Note, in the second pic you can see the Downtown L.A. towers at the left, peaking over the Hollywood Hills.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/26...985348.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1103/...01e9e8.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/...a9bffa.jpg?v=0

Downtown Los Angeles as it will appear when current projects are completed
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ureSkyline.jpg
by MBenzLover

About fifteen to 20 minutes, (non peak traffic) further west at the I-10 and 405 junction you have the Century City skyline.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...31/CCandDT.jpg

Looking toward the Wilshire Corridor. This is Wilshire Blvd., which is similar in nature to what State Street is to the Salt Lake Valley. Wilshire Blvd. connects Downtown Century City to Downtown L.A. Over the past twenty five years, it has developed into a corridor of residential and office towers. This is probably an excellent example of what will transpire for Salt Lake's State Street, between Lehi, Sandy and Downtown Salt Lake. We are now seeing evidence of this with Market Station and Murray.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/90/24...4a4c9057_b.jpg

.

There's also the Long Beach skyline just south of L.A.

Long Beach would be comparable in location to downtown Salt Lake and Provo. Not nearly as close as Glendale, Downtown L.A., Century City/ Downtown Salt Lake, Sandy, Lehi. Downtown, Provo would be an anchor for the Southern Metro, as Downtown Long Beach is for the Los Angeles, (referred to as South Bay area). As Southern Utah Valley and Northern Juab grow, Provo will take on more of a skyline. In the meantime, I think a lot of the bulk of towers and visual skyline will go to Sandy and even Lehi's, Traverse Ridge. Several factors will dictate how fast and furious the 'Gehry + tag alongs' skyline will develop. The Gehry skyline has the potential to generate a huge following of national developers. We'll just have to see how the economy evolves for the Wasatch. That will deternine the speed of the Gehry skyline evolution.

There has been a lot of discussion about the final height of the Sandy Towers. Indicator's of the Sandy City and developer psyches, would point to building one taller tower, of between 32 and 40 plus stories to begin with. Unlike others, I believe that Sandy will be cautious, but prefer to build one taller, instead of two shorter, so to speak.

There is more to density than building up. Sandy and other suburban communities can develop impressive, functional densities without going up. Horizontal densities at less than 10 stories is certainly doable and is found all over in major cities and their surrounding suburbs. Someone mentioned this earlier, but in the case of Sandy, the toughest battle will be getting over the public perception of what this kind of height brings.

Yes we all realize that there is a density between 1/2 acre lots/4 story commercial buildings and 40 story high rises. I was simply stating that saying Sandy should remain at 5 story limits is unreasonable, and 3 40 story towers is also unreasonable (at this point) in the mean time they do need to focus on allowing something higher than 5 stories. Whether that is initially 8 or 15 stories I think that is the natural flow that Sandy will take.

I think the most interesting comment that was in the article regarding the Proscenium the other day was one resident said that they don't want 40 story buildings because they aren't interested in living in or near a concrete jungle. I guess they prefer the asphalt jungle version that is just to the south aka, South Town Mall. I may be biased but I would rather walk around the streets in the CBD as opposed to wander around the parking lot of South Town, but then I'm a city kind of guy, maybe I can't appreciate the beauty of acres upon acres of stripped asphalt, compared to landscaped streets, interesting plazas and nice architecture. :sly:

It almost appears as though some would like to punish Sandy for finally doing something right? A dense, mixed use project that, to me, fits well with its surroundings. (I realize that is simply my own opinion.) This is a step in the right direction, though the moral and right destination may be far down the road.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find funding for transit in an area without the density. Taxpayers and government officials want to see full trains on Day 1. (Though they want to see lane upon lane of empty freeway. I don't get that.) With the density will come the transit portion of a project or a section of the city. It is unfortunate but if there was no traffic on I-15 in the morning, FrontRunner wouldn't have 25% of the ridership it has now. As Sandy fills in I think that it will continue to improve upon itself. I think we ought to applaud baby steps in the right direction.

I will now prepare myself for a verbal whipping!

I welcome traffic. It is one of the symptoms of a good economy. It also helps to reduce sprawl and promote mass transit. :tup:

Hi guys!

I've been lurking around this site for some time now, and have enjoyed reading what you guys have to say about all these new projects. It is very exciting to see how much the Salt Lake area is progressing, and I truly hope each and every one of these buildings get built!

I find this a great oppurtunity to ask you guys a couple of questions that are on my mind right now...

I understand that the Traverse Mountain development in Lehi is going through some hard times right now due to the housing market, but does anyone know if that HUGE retail center is to ever get built? I see they still the renderings up on their website, but they date back to 2005?http://www.traversemountain.com/full...ncept_drawings

Maybe the Frank Gehry project is going in its place??

Thanks!