Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Sounds to me like someone needs to quit drinking the urban-planning Kool-Aid. I've lived in cities and in suburbs, and aside from the commute, suburbs are far superior. You can have more room in your house, have your own yard, a garage, you can turn up your stereo without neighbors banging on the wall, it's much cheaper per square foot, etc., etc., etc. I can see how people enjoy living an urban lifestyle but I don't think that should mean that suburbs are not an option.

You mention that prior to WWII, people only lived in cities or in rural areas. The reason people lived in rural areas back then was farming. It was common for people to farm their land and they could make a decent living doing so. Now with all the corporate farms, it's very difficult for a family farmer to make ends meet, which means that rural living is increasingly impossible for all but the independently wealthy. Since most don't have the money to buy 40+ acres and live hours out of the "big city," the next best alternative is to live in the 'burbs and at least have a little land to call your own.

The problem with suburbs, is all of the auto dependent un-walkable subdivisions that are not dense enough to support public transport, making it difficult to get around, especially for those age groups that cannot drive a car, namely children and seniors. Why do we think that suburbs are better for children? We keep children captive and so dependent on their parents to get from place to place. I think this sort of dependency can actually stiemy a child's growth. And I don't understand why so many senior centers and rest-homes are located in un-walkable suburbs. Those poor, poor seniors have to stay couped up for the last few years of their lives. Maybe they're lucky enough to have a shuttle service provided by the rest-home, but again, that makes them dependent on other people and the automobile. Cities try to create a self sufficient atmosphere that is dense and walkable, and it doesn't help that process when suburbs suck funding and services from the city. A good city will also have parks and other open space that are well kept. These spaces give people that same "closeness to nature" feeling that you experience in your backyard. The nice thing about a park is: you don't have to do any yard-work. Thus, allowing more time to be productive doing other things. When I think of the city, I think of Productivity, Efficiency, and Accessibility. When you think of the suburb, do you think of those things? If so, Why?

[wrendog]

those are great points for urban living and those are things to think about with suburban living. But, one can counter urban living as being bad for children too. Much more opportunity for kids to cause trouble and there is more crime in urban areas. In suburban areas, much less crime and there are many neighborhood parks to play in.

It just seems that people who think that urban living is the ONLY way to go and EVERYTHING else is ridiculous and a bane to life's existence is an obtuse view. It's OK for people to like driving cars. It's OK for people to want yards and do yard work. It's OK to want to live on a culdesac. And guess what? It's OK to want to live in a residential condo downtown. It's OK to want to have great access to public transportation. Does that mean that suburban living is crap and urban is the only way to go (or vice versa)? Heavens no, THEY ARE BOTH GOOD!

[urbanboy]

[QUOTE=wrendog;2657403]

But, one can counter urban living as being bad for children too. Much more opportunity for kids to cause trouble and there is more crime in urban areas.

[/B]

In suburban areas, much less crime and there are many neighborhood parks to play in.

In "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs, she writes:

Among the superstitions of planning and housing is a fantasy about the transformation of children. It goes like this: A population of children is condemned to play on the city streets. These pale and rickety children, in their sinister moral environment, are telling each other the canards about sex, sniggering evilly and learning new forms of corruption as efficiently as if they were in reform school. This situation is called "the moral and physical toll taken of our youth by the streets," sometimes it is called simply "the gutter."
If only these deprived children can be gotten off the streets into parks and playgrounds with equipment on which to exercise,space in which to run, grass to lift their souls! Clean and happy places, filled with the laughter of children responding to a wholesome environment. So much for the fantasy.
In real life, only from the ordinary adults of the city sidewalks do children learn--if they learn it at all--the first fundamental of successful city life: People must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other. This is a lesson nobody learns by being told. It is learned from the experience of having other people without ties of kinship or close friendship or formal responsibility to you take a modicum of public responsibility for you.
The lesson that city dwellers have to take responsibility for what goes on in city streets is taught again and again to children on sidewalks which enjoy a local public life. They can absorb it astonishingly early. They show they have absorbed it by taking it for granted that they, too, are part of the management. They volunteer (before they are asked) directions to people who are lost; they tell a man he will get a ticket if he parks where he thinks he is going to park; they offer unsolicited advice to the building superintendent to use rock salt instead of a chopper to attack the ice. The presence or absence of this kind of street bossiness in city children is a fairly good tip-off to the presence or absence of responsible adult behavior toward the sidewalk and the children who use it. The children are imitating adult attitudes. This has nothing to do with income. Some of the poorest parts of cities do the best by their children in this respect. And some do the worst.
This is instruction in city living that people hired to look after children cannot teach, because the essence of this responsibility is that you do it without being hired. It is a lesson that parents, by themselves, are powerless to teach. If parents take minor public responsibility for strangers of neighbors in a society where nobody else does, this simply means that the parents are embarrassingly different and meddlesome, not that this is the proper way to behave. Such instruction must come from society itself, and in cities, if it comes almost entirely during the time children spend at incidental play on the sidewalks.

All these stories you hear of crime and child molestations and what not, happening in the city, happen just as much in suburbia. With a larger concentration of people and better communication in the city, you're more likely to hear about it.

[wrendog]

of course bad things happen in suburbia, of course there is a lot of child abuse in suburbia. But that happens in urban areas too!

I guess my beef is with people who have the attitude that everyone who doesn't think the same way they do is wrong. Not everything is so black and white. There is room for people that accept suburbia and people that accept urbia in the same area. Neither is more right than the other. People have differents wants and needs and if suburbia fulfills those, than why is that bad?

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by wrendog

of course bad things happen in suburbia, of course there is a lot of child abuse in suburbia. But that happens in urban areas too!

I guess my beef is with people who have the attitude that everyone who doesn't think the same way they do is wrong. Not everything is so black and white. There is room for people that accept suburbia and people that accept urbia in the same area. Neither is more right than the other. People have differents wants and needs and if suburbia fulfills those, than why is that bad?

Hey Wrendog, I agree with you. I was only responding to the statements that I quoted.

[Comrade]

I'm starting to think DevdogAZ doesn't really know what he's talking about.

I grew up in inner-city Salt Lake. And while my first house had no garage (it was a 4-plex, we had carports), my second house does. Both houses had a yard and I don't ever remember cops being called out because of "loud music". My neighborhood was built in the 40s, a trolley suburb about 10 minutes south of downtown Salt Lake City. It wasn't dense, but it was walkable and I think that's the big difference between the "suburbs" of the 40s and the suburbs of today.

The problem with DevdogAZ's viewpoint is that he doesn't really understand the difference between sprawl and walkable suburban development. There is a difference. Salt Lake has a grid system, which makes walkability fairly easy for many of the residents that live in the central area (not downtown, residential neighborhoods to the south). There are corner stores, parks, businesses and other options only blocks away from someone's front porch. However that is not the case in most newer suburban developments. Instead, if someone wants to go to the corner store for a Coke, they need to hop into their car, drive out of their subdivision, down a busy road and to the corner store. That's the problem I have with suburban development. Not the fact they have front or backyards, or that homes have garages (though I think when a house's garage is the prominent feature, it's butt ugly).

Every summer a bunch of friends and me would walk down to the old Circle K on the corner of 700 East and 2700 South. It was maybe a 5 minute walk, yet no kid can really do that today. Instead of a five minute walk to the corner store, it would be a 10 minute walk just to get out of the subdivision in today's sprawl. And so kids don't walk and instead ask mom or dad for a ride. And we wonder why Americans are so obese?

I think sprawl needs to be banned by the government. I truly believe that the government must dictate growth patterns, but that doesn't mean we can't have suburbs. You just need to make these suburbs WALKABLE, but instead every suburb is dependant on the automobile. That hurts society more than it actually helps it.

Growing up we had one car. My dad used it for work, so I often had to walk every place I wanted to go. I walked to school, walked to the corner store, walked up to Granite Bakery, to the movies and over to Fairmont Park to swim in the summer. Kids today in suburban American can't do that. So they often spend the time sitting in their bedroom playing video games, eating Cheese Doodles and getting fatter and fatter by the hour.

[wrendog]

Walkable? What if people don't give a rip if it's walkable? Some people like to drive. I understand the need to have walkable areas, as that is what some people like, but everywhere? Why should the government force that? That makes no sense. And I am even a proponant of walkable neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean that drivable suburbia is wrong.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Walkable? What if people don't give a rip if it's walkable? Some people like to drive. I understand the need to have walkable areas, as that is what some people like, but everywhere? Why should the government force that? That makes no sense. And I am even a proponant of walkable neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean that drivable suburbia is wrong.

Why? Because it's hurting our environment, that's why. The government has an obligation to protect the environment in ways it sees fit. Allowing destructive development only because people are too lazy to walk will only set us down a path that won't be corrected.

I love it! So many people bitch and whine about the pollution and how it's gross and how unhealthy the air is. Then they'll get into their car and go drive on red burn days. They'll do everything BUT walk because they're fat and lazy. I'm tired of fat, lazy people that want to destroy the environment because they can't be bothered to walk a few blocks to the corner store.

Many cities around the world have started mandating specific suburban growth patterns because it is depleting our resources. I have no problem with government forcing communities to building healthier, walkable suburbs. I'm not asking the government to force people to walk, but if you give them the opition, it definitely will help.

So yeah, I think suburbs built around the automobile are wrong. Especially when you can get the exact same housing in a walkable neighborhood.

[SLCforme]

I'm going to have to stand with comrade on this one. What if people like to drive and don't like to walk? What if people like clubing baby seals? "Personal freedom" is not the end all of a just society because one persons choices can affect all of us and the world we all live on as well. If science finds that something damages the environment it is the governments job to regulate the practice. That doesn't mean ban it, but keep it within reason. If pollution is a big problem in an area, as it is here, then then the government needs to take steps to help reduce it, and mandating walkable communities is one way to do that.
I honestly haven't thought about this issue and what reprocussions it could have on communities and development, so I'm not advocating it as of now, but it is definitely something to think about.

[SLC Projects]

As long as I have a roof over my head i'm happy. I think living in both areas have their good and bad things about them. so i'm just going to leave it at that. Any cool projects going on?...LOL

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Why? Because it's hurting our environment, that's why. The government has an obligation to protect the environment in ways it sees fit. Allowing destructive development only because people are too lazy to walk will only set us down a path that won't be corrected.

I love it! So many people bitch and whine about the pollution and how it's gross and how unhealthy the air is. Then they'll get into their car and go drive on red burn days. They'll do everything BUT walk because they're fat and lazy. I'm tired of fat, lazy people that want to destroy the environment because they can't be bothered to walk a few blocks to the corner store.

Many cities around the world have started mandating specific suburban growth patterns because it is depleting our resources. I have no problem with government forcing communities to building healthier, walkable suburbs. I'm not asking the government to force people to walk, but if you give them the opition, it definitely will help.

So yeah, I think suburbs built around the automobile are wrong. Especially when you can get the exact same housing in a walkable neighborhood.

As much as you might want to dictate to people where they want to live and how they will get around, I want to live where I want. Giving options would be okay, but that quickly turns into penalties then mandates and soon it's a criminal act. A few dictate how and what everything looks.

If I want to live in Eagle Mountain and drive to downtown SLC, who are you to tell me I can't? Do you want to provide incentives or give me a reason to want to change, I'll look at that. Pollution issue? What if I drive an electric car or hybrid or Hydrogen power. Living in the Suburbs is more than a pollution issue. You can live in the suburbs with 1/2 acre lots and a mile to a store in ways that don't damage the environment.

To also say that sprawl into suburbs creates pollution doesn't have to be the conclusion. If we built better transportation options into the options, I could like in Eagle Mountain and take a train to work. I wouldn't mind that.

I would debate you on the whole "global warming thing", but that's not what this thread is about. It's about buildings. I like buildings. I like development. Some buildings and developments suck and some are great. I do agree that a more walkable neighborhood would be great. I would like to live close enough to walk to a store, but I want a yard more than the walkability. I grew up with small mom and pop convenience stores in neighborhoods where you could go to get a soda or milk or even tofu at some stores, but that doesn't mean that I want to live stacked and jammed into an apartment. Been there/done that.

Rather than "dictate" where and how I can live, how about we look for better solutions to that question.

[Urbano]

People living in Eagle Mountain and other areas don't pay the real costs of living far away from existing infrastructure. I don't think most people realize how expensive suburbia is because the true cost of developing these "leapfrog" communities is never passed onto those who choose to live in those communities. I'm all for choice, but I think people should have to pay the true cost of living where they choose to live. Providing services and infrastructure to these areas is expensive and people might think twice if that cost was passed onto them through their mortgage.
A good example of this is the Mountain View Corridor. The state is having a hard time paying for this brand new road that is essential for existing and future growth in Eagle Mountain, and yet people are still able to buy the cheaper housing while in the end we subsidize them living so far from everything.

[DevdogAZ]

Oh boy, someone needs to get off their soapbox.

First of all, the government has no duty or even authority to ban sprawl. A municipality can exercise it's zoning power and try to prevent leapfrog development and encourage certain types of development in certain areas, but ultimately private property rights reign.

Second, who says that a person in suburbia has to be able to walk to the corner store? What's wrong with just a walk around the neighborhood? If I actually want to go somewhere, especially a store where I might buy something, I'm very unlikely to walk there, whether I live in suburbia or in the city. I live in sprawl city, yet I could easily walk to the grocery store, post office or Circle K in less than 5 minutes. I've done it before, but I don't do it often because it's not what I consider enjoyable. You can definitely make a neighborhood more "walkable" but that's not going to make people walk. And to think that government should or could somehow create policies that will make it more likely that people will walk to the store is far more government involvement than I want in my life.

Comrade seems to want to dictate people's lifestyles and tell them that driving is bad and that they must be able to walk to a store. I abhor that type of attitude. Let people do what they want. If it's bad for the environment, try to educate people as to why they should care. But don't force a lifestyle choice on them just because you feel your preference is better.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SmilingBob

As much as you might want to dictate to people where they want to live and how they will get around, I want to live where I want. Giving options would be okay, but that quickly turns into penalties then mandates and soon it's a criminal act. A few dictate how and what everything looks.

If I want to live in Eagle Mountain and drive to downtown SLC, who are you to tell me I can't? Do you want to provide incentives or give me a reason to want to change, I'll look at that. Pollution issue? What if I drive an electric car or hybrid or Hydrogen power. Living in the Suburbs is more than a pollution issue. You can live in the suburbs with 1/2 acre lots and a mile to a store in ways that don't damage the environment.

To also say that sprawl into suburbs creates pollution doesn't have to be the conclusion. If we built better transportation options into the options, I could like in Eagle Mountain and take a train to work. I wouldn't mind that.

I would debate you on the whole "global warming thing", but that's not what this thread is about. It's about buildings. I like buildings. I like development. Some buildings and developments suck and some are great. I do agree that a more walkable neighborhood would be great. I would like to live close enough to walk to a store, but I want a yard more than the walkability. I grew up with small mom and pop convenience stores in neighborhoods where you could go to get a soda or milk or even tofu at some stores, but that doesn't mean that I want to live stacked and jammed into an apartment. Been there/done that.

Rather than "dictate" where and how I can live, how about we look for better solutions to that question.

Hm, did you not read anything I said? Please tell me where I said you couldn't live in the suburbs? I never said that, so quit putting words in my mouth. I only said I believe the government should better regulate suburban growth. That does not mean we ban people from the suburbs, rather dictate growth policy. It isn't like what I'm proposing is a radical idea, either, because every city in America has policies which dictate where someone can and cannot build and what their houses must look like. I can't just decide to go build a home in a lot designated as industrial or commercial. All I said was that I think the government should force developers into building walkable neighborhoods. That means no more subdivisions that take up land and offer no viable option outside of the sole reason to pollute.

So before you go off on an unwarranted rant, re-read the post and realize I never said we should dictate where people live. Rather dictate future development in our suburban communities. It's the only way we're going to save this damn earth, because at this rate we'll have zero land for development in 50 years and air about as brown as the water in Mexico. And we're not talking global warming, we're talking air pollution, there is a difference. Pollution in Salt Lake is some of the worst in the nation and if we continue to feed the monster, we'll be fucked within decades.

[Northernlad]

The Wasatch is a very suburban minded area. Sure the local papers will run fluff articles on a few people who decided to live downtown, but we are in a suburban metro here. I prefer downtown living and would not even think about living in the burbs. My house is in a dense, older, walkable area and still has a nice yard and the garage is hidded in the back where it should be.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Oh boy, someone needs to get off their soapbox.

First of all, the government has no duty or even authority to ban sprawl. A municipality can exercise it's zoning power and try to prevent leapfrog development and encourage certain types of development in certain areas, but ultimately private property rights reign.

The government does have a duty, just like it has a duty to ban growth on foothills and in other locations that are protected because of enivornmental concerns. You don't know much about local government, do you? They have the final say in what is developed and how it is developed. The only problem is that far too many cities allow this type of development because all they care about is a bigger population, which means more money for the city. Except the development patterns are actually HINDERING our cities and smart development, even in the suburbs, would far benefit the community than typical suburban sprawl. Private property rights reign only within the zoning laws of a city and that's it. I own the property my house is on, but I can't demolish it for a 60 story residential tower, not without the city approving. And guess what? I doubt they would approve such a measure.

All I said was that we take it a step further and force these developers to build walkable neighborhoods. It isn't an extreme request and one that will benefit the community as a whole.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Second, who says that a person in suburbia has to be able to walk to the corner store? What's wrong with just a walk around the neighborhood? If I actually want to go somewhere, especially a store where I might buy something, I'm very unlikely to walk there, whether I live in suburbia or in the city. I live in sprawl city, yet I could easily walk to the grocery store, post office or Circle K in less than 5 minutes. I've done it before, but I don't do it often because it's not what I consider enjoyable. You can definitely make a neighborhood more "walkable" but that's not going to make people walk. And to think that government should or could somehow create policies that will make it more likely that people will walk to the store is far more government involvement than I want in my life.

There is nothing wrong with walking around the neighborhood. However that is becoming less and less of an action by not only adults, but children too. It breeds laziness. If you build corner stores with communities, people would be more willing to walk down to the corner store instead of getting into their gas guzzling SUV and drive down there for a measly Coke. You weigh the options, which one benefits society more?

And guess what, you can easily walk to the post office and Circle K, yet that isn't the norm for most suburban residents. Most subdivisions are planned in a way where exiting them would not be an easy task on foot. Instead of just walking out of your house, down the street and then up another, you've got to walk through multiple streets JUST to get to the main road where the corner store is on.

Moreover, it's nearly impossible for people to walk to the heart of a neighborhood because it's all built around the automobile. My neighborhood has a downtown area with retail shopping, a bank and restaurants. It's very accessible on foot, but the same can't be said for suburban neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Comrade seems to want to dictate people's lifestyles and tell them that driving is bad and that they must be able to walk to a store. I abhor that type of attitude. Let people do what they want. If it's bad for the environment, try to educate people as to why they should care. But don't force a lifestyle choice on them just because you feel your preference is better.

I don't think driving is bad and you know I don't, because I never said it. I just said I think we should give people the option to walk in these newer suburban neighborhoods. Instead we don't and if they want to walk, there are far too many obstacles (busy roads, distance, traffic) and they often give up and opt for the car, even if they don't want it. I never said we should take people's cars away, or force them to walk. I only said we should build communities that better fit WALKING rather than the car. That's a lifestyle choice that doesn't benefit just one person, but the entire community.

Now you give me a reason why it's "wrong" to want walkable neighborhoods? Because some people are too lazy to walk? Well good, if they don't want to walk, fine! But at least give them the option...something that most newer development lacks.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to find a better solution for the environmental problems of today. Suburbs are inevitable, their development patterns however are not.

[pdxman]

I like your take on things comrade

[Viperlord]

so,yeah...this one time this forum was used to talk about development in Salt Lake City....yeah, it was pretty cool.

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

The government does have a duty, just like it has a duty to ban growth on foothills and in other locations that are protected because of enivornmental concerns. You don't know much about local government, do you?

I guess all those classes in law school about Land Use Law, Private Property Rights, Constitutional Law, etc. taught me nothing about government. I guess I'll throw out what I thought I knew and sign up for your newsletter instead.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

All I said was that we take it a step further and force these developers to build walkable neighborhoods. It isn't an extreme request and one that will benefit the community as a whole.

Actually it is a pretty extreme request, because aside from some design review standards and zoning issues, the municipality doesn't really have the right or authority to foist that level of minutiae onto developers. It's simply not an area that local governments should be involved in. First of all, who determines what constitutes "walkable?" Next, what interest does the city have in forcing these standards on the developers? What would be the policy reason for mandating such standards? Would it bring more money to the city? Would it bring more residents? Would it bring in more businesses? Forcing developers to build "walkable" neighborhoods with small retailers on the corner simply isn't practical, since small retailers can't compete in today's economy.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Now you give me a reason why it's "wrong" to want walkable neighborhoods? Because some people are too lazy to walk? Well good, if they don't want to walk, fine! But at least give them the option...something that most newer development lacks.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to find a better solution for the environmental problems of today. Suburbs are inevitable, their development patterns however are not.

There is nothing wrong with WANTING more walkable neighborhoods. There absolutely is something wrong with thinking that it's appropriate to MANDATE more walkable neighborhoods. If a developer thinks they can make their development more desireable by designing it the way you want, more power to them. But no city should FORCE that type of development as that's not what everyone in the market would want.

Bottom line, people will walk if they want to, regardless of the design of the neighborhood. There are plenty of sidewalks, parks and open space in suburbia that make for pleasant walking environments. There doesn't have to be a corner grocery in order to promote walking. If people want to walk, nobody is stopping them. It's not the government's job to provide a destination.

[pdxman]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

so,yeah...this one time this forum was used to talk about development in Salt Lake City....yeah, it was pretty cool.

yes, indeed...now its starting to look like the portland forum