Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by pdxman

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

LOL. So true.

[Comrade]

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.

Obviously you need to go back to school, because property rights only go as far as zoning laws dictate. Just because you own the property does not mean you can build whatever you want on that site. You know this and I know this, which is the basic end result here. The local government does in fact have a say in developmental patterns. Whether you want to believe it or not.

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.

Of course they have the right. A developer can't just build a project without the city signing off on the development. All I'm saying is take it to the next level and demand that the development does follow the typical suburban patterns of yesteryear. And I do believe it is an area the local government should belong in because the development has far reaching implications than just that planned community.

And what determines walkability? Well neighborhoods that are easily walkable. It really isn't that hard to grasp, however the fact most subdivisions are built far from retail and commercial zoning pretty much indicates the lack of walkability. Build these developments INTO the neighborhoods, or at least design these areas into a grid pattern, which makes it far more easier for people to leave their houses for local retail. Instead a person is forced to drive to that place, which does the environment no good.

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.

It's no more appropriate than cities demanding certain height-limits for their downtowns. No city will allow a developer to build a subdivision in their central core, and this is no different. It only stretches it out to other communities and states that maybe development needs to adhere to some strong smart growth principles.

Cities force developers to recognize community standards all the time. This is nothing new, so don't act as if it is. This is just expanding on the idea to include recognition that development NEEDS to be walkable. There are many cities out there that are now leaning toward smart suburban development and I applaud those actions. However too many people are stuck in this auto-centric mindset and it needs to be broken. Not by banning people from driving, rather giving them better options -- which too many cities today do not give.

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.

Bullshit people will walk if they want to. If the situation forces them to, they might think about it. However with how many hurdles they must jump over in the suburbs, it's far easier to just hop into the car and drive to the place they need to go. If people are given an easier option, then I'm willing to bet you'd see more people walking then relying on their car.

But beyond this, mass-transit can't even connect to most of these suburban neighborhoods because of their developmental patterns. It's far easier to expand the light rail system in Salt Lake City then it is the suburbs because the streets don't wined around and end in a Cul-de-sac. But you can't bring light rail into these suburbs and people will be forced again to drive, not given the option to take mass-transit.

There is a huge development on the west side of the Salt Lake valley and it will include light rail, walkable neighborhoods and a central retail/commercial core for each neighborhood. That's a perfect development that should be the ideal model for modern day suburbs.

[i-215]

Dang! Am I too late for the suburbs vs. new urbanism fight?

I still say it's a simple solution:

(1) Find a way to make downtown attractive to families, and you'll solve the problem.

(2) Be smart with high density plannng: Don't pull a "Streets and Tanasborne" like Portland did and build a high density walkable project in the middle of existing suburbs. Build high-density downtown, in existing grid patterns with ample freeway access, or near commuter rail.

(3) Preserve freedom of choice. Sprawl isn't a call to ban suburban growth. Sprawl is a call for downtowns to become the best they've ever been. If developers can work with cities to build rockin' downtown areas, more people will be attracted to them, and spawl will slow.

[Comrade]

While I think having an attractive downtown definitely helps, that isn't the cup of tea for everyone and I respect that. However you can have suburban communities that are far more walkable than what we have had and have right now.

I don't want to ban suburban development, I just want those communities to have a more walkable nature.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by i-215

Dang! Am I too late for the suburbs vs. new urbanism fight?

I still say it's a simple solution:

(1) Find a way to make downtown attractive to families, and you'll solve the problem.

(2) Be smart with high density plannng: Don't pull a "Streets and Tanasborne" like Portland did and build a high density walkable project in the middle of existing suburbs. Build high-density downtown, in existing grid patterns with ample freeway access, or near commuter rail.

(3) Preserve freedom of choice. Sprawl isn't a call to ban suburban growth. Sprawl is a call for downtowns to become the best they've ever been. If developers can work with cities to build rockin' downtown areas, more people will be attracted to them, and spawl will slow.

It's difficult to build a "rockin' downtown" when the suburb drain all the funding, or steal things like the RSL Stadium

[delts145]

Posted recently in the transportation thread with follow-up by someone who is walking the walk,"arkhitektor."

Different routes, fewer stops
Big changes coming for bus system

One of many articles in the transportation thread which paints a very attractive picture for the future Wasatch Front and its ability as a Metro to give people ATTRACTIVE OPTIONS and MUTIPLE CHOICES. Having lived in three other major world metro's I see the Wasatch as becoming the most attractive transportation center for giving people high quality options.

Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Expanded surface streets, and very important,"a much needed major upgrade in our bus routes and the overall interconnectivity of the mass transit system."

By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/17/2007 12:49:37 AM MST


For the past six or seven years, Utah Transit Authority General Manager John Inglish has been obsessed with trains. Now, he's obsessed with buses that go fast enough to entice new riders and reward UTA's version of frequent flyers.
After years of researching people's transit and transportation habits, UTA and Salt Lake County officials and interested residents have come up with Future Bus, the agency's most profound overhaul of its services since it started in 1970.
"Speed's important," Inglish said Friday during a briefing at UTA offices. "The whole system has been studied from a real market-need perspective."
Based on a new system that runs bus routes every 15 to 30 minutes and has fast service from the suburbs to downtown Salt Lake City, the changes set to begin Aug. 27 in Salt Lake County aim to provide better service in high-demand transportation corridors with better connections to other bus routes and TRAX lines.
That means improving routes that already serve the most people and getting more suburbanites on buses by limiting the number of stops.
The fundamental shift from the idea of transit as a social service to a system that offers an attractive alternative to driving has been unfolding slowly over the years in a piecemeal manner. But two years ago, Inglish said, it became obvious the bus system needed an intensive redesign, because ridership wasn't increasing as it was on TRAX, which now carries a third of UTA's total 140,000 riders per day.
It's time for buses to catch up. UTA's goal is a 12 percent increase in Salt Lake County's average weekday ridership of 57,000 over three years. Here's the plan:
* UTA's current 117 bus routes will be trimmed to 57 to eliminate redundancies. The routes will be numbered more coherently, with day service continuing into the night instead of having a separate night bus system.
* The agency will try to make as many of its 6,000 bus stops as it can accessible to wheelchairs. Disabled riders who live in areas of dense population will get more frequent service. Tentative plans would allow buses to veer a few blocks off regular routes to pick up or drop off disabled riders.
* The transit agency no longer will rely so heavily on the standard 35-seat "bread-loaf" buses that on some routes run nearly empty. Smaller buses and larger express coaches will be a more significant part of the mix.
* All routes will lead to the Intermodal Hub at 200 S. 600 West, where the FrontRunner commuter rail service will arrive starting in spring 2008. Bus routes will be configured to harmonize with TRAX and commuter rail, and will funnel through downtown Salt Lake City on State Street, West Temple and 200 South.
* Train passengers will be able to disembark at the Intermodal Hub onto buses that will whisk them downtown every two minutes. Riders on the 15-minute routes will have to wait no more than eight minutes for a transfer. The LDS Church has agreed to let fast-bus riders to use ward house property as park-and-ride lots.
* Trains will offer wireless Internet access. No-touch cards will replace fare boxes to allow cash-free boarding. All the buses will have radios that include global positioning technology.
"You're going to see over the next few years significant changes in the quality and reliability of our bus system," Inglish said. "We now have the ability to tell you whether every bus is on time and where it is."
Public hearings on the comprehensive proposal will start Tuesday and run through March 22.
UTA is bracing itself for lots of complaints, said spokesman Justin Jones, because riders get attached to routes and don't like change.
The new system is the result of working with the cities and county going over the routes, mile by mile, to figure out how to keep the routes on track instead of meandering about, to get the most bang for the buck, he said.
Service will be eliminated in areas of the county that have low ridership and very little growth potential in favor of true mass transit, Jones said.
Cutting the number of routes in half "is alarming," Jones said. "But we have so many buses that duplicate service on the same street. We simply do not have the resources to continue to serve two or three people per trip."
Public hearings

The Utah Transit Authority is holding public hearings to explain its proposed revamping of its bus routes. All the meetings will be held from 4:30-7:00 p.m.
* West Jordan, 8000 S. Redwood Road, March 6
* Kearns Library, 5350 S. 4220 West, March 7
* Bountiful, 790 S. 100 East, March 8
* Salt Lake City Main Library, 210 E. 400 South, March 12
* Whitmore Library, 2197 East Fort Union Boulevard (7000 South), March 13
* Riverton, 12830 S. Redwood Road, March 14
* West Valley City, 3600 Constitution Boulevard, March 15
* Murray, 5025 S. State St., March 19
* East Millcreek Library, 2266 Evergreen Ave. (3435 South), March 20
* Sandy, 10000 Centennial Parkway, March 22


Bustling bus system

The Utah Transit Authority plan to overhaul its bus routes includes these major features:
* 15-Min Service: UTA now provides just two routes in the Salt Lake area running 15-minute frequency. With the new system, UTA will have 12 individual 15-minute routes comprising the core of the bus system.
* 30-Min Service: With 30-minute frequency, these bus routes will easily connect with TRAX and the 15-minute core service. The 30-minute buses will run in less populated, suburban neighborhoods, connect urban cities and provide night and weekend service where there is significant ridership demand.
* Fast Bus: UTA research shows people living in the suburbs want a bus that gets them downtown or to the University of Utah as quickly as possible. Fast Bus already runs in some areas of the Salt Lake Valley. With the new system, communities with Fast Bus that see one or two trips per day will see double and triple that frequency.
For more information, including old and new schedules and maps: http://www .rideuta.com/schedulesAndMaps/2007routeChanges/overview

ARKHITEKTOR

This can only be good news. I ride TRAX from Salt Lake to Murray for work, and the weakest link in the system is waiting for the bus to get me from the TRAX station to my office. In the year since I have been commuting this route, the trains are always on time, but I could count on one hand the number of times that the bus has been on time. It is complicated by the fact that the busses currently run on 20 min. intervals and TRAX runs every 15.

Busses have always been the worst part of UTAs interconnectivity, and I applaud them for attempting to do something about it.

[delts145]

LDS get OK to purchase Human Services Complex

By Angie Welling and Doug Smeath
Deseret Morning News
Hundreds of downtown state employees may soon be replaced by students and, eventually, cars under a real-estate deal between the state and the LDS Church.


Deseret Morning News graphic

Lawmakers on Wednesday approved an offer from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to purchase the state's Human Services Complex, on the corner of North Temple and 200 West, for $11 million.
The building, which houses 390 administrative employees of the Utah Department of Human Services, is surrounded by property already owned by the LDS Church.
A church spokesman declined to comment on the deal, referring questions instead to Keith Stepan, director of the state Division of Facilities Construction and Management, who said the church wants the site not because of the building but because of its proximity to other church-owned facilities.
"The address is the important thing for them," he said.
The plan is to use the building as a temporary site for some of the church's educational system as it works on building new locations for the LDS Business College and the Salt Lake branch of Brigham Young University on the block east of the Triad Center — just down the street from the Human Services building.
Stepan said once those new locations open, the building will likely come down to make way for parking facilities for the two schools and the LDS Conference Center to the east.
Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, introduced the deal Wednesday afternoon as part of a revenue bond and capital facilities bill. The senator said the property is a "piece of fairly prime real estate" because of its downtown location.
Negotiations on the 25-year-old, red-brick building have been ongoing between the church and the state since former Gov. Olene Walker's administration, Stepan said. Though the DFCM has authority to purchase and sell state property, the deal needed legislative approval because of the remaining $4.6 million bond on the Human Services building.
The $11 million price tag on the downtown property will be used to pay off that bond and purchase the former BYU-Salt Lake property at 3760 S. Highland Drive, which is now owned by the church, for $6 million.
Leftover money will be used to remodel the building on Highland Drive, which will become the new home for the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind.
Jenkins said the deal gives the state a chance to secure a good location for the USDB at a reasonable price while also unloading an old building that needs some $5 million in renovations.
"From our point of view, this was a decision of whether we wanted to invest in that building or whether we wanted to get out and reinvest somewhere else," the senator said.
News of the deal caught officials at the Department of Human Services off-guard, who said they were aware that the location had been looked at many years ago but were unaware that anything concrete was in the works.
"It's still too new to react," said department spokeswoman Carol Sisco, whose office is in the downtown building.
The deal allows Human Services employees to stay in the building until they find a new location, which will likely take one to two years. Though there are no plans yet for where they will relocate, Stepan said those employees should not worry about being forced out with nowhere to go.
"There is no commitment yet for them," he said. "That's something that will have to be dealt with in the future. They'll stay in that building for as long as they need until they get a replacement space."
The primary concerns in finding a new location, Sisco said, is that it has accessible public transportation for employees and is close to other state agencies such as health and workforce services, departments human services works with closely.

[wrendog]

hey comrade? I live in a suburban subdivision and I can walk all I want. Just cause there is a grocery store in the area doesn't make it more walkable. I would rather walk to the neighborhood park, or the duck pond we have than to the grocery store. It's still walking right? what does it matter if there is a grocery store within walking distance?

Every (yes, hyperbole) government decision does NOT have to be based on some liberal environmental agenda.

We just have to agree to disagree. I respect you to have your opinion.

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

While I think having an attractive downtown definitely helps, that isn't the cup of tea for everyone and I respect that. However you can have suburban communities that are far more walkable than what we have had and have right now.

I don't want to ban suburban development, I just want those communities to have a more walkable nature.

". . . a more walkable nature" I can agree with.

[SLC Projects]

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.

Well said Viporlord, this thread should be about development. But the last two pages on this thread has been nothing but suburbs vs. new urbanism crap.
Can we just drop it people? Not everyone is going to like living urban nor does everyone wants to live in suburbs so let's just move on.


Anyways I like the news story that was posted this morning by Delts about the "LDS get OK to purchase Human Services Complex" By reading that story it sounds like the church are having plans to adding on to the LDS business collage over to the east. Does that mean that the parking lot block West to Temple Square will finally be develop?
Sounds to me the church has some big plans for that block and around that area.

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Obviously you need to go back to school, because property rights only go as far as zoning laws dictate. Just because you own the property does not mean you can build whatever you want on that site. You know this and I know this, which is the basic end result here. The local government does in fact have a say in developmental patterns. Whether you want to believe it or not.

Nowhere did I say that developers could build whatever they want, and in the quote you responded to, I specifically said that cities have control over zoning and design review. If you think that gives the city the right to force a developer to build something that's "walkable," I guess we'll just have to disagree on what zoning entails.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Of course they have the right. A developer can't just build a project without the city signing off on the development. All I'm saying is take it to the next level and demand that the development does follow the typical suburban patterns of yesteryear. And I do believe it is an area the local government should belong in because the development has far reaching implications than just that planned community.

Of course a developer can't build a project without the city signing off on it. I'm simply saying that a city doesn't have an interest in mandating the specifics to the level that you're advocating.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

And what determines walkability? Well neighborhoods that are easily walkable. It really isn't that hard to grasp, however the fact most subdivisions are built far from retail and commercial zoning pretty much indicates the lack of walkability. Build these developments INTO the neighborhoods, or at least design these areas into a grid pattern, which makes it far more easier for people to leave their houses for local retail. Instead a person is forced to drive to that place, which does the environment no good.

Perhaps you haven't been living in the real world for quite a while, but these types of retail developments that you're calling for simply don't work in today's economy. When you have big box retailers with much cheaper prices that people can drive to in less than 10 minutes, it's unlikely that people will pay premiums to shop at a small store simply because it's within walking distance.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It's no more appropriate than cities demanding certain height-limits for their downtowns. No city will allow a developer to build a subdivision in their central core, and this is no different. It only stretches it out to other communities and states that maybe development needs to adhere to some strong smart growth principles.

Cities force developers to recognize community standards all the time. This is nothing new, so don't act as if it is. This is just expanding on the idea to include recognition that development NEEDS to be walkable. There are many cities out there that are now leaning toward smart suburban development and I applaud those actions. However too many people are stuck in this auto-centric mindset and it needs to be broken. Not by banning people from driving, rather giving them better options -- which too many cities today do not give.

Development does not NEED to be walkable. If that's what people wanted, that's what developers would do. But most people don't want that, and cities aren't about to force developers to build something that the market doesn't want.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Bullshit people will walk if they want to. If the situation forces them to, they might think about it. However with how many hurdles they must jump over in the suburbs, it's far easier to just hop into the car and drive to the place they need to go. If people are given an easier option, then I'm willing to bet you'd see more people walking then relying on their car.

But beyond this, mass-transit can't even connect to most of these suburban neighborhoods because of their developmental patterns. It's far easier to expand the light rail system in Salt Lake City then it is the suburbs because the streets don't wined around and end in a Cul-de-sac. But you can't bring light rail into these suburbs and people will be forced again to drive, not given the option to take mass-transit.

Mass transit runs on major streets and thoroughfares. It's not efficient to run mass transit into neighborhoods, so people are going to have to get from their homes to a major street in order to take mass transit. Most people don't like to live on or near these types of streets, so they make the sacrifice of being a bit of a distance from mass transit. It has nothing to do with the design of the neighborhood. I live in a city that has major streets every mile and minor streets every half mile. Inside of those half-mile squares, it doesn't matter if the streets are straight or not, mass transit isn't coming any closer than that anyway.

Let's be honest. You are interested in the environment and I am not. You are interested in limiting private property rights and I am not. You are interested in expanding the role of government and I am not. You want life to go back to how it was 80-100 years ago, and I don't think that's possible. We're never going to agree, so stop trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just as knowledgeable as you, I just don't believe in the same ideals as you.

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Obviously you need to go back to school, because property rights only go as far as zoning laws dictate. Just because you own the property does not mean you can build whatever you want on that site. You know this and I know this, which is the basic end result here. The local government does in fact have a say in developmental patterns. Whether you want to believe it or not.

Nowhere did I say that developers could build whatever they want, and in the quote you responded to, I specifically said that cities have control over zoning and design review. If you think that gives the city the right to force a developer to build something that's "walkable," I guess we'll just have to disagree on what zoning entails.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Of course they have the right. A developer can't just build a project without the city signing off on the development. All I'm saying is take it to the next level and demand that the development does follow the typical suburban patterns of yesteryear. And I do believe it is an area the local government should belong in because the development has far reaching implications than just that planned community.

Of course a developer can't build a project without the city signing off on it. I'm simply saying that a city doesn't have an interest in mandating the specifics to the level that you're advocating.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

And what determines walkability? Well neighborhoods that are easily walkable. It really isn't that hard to grasp, however the fact most subdivisions are built far from retail and commercial zoning pretty much indicates the lack of walkability. Build these developments INTO the neighborhoods, or at least design these areas into a grid pattern, which makes it far more easier for people to leave their houses for local retail. Instead a person is forced to drive to that place, which does the environment no good.

Perhaps you haven't been living in the real world for quite a while, but these types of retail developments that you're calling for simply don't work in today's economy. When you have big box retailers with much cheaper prices that people can drive to in less than 10 minutes, it's unlikely that people will pay premiums to shop at a small store simply because it's within walking distance.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It's no more appropriate than cities demanding certain height-limits for their downtowns. No city will allow a developer to build a subdivision in their central core, and this is no different. It only stretches it out to other communities and states that maybe development needs to adhere to some strong smart growth principles.

Cities force developers to recognize community standards all the time. This is nothing new, so don't act as if it is. This is just expanding on the idea to include recognition that development NEEDS to be walkable. There are many cities out there that are now leaning toward smart suburban development and I applaud those actions. However too many people are stuck in this auto-centric mindset and it needs to be broken. Not by banning people from driving, rather giving them better options -- which too many cities today do not give.

Development does not NEED to be walkable. If that's what people wanted, that's what developers would do. But most people don't want that, and cities aren't about to force developers to build something that the market doesn't want.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Bullshit people will walk if they want to. If the situation forces them to, they might think about it. However with how many hurdles they must jump over in the suburbs, it's far easier to just hop into the car and drive to the place they need to go. If people are given an easier option, then I'm willing to bet you'd see more people walking then relying on their car.

But beyond this, mass-transit can't even connect to most of these suburban neighborhoods because of their developmental patterns. It's far easier to expand the light rail system in Salt Lake City then it is the suburbs because the streets don't wined around and end in a Cul-de-sac. But you can't bring light rail into these suburbs and people will be forced again to drive, not given the option to take mass-transit.

Mass transit runs on major streets and thoroughfares. It's not efficient to run mass transit into neighborhoods, so people are going to have to get from their homes to a major street in order to take mass transit. Most people don't like to live on or near these types of streets, so they make the sacrifice of being a bit of a distance from mass transit. It has nothing to do with the design of the neighborhood. I live in a city that has major streets every mile and minor streets every half mile. Inside of those half-mile squares, it doesn't matter if the streets are straight or not, mass transit isn't coming any closer than that anyway.

Let's be honest. You are interested in the environment and I am not. You are interested in limiting private property rights and I am not. You are interested in expanding the role of government and I am not. You want life to go back to how it was 80-100 years ago, and I don't think that's possible. We're never going to agree, so stop trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just as knowledgeable as you, I just don't believe in the same ideals as you.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled, non-Portland forum, development discussion.

[SLC Projects]

.............Somebody wake me up when this debate is over.

[Comrade]

hey comrade? I live in a suburban subdivision and I can walk all I want. Just cause there is a grocery store in the area doesn't make it more walkable. I would rather walk to the neighborhood park, or the duck pond we have than to the grocery store. It's still walking right? what does it matter if there is a grocery store within walking distance?

Every (yes, hyperbole) government decision does NOT have to be based on some liberal environmental agenda.

We just have to agree to disagree. I respect you to have your opinion.

I never said you can't walk all you want in suburban America, but there is minimal incentive for children and adults to do so. What I'm saying, which obviously you've chosen not to read, is that far too many people in today's society don't walk because they lack the incentive. Yeah, a park or a duck pond is great and I think every community should have these in neighborhoods, but how many subdivisions actually do? Or at least how many are in walking distance of someone's house? Both my aunts live in suburban Salt Lake and every time I went out to their houses when I was a kid we had to drive to the park, we had to drive to the store and my cousin's had to drive to school. Yet the opposite was true for me, who grew up in the city. We'd walk to the park, the store and I'd walk to school.

The incentive has to be there and currently, at least most of the time, it is not. Yes no one is stopping anyone from walking around the block a few times, but the same can be said in the city. So why do people in the city tend to walk more and use mass-transit more than those in the burbs? Because the option of walking somewhere is there.

And I didn't know wanting clean air was a liberal environmental agenda. It transcends all ideologies and every American should be concerned about pollution and the health problems it creates.

[Makid]

SLC,

From what I read, the LDS Church will be using the building until they have finished building and modifying spaces at the Triad Center. They will then Raze the building build more parking for the Conference Center and a possible other building ontop of the parking.

I think that when that happens, the parking lot to the east of this building will also be razed and then replaced with underground parking, linked to the Conference Center Parking Plaza. What will be built on top of the new parking structure is anyones guess at this point. I really doubt it will be a surface parking lot as the LDS church really hates surface parking lots near it's buildings.

[SLCforme]

Wow, does it suprise anyone else just how much land the LDS church owns downtown? I knew they owned alot, but I didn't realize how much. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, but "Vatican West" indeed. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but does anyone think that this could one day lead to a situation where it's almost like two distinct downtowns, with separate rules and regulations for each? Seems like a possibility to me.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Nowhere did I say that developers could build whatever they want, and in the quote you responded to, I specifically said that cities have control over zoning and design review. If you think that gives the city the right to force a developer to build something that's "walkable," I guess we'll just have to disagree on what zoning entails.

You definitely implied that, by stating local governments have no right to dictate growth patterns. I only said that cities have been telling developers how to build for decades and this isn't something new. A city can tell a developer to build walkable neighborhoods just like they can tell a developer how much greeen space has to be added to a neighborhood and what the style of every house should look like -- something done in many historical cities throughout America.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Of course a developer can't build a project without the city signing off on it. I'm simply saying that a city doesn't have an interest in mandating the specifics to the level that you're advocating.

Some cities do. Salt Lake has moved away from suburban development as much as it possibly can and I'm glad they have. You can still have great neighborhoods that put an emphasis on walking and many American cities are realizing smart growth is far better than the typical development we've seen in the past.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Perhaps you haven't been living in the real world for quite a while, but these types of retail developments that you're calling for simply don't work in today's economy. When you have big box retailers with much cheaper prices that people can drive to in less than 10 minutes, it's unlikely that people will pay premiums to shop at a small store simply because it's within walking distance.

I'm not even talking localized retail. It could be the chains for all I care, hell the corner store I went to was a chain growing up. The problem here isn't who owns the retail, rather how accessible that retail is. In most newer communities, not very accessibile.

This is what I'm talking about. Here's a central Salt Lake City neighborhood. Notice the front and backyards, some homes with a garage and the fact they're single family houses.



Red = school
Blue = retail/store

This is typically what a neighborhood looks like in Salt Lake. You've got commercial retail centers on the road, maybe .5 miles from most of the housing. You've got a school that's centrally located within the area, very easy to access by foot. Are all hoods in SLC like this? No, but I'd wager most are.

Now let's look at suburban Salt Lake. This is a neighborhood in east Sandy.

This is a close up, a bit more zoomed out than the SLC neighborhood.



Now I looked and looked, but I couldn't find any retail in this neighborhood, or even any schools. So I decided to zoom out a lot, to get a better look at the entire area around this neighborhood.



Yellow = the neighborhood I had zoomed in on.
Red = school
Blue = retail/store

Now maybe I missed a school or retail building here and there, but I generally think I got them all. This was zoomed out mind you, yet even then it was nearly impossible to find retail/stores within walking distance. And even the retail is located far from most of the residential housing.

Is every neighborhood in suburban America like this? No. But most are and that's the problem I have. If you lived in the Sandy neighborhood and wanted to go to the store for some candy and Coke -- like we kids did every day during the summer -- would you want to walk that far? We're talking not only a long distance here, but through neighborhoods that twist and turn in all these weird shapes, often making it more difficult to get from Point A to Point B. It's far easier to just hop in the car and drive down to the corner store, get your candy and Coke and then drive home.

Yet I'm 22 years old and I still ride my bike up to the corner store every time I need something, unless the weather is so bad, then I probably just forget about going to the corner store.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Development does not NEED to be walkable. If that's what people wanted, that's what developers would do. But most people don't want that, and cities aren't about to force developers to build something that the market doesn't want.

How do you know they don't want walkable neighborhoods? Most people move out to the suburbs because it's the cheaper than the city, not because they don't want to walk. Again, no one is forcing anyone to walk here, but rather I'm saying we need to make it easier. So don't say people don't want walkable neighborhoods, I'm guessing a majority of people would want that type of community. Except they can't afford to live in the older neighborhoods that offer this type of situation.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Mass transit runs on major streets and thoroughfares. It's not efficient to run mass transit into neighborhoods, so people are going to have to get from their homes to a major street in order to take mass transit. Most people don't like to live on or near these types of streets, so they make the sacrifice of being a bit of a distance from mass transit. It has nothing to do with the design of the neighborhood. I live in a city that has major streets every mile and minor streets every half mile. Inside of those half-mile squares, it doesn't matter if the streets are straight or not, mass transit isn't coming any closer than that anyway.

Of course mass-transit runs on major streets, I never said they didn't. However most homes in suburban America are far away from any major street because of how the neighborhood is built. And I don't think that's because most people don't want to "live by" a major street. Neighborhoods are mostly tucked away from those major streets, just not nearly to the extreme as they are in the suburbs. Oddly enough though, suburban America tends to have far more larger major streets than central city America.

I don't know what city you live in, but in Salt Lake we have major streets and minor streets and light rail even goes up some of those minor streets (200 West has a stop, right in the heart of a residential neighborhood). So maybe you don't think it'll work in your city, but because of how SLC is set up, it's far more easier to connect neighborhoods with mass-transit than it is in the suburbs.

People move to the burbs because it's affortable. Sometimes they move because they believe these suburbs are safer. But I've rarely heard people claim they move to the suburbs because they don't want walkable neighborhoods and they want to live as far as possible from a "major road".

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Let's be honest. You are interested in the environment and I am not. You are interested in limiting private property rights and I am not. You are interested in expanding the role of government and I am not. You want life to go back to how it was 80-100 years ago, and I don't think that's possible. We're never going to agree, so stop trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just as knowledgeable as you, I just don't believe in the same ideals as you.

This isn't limiting private property rights, it's setting up stronger zoning laws. Every community has zoning standards, this isn't something new. It has nothing to do with limiting property rights, rather just bettering a community through its developmental patterns.

But I'm glad you finally came out and admitted you don't care about the environment. It totally justifies your actions and tells me you're probably someone with zero compassion toward anything living. You're right, we're never going to agree here, so stop trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

We now return you to your regularly scheduled, non-Portland forum, development discussion.

Whatever.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by SLCforme

Wow, does it suprise anyone else just how much land the LDS church owns downtown? I knew they owned alot, but I didn't realize how much. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, but "Vatican West" indeed. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but does anyone think that this could one day lead to a situation where it's almost like two distinct downtowns, with separate rules and regulations for each? Seems like a possibility to me.

I think a lot depends on "the other downtown." I doubt the church will do much differently in 25 years then they are doing now, in terms of public conduct on private property.

If 500 South becomes like Eugene, OR, then you may be right. Two worlds. One City.

[SLCforme]

Hey Comrade,
I love that neighborhood you chose in SLC, I live about 3 blocks east of it. The retail on the far left is Alchemy Coffee, a great little place for coffee, tea, and home baked goods. This is central city so people think it's "lower class" but it has alot of character and is more affordable than most neighborhoods in SLC (on the east side anyway). I even think this area may become "the next sugarhouse" if sugarhouse gets ripped up for new development that's not as pedestrian friendly or affordable as rumor has it will.

P.S. I agree with the points you've been making but have remained silent because you were doing a fine job and didn't want to prolong the debate.

But I love these old neighborhoods

[i-215]

Honestly, my second chime in with the whole debate...

I think gasoline is going to bust in my lifetime. It's still abnormally low, surprisingly, and with the environmental laws here and the instability in the middle east and Venesuala, I think that we may have a year where we can't get gas.

The trauma of that event won't be fun, but we'll all change our attitudes toward everything. I mean, Super Wal-Mart has GOT to be the peak of consolidtation. I believe everything is naturally cyclic, and we've got be be hitting the zenith before things turn around.

In the meantime ... pedal to the metal in my new (used) Subaru!!!