Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by urbane

Sounds slow.

don't know what you are talking about.

[i-215]

You said 35 MPH instead of 35 MPG.

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by strippadam

Lets look at this a different way.

The distance between Ogden and Salt Lake City is 38 miles according to Google Maps. Now i am not going to factor in distance like living on the east bench. Or the factor that many people are not all the way in Ogden but in the middle area like Centerville, Layton, Kaysville.

Now lets go off the average miles per gallon on all cars/trucks/suvs is 18 mpg. Again i know this is being super general.

RUN WITH IT.

Okay so then lets average out gas prices to $250(run with it)

So that means that on an average business week 5 days.

You have a total commute of 76 miles a day / 18 mpg = 4.222 galons of gasoline used a day.

4.222 gog X 5 (business days) X 50 weeks (remember two weeks of vacation and holidays hence down from 52 weeks) / 12 months a year = 87.96 gallons of as a month.

87.96 gallons x 2.50 = $219.90

Then take into account car maintenance and so forth.

So in other words 120 for helping lessen pollution, creating an urban feel, and saving money. And once again i am using Front Runner!

Let's look at it my way. last week the car needed brakes so I took the bus home from work. Left work at 4:51 pm and arrived home at 6:00pm. One hour to go 8 miles. I can drive this is 12-15 minutes. At $20 per hour of pay it would cost me over $5,000 per year in missed pay to use the bus. (only option in Utah county). I don't mind the bus, but I miss connections by 5 minutes and must wait 35 minutes for the next bus. I would like to get rid of a car that I basically use to go to work, but time is money and until I can get home in under 30 minutes I will be driving.

I do think it will work for others, but it's kind of a chicken and egg thing. Until they get more riders UTA can't afford to add or increase the number of buses on routes, but until they have more buses or routes it doesn't work for many of us to ride buses.

I do think TRAX or commuter rail work differently and are better alternatives if you work downtown or close to a TRAX station.

All of which has to do with where and what kind of developments are put it place.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by SmilingBob

Let's look at it my way. last week the car needed brakes so I took the bus home from work. Left work at 4:51 pm and arrived home at 6:00pm. One hour to go 8 miles. I can drive this is 12-15 minutes. At $20 per hour of pay it would cost me over $5,000 per year in missed pay to use the bus. (only option in Utah county). I don't mind the bus, but I miss connections by 5 minutes and must wait 35 minutes for the next bus. I would like to get rid of a car that I basically use to go to work, but time is money and until I can get home in under 30 minutes I will be driving.

I do think it will work for others, but it's kind of a chicken and egg thing. Until they get more riders UTA can't afford to add or increase the number of buses on routes, but until they have more buses or routes it doesn't work for many of us to ride buses.

I do think TRAX or commuter rail work differently and are better alternatives if you work downtown or close to a TRAX station.

All of which has to do with where and what kind of developments are put it place.

Exactly, it all has to do with what kinds of developments are put in place! Low density developments, like most suburbs, are not able to support a sufficient public transportation system.

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Exactly, it all has to do with what kinds of developments are put in place! Low density developments, like most suburbs, are not able to support a sufficient public transportation system.

We want our big cars/SUV's/Trucks, and we want to live in the suburbs with big yards far from stores.

I don't want to live in the city, but I wouldn't mind living close enough to want to stores.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by SmilingBob

We want our big cars/SUV's/Trucks, and we want to live in the suburbs with big yards far from stores.

I don't want to live in the city, but I wouldn't mind living close enough to want to stores.

Very funny! Do you want the pollution that comes with it?

[i-215]

Sure. A little smog makes me hearty.


Well ... gotta go get in my car and go to work. Mmmm CO.....

[Utaaah!]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Exactly, it all has to do with what kinds of developments are put in place! Low density developments, like most suburbs, are not able to support a sufficient public transportation system.

True -- low density suburbs cannot support public transit to each doorstep. But if we cluster major activity centers (large office, education, entertainment, and retail to a certain extent) along high-frequency transit corridors, most suburban dwellers may live within a reasonable drive of a park and ride. Transit loses efficiency when users have to make multiple connections. It works best when a single trip either originates at the rider's home or terminates at the rider's destination. Since not everyone wants to live in a dense residential highrise above a transit stop, the best scenario is to place common destinations on the transit line. Then the riders can drive a short distance to the transit line and take the bus/train the rest of the way.

I'm an almost daily park and ride user. I telework frequently, but most days I drive 7 miles from my 1/3+ acre, 4200 sq. ft. McMansion, park in a lot adjacent to a major freeway, and ride a light rail train 30 minutes to my downtown Dallas office while starring out the window at all the suckers stuck in traffic. During peak commute times, the trains pass every 4-6 minutes, so I don't spend much time waiting on the platform. I'm a satisfied customer. But I hate to hear about large new office, education, or entertainment facilities that are located far from transit and require all workers/students/patrons to drive.

[urbane]

I'm an almost daily park and ride user. I telework frequently, but most days I drive 7 miles from my 1/3+ acre, 4200 sq. ft. McMansion, park in a lot adjacent to a major freeway, and ride a light rail train 30 minutes to my downtown Dallas office while starring out the window at all the suckers stuck in traffic. During peak commute times, the trains pass every 4-6 minutes, so I don't spend much time waiting on the platform. I'm a satisfied customer. But I hate to hear about large new office, education, or entertainment facilities that are located far from transit and require all workers/students/patrons to drive.[/QUOTE]


Good point. The important thing for developers to do once transit is in place is to center (office) development around stops. Even if everyone is not willing to live near public transit than hopefully they don't have problems working near transit. There should be incentives for building office and hopefully mixed use developments around transit stops.
Build office now and build residential later when the suburban generation dies off.

[i-215]

4200 sq feet? Holy Crud! How many dozens of people live in that house?

[Utaaah!]

Originally Posted by urbane

There should be incentives for building office and hopefully mixed use developments around transit stops.

Perhaps reduced parking requirements would do the trick.

Originally Posted by i-215

4200 sq feet? Holy Crud! How many dozens of people live in that house?

I have 4 young kids, my home in Utah appreciated quite a bit before I sold it a few months ago, and housing is much cheaper here in Texas (although property taxes and insurance rates are higher).

[i-215]

That's a good land swap, I must say.

Any reason why it's so cheap in Texas?

[Scraperdude801]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I was in Orions music yesterday in sugarhouse and the guy behind the desk told me that they along with everyone on the block (1100 east , 2100 south) are being evicted with no chance of renewing their leases. The guy who owns the property wants to redevelop and will be bulldozing that historic stock of buildings and taking away that one of a kind gem of our city. This makes me sick. I can only hope that those shops will be in sugarhouse and in close proximity to eachother, or that they will allign along broadway in downtown as part as the arts and culture district.

This is very disheartening news. I used to attend westminster college and for sometime after lived in Irving Schoolhouse apartments right there so I feel really attached to this area. It makes me so angry when owners raze historic buildings that actually have significance. It is so sad to think of what sugarhouse will be come. The life and soul of that community is that block and it's businesess.

I have heard rumors about this tentatively happening for quite sometime. Just kind of a shock that it is actually going to happen. I wish this property owner would just sell to someone with alot of money who cherishes this part of town somebody who would preserve it and then take his ambitions and re develop surrounding areas that actually need it.

Anyone who has news on the planned developments please let me know. I just read the recent SL Weekly article explaining how the block is owner by two different people and one of the owners (red mountain) will be making lofts out of the abandoned granite building ( great idea in my opinion) but that the guy who owns the property on the eastern side with all the historic buildings and one of a kind shops hasn't even submitted plans to the council for his development. .... that's going to be real nice. zap the soul and leave it vacant for a couple years. stupid fucker.

alright sorry my rant is over. call it a glass half empty view, but I am sick of every developer wanting to recreate "the gateway" and then bring in the same shops that are in every other development in utah.

[SLCforme]

I agree 100%. this block IS sugarhouse. I live just a few blocks away and love this area, and don't want to see it razed for some bland development where the leases are too high for the current residents and other local buisnesses so only national chains will be there.
As much as we try to fight it, it seems like the whole world will soon be McDonalds' and Walmarts.

[Comrade]

The guy wants to put in a condo development there. If he does that, SugarHouse is dead.

[Northernlad]

This is some sad news. I have always thought Sugarhouse is a good example of what downtown has always failed to be; which is a pedstrian friendly district.

[T-Stan]

A few years ago the plan for this area was to build shops on the first floor and a hotel above the shops (3-4 floors). I would guess that that they are thinking the same type of idea now, but including some Condos or lofts above the retail.

It could be a good move - If it is done right but the area will not have the same types of stores that they currently have as the leases will be much more expensive than what the businesses currently pay

[Comrade]

It won't be a good move because of that very reason. Instead, SugarHouse will just become a center with nothing but chain stores and it'll lose its independent feel.

I just don't understand this whole chain mentality. The difference between SugarHouse and the suburbs is that it offers locally owned business, something you can't find in other locations throughout the valley. If I wanted to shop or eat at a chain, I would go down 400 South, not 2100 South.

This is where I hope the city steps in and denies the request.

[Makid]

From what I have been reading on the Cities planning website. They have denied the request once already and he is back on an appeal. They are being urged to uphold their first decision and deny the request a second time.

I am not sure if the developer will be able to appeal again or not. I am really hoping that this doesn't go through. I think it would be smart for the city to avoid any development in the area if they can. Keep it historical so that it can be used as a tourist attraction as well as a haven for local shops and services.

I love Sugarhouse. I love the shops and the feel of the area. I think that anything that will disturb the overall feel of the area isn't good. It has that small town feel.

[Northernlad]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It won't be a good move because of that very reason. Instead, SugarHouse will just become a center with nothing but chain stores and it'll lose its independent feel.

I just don't understand this whole chain mentality. The difference between SugarHouse and the suburbs is that it offers locally owned business, something you can't find in other locations throughout the valley. If I wanted to shop or eat at a chain, I would go down 400 South, not 2100 South.

This is where I hope the city steps in and denies the request.

Exactly.
Utah and especially Salt Lake seem to be big fans of chains especially restaurants. Sugarhouse is one of the only areas of SLC that has not been overrun by chains.