I have mixed feelings about the Clearfield proposal.
To start off, I would like to point out that the article states the plan allows for towers "up to" 22 stories. So there is a great possibility that whatever is eventually and actually built will never even realize that height possibility. Ultimately, the market will decide what height and density that site can realistically support. I doubt that will ever be 22 stories in Clearfield, Utah.
I do, however, support the idea of
something being built there given its prime location next to the Frontrunner station, halfway between two I-15 freeway exits, and within a stone's throw of two of the state's largest employment centers (Hill Air Force Base and the Freeport Center). When looked at objectively, development of this land is a no brainer. And 60 acres next to a commuter rail station as a virtual tabula raza really opens up the potential for something great. Not just for Clearfield but for the entire area. Since the land is bound to be developed, it would be a shame to see it end up as some low-slung, generic retail shopping center or a few hundred single-family homes, which is pretty much par for the course for the area. Given all of your criticisms, I still would take a town like Clearfield dreaming big and falling a little short (I'd say 10 to 12 story buildings are more realistic) any day than that same town never even dreaming big at all (and ending up with some sad suburban piece of infill). A mid-to-high density TOD is clearly the best choice for the development of this land, and that seems exactly what they are proposing. Even more encouraging is to see that the metropolitan transit authority, the city, and the developer are all working together to ensure that its done right. Let's hold of until we some some actual models or proposals before we start throwing out off-the-cuff judgments. They may just propose something really great. They may not. We'll see soon enough, and then your assessments will have more value.
On to the Salt Lake City vs. suburbs issue. I too want to see a majority of development, especially highrises, to occur primarily downtown. They help to create that urban synergy that Salt Lake City really needs, help keep sprawl at bay, and even rub each of our geeky egos here on the site so we can feel proud of a great skyline and impress all of our neighboring western metropolises and make them feel all jealous of what a cool downtown we have. lol. In a lot of ways we already do have a great CBD, and focusing towers downtown will only further that. That said, suburban development - even in these higher densities - still has its place, if done right. This one especially IMHO. Let's run over a few:
I don't support the Proscenium. Any Broadway-style theater belongs in Salt Lake City - nowhere else. The project is too big for its britches. The placement of the towers does not address the street or pedestrian traffic; it does not tie the development with others nearby to promote walkability. It makes a weak attempt at being transit-oriented - clearly relying more on freeway accessibility and visibility than TRAX traffic and accessibility. Most importantly, it does nothing to stir the spirit and everything to stroke Sandy's ego. Garbage in my mind.
I think The Point is super cool but I'm leary of trying to erect an entire city basically in BFE. Some may say Clearfield is BFE but the aforementioned site is part of a contiguous urban/suburban developed area. The Point is dropped literally in the middle of nowhere. Of course, that's its greatest strength and its greatest weakness in my eyes. The strength being this large piece of land is the only way Gehry could have such free reign in his vision and truly realize his desire to address and mimic the unique Utah landscape in a development. The placement of this development is what makes it truly beautiful. The first weakness of the placement, to me, lies in the fact that it sadly "leapfrogs" over so much urban fabric and only contributes to a the sprawling Wasatch Front. I'd like to see this project realized either closer to Salt Lake or closer to Provo, not at the empty space in between. The other weakness is that it clearly relies solely on freeway traffic. Utah County already has a bottlenecked I-15 corridor. Building such a huge development at this point of the mountain will only make that so much worse, and the millions of car traffic visits a year (Anderson predicts the development will be one of Utah's largest tourist attractions) will only make the valley's air pollution problem worse. It will be interesting to see how this one ends up for Utah.
Market Station is cool by me. The placement clearly relies on TRAX as primary access and it seems to be a true TOD to me. Although it would be great to see these buildings downtown, the development is still very central in the metropolitan area and is more infill than sprawl like the previous two projects I've discussed. I think eventually this project will be central to a new district in the Salt Lake area and will be a valuable and vibrant middle point between Sugarhouse and Downtown, especially after the introduction of a trolley system along 2100 South. Great project in my opinion.
The downside of all three of these Salt Lake MSA projects, IMHO, is one thing - target market. I think truly great development creates an inclusive community, not an exclusive one. A place where a well-heeled doctor or lawyer and can stroll out their front door for a morning walk and wave hello to their child's teacher sipping coffee on her front porch down the street. A place where the prominent local businessman runs into a local police officer on his day off because they shop at the same local grocer. They live in the same COMMUNITY. They're not separated by miles and miles, entire zipcodes, coded entrygates, and shopping centers that are designed for people who are more or less in the exact same socioeconomic branch as them which is the status quo for most of the Wasatch Front.
All of these projects cater to only one demographic - the rich! I'm not saying the should all have government subsidized, transitional housing or anything, but these really are all for the rich. I think all the projects are cool as hell, but I sure can't afford to live in any of them. I'd shop in them, sure (I like expensive clothes), but I'll have to drive to get there with the exception of Market Station likely. The same could be said for nearly all of the downtown projects under construction as well, including City Creek Center. You can't touch anything for under 300k. And if, God forbid, you actually have a family or children (which most Utahns do) forget about anything for under 600k in any of these projects. So where does that leave the rest of us?
Of course, I understand why they're so pricey - many reasons! In most cases, the land was acquired at quite a cost, and these developers need these projects to pencil. Centrally located land is expensive. Steel construction is expensive. Investors and the returns they expect are expensive. Developer's own tastes and profit expectations are expensive; ideally, when the project's built and sold out, the developer can buy a nice boat to cruise around Mexico. In turn, the homes are expensive. Nobody's in development to lose money. Then there's the prestige thing - everybody wants to be responsible for building the next Beverly Hills. Everyone wants to brag that a Huntsman, Eccles, member of the Quorum of the Seventy, or any other upper crust member of the Utah elite bought at THEIR project. Building a quality, high-density project for the rest of us just isn't glamorous, and it doesn't make as much money. I understand this. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
That's where the Clearfield project has some great potential, in my eyes. While we've yet to see a proposal, and I could be wrong, I believe UTA, Clearfield, and the development team will see that the high-density market in the metro area is saturated with high-end product. Furthermore, UTA received the land in a swap so there's no high overhead on this one. And UTA doesn't need huge windfall profits to build this thing - they're more interested in breaking even (or making a small profit) and building ridership than satisfying greedy investors. Then there's the target market - there are no Hunstmans, Eccles, or Quorum members living in or around Clearfield, nor are they expressing much desire to up and move there. There are, however, thousands upon thousands of workforce jobs within a 3-mile radius at HAFB and Freeport Center, with more coming as Falcon Hill ramping up development. These jobs range from $30,000 to over $100,000 per year and its just likely that some of these people may want the convenience and experience of living in a more urban environment - especially out-of-state transplants that are common in this area b/c of the Air Force Base. But moving to SLC to get that experience doesn't make sense. This project could provide that option to thousands of area workers without the high cost and extra travel time that moving downtown would provide while lowering commute times. Not only would area workforce find this project attractive, but those working downtown at Fidelity, KPMG, Church Headquarters, or any other downtown employers making salaries ranging from $40,000 to $70,000 who may want a nice urban living experience but can't quite afford any of the product being built downtown would find this a very attractive option given the easy commuter rail access to the city.
I have a feeling the players in this will realize that catering to this market is essential to make this project successful, because it is! Top management at UTA isn't stupid (they have built one of the most successful transit authorities in the US) and I doubt they will fail to recognize this. In the end, Clearfield City gets to build up its reputation, UTA gets more riders, consumers/workers get more urban housing stock at and attainable price, and the MSA gets a nice piece of infill - sounds like a win/win to me.
Thoughts?? Sorry for the rant, but I feel like it all had to be said. Grazie!
Let's keep our fingers crossed until we see a proposal, but I have good feelings.
Prev
You're probably right that land is less expensive in the suburbs and much easier to acquire. However, it is probably not necessarily cheaper to build including all of the necessary infrastructure. Though land maybe cheap, infrastructure to support is definitely not. Look at the new Real stadium and all the infrastructure they had to to do with new roads, parking, untilities, etc. That finance deal was a huge fiasco by Mayor Tom Dolan. Existing Urban centers already have most of the needed infrastructure, such as roads, highways, transportation, services(shops, food/restaurants, entertainment), and utilities. All of this is a lot of $$$$$. 
Linear Mode
