Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Page 370

Future Mayor · #**7381** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:36 PM**

NYC Rick. Sorry that I attacked you on the building comments, I guess I thought you were attaching and I think I was in some sort of combative mood that day.

No big deal!

urbanboy · #**7382** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Maybe I'm just a bad driver, but honestly I don't pay attention to the posted speed limits in an area like downtown, I just drive at what feels like a reasonable speed for the road. I couldn't tell you the current posted speed limit on State St. or Main St. or any other street. On a street like Main Street or 300 S., I drive slowly because the road is narrow and there are wide sidewalks and medians. On streets like 300 W. or State Street I drive fast because the road is 6 lanes wide and is built like an expressway.

Basically, it seems that they could do more to influence speeds and pedestrian comfort by changing the streetscape than reducing the posted speed limit. Just because the speed limit is lower on State St., I'm not going to feel any better while walking along its narrow sidewalk or trying to cross it on foot than I do now.

They could easily get rid of a lane and add on-street parking. That could slow down traffic, and also help businesses.

Future Mayor · #**7383** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:47 PM**

I agree, I don't see any problem with elimnating a lane on state, at least through the dt core. They have reduced it back to 3 lanes, after they expanded it to 4 lanes during the I-15 reconstruction. Downtown cores always have more traffic so I don't see it as a huge problem. I think one thing that would help State without reducing it to 2 lanes would be to install a landscaped median down the center, but not a median as tall as the one running down 7th E by Liberty Park, but a lower median that still allows for a view from each side of the street and easy access to cross the street as well.

300 W currently doesn't have many stores oriented towards the street anyway so I would suggest leaving it at 3 lanes in each direction.

arkhitektor · #**7384** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 5:59 PM**

I think that would be a great idea.

State St. currently feels like its a mile wide, but from building to building, its the same width as Main St., though Main feels much cozier and more friendly because of its wide sidewalks, trees and other landscaping.

SLC Projects · #**7385** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 6:57 PM**

Parking on State street from like 600 South to South Temple wouldn't be a bad idea.

rmarkosian · #**7386** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 9:18 PM**

Trolley Square- A Salt Lake City Icon

An in-depth look into Salt Lake City's last historic shopping center. How local merchants and chain store alike have found such a nice home in the former trolley barn for over 30 years.

Read Full Story

cololi · #**7387** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 10:39 PM**

The problem with State St. is that it is a UDOT road. Trying to make changes to it is like inventing cold fusion. great in theory, but can't be done in reality. maybe that is a little extreme, but it is very difficult for the state to drop lanes from a road like State. I think it definetly could handle losing a lane without much noticeable impact.

State already has on street parking on most stretches. State also has trees and wide sidewalks (15 feet, but not as wide as Main) north of 400 South. And traxx visually reduces the width of the street. I think the biggest impact is the drive approaches and the scale of buildings. Main is void of driveways, while State has multiple per block face. Most of the buildings are shorter than the road is wide, so it feels super wide. Those buildings on State that are taller don't have major horizontal lines on the first/second/third floors that grab the eyes attention and often don't have a similarly scaled building on the opposite side of the street. The result is the eye captures so much of the sky that the horizontal feel of the road is magnified. On Main, there are enough buildings that are at about a 2 to 1 ratio to the width of the street and a very high quality design that focuses the eye on the street level and blocks out enough of the sky so yu focus primarily on the buildings, trees, etc.

arkhitektor · #**7388** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 11:21 PM**

yeah, i was wondering how much of State St. is designated as US 89. At what point does US89 move from State to Beck streets?

cololi · #**7389** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

yeah, i was wondering how much of State St. is designated as US 89. At what point does US89 move from State to Beck streets?

I'm not sure of the route numbers, but state ownership extends all the way up to the capitol, loops the capitol and than down Victory Road to Beck St. Beck Street/300 West is a state road north of 400 South.

Future Mayor · #**7390** Posted **Nov 7, 2008, 11:50 PM**

At 400 S US 89 goes west to 300 W, and State Street becomes UT 186 up to the capital and extends around on Victory Rd and 186 terminates were it meets Beck St.

7th East is also a state route, which a landscaped median was added to. I would imagine the they would be able to ad a landscaped median to State St, particularly through the CBD since it becomes a state route north of 400 S as opposed to a US route.

WASDEN · #**7391** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 1:02 AM**

Good point about the 700 E median Future Mayor. Now thats a concept I would like to see continued to I-80. It certainly would create a "grand" bolevard/gateway to the city. Something similar on State would also be a welcome addition in my opinion (As well as letting the cruisers return

) I remember when they were proposing TRAX down the center of 400 S, there was some speculation that UDOT would not play nice with UTA, but it was quite the opposite and that street turned out to be a slam dunk. So getting decorative medians for State- quite possible, but I doubt it would be included in any budget in the near future. Personally I feel that decorative medians and road side trees are pretty effective agents in calming motorist's speeds. Along with the reduced downtown speed limits it could make a pretty pedestrian friendly place.

RFPCME · #**7392** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 3:07 AM**

I really liked Cololi's post of the CCC thread, so I thought I'd quote it here (Wish I knew how to take that post and repost it here)

"Mayor,

I think you hit on the two main issues: how many people actually support downtown businesses and to grow commerce you need to increase the number of people who visit establishments. Working downtown makes it easy for me to visit these places. I rarely go out to clubs, but the last two time I have gone incidentally were to Mynt.

I think this is why surrounding the CBD with urban neighborhoods is critical. I think you want to maintain the CBD as the primary financial center of the state, but you need to keep it very compact, which is hard to do with the size of our blocks and streets. To me the urban core is between S. Temple and 400 South and West Temple to 200 East. The urban neighborhoods consist of east downtown, the area between I-15 and West Temple, capitol Hill, and south to about 1000 South. I think the City can do a lot to promote this type of development transect: increasing permitted heights, decreasing parking requirements, strategically locating public build or funded facilities to generate a synergy between the core and fringe, increasing residential densiities to the south and west of downtown, eliminate undesireable land uses (like auto dealerships in the 800 South area) and expanding fixed transit between the urban neighborhoods and the core. I also think the RDA should focus solely on creating housing on the perimeter of the CBD."

(edit: this probably belongs in the slc thread, but oh well)

This post was a light-bulb going on for me...I should be thinking about the CBD as a whole--not a collection of separate projects (Okay, I admit I'm a little slow...maybe real S L O W). I guess that's why we have planning.

With planning in mind, I ALSO think the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) should focus on building housing on the perimeter of the CBD. The best way to breathe life into the CBD is to populate it!

urbanboy · #**7393** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 5:31 AM**

A Civil Rights Protest for government marriage equality was held at City Creek Park in downtown Salt Lake City
After a rally in Salt Lake City's City Creek Park, 3,000-5,000 (according to channel 2 news) protesters marched around Temple Square and LDS church headquarters. This protest was in response to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' involvement in politics by encouraging it's members to help fund the "Yes on Proposition 8" campaign: a proposition that has eliminated the right for gay couples to marry in California.
80% of the 75 million raised for "Yes on 8" came from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Video of the protest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLATGyDcvo

http://www.vimeo.com/2184623

SLCProjects was also there protesting the protestors in favor of Prop 8. You ba**ard! No hard feelings.

T-Mac · #**7394** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 6:10 AM**

This is not the place for politics. There are other forums to discuss this issue.

SLC Projects · #**7395** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 6:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanboy

SLCProjects was also there protesting the protestors in favor of Prop 8. You ba**ard! No hard feelings.

I was. But I wasn't going to bring it up on here.

Orpheum · #**7396** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 6:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Mac

This is not the place for politics. There are other forums to discuss this issue.

Perhaps this isn't the place for politics, but on a more forum-related note, did anyone see the news coverage? The reporters were commenting on how all the people being downtown for the Jazz game, a Xango convention, and the protest, actually created a very lively atmosphere and several said that it actually felt like being in a "real downtown" for a change. I found that refreshing.
As for the protest itself, I was proud to be there marching and making history with my gay and gay-friendly brothers and sisters.

urbanboy · #**7397** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 7:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Mac

This is not the place for politics. There are other forums to discuss this issue.

It has very much to do with this thread. The protesters are talking of boycotting Utah. I don't agree that Utah, it's tourist industry, or the Sundance Festival should suffer a boycott because they have nothing to do with Proposition 8, but this possible boycott is definitely something to be aware of.

DMTower · #**7398** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 7:46 AM**

I saw SLC Projects there as well.. was a little surprised to see him routing for the other side.

Boiseguy · #**7399** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 7:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orpheum

Perhaps this isn't the place for politics, but on a more forum-related note, did anyone see the news coverage? The reporters were commenting on how all the people being downtown for the Jazz game, a Xango convention, and the protest, actually created a very lively atmosphere and several said that it actually felt like being in a "real downtown" for a change. I found that refreshing.
As for the protest itself, I was proud to be there marching and making history with my gay and gay-friendly brothers and sisters.

I'm glad you participated. I don't agree with attacking the church on their beliefs. What I do agree with is addressing their political involvement in it all. there were lies spread by the yes on prop 8 side lots of misinformation. And if church members funded it by 70 percent, then I can't help but agree with protesting that. I think everyone should be able to believe what they want. But allowing one group to force their religious beliefs on the society as a whole just because they've rounded up a simple majority... that... that's just wrong. Hate and intolerance whether if its snide and with a smile and caring tone of voice.. only breeds more hate and intolerance in who you are in a confrontation with... The church should have simply stood by their position and let the political process happen. They shouldn't have gotten involved in the grass roots efforts of it all. Many people who voted yes.. thought that yes meant yes to gay marriage. People were really confused and misinformed. The church shouldn't have put itself in the middle of it. To not make this political.. and to relate it to developement....
this is the kind of thing...that this whole debate has sparked... and while I don't think its fair to the state of utah... it is a consequence nonetheless...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_re_us/mormon_backlash_boycott

Orpheum · #**7400** Posted **Nov 8, 2008, 8:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

I'm glad you participated. I don't agree with attacking the church on their beliefs. What I do agree with is addressing their political involvement in it all.

I agree, and that's why I went to the first part at the park, and then I marched as far as their corporate headquarters. That's where my friends and I protested. I wasn't OK with protesting around their temple, I respect their beliefs. See, even when there is no visible line to cross, I still know when to stop. I wish the LDS church could say the same.
Anyway, when the crowd moved down to the gates of temple square, we went to get burgers.

oK fine.. I had a chicken sandwich.. I cannot tell a lie.