HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1301  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 7:57 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
There aren't currently any plans to expand Trax to the east side of the valley, off the main or University lines and the proposed street car to Sugarhouse. While it would be nice, it would be a sizable feat to accomplish. Everything on the east side is so developed and there aren't any rail ROW available either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1302  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 9:18 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Yeah, unfortunately there's no room anywhere for anything like that. A street car is the best we could hope for, but that would have quite a way to go from Sugarhouse, and would still only be able to access the Cottonwood mall area at best. The area certainly suffers commercially because of it's limited access (the Cottonwood mall was the only major mall without a close proximity to a freeway, probably the biggest factor in its death).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1303  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 9:45 PM
DMTower's Avatar
DMTower DMTower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 811
I think one great place to access the east side is Ft. Union. They should build a street car line from the 7200 S. Trax station heading east until at least 2000 east or so, then maybe bend it to the north and head up Highland drive to Cottonwood Mall. An alternative to this could be Ft. Union to 2000e, then north up Van Winkle and on northward as it turns into 7th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1304  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2009, 11:38 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120


...or continue the sugarhouse trolley/streetcar from the future termination point, south on highland drive, and terminate at the old Cottonwood Mall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1305  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 4:54 AM
DMTower's Avatar
DMTower DMTower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 811
I posted this on the transit thread but I'm copying it here since we're on the subject

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1306  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2009, 1:25 PM
shakman's Avatar
shakman shakman is offline
Chairman
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: PRMD - People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 2,687
I am sure connecting Holladay and Cottonwood with TRAX and /or some form of mass transit is possible. Even if it means running the lines underground.

Would it be possible to build on elevated rail or bus lane cantilever or run along I-215?
__________________
"I measure the value of life not by how much I have, instead by what I have done.

-sb
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1307  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 2:49 AM
VelvetElvis VelvetElvis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
In response to the Artspace discussion on the SLC development thread I thought I would post something equally interesting here. Check out http://www.pooryorickstudios.com/ . These artist studios are the brainchild of a friend of mine, Brad Slaugh. If you check out some of the press links he will talk about his struggles with Artspace and studio renting studio space in SLC in general. What he has done in South SL is pretty damn cool!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1308  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2009, 4:24 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,299
Mark the calendar, visionaries

Most Beautiful Main Streets - Park City - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=166946&page=3

Cazimiro


Park City - City Hall is preparing for a wide-ranging exercise about the future


Many Parkites are frustrated with the amount of traffic in Park City, with congestion on roads like Park Avenue,
shown. People participating in the upcoming Vision Park City 2009 will likely talk about traffic as they discuss the
city's future. Park Record file photo


Jay Hamburger
The Record Staff


Park City visionaries can mark their calendars.

City Hall wants to listen to them.

The local government is scheduled to start what officials are billing as a lengthy, wide-ranging exercise about the
city's future. Dubbed 'Vision Park City 2009,' it means to look closely at the issues Park City faces and why people
live in Park City.

The exercise begins with an event at The Yarrow. It is scheduled from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on Tuesday, March 31.

"We've never taken the pulse," says Mayor Dana Williams. "This is different because it's more of getting a check of
the pulse of the community."

The organizers will follow the event with living-room discussions starting April 1 and continuing for several weeks,
with 10 or so people at the

Heidi Miller, left, and Bibi Vladimirova look through the offerings at No Place Like Home's sidewalk sale in July.
Park City's economy is suffering in the recession, and there could be ideas brought up to boost business as City
Hall officials engage regular Parkites in Vision Park City 2009. File photo by David Ryder events. Meanwhile, officials
would like Parkites to take pictures of images in Park City that show what is important to them. Another big meeting
is slated at the end of April.


Park City's construction industry, including the crew that built the state liquor store at Snow Creek, pictured,
has enjoyed the boom years since the 2002 Winter Olympics, but the numbers dropped in 2008 from the
record-setting years. Work, though, frustrates some Parkites, particularly in neighborhoods.
Park Record file photo


One of the City Hall officials organizing the event, Phyllis Robinson, says people at the Tuesday meeting will discuss
a "laundry list" of issues and values, but the talks at the meeting are not likely to delve into their details.
Robinson, who handles work force housing issues and sometimes acts as City Hall's spokesperson, says between
80 and 100 people will attend the Tuesday event. Sixty will participate in the smaller groups, she predicts.

The last time a similar exercise was held, smaller in scale, however, followed the 2002 Winter Olympics.
A mid-1990s event was the most recent comparable one to Vision Park City.

Robinson says she wants Parkites challenged to offer specific points about Park City and discuss situations
that involve competing interests. For instance, she says, people might talk about their views of open space
at the same time as they consider work force housing that would be built on undeveloped land, a scenario that
unfolded on a parcel of land in Snow Creek.

"How do we make decisions when we have conflicting values," Robinson says, describing that the mountain
town of Telluride, Colo., has faced similar choices. Vision Park City, which coincides with the 125th anniversary
of Park City's incorporation, comes at crucial time in the post-Olympic era. Before the recession struck,
Park City had enjoyed a booming economy since the Olympics, setting construction and tourism records.
But key industries have suffered in the recession, and City Hall is preparing for what is expected to be a
difficult round of budget talks in the spring and summer.

Meanwhile, a municipal election is scheduled in November with the mayor's office and two City Council seats on
the ballot, and City Hall is handling tension-filled issues like Treasure, the design rules in Old Town and traffic on
the S.R.248 entryway.

Amid those, the mayor, though, says he anticipates Parkites will say they are pleased with their lives in Park City.
He predicts issues that will be brought up will include traffic, construction and work force housing.

"Generally I think people are happy about being able to live here," Williams says.

City Hall has drafted an Alexandria, Va., firm that specializes in community development to assist with
Vision Park City. The firm, called czb, earlier won a $55,000 deal from City Hall for its work. Representatives plan
to be at the event on Tuesday.

Charles Buki, the principal of czb, agrees with the mayor that Parkites are pleased with where they live.
He calls Parkites "civically literate," meaning that they are aware of municipal affairs, and he says he must
"channel and translate" what Parkites say into City Hall processes.

"My hunch is that the overwhelming majority of residents in Park City adore Park City," Buki says.

Other communities with heavy tourism he has worked in include regions around the Chesapeake Bay and the
Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania. He also mentions Santa Fe, N.M., and Snowmass Village, Colo., two spots
City Hall has studied, as places he has worked.

"In one place, maybe it's skiing. In another place, it's marina development," Buki says.

.

Last edited by delts145; Mar 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1309  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 5:23 AM
Urban_logic's Avatar
Urban_logic Urban_logic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 360
Is there a benefit for areas to incorporate into their own cities/municipalities over being incorporated into SLC? I mean, if SLC incorporated North and South Salt Lake, that would easy put its population over the 200k mark. Then if you added the Canyon Rim/Millcreek/Cottonwood/Holladay area, that could easy put it at around 350k. I always think of these areas as Salt Lake anyway. I'm sure SLC isn't just sitting by and refusing to incorporate these areas. I'm guessing there is some sort of local fight in these communities from joining SLC - probably having to do with taxes (people's refusal to pay taxes is always what hinders growth and progress).

I don't know how successful it is for a city to incorporate another existing city, but if it can, I think SLC should incorporate Murray/Midvale/Ft Union area and annex the parts of Taylorsville and West Valley that border the 215. That would put SLC's population well into the 500k range. Then West Valley could incorporate Magna and the rest of Taylorsville, the Jordans could combine and incorporate Harriman and Copperton, Sandy could incorporate Draper, Riverton, and Bluffdale. Then we would have one large central city with 3 major suburbs. I think that would make things a lot less complicated and would keep idiots like D2012 from saying SLC isn't a decent-sized city because it's city limit population is only 180k.

I mean, wouldn't that makes sense to have everything within the belt route be SLC? Or am I going out on a limb here...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1310  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 5:31 AM
TANGELD_SLC's Avatar
TANGELD_SLC TANGELD_SLC is offline
The World Is Welcome Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 883
I'm all for incorporating suburbs into SLC proper, but I don't think the 'burbs should consolidate. They should stay somewhat smaller and more broken up, IMO
I at least want enough incorporation to push us over the 300K limit, because we have around what, 400K people that work in SLC every day, right? We go from a daytime population of about 350-400K to 180K at night... talk about population transfer
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1311  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 3:55 PM
Urban_logic's Avatar
Urban_logic Urban_logic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC View Post
I'm all for incorporating suburbs into SLC proper, but I don't think the 'burbs should consolidate. They should stay somewhat smaller and more broken up, IMO
I at least want enough incorporation to push us over the 300K limit, because we have around what, 400K people that work in SLC every day, right? We go from a daytime population of about 350-400K to 180K at night... talk about population transfer
Yeah, the suburbs could remain as-is. I think SLC sould just use the 215 as its city limit border. I think the 201 is already the border of SLC-WVC and could stay the same. Everything north of the 201 and within the 215 in SL County could be SLC. Then leave everything outside of the 215 left as it is currently. That would put SLC's population around 500k.



That's still only about half the built-out valley's poplation. I think that would be reasonable. Like I said before, I'm sure residents in these area have property tax and sovereignty issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1312  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 5:44 PM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
Yeah, the suburbs could remain as-is. I think SLC sould just use the 215 as its city limit border. I think the 201 is already the border of SLC-WVC and could stay the same. Everything north of the 201 and within the 215 in SL County could be SLC. Then leave everything outside of the 215 left as it is currently. That would put SLC's population around 500k.



That's still only about half the built-out valley's poplation. I think that would be reasonable. Like I said before, I'm sure residents in these area have property tax and sovereignty issues.
SLC's western boundary is more like 7000 West, way past I-215. It is vital to the tax base to keep that industrial land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1313  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 11:27 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Is there any reason to add all these suburbs other than to raise the number? I mean, I don't quite understand how all of this is intended to work, or how it works in cities like New York, but don't cities like Holladay become cities, and areas like Milcreek become townships for local advantages? Holladay was just unincorporated Salt Lake City (or "county") before it became it's own city. I know lots of the areas around it are still county areas. I assume they're not incorporated into Salt Lake so they can have county waste management, police dept., etc.. It seems like if they just found a way to "incorporate" areas like those into SLC without changing their individualized legal systems, it'd work. Aggh, none of it makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1314  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 12:38 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,299
Monument to service and sacrifice to be built in Sandy

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12031104


Design by Monument Arts Utah Freedom Memorial organization unveils its plans for a monument to honor Utah's military fallen



...Galvez said the monument --- the design of which will be unveiled at 11 a.m. on Tuesday at the Sandy City Promenade -- will be as much a memorial to fallen military members as it will be a message to future generations...

.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1315  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:18 AM
TANGELD_SLC's Avatar
TANGELD_SLC TANGELD_SLC is offline
The World Is Welcome Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 883
Gawd I hate Sandy for that. It should have been built in SALT LAKE CITY!!!

Monuments belong in the CAPITAL, not a suburb.
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1316  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:36 AM
jedikermit's Avatar
jedikermit jedikermit is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,258
Salt Lake City already has Memory Grove and other memorial sites; West Jordan has one similar to Sandy's in place already near its City Hall...I don't see any problem with multiple cities building memorials commemorating the service of people who have served our country.
__________________
Loving Salt Lake City. Despite everything, and because of everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1317  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 2:40 AM
jtrent77 jtrent77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedikermit View Post
Salt Lake City already has Memory Grove and other memorial sites; West Jordan has one similar to Sandy's in place already near its City Hall...I don't see any problem with multiple cities building memorials commemorating the service of people who have served our country.
Got to agree, capitol cities don't get a monopoly on remembering--after all, the famous tomb of the unknown soldier is not in D.C.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1318  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:58 AM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 3,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC View Post
Gawd I hate Sandy for that. It should have been built in SALT LAKE CITY!!!

Monuments belong in the CAPITAL, not a suburb.
It's going to be really ugly, so Sandy can have it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1319  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 4:18 AM
DMTower's Avatar
DMTower DMTower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 811
I just don't see the point of building a memorial in a suburb... the only people who will see it are those who go specifically for that purpose. No pedestrians are going to just happen by and experience it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1320  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 6:29 AM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Monument to service and sacrifice to be built in Sandy


.

I saw that coming.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.