Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Otherwise, it's a typical auto-centric suburb with crazy, curvy streets that never connect to the outside world.

You're really not being honest with yourself if you think that this:











Is exactly the same as this:



Its not like S. Jordan has some robust pedestrian infrastructure that Daybreak is just not connecting to. Daybreak is basically surrounded by nothing, so there's nothing to connect to. Its already leaps and bounds ahead of typical development, and once its all built out, it will only get better.

As someone who works for a company that builds at Daybreak, and elsewhere- I can promise you that KLC goes to great lengths, to the point of being a pain in the ass, to ensure that Daybreak is not like a typical auto centric suburb, and this goes far beyond simply requiring that builders construct cute, old-fashioned homes.

Have you actually been out there within the past year?

[WASDEN]

I'm with Stenar on this one. Daybreak is still just a crazy auto-centric neighborhood. Don't get me wrong, it sure is a nice deviation from the status quo of suburban Salt Lake County. I like the porches facing the street instead of 3 car garages, I like the narrow tree lined streets, and the community park space. Makes it nice for going for a walk, but you still can't walk anywhere useful ie: grocery store, employment. Maybe when TRAX gets out there things will improve. I'm hoping that Daybreak can develop into a legit neighborhood at the end of the TRAX line much like Sugarhouse did at the end of the Salt Lake street car lines- but I doubt it cuz zoning these days is so over planned instead of organic. Just because pedestrians are shown in a rendering doesn't mean it will happen. But heres to hoping.

[cololi]

I don't think anyone is saying that suburbs should shrivel up and go away. They just need to be designed better. Daybreak is a move in the right direction. Still not as great as it could have been given that it was a blank slate, but it is an improvement over say, any other suburb in the valley. I think the negatives of suburbs have been beaten to death, so I won't go into it. Daybreak is still sprawl and contributing to all of the negatives associated with it.

700 E and Van Winkle are the east side version of Bangerter. At least in SLC, 700 East is much better integrated into the adjacent neighborhoods than Bangerter is. 700 E is three lanes in each direction through SLC. When it gets to 2100 S and I-80, it transitions. Such is the nature of state controlled streets. I bet the level of service of both streets is about the same. I'll take 700 E. anyday. I can safely say that SLC would love 700 E to be two lanes in each direction with a planted median down the middle.
Getting the state to buy off on that, however, is a different story. My probelm is with streets like 5400 S, 4700 S, etc. that are basically lined with soundwalls west of Redwood. Those streets have no chance of ever integrating into the neighborhoods. to do so would require connecting all of those cul-de-sacs that terminate at those streets. If these connections were made at the begining, then people would have known what they are buying into. Instead, those that live there have to drive thruogh their neighborhood to the one or two streets that connect to a big bad road to get anywhere. And forget about walking along one of those streets, with an integrated sidewalk less than 10 feet from cars going 50 mph. even worse, try it in the winter when none of the sidewalks are shoveled and the plow push the ice from the road onto the sidewalk without an afterthought. These are the kinds of things that need to be fixed. 700 E south of SLC has the exact same problem, minus the soundwalls.

And Urban logic is absolutely right about the Shopko area in Sugarhouse. It sucks. this is the type of development that really pisses me off. You take out public streets to build something that a pedestrain cannot even safely walk through. And plop it down in the middle of what is otherwise a very pleasant atmosphere.

people are also crazy if they think private cars are going away. I would be thrilled if we could cut down vehicle trips to 65% by private vehicle. That is an uphill battle and will be tough to accomplish, but we can do it with proper investments and development that takes advantage of the investment.

[i-215]

I need to pull my Pasadena, CA photo out again ...



To me this is the perfect balance between pedestrian and cars. The blocks are short. connecting, and there are no cul-de-sacs, which makes it great for walking. But I've also driven these streets and they still function excellent for cars, too.

Windy roads are annoying for cars and devastating for pedestrians. If the topography is flat don't curve the road. If Daybreak is a return to this 1920's planning, I'm not seeing it. Make the roads straight. Put in lots of "thru" streets and we'll talk.

[arkhitektor]

What would you suggest doing instead?

I think Daybreak has done an admirable job of balancing smarter design principles with real-world development actualities. Given that they had a blank slate, yes, they could have done better from an academic perspective on planning, but look- this isn't Candyland. They're building this in the real world and have had to do a lot to reconcile the wants and needs of a bunch of different stakeholders.

Doing something like this you've got to convince municipalities to change zoning laws and make them believe that it will work even though everything else in the area is totally different. You've got to convince builders that its worth their while to try something different- and that they can make money doing it. You've got to convince retailers and companies that its worth the gamble and that they should locate there. You've got to convince residents that its worth the extra cost they'll have to pay to live there. You've got to balance connectivity with the fact that most buyers today don't want to buy a house on a through street. I could go on and on.

If you want to sit back and groan about the evils of suburbs, fine....
but I'm not going to take you seriously until you offer some practical solutions to improve things that don't just sound nice (organic, walkable, etc.) but are actually feasible in the real environment in which development takes place today.

[Future Mayor]

I agree.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

I'm with Stenar on this one. Daybreak is still just a crazy auto-centric neighborhood. Don't get me wrong, it sure is a nice deviation from the status quo of suburban Salt Lake County. I like the porches facing the street instead of 3 car garages, I like the narrow tree lined streets, and the community park space. Makes it nice for going for a walk, but you still can't walk anywhere useful ie: grocery store, employment. Maybe when TRAX gets out there things will improve. I'm hoping that Daybreak can develop into a legit neighborhood at the end of the TRAX line much like Sugarhouse did at the end of the Salt Lake street car lines- but I doubt it cuz zoning these days is so over planned instead of organic. Just because pedestrians are shown in a rendering doesn't mean it will happen. But heres to hoping.

I don't understand these comments. Did you not look at the posting by Arkhitektor? The master plan calls for a lot of retail, office and commercial all within a reasonable distance from the residences. This development doesn't have anything else around to be within walking distance of! They are interfacing with dirt and a few home developments. Trax will certainly improve things further, but they are already well on their way to accomplishing a healthy neighborhood. I still don't understand the organic comment and being "over planned". My neighborhood is a great example of lack of planning. We have some streets with NO sidewalks and few connections to the outside. I question whether people have been out there and really have seen how much they have improved their pedestrian experience.

[cololi]

Look at how Daybreak interacts with the neighborhood just northeast of it How are those neighborhoods going to connect? There appears to be one or two street connections on the far end. Then look at the southern edge of Daybreak. You have a typical suburban development across the street from Daybreak. It is horrible, full of cul de sacs, few connections to the adjacent collector. On the Daybreak side, you have a similar situation, only the cul de sacs are masked as service ways providing access to garages. This is also one of the areas where they have decided to put a node of multifamily residential, whether it is owner occupied or renter occupied I have no idea, but it reads as an apartment complex. There are more connections to the collector, but it is still limited and they are placed far apart (more than 1200 feet, one connection is almost 3000 feet, almost 5 SLC blocks). Instead of mixing multi-family dwelling throughout the development, they decided to place them together. No doubt this was for market reasons, but because this whole development is essentially a development agreement between Kenencott and South Jordan, they could have reached an agreement on allowing more units elsewhere to compensate for the decreased value of the lots that were adjacent to the multifamily structures.

The fact that daybreak has few neighbors is irrelevant. Someday, that land too will be developed. If they fail to put the connections (stub the streets) in now, then they will never be able to get past the erroneous argument of increased traffic that will be brought up by the residents who move in between now and then. Because they have not provided these connections in their built phases indicates that they are not willing to do it and South Jordan does not have the guts to require it.

The result is Daybreak is an inward oriented development, similar to those neighborhoods that are surrounded by sound walls that are so common in a typical suburb. This is incredibly important due to the hundreds of millions of public investment dollars that is going into the LRT. It should be a requirement that those adjacent subdivisions have easy and direct access to that line. Instead, those people have to leave their cul-de-sac, wind their way through their own neighborhood, wind their way through the daybreak development and then find a place to park within the development and jump on the train. Is daybreak planning on a park and ride facility? If not, then few people are going to want to deal with the hassle of parking their car. Then the residents of daybreak are going to be upset that they have a hard time parking or that someone is parking in front of their house or business and leaving their car all day.

The argument that people don't want to live on through streets is not completely true. Sure, some won't. But many will. Daybreak sure has not had much difficulty selling homes that happen to be on one of the through streets in the development. You can look at places all over the country, or the world for that matter, that have homes on through streets. daybreak did do one great thing that most suburbs don't allow, and that is reduce the width of the street, which makes through street much safer.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by WeST

I don't understand these comments. Did you not look at the posting by Arkhitektor? The master plan calls for a lot of retail, office and commercial all within a reasonable distance from the residences. This development doesn't have anything else around to be within walking distance of! They are interfacing with dirt and a few home developments. Trax will certainly improve things further, but they are already well on their way to accomplishing a healthy neighborhood. I still don't understand the organic comment and being "over planned". My neighborhood is a great example of lack of planning. We have some streets with NO sidewalks and few connections to the outside. I question whether people have been out there and really have seen how much they have improved their pedestrian experience.

Well, this is part of the problem, they shouldn't have built this subdivision in the middle of nowhere, but rather closer to existing neighborhoods that they could connect to.

Sure, the master plan calls for all sorts of things, but none of that, aside from Kennecott's new HQ, exists, yet. And now that S. Jordan has allowed The District to be built away from Daybreak, it'll take longer for retail to be built within Daybreak.

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by WeST

I don't understand these comments. Did you not look at the posting by Arkhitektor? The master plan calls for a lot of retail, office and commercial all within a reasonable distance from the residences. This development doesn't have anything else around to be within walking distance of! They are interfacing with dirt and a few home developments. Trax will certainly improve things further, but they are already well on their way to accomplishing a healthy neighborhood. I still don't understand the organic comment and being "over planned". My neighborhood is a great example of lack of planning. We have some streets with NO sidewalks and few connections to the outside. I question whether people have been out there and really have seen how much they have improved their pedestrian experience.

WeST- yes I have been out there, in fact I grew up in South Jordan not far away from Daybreak and I have seen what its evolving into. There are things that I do like about it as mentioned in my post, and I'm aware that there are commercial components to Daybreak as well. Can I just ask you about Daybreak's grand enterance?? Does that incredibly long stretch of 114th from Bangeter not seem auto centric to you? In fact Daybreak interacts quite poorly with the neighborhoods that already surround it. It has few connections to the outside just like what you describe in your neighborhood that supposedly "lacks in planning." Lots of Daybreak residents shop at the District on Bangeter and 114th but do you think its even feasible to walk there? All I'm saying is that Daybreak is not the flawless pedestrian utopia that some of you guys seem to think it is. However I do acknowledge that Daybreak is a far superior suburban development than 99% of what we see along the Wasatch Front.

[Future Mayor]

I don't think many of us, at least not me, stated that it is a perfect utopian development. Many of us have simply stated that we feel it is a step in the right direction, while others continue to harp on the fact that there is nothing right with it.

[WeST]

Wasden, I agree with you. Not utopia (if that exists), but moving in the right direction. Keep in mind Kennecott Land is an evolving entity that has many more developments left. This is their first stab at it and I think they did a good job. They can build on this and make any course corrections for their future developments.

[arkhitektor]

It certainly isn't perfect, but its much better.
They're learning, and even going from the first to the second and third villages, there are a number of improvements in the streetscape, architecture and land use that are making it a better place.

They are the sorts of changes that my professional interactions with them occasionally frustrating, but the community is a better place for them.

[WeST]

Since I am bored today, I decided to look at Daybreak with Google Maps. While the aerials are a little old it does show enough to verify that so far they have connected with almost every street of the adjacent development. I don't know what they can do to interact much better with their neighbors. There are access points about every 1000 ft. on 118 South. Even where the road doesn't terminate at the main arterial, there is open space which allows pedestrians to get out of the neighborhood. I don't see any streets that wind. While they curve, they aren't meandering headaches like other places.

True the development is backed off of Bangerter pretty far back, but it doesn't look like Kennecott even owns that land! I don't know if the state owns it or if another developer does, but even if Kennecott did they are wise enough to keep it open space or at least commercial at some point. As far as their northern boundary (102nd), they have interfaced about as well as can be expected.

It needs to be remembered that the Mountain View Corridor will come through the middle of Daybreak and their mixed-use, commercial and industrial will interface with that road. Daybreak is far more constrained by the bad planning of past city officials and developers, then they are by their mistakes. I think they have done a marvelous job considering where it is.

I would love to hear specifics about how the rest of the development could improve its traffic flow and particularly non-car experience. I better stop now or someone will think I have a financial interest in this project.

P.S.- The developments on the corner of 102nd and Bangerter and 118th and Bangerter are not part of Daybreak!

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by delts145

^^^
A big ditto to that. Comparitively speaking, we should be applauding the so called suburbs of the Salt Lake Valley, as they are now evolving. I'm VERY encouraged by what is happening with the completed and ongoing tranportation construction along the Wasatch Front. Live in a metro area like the inland empire or Orange Co. of L.A. Or even more so in Phoenix.

Trust me, I know EXACTLY what it is like to live in the "Inland Empire" and "Orange County" - I've lived in both, and hated both.

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Its not like S. Jordan has some robust pedestrian infrastructure that Daybreak is just not connecting to. Daybreak is basically surrounded by nothing, so there's nothing to connect to. Its already leaps and bounds ahead of typical development, and once its all built out, it will only get better.

As someone who works for a company that builds at Daybreak, and elsewhere- I can promise you that KLC goes to great lengths, to the point of being a pain in the ass, to ensure that Daybreak is not like a typical auto centric suburb, and this goes far beyond simply requiring that builders construct cute, old-fashioned homes.

Have you actually been out there within the past year?

Wow! I hadn't seen some of those pics before! Thanks for your post

I totally agree that many of the relatively small issues Daybreak has are not its fault, but that of the existing development around it. Even so, I think it blends in very nicely. The way Cololi made it sound, you would think it just had dead-end roads leading to nowhere with an occasional connection to the older South Jordan neighborhoods sorounding it.

Originally Posted by WASDEN

I'm with Stenar on this one. Daybreak is still just a crazy auto-centric neighborhood. Don't get me wrong, it sure is a nice deviation from the status quo of suburban Salt Lake County. I like the porches facing the street instead of 3 car garages, I like the narrow tree lined streets, and the community park space. Makes it nice for going for a walk, but you still can't walk anywhere useful ie: grocery store, employment.

Can't go anywhere useful?

Like a market?





Or places of employment?



Are you looking at the same images I am?

The streets may curve, but there is a deffinate grid network with roads that go somewhere.



Daybreak is the perfect hybrid blend of a suburban development with urban ammenities. It is the best of both worlds! This certainly sets a new standard that will conjure up a different image in people's minds when people like Stenar say "suburb"......kind of like "liberal" is taking on a new, more socially acceptable meaning now. I know that was a bit of a stretch, but I thought it illustrated the same concept - people over-simplifing by deeming something by a single label word. Daybreak is deffinately a suburban development, but it's no typical suburb - and deffinately not auto-centric. I just drove through there the other day and saw tons of people out walking on the well-planned pedestrian grid. Once the commercial villeges open up, I can see these people flocking to them in droves - without their cars. There are tunnels that go under main roads for pedestrians to easily walk from one side to the other, there are a plethora of pedestrian bridges, there is plenty of open space. I love how Daybreak used exsisting prarrie grasses in their landscaping - they just removed the sage brush and mowed down the grass. It looks natural, and beautiful! With TRAX in the mix late next year, this will be a very accessable area without need of a car. Trust me, I have walked the full length of Daybreak from north to South - it takes about 20-30 minutes depending on your speed. If you ride a bike, it's more like 10-15 minutes. I predict that the Mid-Jordan line will be a two-way line - taking both people from the West/South Jordan area to SLC, and people from SLC to Daybreak. The TRAX station is going in right next to the commercial villege under construction that will open late this summer or early this fall (2009). Btw, there is a 4-story office building their housing Rio Tinto that is currently open - that would be a place of employment that people can walk to with many more such buildings to come.

[Urban_logic]

It deffinately has a better grid than European cities like:

Paris



London



Madrid



And these cities most certainly aren't auto-centric seeing as they were build WAY before the automobile.

Those images certainly make one greatful for the grids we have here in the States. Even LA has a better grid than those cities!!



And that's just sad

[aspiringArchitect]

What's with all those GIANT parking lots at Daybreak??

[i-215]

What I do suggest are more medium-sized streets. Good straight streets with no cul-de-sacs, no round-a-bouts, and connectivity. The more streets you have, to more opportunities to drop in higher density and commercial along the street. In fact, some of these streets even have minor industrial on the second street in from the major street, right in the neighborhood.



We can reduce minimum parking requirements, but still require an "adequate" amount of free parking. If there are busy times, it can push the cars onto the street.



And there are still enough strong arterial to keep neighborhoods from having a car clot. I would argue this is a "complete street" (sans bike lanes).



It's a bit denser than Utah or Daybreak, but it's low enough to still be able to enjoy a very modest yard and still have a small firebreak between buildings.

California may not do great planning now (IE, OC) but they did EXCELLENT planning in the era they built this neighborhood. It works for cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Nobody feels shafted. This, IMHO, is the goal - and they deliver.







Daybreak feels too confusing for a pedestrian. Yet the dead-end streets make me feel disabled behind the wheel. It might be okay on a bike, but I hate having to ride around three sides of a park to get places.

Homeowners need to get over the feeling that they need to live on a terminal street. All streets should connect! I grew up on an arterial, and I didn't die.

Ban cul-de-sacs. Ban dead-end streets (except for a few cases where it abuts a limited-access highway). And ban ridiculous planning above.

[cololi]

But look at all of the connections in those European cities. they may not have a true grid and are certainly curvilinear, but they can easily move around. Most European cities developed around the need to be protected, so they are very circular. Even the LA photo shows a lot of connections. Could you imagine getting around in LA without all of those connections?

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Can't go anywhere useful?

Like a market?





Or places of employment?



Are you looking at the same images I am?

Uhhh... HELLO!! These are paintings of things that may or may not ever be built.