HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9921  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 5:43 AM
T-Mac's Avatar
T-Mac T-Mac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bountiful, Utah
Posts: 1,163
Just got back from Vegas. I will try to get downtown either Monday or Tuesday evening.
     
     
  #9922  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 7:25 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post

One of the reason would be that the city already owns the land and would be cheaper just to build them there right next to the Library.
Also as for the view, as long as they built these building no taller then 5-stories then it shouldn't ruin the view.

I would be willing to pay more as a taxpayer to keep them OFF of the square and on the east side of the street rather than spoil the square.
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
     
     
  #9923  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 10:51 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,689
Judging from many of the passionate opinions expressed here and elsewhere about keeping the campus off of the
square itself, I can see now why Downtown Salt Lake City has so many grand plazas,squares,centers, parks,etc.
I mean, downtown L.A. or most cities in the West for that matter don't even hold a candle to Salt Lake. When it
comes to the sheer numbers, beauty, flowers, water features, size, etc., downtown Salt Lake's public spaces are
very impressive. Looking back over the past fifteen years we seem to just keep adding more and more.
I'm thinking the Library plaza is more than large enough to accomodate the buildings on it's parameter, and still have
plenty of room for a lovely plaza, However, if the people don't want it, then I am not against putting it elsewhere.


bsmart

bsmart

Last edited by delts145; May 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM.
     
     
  #9924  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 11:23 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,689
Group looks to balanced growth

By Arthur Raymond
The Deseret News


Seven canyon gateways to wilderness, recreation and solitude that also contain the lion's share of the Salt Lake Valley's pristine, but fragile, water resources will be pushed to new limits in coming years as the state's population continues to boom.

How to balance this influx of new Utahns — widely expected to double from the current 2.2 million Wasatch Front residents to more than 4 million in the next 30 years — and maintain unspoiled natural resources to enjoy, clean water to drink and economic growth to help keep those new residents working will be the focus of the Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow project.

The plan will examine issues connected to growth in City Creek, Emigration, Red Butte, Parleys, Millcreek, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood canyons.


Laura Seitz, Deseret News - David Toledo and David Bradway enjoy a near-perfect spring day by hiking the Bonneville Shoreline Trail overlooking Salt Lake City on Thursday.

The year-long effort kicked off Thursday with a ceremony at Salt Lake's Memory Grove Park with support from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon and Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker. Huntsman said the connection between Wasatch Front residents and the corridors into those mountains are indelible.

"We're defined by these canyons around us," Huntsman said. "They define who we are, they define our quality of life, and we, to a certain extent, help define the canyons by how we use them."



Cheryl Shelley of Salt Lake City rides the Bonneville Shore Line Trail overlooking the city Thursday. (Laura Seitz, Deseret News)

That use has grown by leaps and bounds since the last, wide-view canyons study was conducted 20 years ago. That study was led by a planner who now occupies the office of executive in chief of Salt Lake City — Ralph Becker. Becker said an update of the plan was due, and the group tasked to conduct it — local growth management think-tank Envision Utah — is well-qualified to lead the effort.

"This is a great time for us to be initiating a new Wasatch Canyons planning process," Becker said. "I feel confident that the work of Envision Utah, which has really been a guiding light in Utah … will do a superb job."

Alan Matheson, Envision Utah's executive director, said Thursday that the process of finding the right growth formula that accounts for land-use, recreation, transportation and environmental concerns will rely heavily on public input.

"Through a series of exercises over the next several months, people will have an opportunity to weigh-in," Matheson said. "The better participation we have, the better the results are going to be."

Becker said the last iteration of a growth plan for the canyons — the 1989 Wasatch Canyons Master Plan — also leaned heavily on public sentiment, and that input had a profound impact on the canyon-based resources of today.

"When we went through this in the 1980s with Salt Lake County and the Forest Service … if the public had not spoken up in large numbers that they wanted to see these canyons protected we would be seeing far more development … today, than we have," Becker said. "My sense is that the public still places that protection … of a high priority."

..

Last edited by delts145; May 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM.
     
     
  #9925  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 12:24 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,689
Downturn impacts landscape for condos
Real estate» Despite price cuts, financing tough to come by for developers, buyers.

By Leslie Mitchell
The Salt Lake Tribune



(Courtesy of Gardiner Properties, LLC.)

Two years into the housing downturn, the condo market in the Salt Lake area is starting to take a real beating.

Sales in Salt Lake County are down a sharp 37 percent in the first quarter, compared with a year ago. Median selling prices are down 8 percent over the same time period, a much larger drop than the just under 1 percent decline in single-family homes.

From Sugar House to downtown and beyond, many condo projects are on hold. Others are moving forward, but their future is uncertain.



This rendering shows that the Urbana on Eleventh condos in Sugar House will feature some two-story units. Prices will range from just under $200,000 to more than $500,000, with the 29 units ranging in size from 750 to 1,762 square feet. (Courtesy of Gardiner Properties LLC)


(Courtesy of Gardiner Properties, LLC.)

Condo markets often suffer more in downturns, but this time around could be worse because of the added scrutiny lenders are giving to such projects.

"Banks aren't crazy about financing projects, and they're even less crazy about giving people money to buy them," said Rick Howa of Howa Capital, who has put a venture west of the State Capitol on hold because of the challenging economy.

Condos historically are considered a higher-risk investment than single-family homes. During downturns, they tend to lose value more quickly.

But Salt Lake City mortgage lender Al Bingham said the subprime lending debacle -- and the huge losses that followed -- have lenders taking an especially hard look at this segment of the market.

"Condos are considered really 'high risk right now,' " he said.

That doesn't mean sales have dried up completely -- creative incentives and distinctive products are still drawing buyers -- but the landscape for sellers certainly is more difficult to navigate.

Lenders already have tightened credit standards across the board, but condo buyers are being put through more steps during the loan qualification process, he said, and in a number of cases are being required to put up more of a down payment than they would for a single-family home.

In a condo development, buyers own the space but share ownership of the building with other owners.

Salt Lake City Realtor Jillinda Bowers said lending challenges have made it more difficult for anyone selling a condo.

"For sellers, it's taking them a little longer to sell, and they're having to lower their price," she said. "We have an overabundance of condos and town homes, compared with the percentage of buyers for them."

Developers of The Metro at 350 S. 200 East have 18 units left to sell in the 121-unit project, which was completed in July 2008.

Andrew Pratt, director of sales and marketing, is offering concessions of $12,000 to $18,000 on the remaining units. That's in addition to the $6,000 state grant available to buyers on new construction.

He said he's noticed how the tighter lending standards have played out. Some earlier buyers in his development put down only 3 percent to 5 percent, but "now 10 percent is the new minimum, and that's for premium borrowers. If you've got anything less than perfect [credit] scores, they're asking for 15 percent to 20 percent down."

Despite the environment, "our phones still ring, and we're still showing units and still selling some ... but even with the low mortgage rates, people are still very much on the fence."

Developer John Gardiner knows the condo market isn't as good as it was a couple of years ago, yet he's proceeding on a 29-unit project called Urbana on 1100 East in the Sugar House area of Salt Lake City.

The project, on slightly more than a quarter of an acre, will feature units priced from just under $200,000 to more than $500,000.

He said 13 of the 29 units will average 750 square feet and have an average price of $241,000. Six one-bedroom units will average 980 square feet with an average price of $308,000. Another nine will be two-bedroom or loft units averaging 1,185 square feet with an average price of $388,000. One live/work unit will have 1,762 square feet and be priced at $532,300.

Whether he'll get those prices when the project is completed remains to be seen.

Gardiner's confident the location so near popular Sugar House amenities will work in his favor, as will the prices, if they hold.

But how low do prices need to be to attract buyers? Marmalade Square condos at 650 N. 244 West are priced from about $145,000 to $185,000. Veteran Salt Lake City Realtor Babs De Lay said that price range, and the fact that the project is "FHA approved," has made it extremely attractive.

Approval by the U.S. Federal Housing Administration means buyers generally have to put down less of a down payment.

"They are selling two to three of those units a week," she said.

The LDS Church isn't counting on low prices to sell the condos in its City Creek development downtown.

Across from Temple Square, prices at the Richards Court 10-story towers, which have 90 units, range from $442,000 to more than $2 million. Both of the buildings are set to open next year.

Prices range from about $300,000 to $1.7 million for units in the 20-story Regent. The 150-unit project is one block to the south, at 35 E. 100 South. Unlike Richards Court, however, the Regent will be completed when enough of the units have been pre-sold, said church spokesman Dale Bills.

Given the uncertain economy, "we're encouraged by the interest we've seen" in the condos, Bills said.

Realtors agree that the project's distinctive location and affiliation with the state's predominant religion is a major selling point.

Back in Sugar House, Craig Mecham doesn't have the church's deep pockets or its location for his planned condos near 1100 East and 21st South.

Mecham's project, which also is projected to include offices and shops, is on hold because of an inability to get financing. Yet next to Mecham's property, California-based Red Mountain Retail Group said it still hopes to begin work this summer on its efforts to overhaul old Granite Furniture buildings and create a mixed-use project with about 300 condos.

A bit to the north of those projects, Gardiner remains hopeful -- not only for his project, but for others, as well. "I think over time, as the economy gets better, these other projects will get done, too."

For now, projects such as Markea Court, between 200-300 South on 600 East, remain on hold.

And, developer Howa appears more doubtful about the prospects for condos in his Marmalade development (not affiliated with Marmalade Square). He originally envisioned a fairly upscale, 90-unit condo and town home development as being a key part of his Marmalade project on 300 West between 500 North and 600 North. Offices and retail shops were also a part of the mix.

The latter two components are still in the works. In fact, construction on the first phase of retail development is nearing completion.

But the condos, which would have been priced at about $350,000 to nearly $1 million?

Howa has an agreement with the city to build condos. But he said he can't get financing. Even he could, he doubts whether there would be demand for the units or whether willing buyers could get loans to buy them.

"Everything is moving forward except the condominiums," Howa said. "We're rethinking condos at Marmalade."

[email protected]



(Courtesy of Gardiner Properties, LLC.)

.
     
     
  #9926  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 9:20 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Judging from many of the passionate opinions expressed here and elsewhere about keeping the campus off of the
square itself, I can see now why Downtown Salt Lake City has so many grand plazas,squares,centers, parks,etc.
I mean, downtown L.A. or most cities in the West for that matter don't even hold a candle to Salt Lake. When it
comes to the sheer numbers, beauty, flowers, water features, size, etc., downtown Salt Lake's public spaces are
very impressive. Looking back over the past fifteen years we seem to just keep adding more and more.
I'm thinking the Library plaza is more than large enough to accomodate the buildings on it's parameter, and still have
plenty of room for a lovely plaza, However, if the people don't want it, then I am not against putting it elsewhere.


bsmart

bsmart
Those are nice pictures of the plaza, and I agree, there are a lot of nice open spaces in Salt Lake. It seems like there are a lot more than there need to be, to be honest, they're empty a lot. Last time I went to the library there wasn't really anyone there... there are no stores or anything and there's not much to do in that area, unless there's a festival of some sort. To me, the east side of Library square seems totally wasted, but I'm not passionate about filling it. I wouldn't mind if the buildings were somewhere else, I certainly don't want to uglify Mr. Safdie's creation, but I don't really think this will hurt it much.

Last edited by John Martin; May 11, 2009 at 9:29 PM.
     
     
  #9927  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 1:19 AM
Justnslcsugarhood.'s Avatar
Justnslcsugarhood. Justnslcsugarhood. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Downturn impacts landscape for condos
Real estate» Despite price cuts, financing tough to come by for developers, buyers.

By Leslie Mitchell
The Salt Lake Tribune



(Courtesy of Gardiner Properties, LLC.)

Two years into the housing downturn, the condo market in the Salt Lake area is starting to take a real beating.

Sales in Salt Lake County are down a sharp 37 percent in the first quarter, compared with a year ago. Median selling prices are down 8 percent over the same time period, a much larger drop than the just under 1 percent decline in single-family homes.

From Sugar House to downtown and beyond, many condo projects are on hold. Others are moving forward, but their future is uncertain.



This rendering shows that the Urbana on Eleventh condos in Sugar House will feature some two-story units. Prices will range from just under $200,000 to more than $500,000, with the 29 units ranging in size from 750 to 1,762 square feet. (Courtesy of Gardiner Properties LLC)


(Courtesy of Gardiner Properties, LLC.)

Condo markets often suffer more in downturns, but this time around could be worse because of the added scrutiny lenders are giving to such projects.

"Banks aren't crazy about financing projects, and they're even less crazy about giving people money to buy them," said Rick Howa of Howa Capital, who has put a venture west of the State Capitol on hold because of the challenging economy.

Condos historically are considered a higher-risk investment than single-family homes. During downturns, they tend to lose value more quickly.

But Salt Lake City mortgage lender Al Bingham said the subprime lending debacle -- and the huge losses that followed -- have lenders taking an especially hard look at this segment of the market.

"Condos are considered really 'high risk right now,' " he said.

That doesn't mean sales have dried up completely -- creative incentives and distinctive products are still drawing buyers -- but the landscape for sellers certainly is more difficult to navigate.

Lenders already have tightened credit standards across the board, but condo buyers are being put through more steps during the loan qualification process, he said, and in a number of cases are being required to put up more of a down payment than they would for a single-family home.

In a condo development, buyers own the space but share ownership of the building with other owners.

Salt Lake City Realtor Jillinda Bowers said lending challenges have made it more difficult for anyone selling a condo.

"For sellers, it's taking them a little longer to sell, and they're having to lower their price," she said. "We have an overabundance of condos and town homes, compared with the percentage of buyers for them."

Developers of The Metro at 350 S. 200 East have 18 units left to sell in the 121-unit project, which was completed in July 2008.

Andrew Pratt, director of sales and marketing, is offering concessions of $12,000 to $18,000 on the remaining units. That's in addition to the $6,000 state grant available to buyers on new construction.

He said he's noticed how the tighter lending standards have played out. Some earlier buyers in his development put down only 3 percent to 5 percent, but "now 10 percent is the new minimum, and that's for premium borrowers. If you've got anything less than perfect [credit] scores, they're asking for 15 percent to 20 percent down."

Despite the environment, "our phones still ring, and we're still showing units and still selling some ... but even with the low mortgage rates, people are still very much on the fence."

Developer John Gardiner knows the condo market isn't as good as it was a couple of years ago, yet he's proceeding on a 29-unit project called Urbana on 1100 East in the Sugar House area of Salt Lake City.

The project, on slightly more than a quarter of an acre, will feature units priced from just under $200,000 to more than $500,000.

He said 13 of the 29 units will average 750 square feet and have an average price of $241,000. Six one-bedroom units will average 980 square feet with an average price of $308,000. Another nine will be two-bedroom or loft units averaging 1,185 square feet with an average price of $388,000. One live/work unit will have 1,762 square feet and be priced at $532,300.

Whether he'll get those prices when the project is completed remains to be seen.

Gardiner's confident the location so near popular Sugar House amenities will work in his favor, as will the prices, if they hold.

But how low do prices need to be to attract buyers? Marmalade Square condos at 650 N. 244 West are priced from about $145,000 to $185,000. Veteran Salt Lake City Realtor Babs De Lay said that price range, and the fact that the project is "FHA approved," has made it extremely attractive.

Approval by the U.S. Federal Housing Administration means buyers generally have to put down less of a down payment.

"They are selling two to three of those units a week," she said.

The LDS Church isn't counting on low prices to sell the condos in its City Creek development downtown.

Across from Temple Square, prices at the Richards Court 10-story towers, which have 90 units, range from $442,000 to more than $2 million. Both of the buildings are set to open next year.

Prices range from about $300,000 to $1.7 million for units in the 20-story Regent. The 150-unit project is one block to the south, at 35 E. 100 South. Unlike Richards Court, however, the Regent will be completed when enough of the units have been pre-sold, said church spokesman Dale Bills.

Given the uncertain economy, "we're encouraged by the interest we've seen" in the condos, Bills said.

Realtors agree that the project's distinctive location and affiliation with the state's predominant religion is a major selling point.

Back in Sugar House, Craig Mecham doesn't have the church's deep pockets or its location for his planned condos near 1100 East and 21st South.

Mecham's project, which also is projected to include offices and shops, is on hold because of an inability to get financing. Yet next to Mecham's property, California-based Red Mountain Retail Group said it still hopes to begin work this summer on its efforts to overhaul old Granite Furniture buildings and create a mixed-use project with about 300 condos.

A bit to the north of those projects, Gardiner remains hopeful -- not only for his project, but for others, as well. "I think over time, as the economy gets better, these other projects will get done, too."

For now, projects such as Markea Court, between 200-300 South on 600 East, remain on hold.

And, developer Howa appears more doubtful about the prospects for condos in his Marmalade development (not affiliated with Marmalade Square). He originally envisioned a fairly upscale, 90-unit condo and town home development as being a key part of his Marmalade project on 300 West between 500 North and 600 North. Offices and retail shops were also a part of the mix.

The latter two components are still in the works. In fact, construction on the first phase of retail development is nearing completion.

But the condos, which would have been priced at about $350,000 to nearly $1 million?

Howa has an agreement with the city to build condos. But he said he can't get financing. Even he could, he doubts whether there would be demand for the units or whether willing buyers could get loans to buy them.

"Everything is moving forward except the condominiums," Howa said. "We're rethinking condos at Marmalade."

[email protected]



(Courtesy of Gardiner Properties, LLC.)

.
980 square feet for 308,000 dollars, is there any wonder why the condo market isn't doing well. This is SLC not NYC it's unethical to price anything that expensive any where.
     
     
  #9928  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 1:37 AM
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 WASDEN View Post


Right on man. I just like it downtown so much I probably get carried away sometimes (you know, like cheering on a favorite football team or something). I don't mean to come off as "snooty" or "narrow-minded".
Sorry, I just thought that 99.99% was unreasonable, but you're fully welcome to that preference, I just though it was pretty narrow. I realize you were probably exaggerating. No offense taken

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds View Post
I'll admit it. I'm snooty. I hate the suburbs. I think they overuse land, promote pollution and are a huge reason for the rising obesity rates in our country today.

I think suburbs post-1950s have ultimately been a boil on the ass of America and I would love nothing more than to pop it. If it weren't for some family living out in the suburbs, I'd probably never venture south of 3300 South.
Don't forget your contribution to our pollution problems. SLC has much more traffic, much bigger roads, and more of them than any of the suburbs have. Take 7th East for example - 8 lanes. The only thing that comes close in size on the west side is the 215, which is a freeway. Also don't forget your MASSIVE industrial park to the north that always has a layer of soot hanging over it year-round.

I think that "hate" is a harsh word, maybe "disagree" or "disapprove of" are better, but say as you wish. You deffinately are snooty, seeing as you "wouldn't venture south of 33rd South." It's one thing to disagree, but another to not even set foot in them. I'm telling you, a little culture never hurt anyone. It isn't scary to associate with people who live in areas outside your own. I think it would be great for you to work for a charity in West Valley, to give you some perspective as to why not everyone can afford up-scale east side neighborhoods. Economic constraints are more often factors that draw people to the suburbs. It's nothing to hate. It would be far more effective to participate in efforts to change suburban development for the better and hamper outward sprawl than bitch about how much you hate them.

Remember that the 800,000 of us in the SLC suburbs and the other 1.2 million up and down the front make most of the developments down town possible. Without us, you would look like Boise (not that that's bad, I'm just saying that you would have a population of only 200,000, which is the size of the Boise.) Trax wouldn't exist, FrontRunner wouldn't exist, down town would be much smaller. Life would be very different in SLC without the suburban demographic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cololi View Post
Don't confuse someone's dislike for the suburbs as being snooty. I have many friends who live in the suburbs. I personally don't care for that environment. That is all.
You come across as one who dislikes the suburbs and pro-actively supports efforts to change them for the better. Despite your disapproval of the suburbs, you don't cower away in SLC and refuse set foot in them. People like Comrade are ones who I would consider "snooty". You're right, there is a big difference.
     
     
  #9929  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 3:12 AM
DMTower's Avatar
DMTower DMTower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 811
Re: the civic campus idea... why don't they try and get Safdie to design the new buildings so they can compliment the library from the east side. I agree, that space on the east side is totally wasted. Whenever there is a festival, the bulk of it takes place on the west side of the library block and over onto the C&C Building block, not the east side of the library.
     
     
  #9930  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 3:19 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
Now THAT idea I would support
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
     
     
  #9931  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 3:50 AM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
Don't forget your contribution to our pollution problems. SLC has much more traffic, much bigger roads, and more of them than any of the suburbs have. Take 7th East for example - 8 lanes. The only thing that comes close in size on the west side is the 215, which is a freeway. Also don't forget your MASSIVE industrial park to the north that always has a layer of soot hanging over it year-round.
http://www.joemjoe.com/stories/air-pol.htm#true
     
     
  #9932  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 5:58 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,132
New downtown restaurant!

New sushi restaurant to open at 180 W. 400 S.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5279/is_20090406/ai_n31625586/?tag=content;col1

This is great news! This part of downtown has blight problems and new businesses can help bring vitality to the area.

Last edited by Orlando; May 11, 2009 at 5:26 PM.
     
     
  #9933  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 6:01 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,132
job sprawl

SLC is 3rd best city for having the least amount of 'job sprawl'.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5279/is_20090406/ai_n31625587/?tag=content;col1

Last edited by Orlando; May 11, 2009 at 5:29 PM.
     
     
  #9934  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 6:24 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post

Don't forget your contribution to our pollution problems. SLC has much more traffic, much bigger roads, and more of them than any of the suburbs have. Take 7th East for example - 8 lanes. The only thing that comes close in size on the west side is the 215, which is a freeway. Also don't forget your MASSIVE industrial park to the north that always has a layer of soot hanging over it year-round.

I think that "hate" is a harsh word, maybe "disagree" or "disapprove of" are better, but say as you wish. You deffinately are snooty, seeing as you "wouldn't venture south of 33rd South." It's one thing to disagree, but another to not even set foot in them. I'm telling you, a little culture never hurt anyone. It isn't scary to associate with people who live in areas outside your own. I think it would be great for you to work for a charity in West Valley, to give you some perspective as to why not everyone can afford up-scale east side neighborhoods. Economic constraints are more often factors that draw people to the suburbs. It's nothing to hate. It would be far more effective to participate in efforts to change suburban development for the better and hamper outward sprawl than bitch about how much you hate them.
And how many of those people driving along 700 East are actually living in Salt Lake? I'd wager, since the city's population balloons during the daytime, that most aren't residents and are, sadly, driving in from the suburbs.

But for me, I rarely drive. I don't need to, since most everything is in reach. And if I do, there is a huge difference between a ten minute drive into downtown, as it is from my street without using the freeway and a 20-30 minute drive into downtown, as it is for most those who live in the southern valley and that is with the freeway.

As for living in the upscale area of Salt Lake, there are affordable houses in central city that are in extremely walkable neighborhoods. And I don't need you to lecture me about the underprivileged, since I grew up in a working class family and lived in a rental unit on a pretty shitty street for most of my childhood. The street was also located on Salt Lake's east side and very walkable -- even though it was pretty ghetto.

Also, let's be clear here, I never said I hated people who lived in the suburbs. I said I hate suburbs and am not going to tippy-toe around this subject because so many here call them home. I do have a problem with the type of development suburbs promote and the mentality that led to suburbs in the first place is one I do not frankly want to associate with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
Remember that the 800,000 of us in the SLC suburbs and the other 1.2 million up and down the front make most of the developments down town possible. Without us, you would look like Boise (not that that's bad, I'm just saying that you would have a population of only 200,000, which is the size of the Boise.) Trax wouldn't exist, FrontRunner wouldn't exist, down town would be much smaller. Life would be very different in SLC without the suburban demographic.
And your area would not have developed a lick if it weren't for Salt Lake. That's the root of this entire problem. If suburbs had developed similar to that of Salt Lake or even Murray and Midvale, I think the valley as a whole would be better off. They did not, however, and because of it, we're struggling to try and contain this monster. It's like a heroin habit and though we take steps to rectify the problem, there are still too many people out there pushing the junk on the addict and ultimately, nothing changes. So for every decent development that pops up in suburban Salt Lake, there are hundreds more that are not. Until that trend is flipped, suburban Salt Lake will continue to be at the forefront of my disdain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
You come across as one who dislikes the suburbs and pro-actively supports efforts to change them for the better. Despite your disapproval of the suburbs, you don't cower away in SLC and refuse set foot in them. People like Comrade are ones who I would consider "snooty". You're right, there is a big difference.
I'll happily admit I'm snooty and I think if we looked down at suburban development more when it was hitting its stride in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

It's just a shame there weren't enough visionaries like myself back then.
     
     
  #9935  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 6:41 AM
WASDEN's Avatar
WASDEN WASDEN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kailua HI
Posts: 391


Comrade- my thoughts exactly you snooty bastard .
     
     
  #9936  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 1:13 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,689
Frankly, if I remember correctly regarding where you told us you live, I can't see a whole lot that is so progressively impressive about your own neighborhood Comrade. I mean, it's a nice enough area, but I could go to town for quite some time picking fault with it's surrounding area. There are many areas such as Daybreak, given a little time for mature vegetation, that will emerge as more attractive and with better residential and commercial planning than certain areas of Salt Lake. That would include some of the areas on the east bench, which are either a part of Salt Lake or especially South Salt Lake and Millcreek. Many of those areas of Salt Lake and adj. were obviously suburbs during the thirties, forties and fifties, and I find many of their housing pockets and main thouroughfares in dire need of urban replanning, upgrading and beautification. My Aunt lives in a nice area of the east bench in Salt Lake City proper. It is interesting, that by certain snooty standards her cul-de-sac and attributes of the surrounding area would not make the grade. Now, I know that many of the faults I would pick with Salt Lake are common in every city. I'm just saying that for every problem you see in a city such as South Jordan, I could easily top that with two in Salt Lake. Honestly, we all live in glass houses to some extent. There is not allot of room to be critical of many of the incorporated cities in the so-called suburbs, which yes are younger or newly growing, but are also doing a better job in certain areas of upkeep and planning.

The fact is that at it's current age of evolution there are many areas in Salt Lake, including it's downtown that now need to be rethought. There are areas in so called suburbia that as they evolve into denser cores, will obviously be reworked and transportation corridors and options expanded in order to handle a denser formula. This has been the case in most every city, whether it's Europe or the States. Many older grid areas of Central Los Angeles, that were once considered suburbs are now in a constant state of evolution. What was acceptable in 1910 in Los Angeles, no longer works in today's world and must be tweaked. Some of the changes come because of pressures to place more people in a given area. Some changes are as a result of crime patterns or mass transit, etc.

A certain small number of the attitudes on this forum in general remind me of some guys I know, who make a habit of picking fault with the physical appearance of prospective dates. It's always interesting when the person being criticized is in better shape, and on a scale of one to ten ranks a few numbers higher.
     
     
  #9937  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 2:31 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Frankly, if I remember correctly regarding where you told us you live, I can't see a whole lot that is so progressively impressive about your own neighborhood Comrade. I mean, it's a nice enough area, but I could go to town for quite some time picking fault with it's surrounding area. There are many areas such as Daybreak, given a little time for mature vegetation, that will emerge as more attractive and with better residential and commercial planning than certain areas of Salt Lake.
Oh my area isn't all that impressive to look at, I agree with you right there. That isn't my point. I'm not talking about vegetation or architecture (though many of the homes in my neighborhood are actually the real thing that they're trying to recreate at Daybreak). What makes my neighborhood different than most of suburban Salt Lake (notice I said most, not all), is that everything is still in relative reach. It's open to the idea of using your legs, which just isn't the case in many, many, many, many areas of the Salt Lake Valley (including the far-west city limits of my own city).

Now you can mention Daybreak all you want, which is so often done here as a way of excusing away all the other development in suburban Salt Lake, but it doesn't change the fact that Daybreak is but one project. Unfortunately, even today, even with Daybreak having established the possibility of a new-trend, most of the residential development is still not all that urban, unique or worth my praise. I still see large fields being paved over by windey subdivisions that are linked to minimal commercial centers, stuck between two major streets and with hardly any commitment to walkablity. It's just what it is and Daybreak doesn't make this any better or my opinion any less valid.

So sure, Daybreak might, in 20 or 30 years, look better than parts of Salt Lake, but that's just the problem: we're only talking parts here. The overall aspect of that area, though, unless we pull this nasty little problem out into the light, will be worse off than most everything in Salt Lake's proper.

Daybreak doesn't change what has been established and what continues to be established in city after city throughout this valley. And it's my opinion, whether you want to agree or not, that these towns are not doing enough to curb the type of development that most of us already regret and will regret down the road.

What upsets me the most, I guess, is the fact people don't realize how final much of this is. Once these homes go up, they're up for probably the rest of our lifetime. Filling these lots is not just temporary like in some city building video game. We won't be able to come back to the hundreds of sprawl developments going up right now ten years down the line and just bulldoze over it for urban development. We're setting ourselves back even more and as I mentioned in my last post, had people actually stood up and spoken out about this crap a generation ago, suburban America might look like a completely different place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
That would include some of the areas on the east bench, which are either a part of Salt Lake or especially South Salt Lake and Millcreek. Many of those areas of Salt Lake and adj. were obviously suburbs during the thirties, forties and fifties, and I find many of their housing pockets and main thouroughfares in dire need of urban replanning, upgrading and beautification. My Aunt lives in a nice area of the east bench in Salt Lake City proper. It is interesting, that by certain snooty standards her cul-de-sac and attributes of the surrounding area would not make the grade. Now, I know that many of the faults I would pick with Salt Lake are common in every city. I'm just saying that for every problem you see in a city such as South Jordan, I could easily top that with two in Salt Lake. Honestly, we all live in glass houses to some extent. There is not allot of room to be critical of many of the incorporated cities in the so-called suburbs, which yes are younger or newly growing, but are also doing a better job in certain areas of upkeep and planning.
But you're missing the broader point as a whole. This isn't about pockets here. If you want to be technical, Salt Lake's pockets of suburban-style housing is similar to the pockets of urban neighborhoods in the suburbs. That is the point. Instead of the suburbs being walkable cities with pockets of sprawling suburbs, they're sprawling suburbs with a few pockets of walkable neighborhoods. In my opinion, that just ain't going to cut it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
The fact is that at it's current age of evolution there are many areas in Salt Lake, including it's downtown that now need to be rethought. There are areas in so called suburbia that as they evolve into denser cores, will obviously be reworked and transportation corridors and options expanded in order to handle a denser formula. This has been the case in most every city, whether it's Europe or the States. Many older grid areas of Central Los Angeles, that were once considered suburbs are now in a constant state of evolution. What was acceptable in 1910 in Los Angeles, no longer works in today's world and must be tweaked. Some of the changes come because of pressures to place more people in a given area. Some changes are as a result of crime patterns or mass transit, etc.
Of course areas should be able to evolve, but how much evolving can take place in a typical housing development out in Draper? Not much. Once that thing is up, it's up for a generation and we've got to hope that something is built within proximity that allows those residents living in that subdivision the option of walking. But it just isn't happening. As there is evolution out in the suburbs, it's still being greeted by this type of backwards mindset and that is my ultimate problem.

I mean, yes, Salt Lake shared in it and the newer areas of the city (well newer by SLC's standards) have the same core problems, but what I'm seeing is that Salt Lake has always been ahead of the curve here when combating that type of development, specifically since the 1990s. It's not enough to stop it, but the city is so far ahead in this regard that it will, as I said, take generations for the suburbs to catch up, especially when they take one step forward with a development like Daybreak, only to take two steps back with the hundreds of other anti-urban developments you see not just sprinkled throughout the south-end of the valley, but dominating it.

Let me just add, though, that you've been a member here long enough to know that I can be just as critical of my city as I am of the suburbs. I'm not ignorant to Salt Lake's faults and I've often expressed my dislike for much of the developmental patters of this city. Which makes it all the more complicated, because Salt Lake isn't perfect and not nearly as urban as I would like it, yet it's still so far ahead of where I see suburban Salt Lake right now that it's actually pretty depressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
A certain small number of the attitudes on this forum in general remind me of some guys I know, who make a habit of picking fault with the physical appearance of prospective dates. It's always interesting when the person being criticized is in better shape, and on a scale of one to ten ranks a few numbers higher.
And this tells me you're not fulling grasping the point I'm making. This isn't just about looks. It's not about architecture -- which I'll admit I find bland in most suburbs -- or vegetation. It's about developmental patterns and what I hold is not a superficial belief. But if you're suggesting that suburban Salt Lake is in better shape structurally and actually looks more appealing than Salt Lake, well then I think you've just proven you're not really up to the task of debating this argument.

I mean, let's be honest here, when Salt Lake has to evolve, it doesn't do so by overhauling its total structure. There is a base template that the city has kept intact ever since its founding and though it's not perfect, I firmly believe it's one that is so far superior to that of the current template employed by a majority of newly constructed subdivisions, which seem to have no rhyme or reason. That type of structure is going to need to be completely overhauled in the coming decades and I just don't see it happening.

That doesn't mean all suburban development is bad and all Salt Lake development is good, but it's about the collective development as a whole and in that regard, suburban Salt Lake still doesn't get it. They might think they get it, but these cities still promote wasteful, unwalkable communities without any understanding of what lies ahead. So that is why I speak out and why I don't like suburban Salt Lake much because I do not believe they're doing enough to change their ways.

So while Salt Lake has its faults -- and there are many -- overall, I'd like to think this city is doing more to eradicate those faults than a majority of its suburbs, which seem to still promote them. Until they realize a handful of walkable developments won't atone for their mistakes unless they completely reshape their thinking, I won't embrace them. It's that simple. I mean, that's why I post here on an urban oriented forum, because I believe strongly about this and it does make me snooty, though I won't ever apologize for it.

Last edited by Comrade; May 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM.
     
     
  #9938  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 4:08 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
We get your point Comrade, and most of us agree with a large majority of it. The problem is, is that mindsets change, and had you been around in the 30's to 50's you wouldn't have know the problems of the burbs to fight against them because they hadn't shown themselves yet.

Really if you think about it, we should all just be living in the original 13 colonies because in a really broad sense of it, all the cities outside of those are just sprawl. Come to think of it maybe we should all still be living in Europe.

People go to the burbs for a reason, and just because we may not agree with those reasons they still have that choice. Just as the pilgrims came to America for a reason, the english didn't agree but is happened.

So yes we all agree that the burbs have some issues that need to be addressed but we don't, or at least I don't need to read a 100 line post about it on every page.
     
     
  #9939  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 5:32 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 urbanboy View Post
I wonder what it is in the Salt Lake area. I bet the down town core has better air quality, but not the rest of Salt Lake. Sugar house is very auto-centric. You look at 13th East and how badly it gets plugged with traffic no matter what time of day it is. Then there's Foothill, 7th East, State St, 33rd South, etc. You look at the shopping center there in down town Sugar House and how much traffic snarls through it, look at Brickyard Plaza, look at the shopping centers just east of I-15 in the southern part of the city, etc. It is true that many suburban people commute into SLC, but they generally come through I-15 via 5th/6th South, not 7th East. 7th East was a good example to illustrate my point because it is a popular thoroughfare for SLC residents to commute down town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Frankly, if I remember correctly regarding where you told us you live, I can't see a whole lot that is so progressively impressive about your own neighborhood Comrade. I mean, it's a nice enough area, but I could go to town for quite some time picking fault with it's surrounding area. There are many areas such as Daybreak, given a little time for mature vegetation, that will emerge as more attractive and with better residential and commercial planning than certain areas of Salt Lake. That would include some of the areas on the east bench, which are either a part of Salt Lake or especially South Salt Lake and Millcreek. Many of those areas of Salt Lake and adj. were obviously suburbs during the thirties, forties and fifties, and I find many of their housing pockets and main thouroughfares in dire need of urban replanning, upgrading and beautification. My Aunt lives in a nice area of the east bench in Salt Lake City proper. It is interesting, that by certain snooty standards her cul-de-sac and attributes of the surrounding area would not make the grade. Now, I know that many of the faults I would pick with Salt Lake are common in every city. I'm just saying that for every problem you see in a city such as South Jordan, I could easily top that with two in Salt Lake. Honestly, we all live in glass houses to some extent. There is not allot of room to be critical of many of the incorporated cities in the so-called suburbs, which yes are younger or newly growing, but are also doing a better job in certain areas of upkeep and planning.

The fact is that at it's current age of evolution there are many areas in Salt Lake, including it's downtown that now need to be rethought. There are areas in so called suburbia that as they evolve into denser cores, will obviously be reworked and transportation corridors and options expanded in order to handle a denser formula. This has been the case in most every city, whether it's Europe or the States. Many older grid areas of Central Los Angeles, that were once considered suburbs are now in a constant state of evolution. What was acceptable in 1910 in Los Angeles, no longer works in today's world and must be tweaked. Some of the changes come because of pressures to place more people in a given area. Some changes are as a result of crime patterns or mass transit, etc.

A certain small number of the attitudes on this forum in general remind me of some guys I know, who make a habit of picking fault with the physical appearance of prospective dates. It's always interesting when the person being criticized is in better shape, and on a scale of one to ten ranks a few numbers higher.
You bring up a good point in regards to urban evolution. Many cities have gone through the same thing we have, and many have worse battle scares than we do. Comrade, you say how it takes 30 min for people in my area to commute down town. Look at Sacramento, Vegas, or Phoenix. Their outlying suburbs can be more than an hour away. We are lucky we have the mountains and lakes to hamper our sprawl potential. Comrade also brings up a good point on how Daybreak is more an exception than a norm. However, let's not forget that Daybreak is the first of many many more developments to be built after the same manner to come to the west bench. By completion decades from now, this area will house over a half million people and be much more walkable than many east side neighborhoods like Sugar House are now. The west bench has the benefit of being able to be master planned from beginning to end, unlike many older areas. It can literally be built from the ground up without hardly any limitations to work around. The main problem will be connecting into the existing grid, but even that problem is being worked on. With the addition of a new belt route freeway, a transit spine complete with light rail, BRT, and bike lanes, walkable communities, plus an intricate pedestrian grid with well over a hundred miles of trails, it will really turn out quite excellent. Daybreak is fantastic in of itself, but it is only a tiny portion of what is to come. Daybreak offers us a glimpse into the future of the west bench, which will be the envy of many poorly planned suburb-laden metro areas throughout the country.
     
     
  #9940  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 5:33 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
We get your point Comrade, and most of us agree with a large majority of it. The problem is, is that mindsets change, and had you been around in the 30's to 50's you wouldn't have know the problems of the burbs to fight against them because they hadn't shown themselves yet.
This would not necessarily be the case for Comrade. In Europe, they knew what some of the consequences would be. Their freeway systems do not cut through cities. This is because planners knew that this would disrupt traffic flow. The only city in Europe that has a freeway running through it is Frankfurt, Germany, which, at the time this freeway was built ,was occupied by American forces. Because their freeway systems go around the city rather than through, residents of that city don't use the freeway system to commute to work; they use local streets, trains, and bicycle lanes. They use it to travel from city to city. There are also restrictions on development around the system.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 AM.

     

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