Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[cololi]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

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.

You are wrong about SLC having more traffic than the suburbs. According to UDOT traffic counts, the two busiest areas in terms of vehicles per day are in Fort Union and Taylorsville. Outside of interstates and on/off ramps, Foothill is the busiest road in SLC, with 40,000+ vehicles trips per day. The suburban communities have more intersections with counts over 40,000 than SLC has.

700 E is a four lane road from 2100 S to 2700 S, and not all of that is in SLC. Like I said before, 700 E could easily be reduced in width without a drop off in LOS. It carries less traffic than 10600, 9000, 7200, etc. One reason why there is so much ROW is that initially it was planned for a freeway, so in the 40's, the state started to buy properties on the west side of the street for additional space.

The north industrial area is mostly in north salt lake. There are some extractive industries and oil storage tanks in SLC in that area, but primarily it is occupied by rail yards. The refineries are not in SLC.

It is also complete speculation to say that the future west bench developments will be more walkable than existing areas. They don't even have an official plan for the area, efforts to come up with something failed about two years ago when Kennecott and the County could not agree on the planning process and who would have oversight of their developments. Until they actually get an adopted plan and start building, you can't say it will be more walkable. I agree with you on one thing, is that it should be more walkable than anywhere else, primarily because they have a blank slate. But, so do many other suburban developments and they don't seem to measure up, so until the local regulating agencies force developers to do simple things, it ain't going to change.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

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.

You're right. Now we know and what exactly are we doing about it? I'd actually wager that the suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s (parts of Rose Park, SugarHouse, South Salt Lake, Holladay, Midvale and Murray) are more walkable and urban than the suburbs of today. In fact, most early suburbs only moderately changed the landscape of city living. It wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s where we started seeing the really regressive and unfortunate subdivisions that still are being built today.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

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.

Now c'mon, there is no need to use a hyperbole here.

I'm not suggesting every person should live in the inner-city and that suburbs are inherently bad. They're not bad, but what makes them bad is their developmental patterns -- which are not changing. As I just said, I don't have all that much problem with South Salt Lake or the older neighborhoods of Midvale and Murray and Holladay and Cottonwood Heights. In my mind, that should be what suburban America looks like, not what we got instead and what we see being developed now.

It happened, it sucks, I agree, but their reason doesn't necessarily excuse the problem in the first place and it shouldn't excuse the fact we still cater to this type of development.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

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.

Actually, I'm not forcing you to read my posts, so I don't see the problem.

This is an important issue and will impact the future of this valley if we don't continue to harp on it and discuss it. So I'm not going to shut up and I'm definitely not going to trim down my posts on this issue because some of you would just soon ignore it than address it.

[shakman]

REeative to the article about SLC's condo market, did anyone catch the sentence that indicated the Regent (Tower 5) will be completed based upon demand?

"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."

[urbanboy]

Yes, I believe this was discussed before. Basically what he is saying is that there will be a few "unfinished basements." Some of the floors will be completed as there is demand. The building will still be functional, just like a detached single family home with an unfinished basement is still functional.

[DMTower]

^^^ Yeah, what they mean though is it will be built all the way up, but certain floors and units are being left empty and unfinished until the demand is there.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by cololi

You are wrong about SLC having more traffic than the suburbs. According to UDOT traffic counts, the two busiest areas in terms of vehicles per day are in Fort Union and Taylorsville. Outside of interstates and on/off ramps, Foothill is the busiest road in SLC, with 40,000+ vehicles trips per day. The suburban communities have more intersections with counts over 40,000 than SLC has.

700 E is a four lane road from 2100 S to 2700 S, and not all of that is in SLC. Like I said before, 700 E could easily be reduced in width without a drop off in LOS. It carries less traffic than 10600, 9000, 7200, etc. One reason why there is so much ROW is that initially it was planned for a freeway, so in the 40's, the state started to buy properties on the west side of the street for additional space.

The north industrial area is mostly in north salt lake. There are some extractive industries and oil storage tanks in SLC in that area, but primarily it is occupied by rail yards. The refineries are not in SLC.

It is also complete speculation to say that the future west bench developments will be more walkable than existing areas. They don't even have an official plan for the area, efforts to come up with something failed about two years ago when Kennecott and the County could not agree on the planning process and who would have oversight of their developments. Until they actually get an adopted plan and start building, you can't say it will be more walkable. I agree with you on one thing, is that it should be more walkable than anywhere else, primarily because they have a blank slate. But, so do many other suburban developments and they don't seem to measure up, so until the local regulating agencies force developers to do simple things, it ain't going to change.

The hopeful thing about the west side is that it is owned by one land owner, which has at least attempted to make their first development more walkable. Having them able to develop with a long range goal(plan) in mind will hopefully allow them to accomplish just that.

While the suburbs have plans in place, I don't think they really had the type of zoning regulations to require connections between different developments, and commercial centers. Most cities across the country don't have a big enough set to say "no culs-de-sacs," in an attempt to at least create some sort of connection pattern. I guess they fear the developers will build in the neighboring city if they pass those regulations. This is something that needs to be addresses at a state level, or municipal level if a city will step up and have the balls to do it.

Virginia recently passed transportation regulations eliminating culd-de-sacs state wide, North Carolina and Portland, OR also have them along with a few others. They cite improved safety, accessibility, and connectivity as the reasons behind the regulations.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Most cities across the country don't have a big enough set to say "no culs-de-sacs," in an attempt to at least create some sort of connection pattern. I guess they fear the developers will build in the neighboring city if they pass those regulations. This is something that needs to be addresses at a state level, or municipal level if a city will step up and have the balls to do it.

I think you meant "no set" instead of big enough set. There is not question that cities fear losing development to adjacent cities. That is why most communities think any development is good development. Although places that have high standards still get development, see stable property values, and an overall improved quality of life.

[Comrade]

I think cul-de-sacs, however, are the smallest part of the problem. It just depends on the general makeup of the area around that cul-de-sac. Many urban cities have streets with no outlet, which in my opinion doesn't make it any less urban, but that is if they're at a minimum. In the suburbs, they are not.

The real problem stems from the fact that, as I mentioned, there still is no rhyme or reason to these developments. And I think you're both right, until steps are taken to regulate development, nothing is going to change. For many developers, it's extremely cheap to build these subdivision with tract housing and until the state of municipal governments force their hands, they won't change.

Ultimately, that's where my disgust lies the most. Because even though I think the mindset has definitely changed for the better over the last ten years, it's still not where we need to be as a whole and the longer it takes to get there, the harder it will become to adjust these patterns in the long run. As I mentioned in an earlier post, once these projects go up, they're there for the long haul and that is going to prove far more costly for future generations than it does today.

It is time elected officials man up and realize sprawl is not the answer to suburban development. You can have a suburb with urban influence and one that doesn't completely alienate its neighborhoods from one another. And that is the most damning thing about the modern subdivision, they're isolated from other communities.

Here in Salt Lake, most neighborhoods are fluid. You're not seeing that type of pattern out in the suburbs, even today. And while Daybreak offers a good foundation, how much of the development surrounding Daybreak will interact with that community? Not much.

[Future Mayor]

I agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

... how much of the development surrounding Daybreak will interact with that community? Not much.

Unfortunately not much, maybe one or two, besides the Kennecott owned land that surrounds out. Unfortunately there won't be more connecting to other existing developments or other future developments owned by others.

[urbanboy]

Backstage with Becker

http://www.ralphbecker.com/

[cololi]

Comrade I agree with you completely.

[urbanboy]

As do I.

[Zionide]

I agree with Comrade completely, as well, and want to emphasize his earlier point that affordable housing *is* available in downtown Salt Lake City, particularly in Central City, East Central, and Liberty Wells (as well as People's Freeway, though it's generally considered less desirable than the other areas).

When I moved from an area along the Taylorsville/West Jordan border in 2007, I was surprised how affordable downtown SLC really was. Compared to my house in the suburbs, my "new" home in Central City has more square footage (and the house itself has ten times more character and charm---and those are not euphemisms for "old and tiny"), a yard within .01 acre of what I had in the suburbs, and a more walkable and interesting historic neighborhood. And I paid just $5k more than what my suburban house sold for. This, of course, was a very different time in real estate, but if anything it's more true now than then.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

As do I.

Me three.

[jmonkey]

No development news today then? Just this lame, endless, city vs. suburbs discussion?? Isn't there a thread for this somewhere else?

[DMTower]

I 5th... er 6th... some number... that opinion Comrade. It's not suburban location hate, it's suburban design hate.

[wrendog]

I don't mind the suburbs. Sue me.

[SLC Projects]

I live in the suburbs.

[delts145]

City looks to revamp the Regis and Cambridge hotels on State Street

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...in-future.html

Related:

SLC might buy Rio Grande Hotel

Affordable housing » It may offset loss of tenements on State.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12346234

Salt Lake City is angling to buy the vacant Rio Grande Hotel, a move that could provide 49 pet-friendly units if officials decide to shutter State Street's tottering by-the-week rentals.

"It's a great opportunity," said Councilman Luke Garrott, vice chairman of the Redevelopment Agency Board. "The building is recently remodeled. By all accounts, it's in far better shape than the buildings on State Street." ...

Rio Grande Hotel

plasticfootball

.

[delts145]

Dear Mayor: Cop shop on Library Square's a bad idea

Rebecca Walsh
The Salt Lake Tribune

Dear Mayor Becker,

You're gonna ruin it.

This proposal to cram a couple other buildings next to Salt Lake City's incandescent Moshe Safdie-designed Main Library is a bad idea.

You say your first thought was: "You've got to be kidding me."

But now, you're the one who's not kidding.

You're actually serious about plopping two low-rises into the reflected glow of Safdie's urban room, right next to his swooping wall, in front of the library's best side. You want to crowd one of the few iconic buildings we've got in this town. All to save a buck.

"They think they've saved some money," says Bob Bliss, former dean of the University of Utah's School of Architecture.

There are trade-offs, you say: We'll get more open space across 300 East as you cluster municipal buildings and expand the "civic campus" for movies in the park, concerts and Arts Festival overflow. Taxpayers will save $20 million in the cost of land downtown. And you say we'll still be able to see the mountains from inside the library and the library from the other side of the cop shop.

"I'm under no illusion that this would be controversial with some people. It's not a surprise that those who are very protective and possessive of the library don't want anything on the block," you say.

You say looking at the plans will convince us. But I'm not so sure. There's a reason Safdie and Steve Crane, his local partner, pushed and prodded Salt Lake City to leave the space around the library open.

"I'm surprised no one wanted to find out a little history before they got as far as they did," says Crane, the architect of record for the building.

"It's not that Moshe and I are keepers of the block by any means," Crane adds, "but I'm not sure I'm enamored with where [the police headquarters] is located."

No one from the city called to find out why. It's not just a handful of bibliophiles, architects and planners alike are scratching their heads. City Councilman Soren Simonsen, an architect, wants more information. U. architecture professor Bill Miller worries about "densifying" downtown.

And now, you've complicated public opinion about the police headquarters, a critical city need. Voters already rejected the $195 million price tag two years ago. Now, even with the budget cut to $125 million, you've given them another reason in a bad economy to check "no."

"The decision hasn't been made. I don't feel locked in to the proposal being on the library block," you say. "We're at the very beginning of the public process."

There's a backup plan: Shifting both buildings across 300 East.

Stop kidding around and go with Plan B.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen.

.