Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by StevenF

A development like that from Kennecott would definitely make it easier for Salt Lake to justify the swallowing up of Magna.

I wish Kennecott would build its planned Little Valley development above Magna already. It was originally planned to start a few years ago, but then the economic meltdown happened.

[Lilljemalm]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I wish Kennecott would build its planned Little Valley development above Magna already. It was originally planned to start a few years ago, but then the economic meltdown happened.

see http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9284071

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I wish Kennecott would build its planned Little Valley development above Magna already. It was originally planned to start a few years ago, but then the economic meltdown happened.

I wouldn't count on anything like that happening in the near future... From what I hear the landslide has drastically reduced production and is going to loose them a lot of money... I doubt any development is even close to their primary focus at the moment.

[Makid]

I think the landslide will actually cause Rio Tinto/Kennecott to advance their plans for more residential and commercial development on their lands.

The reason I think this is due to Daybreak. It was designed as a way for the company to continue making money from their land with mining operations winding down. Their plan was that once the mine wasn't usable, they would be able to receive income from their vast land holdings via development.

With the mine on a lower output, this may cause them to rethink their delayed development schedule and bring it forward. With lower construction costs, now would be a good time for them to start with their developments again. That way they could continue to receive income while they work to bring the mine back to operating levels.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Lilljemalm

see http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9284071

Yes, I know all about that. Kennecott Land had planned to still build Little Valley even after talks with the county fell apart.

[Stenar]

This is exactly what I was thinking. The mine was projected to close in 2012, but they found a way to keep mining, but getting even less copper per ton.

So, they started their Kennecott Land division to keep "mining" the land through real estate.

Now that the mine is at 50% capacity, they might decide to build some more developments.

Also, the housing market has turned around, but buyers can't even find houses to buy. A lot of people are holding on to their houses until prices go higher (or they are under water and cannot sell until prices go higher). Banks are still holding onto foreclosed houses and only selling a small amount at a time, to avoid flooding the market with foreclosed houses.

So, the market for new houses is getting hot.

Originally Posted by Makid

I think the landslide will actually cause Rio Tinto/Kennecott to advance their plans for more residential and commercial development on their lands.

The reason I think this is due to Daybreak. It was designed as a way for the company to continue making money from their land with mining operations winding down. Their plan was that once the mine wasn't usable, they would be able to receive income from their vast land holdings via development.

With the mine on a lower output, this may cause them to rethink their delayed development schedule and bring it forward. With lower construction costs, now would be a good time for them to start with their developments again. That way they could continue to receive income while they work to bring the mine back to operating levels.

[SLC Projects]

Drove around Daybreak the other day and it looks Daybreak is in the middle of another housing boom. Looks like tons of new homes popping up on the North/west side of the lake.

[Comrade]

My biggest concern about the Kennecott development within Salt Lake's borders is that it is just so isolated from the city and will remain isolated in the future. If you're adding an additional 70,000 people there (40,000 more than live in SugarHouse), how are you going to connect 'em with the remainder of the city? It's quite a gap between that area and downtown and worse, there is minimal development between where the proposal is and the beginning of the true city (roughly Redwood Road).

What's worse is that I don't know if it's feasible to expand the true city (and when I say true, I mean the area where people live - not just land) westward to connect to the area of this proposal. So, in a sense, we'll have an isolated neighborhood of the city that could be connected by the light-rail line that goes out to the airport, but might have more in common with West Valley City than Salt Lake City.

[John Martin]

It's very isolated. I don't know why anyone would want to live there, and I think it's a bad idea from environmental and logistical standpoints. All fronts really. But no need for me to rehash that.


Race and ethnicity: Salt Lake City by Eric Fischer, on Flickr

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

My biggest concern about the Kennecott development within Salt Lake's borders is that it is just so isolated from the city and will remain isolated in the future. If you're adding an additional 70,000 people there (40,000 more than live in SugarHouse), how are you going to connect 'em with the remainder of the city? It's quite a gap between that area and downtown and worse, there is minimal development between where the proposal is and the beginning of the true city (roughly Redwood Road).

What's worse is that I don't know if it's feasible to expand the true city (and when I say true, I mean the area where people live - not just land) westward to connect to the area of this proposal. So, in a sense, we'll have an isolated neighborhood of the city that could be connected by the light-rail line that goes out to the airport, but might have more in common with West Valley City than Salt Lake City.

This development, I bet is at least ten years out or more. So maybe by the not so near future of being develop maybe it won't be AS isolated as it is now. I can see areas like 5600 West being more develop before that development takes place. Even the international center is still being develop with the new FBI building and tons of new hotels popping up.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by RosePark

I found this article, "Census says South Jordan is the country’s No. 2 boom town" in the SLTRIB to be quite interesting:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56350259-78/jordan-south-cities-lake.html.csp

There has been some discussion lately about how Utah has a relatively strong economy and some frustration that it's not being manifested in development in SLC. Unfortunately, the growth seems to be more sprawl than anything else. As long as people can keep expanding outward, there's no reason to build upward.

I always wonder how long it will be before Salt Lake City proper is not Utah's biggest city.

Originally Posted by jimmycdii

Wouldn't it be interesting though, if South Jordan looked at it's remaining land — the yet-to-be-built parts of Daybreak, for example — and realized that if it added a lot of density it could become a large, major metro center, perhaps surpassing SLC. I think the trib article said it was about the same size and shape as Manhattan. If they added a tiny fraction of that density they could easily become the biggest city in Utah over time.

Of course that won't happen, but I think it's interesting to ponder.

Based on much of the commentary I tend to read on here regarding Daybreak, I realize that so many of you have either not been there or went there back when it first broke ground nearly a decade ago. It is not even comparable to the suburban areas in West Valley, West Jordan, Sandy, etc it is so often lumped into when talked about on here. It is really quite walkable and very VERY DENSE in suburban standards. The "sprawliest" areas are residential neighborhoods that still barely have yards (most of which just have open common areas shared with other residents.) I have lived in SLC and I would have to say that Daybreak is probably as dense or denser than most parts of SLC other than those immediately around down town. There may be slightly more open space worked into the layout than in SLC, but the neighborhoods themselves are incredibly well-packed together. There are countless apartment complexes, condos, duplexes, town homes, and other multi-family units all across the area. Much of the new growth is in the form of medium to dense residential units.

What is currently built is still only maybe a third or fourth of all that will eventually be built. To put things in perspective, the new Mountain View Corridor (about 6000 West) goes right through the middle of the development plan. Today, only the furthest developments are just now approaching the divided highway. TRAX (aligned at about 5600 West) is also still just at the edge of the currently built-out area with the majority of the development yet to be built to the west.

Even in the area just east of Daybreak around the District, you would be surprised as to how much dense development of 3-6 story apartment complexes are going up. South Jordan is developing its remaining land very efficiently compared to similar suburban areas. I think the city could quite feasibly reach SLC`s current population figure (or close to it) in the next few decades, yet not surpass it as SLC will likewise continue to grow well into the future.

I think the only two cities remotely capable of overtaking SLC in population would be either West Valley or West Jordan, both of which will most likely reach their build-out limits well before that point. If they were growing at the rate and density of South Jordan, I could see it happening. Neither of which is the case. Being that South Jordan covers a significantly smaller geographical area than either of the two, even with its density, it should not ever pass SLC. As far as I am concerned, SLC will continue to be the population leader in the state for quite some time. While I am a believer in the phrase "never say never", I would say SLC has a 85-95% of remaining the most populous city in the state as far into the future as I care to envision.

[John Martin]

Daybreak is quite dense, I have to agree. I'm not sure if density for the sake of density is good, being in (presently) auto-dependent suburbs, but if they maintain their quest for a livable, more-or-less self sufficient community, then I guess it could be a good thing. But it is quite dense; there aren't many places other than Daybreak where you can find a single-story, single-family, tudor-style home next to a 3-story modern townhouse next to a large tuscan duplex, but you can in Daybreak! Odd place.

[SLC Projects]

That is true. Now if only Daybreak could do something about all those eyesore power lines running between the Trax line and MVC or at least find a way to hide them that would be great. Other then that, I love daybreak.

[CountyLemonade]

Daybreak is for real one of my favorite places in the valley. And that's saying something, considering we're lucky to have the Avenues, Harvard/Yale, 9th and 9th, and what have you. The place just screams smart design. In forty or fifty years Daybreak is gonna be spectacular, once development reaches its limit on the west end by the Trax line and the trees have had time to grow and form a canopy along the streets.

The only glaring thing that's lacking right now is a grocery store within the neighborhood limits. The closest one is Harmons across Bangerter Highway, but no one wants to make that forsaken trek by foot. Another disadvantage is that Daybreak is more or less surrounded by suburban hell, but at least it's simple to convey yourself to greener, less hellish pastures without a car thanks to the Red Line.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Sorry I was a little off-track this month, but I will give a more detailed report after next month's figures. We did nudge down a further fifth-of-a-percent in the overall rate last month to 4.7%. We are truly an island in our region of the country as all of our neighbors have higher rates. At 9.6%, Nevada`s rate is more than double our rate. Arizona`s rate stands at 7.9% (3.2% higher than ours), New Mexico's at 6.7% (2% higher), Colorado`s at 6.9% (2.2% higher), Idaho`s at 6.1% (1.4% higher), and Wyoming's at 4.8% (marginally higher by 0.1%).

To put that in perspective, our neighboring states have an average unemployment rate of 7.0% while the national rate stands at 7.5% - both of which are substantially higher than our 4.7%. Only the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Vermont have lower rates while Iowa is tied.

To break it down regionally within the state:

3.9% - Logan
4.5% - SLC
4.5% - Prorem
4.7% - Overall
4.9% - Odgen/Clearfield
5.6% - St. George*

*While it may have the highest metro unemployment rate, St. George stands for some well-deserved congratulations after knocking its rate down a full percentage point in just one month!!*

This gives a good visual of how we compare nationally: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/state-unemployment-rates/

This gives a metro-by-metro breakdown of the numbers: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?la+49

[jimmycdii]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

The only glaring thing that's lacking right now is a grocery store within the neighborhood limits. The closest one is Harmons across Bangerter Highway, but no one wants to make that forsaken trek by foot. Another disadvantage is that Daybreak is more or less surrounded by suburban hell, but at least it's simple to convey yourself to greener, less hellish pastures without a car thanks to the Red Line.

I think that's a major omission in Daybreak, which I've visited a few times recently. In fact, I didn't really notice many amenities at all within walking distance of residential development. There's Soda row, but that seemed to be kind of a pathetic joke at this point; it was short, sparsely populated and kind of boring. I realize that will change, but even it isn't that close to most homes.

My impression is that Daybreak was designed to shorten car trips, not eliminate them, as I think should have been and needed to be the case. I walked around there for several hours and the only real destinations I came across were parks. Which is awesome, but far from "walkable."

I also felt like all the streets were too wide and in some cases too noodle-like (i.e. suburban). Running right through the center are big huge arterial roads that should never run through a neighborhood. All in all, I felt like I could more easily walk across Salt Lake than Daybreak.

And as far as density, I'm skeptical of new development that is including large numbers of single family homes. I love that Daybreak has a bunch of attached housing, townhomes, condos, etc., but there's still huge swathes of slightly-closer-together single family homes.

I also felt disconcertingly like I was on the set of Stepford Wives, though I realize that's a matter of personal taste. It was a really, really great suburb, but still in the end just a suburb.

In the end, I think Daybreak will be really cool in 100 or 200 years when it's experienced a few generations of people breaking up and reinterpreting the original vision.

But for those who feel it's really walkable, what am I missing? My feeling is if I have to get in a car to meet my daily needs, a place isn't walkable; is Daybreak meeting that standard? (I'm genuinely asking).

[SLC Projects]

Map of Daybreak. Dark colors shows areas already develop vs the lighter areas that are yet to be development.

http://www.livedaybreak.com/Assets/Daybr...Community+Maps/Daybreak+Villages+Map.jpg

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by jimmycdii

I think that's a major omission in Daybreak, which I've visited a few times recently. In fact, I didn't really notice many amenities at all within walking distance of residential development. There's Soda row, but that seemed to be kind of a pathetic joke at this point; it was short, sparsely populated and kind of boring. I realize that will change, but even it isn't that close to most homes.

My impression is that Daybreak was designed to shorten car trips, not eliminate them, as I think should have been and needed to be the case. I walked around there for several hours and the only real destinations I came across were parks. Which is awesome, but far from "walkable."

I also felt like all the streets were too wide and in some cases too noodle-like (i.e. suburban). Running right through the center are big huge arterial roads that should never run through a neighborhood. All in all, I felt like I could more easily walk across Salt Lake than Daybreak.

And as far as density, I'm skeptical of new development that is including large numbers of single family homes. I love that Daybreak has a bunch of attached housing, townhomes, condos, etc., but there's still huge swathes of slightly-closer-together single family homes.

I also felt disconcertingly like I was on the set of Stepford Wives, though I realize that's a matter of personal taste. It was a really, really great suburb, but still in the end just a suburb.

In the end, I think Daybreak will be really cool in 100 or 200 years when it's experienced a few generations of people breaking up and reinterpreting the original vision.

But for those who feel it's really walkable, what am I missing? My feeling is if I have to get in a car to meet my daily needs, a place isn't walkable; is Daybreak meeting that standard? (I'm genuinely asking).

Daybreak is an excellent example of how suburbs should be - well-planned density that manages space well and has a viable plan for future growth. It mixes open space with residential and commercial space while offering access to pedestrian infrastructure and mass transit. It was designed to evolve, so I imagine that you are right in your projection of 100 years from now that it will grow and evolve into something different than it is today - that was the intent of the design.

Walkability, I suppose, is a subjective adjective. In contrast to the typical suburb, Daybreak has plenty of paths, trails, and sidewalks that facilitate foot travel quite easily around the development without running into dead-ends, cul-de-sacs, or roads with dilapidated pedestrian infrastructure. You can already walk to plenty of places - parks/recreation, schools, the bank, a medical clinic, the dentist, bakeries, bike-shops, cafes, restaurants, bar/sports grill, salon, barber shop, light rail access, etc. Soda Row is only the first of several commercial districts. Even so, I just went onto Google Earth and played around with the path distance tool. The very farthest I was able to find that a person would have to walk to Soda Row was 1.5 miles from the far northeastern corner, while most areas are about 3/4 of a mile or less. If that`s too far for you to walk, you can bike it in minutes. There are plenty of safe crossings at main roads such as tunnels, crosswalks, and lights. And, really, there are only a few busy roads.

The design also saves a lot of gas by limiting distances you would need to travel in your car. The District has every type of store, restaurant, or entertainment you could need and is only 2 miles from the far western side of the currently built-out area, about a half to 3/4 of a mile from the eastern side. TRAX can take you to most places you would want to go without need of a car - down town, the airport, shopping malls, TODs, Ogden, Provo, etc.

The point I was trying to make was that Daybreak is far from being the typical suburb in terms of density, walkability, and land management. I was not trying to compare to SLC overall, just in terms of density and residential unit options that would be typical in an SLC neighborhood. Daybreak is a hybrid between suburb and urban neighborhood, that was my point.

How long ago did you go to Soda Row? It is constantly adding new places. Right now there are:

Eateries:
-Cafe Bella Rue
-Tios Mexican Rest.
-The Break Sports Grill
-Swirly Girls Bakery

Services:
-Zions Bank
-Classic Cleaners
-Guy`s Barber Shop
-Salon 9
-Black Diamond Sports Center
-Copper Mountain Crossfit

Medical:
-U of U Healthcare
-Feller & Johnson Orthopedics
-Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery of Utah
-Copper Creek Dental
-Daybreak Smiles

Offices:
-Rio Tinto
-CompuSoft Development

[Comrade]

It's walkable in the most basic sense ... which is better than a great deal of Salt Lake's suburbs. But it's still disconnected in a way - as is pretty much every subdivision. What I mean is that there just isn't much retail or commercial development outside Daybreak - so, ultimately, you have a decent planned neighborhood in a sea of sprawl. It's a good development, don't get me wrong, unfortunately, the area around Daybreak is not developing with any conformity and that hinders the potential of this area because it's still limited beyond its borders.

There is no cohesiveness in that area of the city.

You know, to me, urban living goes beyond just the density of each development. Granted, the homes are built in a way where they're far more compact than a typical subdivision - on the other hand, as already mentioned, it still lacks complete walkability beyond certain areas. I mean, I get that is something that even areas of Salt Lake struggle with, but realistically, you can walk from neighborhood to neighborhood. From my house, which is located in SugarHouse, I can get to Liberty Park on foot within an hour - which is an entirely different area of the city and I can do so rather easily (27th down to Highland, through downtown SugarHouse and then over to 1300 S).

That's 3.4 miles away. That's a pretty decent distance, and it's not something I would walk daily, but it also is accessible and offers a great deal of retail options along the way. So, even if my destination wasn't Liberty Park, from my front yard, I can reach, on foot, SugarHouse Park, downtown SugarHouse, 9th and 9th, Liberty Park, Westminster College, and every area in between within about an hour or less.

From Daybreak, where can you realistically get within an hour? Residential...a highway...a park...maybe a school and then what? And don't get me wrong, I understand that's not Daybreak's fault. They had no control over what was developed there prior to its construction, so, it's unfair to lay that on Daybreak - but it does show the disadvantages of this area. You just don't have major options within walking distance, or at least within an hour of walking. Let's be honest, you can't walk down Bangerter Highway (it's both not practical and impossible because there are no sidewalks).

Unfortunately, because this area is so established now, that's not going to change probably in our lifetime. I doubt South Jordan would ever agree to demolish thousands of homes to rebuild their city into something that somewhat resembles even Millcreek, which isn't even all that urban compared to Central City Salt Lake.

And I know a lot of people will say my example is bad because I live in a neighborhood with a large downtown (it is true, out of all of Salt Lake's hoods, SugarHouse has the largest retail center beyond downtown), but you also have to remember most of SugarHouse is not that close to downtown - it's one of the furthest neighborhoods outside the more suburban (and I hate those too!) areas on the west side.

But if you live in Central City, which is one of the larger neighborhoods in the city, you have downtown within walking distance (as well as Liberty Park and 9th and 9th and all those businesses on State Street and 700 East and whatever). Even if you live in Poplar Grove, though the freeway definitely mucks it up a bit, you can realistically get into downtown within 40 minutes - and to other areas of the city (like Gateway) a lot faster.

My point? As much as I applaud Daybreak, it just feels like a drop in the ocean out there because everything else is still working against it. Daybreak won't radically change the western valley (though if Kennecott decides to utilize more land, it might) and because of that, it's a good start ... but where will it lead? How long until those areas in the suburbs become walkable and why is it that development today continues to sprawl and isolate? The worst thing that has happened to the fabric of cities (beyond the car) is the advent of the subdivision. They still are being built today and Daybreak is a very good version of this, but its interaction with its neighbors remains minimal. It doesn't share the same grid (to be fair, none of those subdivisions do) and it's isolated from a lot of main roads that generally dominate inner-cities, essentially roads that connect each neighborhood in a typical city (though SLC does have issues here - namely 700 E and 1300 E).

The major roads that surround Daybreak are 4000 West, which has zero retail, and 11800 S, which, like 4000 West, is pretty much all residential. I wish that could change. But I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by jimmycdii

I think that's a major omission in Daybreak, which I've visited a few times recently. In fact, I didn't really notice many amenities at all within walking distance of residential development. There's Soda row, but that seemed to be kind of a pathetic joke at this point; it was short, sparsely populated and kind of boring. I realize that will change, but even it isn't that close to most homes.

My impression is that Daybreak was designed to shorten car trips, not eliminate them, as I think should have been and needed to be the case. I walked around there for several hours and the only real destinations I came across were parks. Which is awesome, but far from "walkable."

I also felt like all the streets were too wide and in some cases too noodle-like (i.e. suburban). Running right through the center are big huge arterial roads that should never run through a neighborhood. All in all, I felt like I could more easily walk across Salt Lake than Daybreak.

And as far as density, I'm skeptical of new development that is including large numbers of single family homes. I love that Daybreak has a bunch of attached housing, townhomes, condos, etc., but there's still huge swathes of slightly-closer-together single family homes.

I also felt disconcertingly like I was on the set of Stepford Wives, though I realize that's a matter of personal taste. It was a really, really great suburb, but still in the end just a suburb.

In the end, I think Daybreak will be really cool in 100 or 200 years when it's experienced a few generations of people breaking up and reinterpreting the original vision.

But for those who feel it's really walkable, what am I missing? My feeling is if I have to get in a car to meet my daily needs, a place isn't walkable; is Daybreak meeting that standard? (I'm genuinely asking).

Ah, alright. I was waxing poetic about Daybreak for a bit. Perhaps putting it on the same level as the Avenues, etc. is a bit of a stretch, but Daybreak really has a solid foundation going for itself. And when you compare Daybreak with somewhere like the newer areas of southern Draper of northern Lehi, with its vast, soulless arrays of identical stucco-clad dwellings (I hesitate to call them "homes"), you begin to better appreciate for what Kennecott has done to the area.

I suppose the walkability factor is really only enhanced by the fact that you don't feel, I don't know, odd, taking a walk around the block. In the nondescript subdivision in which I have the misfortune of living, I'd feel odd taking a walk around the block. Plus, I'd have nowhere to go. I'm surrounded by a nondescript commercial development with a perpetually empty parking lot the size of a large pond, nondescript street that feeds into a nondescript road (or "stroad," as you'd put it on your excellent blog), absurdly similar looking houses, and a power plant substation about two blocks away. In Daybreak? Welp. At least I have a lake, rather abundant parks, houses that are somewhat interesting to observe as I walk by, a somewhat lackluster village center (Soda Row, as you mentioned, but at least it has potential), a light rail station that is a short bike ride away, and trails that go underneath the four-lane arterial, Daybreak Parkway. Underneath! What a concept. Of course, if you want to go anywhere else outside the confines of the neighborhood—and at this point you're going to need to—you'll probably need a car. Unless you're fine with taking the train downtown every time you need to get groceries, which to most would be impractical. But all those items I listed are things of which most neighborhoods in that area of the valley are devoid.

It's not perfect. On top of lack of amenities to which one could walk, I hear from time to time that residents of Daybreak have rather limited freedom to make modifications to their houses. But that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that the houses are already unique. I dunno. Daybreak is a work in progress (both with respect to what's already been built and the fact that there's much more to be built), but if for some reason I didn't have the ability to move somewhere like the lower Avenues or the area around 9th and 9th, I would be quite okay with Daybreak.