Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds
Legitimate question - how many people do you think actually walk to The District? Because from my perspective, it's a autocentric development and while I understand, even in Salt Lake, you're not going to get huge numbers of people walking to certain areas of the community, I'd wager that still is an issue and what will continue to be an issue because the development around Daybreak is not changing its development patterns.
Moreover, it's not just about walking to one certain area within the neighborhood. It's about connectivity to the region as a whole and while mass-transit certainly helps in that regard, when neighborhoods don't interact, its stretch is limited.
Like I said, you can't blame Daybreak for how its neighbors developed, and I won't, but the problem still exists and Daybreak is still not the solution if everything around it is not changing as well. I know that sounds harsh, but the reality remains that area of the city is still sprawl-oriented and Daybreak is just as disconnected from other neighborhoods as other subdivisions throughout the valley.
The problem at hand is still not being addressed and I hate that. It goes beyond just a self-sufficient neighborhood because a city is not just one neighborhood - it's a collection of those neighborhoods. It's why I continue to hesitate to call South Jordan a city because it doesn't interact as a city should. Maybe some will believe that perspective is snobbish, but I look at the area where The District is located and I don't see it anywhere near as being walkable for Daybreak residents as what you can get in Salt Lake or even Millcreek and other older suburbs.
This is one thing I remember complaining about when The District was proposed in the first place a few years ago. The presentation was sleek, to be sure, but the underlying problem still existed - it's a spruced up version of Jordan Landing.
If South Jordan is serious about developing into a city, and not just a sprawling mess, they need more than Daybreak. Unfortunately, it just seems they're content with Daybreak being their walkable community without pushing for further walkable development outside the Daybreak borders and in reality, that is just going to set up Daybreak to fail because it won't offer the connection needed between neighborhoods. When I say I can reach certain areas of Salt Lake by foot, it's not just to get to development - it's also the interaction with the neighborhoods. I still don't see legitimate neighborhoods being developed in this area of the valley outside Daybreak ... so, what are they going to interact with? A highway and a glorified strip mall?
I know you'll disagree with that last part - but there is nothing urban or walkable about The District. It is essentially an outdoor mall and who knows, maybe South Jordan gets serious here and pushes for denser, mixed-use development on the parking that surrounds The District, but I'm not holding my breath.
And if that's your example of 'walkable' ... I'm not impressed. But I agree that Daybreak is a good start. But that development is only as good as the neighboring development and that, I'm afraid, will only hold Daybreak back.
|
I really don`t disagree with you in general. The problem is that you are trying to find a city in a suburb. I am comparing a different, more sustainable type of suburb to general suburbia. What I am saying is that suburbs are not going away anytime soon so it would be completely ineffective to pound your fist and demand that the entire Salt Lake Valley aspire to SLC development standards. What Daybreak does, however, is change the paradigm in
suburban development. It is showing a better type of suburb that sprawls much less and has a smaller carbon footprint with smaller houses, less yards, and more mass transit options. You are right that we would be better off if every place looked like SLC. It would be a much more realistic approach, though, to look at Daybreak as a feasible model for future
suburban development in the area. I agree that density in its truest form is found in the city center - but that is not a realistic model for real-world application in many areas.
What I was talking about at the District is the massive Garbett Homes development to the north and the 4-story apartment building complex to the south. To the west of daybreak, there are more apartment complexes, town-homes, and multi-family units that are still suburban - but a little more manageable than traditional suburbia. While it is not ideally walkable, it is
more walkable. For those who desire to, it is feasibly possible to walk to the District from Daybreak and there are sidewalks that take you safely into the development and across parking lots. What is hard to see in your areal images are the walkways that cut across the parking lots from one set of store-fronts to another. For people like me - and the many youth i see walking down the hill to the District - it is quite possible to do safely. Jordan Landing, on the other hand, would be completely impossible to walk to or within the development as there is absolutely no consistent pedestrian infrastructure. Walking is not even an option at Jordan Landing. It is an option at the district. The District is no CCC, but it is an improvement from Jordan Landing. Daybreak is no 9th and 9th, but it is a significant improvement from the District.
The Garbett Homes development draws inspiration from Daybreak as well as other modern designs. The houses are much closer together and don't have the vaulted ceilings and massive yards typical suburban neighborhoods have:
You say that these developments leave you unimpressed. That is because you would never be satisfied with anything less than SLC-style neighborhoods. The major problem with your vision - as much as I would agree that it is ideal - is that it will never happen. A large segment of the population will always want to live in suburbs. If we want to make a difference in making development more sustainable, we need to figure out how to improve what people want. Like you find enjoyment in walking down a bustling city street, others prefer the suburbs for quite different reasons. For these people, quieter, open areas with winding trails and walkways are more appealing. They would enjoy being able to walk for a couple miles with a few urban amenities available along the way with other destinations a short drive or train ride away. Daybreak helps to facilitate this lifestyle preference while reigning in some of the excesses and unsustainable aspects of traditional suburbia. It is taking suburbia away from the Eagle Mountain or Saratoga Springs ilk - having to drive 15-20 miles to reach commercial amenities - and bringing it into a compact, more urban community that still allows for the suburban atmosphere.
It's like trying to get everyone to drive a zero-emission vehicle. While such a scenario would be ideal, it would not be a practical approach to decrease carbon emissions overall because a significant portion of the population would continue to want to drive dirty vehicles. Where you can really make the difference is by raising fuel efficiency standards and finding ways to make traditional dirty vehicles less dirty. It is not the ideal solution, of course, but it is the practical one that can actually make a difference. It`s not that I am fighting for the dirty vehicle, I am simply encouraging the cleaning up of dirty vehicles rather than trying to force everyone to drive a Tesla or a Prius (metaphorically speaking, of course - I hope that analogy made sense).
Prev
I like the Nevada, Arizona style, almost Hacienda like homes you don't really ever see in Utah. But that just me
Linear Mode
