Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[slc801]

I came across an article today about National Park visitation. I decided to pull some quick stats on the numbers of individuals visiting National Parks. I pulled the numbers for the 23 most popular parks, plus Canyonlands. I looked at average percent growth in visitation rates from 1980-2015. Utah had 5 of the top 7 parks in the highest growth in visitation. One of the other 7 is Cuyahoga, which had a huge increase in visitation in 80's and 90's but has steadily decreased since. So really Utah has 5 of the top 6. The other park that is growing in popularity at a rate similar to Utah's is Joshua Tree. I looked at Colorado to see if they have had a similar trend and to my surprise they haven't. In fact, one of their National Parks has steadily declined since the 1980s

In 2015, 3 of the 16 most popular National Parks in the US are found in Utah (Zion, Bryce, and Arches); Zion was the 6th most popular park in the US. No other state, not even California, can claim that (California has 3 in the top 20 most popular parks. California has the most National Parks of any state--9, nearly double the amount in Utah). In 1980, Zion, the most popular park in Utah, was only the 14th most popular in the US.

For those of you who don't like the increase in the number of people visiting the parks because you feel they are getting to crowded, luckily you still have Canyonlands, which is the largest park in Utah, and the least visited (although its visitation rate is increasing quicker than any other park in Utah). I am a sucker for Zion, but Canyonlands is making a strong run for my favorite national park in Utah. And you've got some other spectacular areas, like Cedar Breaks, Goblin Valley, and the whole San Rafael Swell just to name a few

One final note, which I'm sure many would see as controversial: I would love to see a National Park somewhere along the Wasatch Front, maybe from Little Cottonwood down to Hobble Creek Canyon, where Springville is. It would only include land that is already federally owned, which would hopefully detract from opposition. I think that lots of people would dislike this, claiming its a land grab, ski resorts would not be able to expand further onto national forests, and people wouldn't be able to ATV. However some of the areas in those canyons are some of the most spectacular mountains that I have ever been through (Alpine Loop, The trail behind Y mountain) and it would do great to continue to boost tourism throughout the Wasatch Front.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by slc801

I came across an article today about National Park visitation. I decided to pull some quick stats on the numbers of individuals visiting National Parks. I pulled the numbers for the 23 most popular parks, plus Canyonlands. I looked at average percent growth in visitation rates from 1980-2015. Utah had 5 of the top 7 parks in the highest growth in visitation. One of the other 7 is Cuyahoga, which had a huge increase in visitation in 80's and 90's but has steadily decreased since. So really Utah has 5 of the top 6. The other park that is growing in popularity at a rate similar to Utah's is Joshua Tree. I looked at Colorado to see if they have had a similar trend and to my surprise they haven't. In fact, one of their National Parks has steadily declined since the 1980s

In 2015, 3 of the 16 most popular National Parks in the US are found in Utah (Zion, Bryce, and Arches); Zion was the 6th most popular park in the US. No other state, not even California, can claim that (California has 3 in the top 20 most popular parks. California has the most National Parks of any state--9, nearly double the amount in Utah). In 1980, Zion, the most popular park in Utah, was only the 14th most popular in the US.

For those of you who don't like the increase in the number of people visiting the parks because you feel they are getting to crowded, luckily you still have Canyonlands, which is the largest park in Utah, and the least visited (although its visitation rate is increasing quicker than any other park in Utah). I am a sucker for Zion, but Canyonlands is making a strong run for my favorite national park in Utah. And you've got some other spectacular areas, like Cedar Breaks, Goblin Valley, and the whole San Rafael Swell just to name a few

One final note, which I'm sure many would see as controversial: I would love to see a National Park somewhere along the Wasatch Front, maybe from Little Cottonwood down to Hobble Creek Canyon, where Springville is. It would only include land that is already federally owned, which would hopefully detract from opposition. I think that lots of people would dislike this, claiming its a land grab, ski resorts would not be able to expand further onto national forests, and people wouldn't be able to ATV. However some of the areas in those canyons are some of the most spectacular mountains that I have ever been through (Alpine Loop, The trail behind Y mountain) and it would do great to continue to boost tourism throughout the Wasatch Front.

National Parks are amusement parks. People atv, snowmobile etc in National parks. On top of that they are car-centric scenic byways. A National Park in the Wasatch would only lead to more paved roadway and paved trails. I am very much against this. I prefer the national forest, state parks, and designated wilderness areas that we have now.

We should purchase private land to add to the national forest and state parks but we should avoid a National park.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

I went to lunch with my friend that works in the Wells Fargo building and she was telling me that because Wells Fargo wants to reduce the floors it uses, they are going to add a second floor in some of the atriums in the Wells Fargo.

Does this mean they are expanding the atriums to be two stories, or are they building a floor within the atrium to add more space? I don't quite understand what this means.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Marvland

RAD! I had an independent contractor in my back yard pulling specs off the telephone pole claiming to work for GF. This is a huge deal and we are waaaaaay late to the bandwagon.

How are we waaaaaay late to the bandwagon?

We are 1 of 9 cities that has google fiber. I'd say we're actually waaaaaay ahead of the bandwagon.

[Hatman]

Though I like the idea of the fame and prestige that would come with a 'Wasatch National Park', I wonder if the mountains really need more visitors than they already have. It seems to me that most national parks are in places where people would not naturally go because they are far away or inaccessible. The status of National Park is a way to draw people in as well as protect the place and its surroundings from private development. The Wasatch Mountains do not need the added prestige of National Park status in order to draw people to them.
Though the national park status would do wonders to help my proposal for shuttle buses up and down the canyons actually be built. (Link to Transit Thread). Humm. I'll have to think about it some more.
As for things like the San Rafael Swell and other Utah landmarks that are not currently national parks, I say go for it.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

How are we waaaaaay late to the bandwagon?

We are 1 of 9 cities that has google fiber. I'd say we're actually waaaaaay ahead of the bandwagon.

True to this, Future. It reads a little weird. I am only referring to how Provo beat us by a decade. I was heavily displeased that SLC didn't hop in the Utopia bandwagon. Robust data is our backbone. This is a tech state. We will lead the country in tech investment outside of SV/Seattle soon. And I thought it was about two dozen cities??

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Marvland

True to this, Future. It reads a little weird. I am only referring to how Provo beat us by a decade. I was heavily displeased that SLC didn't hop in the Utopia bandwagon. Robust data is our backbone. This is a tech state. We will lead the country in tech investment outside of SV/Seattle soon. And I thought it was about two dozen cities??

Yeah, it would have been nice if we already had the infrastructure backbone in place, as Provo did with iProvo. Which Google was simply able to take over the existing infrastructure.

There are a lot of cities planned to get Google Fiber, but according to the website, there are currently only nine that currently have it (Provo), or are in the process (SLC). Two of course being right here in Utah. There are eleven other cites listed as "Potential"

https://fiber.google.com/about/

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Marvland

True to this, Future. It reads a little weird. I am only referring to how Provo beat us by a decade. I was heavily displeased that SLC didn't hop in the Utopia bandwagon. Robust data is our backbone. This is a tech state. We will lead the country in tech investment outside of SV/Seattle soon. And I thought it was about two dozen cities??

It is about two dozen cities if you count the suburbs of Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham and Kansas City that are getting it. If you don't count the suburbs, it's 9 cities.

[Future Mayor]

While google fiber talk is super exhilarating. Do we know when we can expect an announcement on the CCH? Or does anyone have any other development related news?

[Orlando]

Regarding the CCH, I've heard that we won't hear of the decision until at least early March.

[Future Mayor]

Since Hardware is getting developed, here is a VERY rough proposal for the other side of the FrontRunner Tracks.

The NW corner of that block was already mostly redeveloped recently with senior housing, so I didn't touch it. The southern half of the block is TSA-UC Transit Station Area, Urban Center which anticipates up to 10 stories tall. The northern half is TSA-UN (Urban Neighborhood) heights half that of the UC.

Grey is new streets, splitting up the block.

Green is open space and pedestrian connections.

The two white buildings and the purple buildings would a mix of 5-10 stories tall, preferably 10 stories for the white corner buildings. Mixed use, mostly residential, a little bit of office, some retail, and some could be structured parking. These could include some two story town homes on the bottom levels along some of the corridors.

Orange is 3-5 stories, again mixed use, majority residential, some office and a little retail, with some structured parking and town homes.

Red would be 3-4 story brownstones.

Light Purple is a bridge connection to the FrontRunner Platform and the Trax platform.

[asies1981]

WFRC developed a story map looking at the walkability across the Wasatch Front.

[Stenar]

I like it, especially the townhouses.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Since Hardware is getting developed, here is a VERY rough proposal for the other side of the FrontRunner Tracks.

The NW corner of that block was already mostly redeveloped recently with senior housing, so I didn't touch it. The southern half of the block is TSA-UC Transit Station Area, Urban Center which anticipates up to 10 stories tall. The northern half is TSA-UN (Urban Neighborhood) heights half that of the UC.

Grey is new streets, splitting up the block.

Green is open space and pedestrian connections.

The two white buildings and the purple buildings would a mix of 5-10 stories tall, preferably 10 stories for the white corner buildings. Mixed use, mostly residential, a little bit of office, some retail, and some could be structured parking. These could include some two story town homes on the bottom levels along some of the corridors....

[arkhitektor]

My pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic idea for that area would be to bury the train tracks and freeway between I-80 and 600 N. and cover it with a park to connect Rose Park to downtown and built a baseball stadium into the hardware building ala Camden Yards:

[jubguy3]

Sorry I haven't posted in so long! Here is a picture I took of the progress of 111 with my new Nexus 6P.

[asies1981]

More info on the plans for the Gateway The new owners seem serious about turning the Gateway around.

[Utah_Dave]

Hey Fellas, I'm new to this forum but wanted to bounce some ideas around here. First off, the Gateway mall. Homeless shelter must be relocated. I also suggest a downtown trolley that moves shoppers and tourist around quicker. A few stops at some tourist sites, a few stops at some parking areas, and stops at the gateway, city creek, and maybe trolley square. This will help move people around and relieve parking problems. It should help revitalize the gateway by making it more convenient to get people from city creek over there since that's were they all went.

[Utah_Dave]

If Salt Lake was to get some new, tall buildings. What would we like them to look like? My most Favorite look is the Utah One Center. Wish it could have been taller though. It's becoming hidden now by the new building around it. If you have some favorites from other cities please list them so we might sway a future developer

I would like to see a building with several tiers towards the top that give it a pyramid type look as opposed to a square top like the 111s building. I would be curious about your opinion. I truly hope the convention center hotel breaks some barriers in the Salt Lake skyline! Cross your fingers. My gut tells me we are going to be disappointed. Keep your fingers crossed.

[Utah_Dave]

On a side note. Not high rise related. Ogden needs a tram put in from the east bench to the top of Snow Basin. It's a no brainer and would be such a boost to a lack luster town. That is if money was not a problem

I think it would put the city on the map! Kind of

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I think those interior shades were an unintended affect that the architects didn't anticipate. Clear glass is a trend, but not sure if it's the right aesthetic. The New York Times tower by Renzo Piano has automatic shunshade controls based on daylight controls. The shades all lower uniformly. The haphazard look of those shades on 222 ruins the clean aesthetic of the actual building.

The blinds in the Windows reminds me of buildings from the 70's and 80's. Glad you noticed this also. Completely takes away from its already generic design.