Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[asies1981]

Photo updates by Mike Fife on several South Salt Lake projects.

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by StevenF

My wife works at IMC in Murray and I have watched this location from about the time the foundation was poured. From how it was being constructed I figured from the start that it was two buildings being built and that they were going to be apartments. Drove by today and saw that the first building had topped out at 6 floors.

My question about it is, what is it called and who is developing it? I have yet to notice any renderings or other information listed around the property other than banners for the construction company.

I would also love to see information on the office building going in on State Street next to IMC.


Unknown_Apartments by Steven Fidler, on Flickr

bumping this as I would still like to know what this apartment building will look like and who is developing it. Happens to be close to my wife's work and where my kids will be going to school next year.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Millcreek should be part of SLC proper.

#bettertogether

[Makid]

Proposal for nearly 8,800 new homes and apartments in southwest Salt Lake County project OK’d despite drawing fire

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...county-project-okd-despite-drawing-fire/

Ready or not, here comes Utah’s future.

An expected doubling of the population in coming years with rapid growth largely concentrated in southern Salt Lake and northern Utah counties means less farmland, fewer sprawling homesteads and more high-density housing — much more.

A new planned development in southwestern Salt Lake County — described as akin to the Daybreak subdivision — won approval Tuesday despite the seemingly united opposition of local municipal leaders and residents.

County Council members OK’d the needed zoning change 7-1.

The Olympia project proposes 8,765 units in a 938-acre parcel — making it the densest housing in the area, said mayors and city council members from neighboring cities.

“The sheer number of units in the development is nothing short of overwhelming,” wrote the mayors of Herriman, Riverton, West Jordan and Copperton Township, who jointly called for the County Council to deny developers’ request for a zone change from agricultural to planned community, a mixture of homes and commercial.

They worry about traffic, a strain on water, sewer and roads, and loss of open space.

Riverton Mayor Trent Staggs said he was unaware of the proposal until last week, although it has gone through the county planning process for some time. He identified increased traffic on roads not large enough to handle it as his top complaint and asked that the density levels be cut by half or more.

Opposition from local elected leaders was echoed Tuesday by the public.

“This development would literally destroy everything that all of us residents out here have sought,” said Tracie Kay, of Herriman. “Please don’t let our peace and quiet be ruined by a ridiculous high-density development.”

County Council members expressed sympathy but also said Utahns need to face the reality of the state’s exponential growth.

“I get that people are a little scared of density,” said Councilman Michael Jensen. But “we need to move forward and the mindset needs to change somewhat.”

Councilwoman Jenny Wilson heartily agreed.

“We need density,” she said, pointing to explosive population projections. “I feel excited and good about it.

“We have to have density, and we have to do it right.“

Olympia developers’ plan calls for 4,783 apartments, 2,485 town houses and 1,497 single-family homes on quarter-acre lots in the area between 6300 and 8500 West and 12400 to 13100 South. The proposal envisions up 500,000 square feet of retail and office space and a 100-acre Utah State University campus, around which the most dense apartment-style housing would be clustered.

“It is master-planned as a whole development. It is not going to be piecemealed,” Jensen said . He pointed to the coming economic expansion in the so-called Silicon Slopes area and the expected thousands of newcomers who will need places to live.

Millennials “don’t want single-family homes anymore.” he said.

The lone council voice against the plan was Steve DeBry.

“How can we in good faith ... jam it down the throats of Riverton, South Jordan, Herriman and Copperton?” DeBry said. “Why can’t we slow down and address the issue with [local residents and leaders] so they feel good about us as their representatives?

“That’s what boggles my mind, is i don’t understand why we can’t have a little give and take.”

Councilman Arlyn Bradshaw, though, fought back against the idea expressed by some that high-density means more crime, loss of privacy and overall less desirable communities.

“I don’t like some of the implication that density is a detriment.”

As someone who lives in a mixed community of single-family homes, apartments and townhouses, Bradshaw urged recognition that “we also have great communities and we love our neighbors just as much as people with one-acre lots.”

The quote at the end is what I hope others are starting to realize as well about higher density.

I do think it is actually good that the County is bringing higher density to the area. No other City either in South Salt Lake County nor North Utah County is adding density better than 1/2 what was approved. If the population is really coming, it needs to be planned for now by every City and County.

It was too late to save as open space and this is better than 1/4 acre lots. The U campus in the development will help and with the density, and lack of transportation options, could demand a realignment of the Red Line through the planned Town Center. The Town Center is further West and South of the current end of the Red Line. It would allow the Line to go through the Town Center and still align with either 26000 South towards the Prison Redevelopment or head towards Herriman before heading towards the Prison from there. Let's get Trax to help serve actual master planned Density rather than hope it spurs density for a change in the suburbs.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

I think this is a big step in the right direction. I will be interested to see how it will be laid out because just creating density without the proper support from transit, walkability, horizontal and vertical mix use can create a poor execution which would confirm the fears of the opponents that density is a disaster.

[bob rulz]

I agree. While higher density is a good thing, it absolutely must be developed with walkability as the top priority, and they need to start planning how it will connect with mass transit NOW, not tomorrow or a year or 5 years from now.

[TonyAnderson]

I mean the area they're talking about already is sprawl, so just by making it dense it doesn't take the fact away that it's sprawl. I'd rather not see it because then the actual urban cores of Utah can receive the density. But I like that idea of a USU campus.

[Stenar]

I don't have a problem with high-density or this development per se, but the county, state and So Valley communities really dropped the ball on planning for developments like this. There's only one main road that will lead to this development from I-15 (12600 S) and it's almost at failure now during the evening commute. It will definitely fail (at all times of the day) when this development is built.

The county and/or cities should have set aside land to eventually have 11800 S and 13400 S go all the way from the west side to Draper (and possibly another 1-15 interchange). UDOT should've been developing plans to create east-west highways or freeways throughout SLCO.

My sister lives off 12600 S and she's basically trapped in her neighborhood during the evening commute and she can never turn left onto 12600 S at any time of day due to the high traffic levels. 12600 S is the only road that goes all the way through Riverton. If you need to go anywhere in Riverton, you pretty much have to drive on this road, but people in Herriman and western Riverton also use it to commute home, which make it impossible for Riverton residents to go anywhere within their own town during the evening commute.

Originally Posted by Makid

Proposal for nearly 8,800 new homes and apartments in southwest Salt Lake County project OK’d despite drawing fire

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...county-project-okd-despite-drawing-fire/





The quote at the end is what I hope others are starting to realize as well about higher density.

I do think it is actually good that the County is bringing higher density to the area. No other City either in South Salt Lake County nor North Utah County is adding density better than 1/2 what was approved. If the population is really coming, it needs to be planned for now by every City and County.

It was too late to save as open space and this is better than 1/4 acre lots. The U campus in the development will help and with the density, and lack of transportation options, could demand a realignment of the Red Line through the planned Town Center. The Town Center is further West and South of the current end of the Red Line. It would allow the Line to go through the Town Center and still align with either 26000 South towards the Prison Redevelopment or head towards Herriman before heading towards the Prison from there. Let's get Trax to help serve actual master planned Density rather than hope it spurs density for a change in the suburbs.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

I mean the area they're talking about already is sprawl, so just by making it dense it doesn't take the fact away that it's sprawl. I'd rather not see it because then the actual urban cores of Utah can receive the density. But I like that idea of a USU campus.

Either we get low-density sprawl or high-density. At least this has the potential for TRAX to connect to it and serve as a job node.

The key is to make sure this development has at least 1-2 job per household. Really include office space in it.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by i-215

Either we get low-density sprawl or high-density. At least this has the potential for TRAX to connect to it and serve as a job node.

The key is to make sure this development has at least 1-2 job per household. Really include office space in it.

There are no plans for TRAX to connect to this development.

[RC14]

When I read about this on KSL the complaints from Herriman and Riverton about this development frustrated me.
If the population of Salt Lake County keeps growing, as I hope we all want it to, we will have to create new places for those people to live. Given that we live in a giant bowl, we will eventually run out of land and have to create more density. Did the residents of Herriman not understand this when they moved out there? If they want to live on 2 acre lots and also want all their neighbors to live on 2 acre lots, they should move to a less populated county.

Furthermore, when more people choose to live in high density areas that frees up land for those who want to live in less densely populated areas.

I am glad the county approved this development. I would prefer to see this density closer to downtown but this will still be better than another ill-planned suburban community.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by RC14

When I read about this on KSL the complaints from Herriman and Riverton about this development frustrated me.
If the population of Salt Lake County keeps growing, as I hope we all want it to, we will have to create new places for those people to live. Given that we live in a giant bowl, we will eventually run out of land and have to create more density. Did the residents of Herriman not understand this when they moved out there? If they want to live on 2 acre lots and also want all their neighbors to live on 2 acre lots, they should move to a less populated county.

Furthermore, when more people choose to live in high density areas that frees up land for those who want to live in less densely populated areas.

I am glad the county approved this development. I would prefer to see this density closer to downtown but this will still be better than another ill-planned suburban community.

Apparently, the developer approached Herriman about 5 years ago with a plan for the 900 acres or so that was similar to the current plan but was closer to 15 people per acre for density as opposed to the current 37 per acre). A citizen petition was started and it got enough signatures to force vote to allow the citizens of the city a vote to override it. As part of the deal also included increased density for the City, the City had to walk away.

Now that the County has passed the increased zoning, Herriman is trying to work with the developer about getting lowering the density and possibly annexing the land into the City. Basically what the developer wanted originally. The problem is still that the citizens of Herriman don't want the density. Anything over currently allowed levels will start petitions in the City and anything to low and the developer has no incentive to merge.

I wonder if the developer will start construction soon on Olympia Hills or wait for talks with Herriman to continue.

[Stenar]

I'm all for density, but it has to happen in existing urban cores, not in the most remote part of the county which has limited roadways, no transit, etc. This area is not prepared for a city the size of Midvale on 1/4th the land.

Originally Posted by RC14

When I read about this on KSL the complaints from Herriman and Riverton about this development frustrated me.
If the population of Salt Lake County keeps growing, as I hope we all want it to, we will have to create new places for those people to live. Given that we live in a giant bowl, we will eventually run out of land and have to create more density. Did the residents of Herriman not understand this when they moved out there? If they want to live on 2 acre lots and also want all their neighbors to live on 2 acre lots, they should move to a less populated county.

Furthermore, when more people choose to live in high density areas that frees up land for those who want to live in less densely populated areas.

I am glad the county approved this development. I would prefer to see this density closer to downtown but this will still be better than another ill-planned suburban community.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I'm all for density, but it has to happen in existing urban cores, .

Well said.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by RC14

If they want to live on 2 acre lots and also want all their neighbors to live on 2 acre lots, they should move to a less populated county.

My grandmother lived in Herriman. They day she died, the only good part of Herriman ended.

That town royally sucks. NIMBY hell. (And this is coming from a guy who sort of likes sprawl).

Horrible jobs/housing imbalance. A socioeconomically homogeneous population. Almost no long-term transportation planning. And the local residents want nothing new approved (except for their McMansion, of course). Every street is a 25 MPH "local" with no collectors. And when a few become de facto 35-40 MPH collector streets, the residents complain (even though they are the ones speeding on their own friggin' streets). Some of the most selfish people in the entire valley!

[steps off soapbox]

[StevenF]

Maybe we should start ourselves a Discord server for the Mountain West subforum. I really wanted to post some reactions to i-215's comment. But of course this forum is so damn old it is still stuck in 2008.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I'm all for density, but it has to happen in existing urban cores, not in the most remote part of the county which has limited roadways, no transit, etc. This area is not prepared for a city the size of Midvale on 1/4th the land.

I think that this is the only type of development we should allow on the periphery. Of course it doesn't have infrastructurein place, it is vacant land. Why not build at a high enough density ro support the building of that infrastructure? I live in the urban core and I don't want to subsidize roadways and bus service to low density housing in bfe. I would much prefer a tax base that can support itself and a neighborhood that would justify transit. The alternative to 900 acres of high density is thousands of acres of low density that hasn't the tax base to support its infrastructure and will never support transit. Screw that

Further high density housing in the urban core won't be enough to absorb the growth we are anticipating. There aren't enough people who can afford the costs of remaking a city. Some will for the convenience but for many it just won't be an option.

The NIMBYs who think that housing is only ok on 1/4 acre lots can go fuck themselves

[Stenar]

There are only a couple of major roads in the entire SW. You would have to demolish several billion worth of homes to build the roads necessary to sustain this development.

Leaders dropped the ball. Every other part of the county has major roads every half mile or 3/4 mile. In this area, the major roads are every 1.5 miles or more. 12600 S is the only road from I-15 to this development. It is near failure now. It will fail at all times of the day if this is built.
This land is 8+ miles west of I-15 and the majority of people work along I-15, so there has to be some way to move these people to I-15.

I'd be all for building more dense developments if the infrastructure had been planned for. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I think that this is the only type of development we should allow on the periphery. Of course it doesn't have infrastructurein place, it is vacant land. Why not build at a high enough density ro support the building of that infrastructure? I live in the urban core and I don't want to subsidize roadways and bus service to low density housing in bfe. I would much prefer a tax base that can support itself and a neighborhood that would justify transit. The alternative to 900 acres of high density is thousands of acres of low density that hasn't the tax base to support its infrastructure and will never support transit. Screw that

Further high density housing in the urban core won't be enough to absorb the growth we are anticipating. There aren't enough people who can afford the costs of remaking a city. Some will for the convenience but for many it just won't be an option.

The NIMBYs who think that housing is only ok on 1/4 acre lots can go fuck themselves

[bob rulz]

I think housing on 1/4 acre lots in Salt Lake County is already a thing of the past. Even Herriman is denser than that for the most part. The majority of new developments are townhomes and apartments, even in places like Riverton and South Jordan, and the single-family neighborhoods are higher density than they used to be.

That said, there will always be people who want a sizable single-family home with a front yard and a backyard, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I don't think we need that density in the whole county. Obviously I would like to see good density all over, but there needs to be a sizable variety of housing types, so as to attract the most diversity of people that we can.

Also I tend to find myself agreeing more with Stenar the more I think about it. That level of density just won't work out there.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I think housing on 1/4 acre lots in Salt Lake County is already a thing of the past. Even Herriman is denser than that for the most part. The majority of new developments are townhomes and apartments, even in places like Riverton and South Jordan, and the single-family neighborhoods are higher density than they used to be....

Right. My BIL’s house in Riverton, built in 2006, is 4300 sf on only .14 acres. They haven’t been building .25 acre lots in Riverton for over a decade.