Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[cololi]

Agreed. The median may look nice, but it is mostly pointless. That space should have been added to the edges to widen the park strip so some trees could be planted. I suppose they could put them in planters with grates, but it kind of defeats the purpose of an 8 foot wide "trail" most commonly referred to as a comfortable width sidewalk.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by John Martin

I have to chuckle when I hear someone say 12 stories in Cottonwood Heights is 12 stories that could've been downtown. It really doesn't work that way. So far the Old Mill development has done a good job of attracting big companies (Overstock.com headquarters, Mrs. Fields headquarters, Extraspace headquarters, and JetBlue corporate offices are all located in or near that development). They're located there for a reason, and if they weren't there, they'd probably just be in some other suburb, maybe even another state. I know several people who work in the development, from CEO to mail-sorter, as well as the developer who is spear-heading this new tower, and I really don't think any of them have any desire to leave their big houses to live in or near downtown, or drive a much longer commute just so they can appreciate the 'urbanity' of downtown.

There needs to be a much greater variety of housing options downtown for it to thrive as a business district. Locating more businesses there in exchange for longer commutes is not urban at all.

I don't mean to reply just to Jon Martin, but all those who are with the attitude of "well, if it's not built here it will be built in some other suburb." That is definitely not the mindset here in Portland. The tallest building in the Oregon side of Portland outside of downtown is one 10 or 12 story office building. And, there aren't near as many office parks that SL metro has. It's because they have a metro authority that curtails the sprawl mindset, and there is a general environmental awareness. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but a lot of you just seem to have this mindset, that it's gonna happen no matter what, or, similarly, the attitude of the expansion sprawl plans to Cedar Valley, like, " well, it's gonna happen no matter what".

Regarding the 12 vs. 4 story attitude: there is a certain amount of available land in that area. It's not a comparison of (12) 4-story buildings vs. (4) 12-story buildings. It's a comparison of (12) 4-story buildings to (12) 12-story buildings. These developers are trying to maximixe the amount of office space that they can develop out of the available land to develop on. It's not well, "we would like to preserve land, and therefore we would like to build taller" kind of attitude at all! That's why I say, curtail the amount of office space built there!! Whether it's by restricting the amount of land to develop on, or restricting height.

And, yes, it does affect downtown Salt Lake. Whoever is laughing at that argument is really ignorant to the effects of sprawl. Compare Seattle to Phoenix: Seattle has sprawl, but they have developed very densely, and more compact, and their downtown is huge and tall. Phoenix has a higher metro population than Seattle, yet their downtown is puny and spread out in comparison.

The attitudes of some of you forumers on here are more like Phoenix and L.A. like than Seattle. And, I would argue that Seattle is 10 times a better and more beautiful city than Phoenix or L.A.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I don't mean to reply just to Jon Martin, but all those who are with the attitude of "well, if it's not built here it will be built in some other suburb." That is definitely not the mindset here in Portland. The tallest building in the Oregon side of Portland outside of downtown is one 10 or 12 story office building. And, there aren't near as many office parks that SL metro has. It's because they have a metro authority that curtails the sprawl mindset, and there is a general environmental awareness. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but a lot of you just seem to have this mindset, that it's gonna happen no matter what, or, similarly, the attitude of the expansion sprawl plans to Cedar Valley, like, " well, it's gonna happen no matter what".

Regarding the 12 vs. 4 story attitude: there is a certain amount of available land in that area. It's not a comparison of (12) 4-story buildings vs. (4) 12-story buildings. It's a comparison of (12) 4-story buildings to (12) 12-story buildings. These developers are trying to maximixe the amount of office space that they can develop out of the available land to develop on. It's not well, "we would like to preserve land, and therefore we would like to build taller" kind of attitude at all! That's why I say, curtail the amount of office space built there!! Whether it's by restricting the amount of land to develop on, or restricting height.

And, yes, it does affect downtown Salt Lake. Whoever is laughing at that argument is really ignorant to the effects of sprawl. Compare Seattle to Phoenix: Seattle has sprawl, but they have developed very densely, and more compact, and their downtown is huge and tall. Phoenix has a higher metro population than Seattle, yet their downtown is puny and spread out in comparison.

The attitudes of some of you forumers on here are more like Phoenix and L.A. like than Seattle. And, I would argue that Seattle is 10 times a better and more beautiful city than Phoenix or L.A.

I don't think anyone has the mentality that "it's going to happen no matter what." Instead, people have the opinion that "it's going to happen given the current circumstances." And it's very easy to argue that it should happen given the current circumstances. Contrary to what you said, this development is not advocating sprawl, as it is surrounded by well-established neighborhoods that people choose to live in because of their superior qualities. This development is simply giving those people a better option than having to commute downtown to work and have fun. Sure, I suppose we could force everyone to abandon their well-established neighborhoods, with their nice houses, big yards, gardens, scenic views, etc. and cram them all downtown into the limited housing options that currently exist, and that'd make us more like Portland, apparently. I just don't see how that's superior. Preventing sprawl is much easier than reversing it. Whether or not you considered these neighborhoods sprawl when they were created is not relevant here, as they are already well-established and there really isn't much room for growth within them.

As for being environmentally aware, again, I don't see how this is harmful to the environment. Given the current circumstances, this development seems nothing but beneficial. The land it is located on is what used to be a gravel pit, and now, there are great offices and restaurants located closer to the people who already lived in the area.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by John Martin

I don't think anyone has the mentality that "it's going to happen no matter what." Instead, people have the opinion that "it's going to happen given the current circumstances." And it's very easy to argue that it should happen given the current circumstances. Contrary to what you said, this development is not advocating sprawl, as it is surrounded by well-established neighborhoods that people choose to live in because of their superior qualities. This development is simply giving those people a better option than having to commute downtown to work and have fun. Sure, I suppose we could force everyone to abandon their well-established neighborhoods, with their nice houses, big yards, gardens, scenic views, etc. and cram them all downtown into the limited housing options that currently exist, and that'd make us more like Portland, apparently. I just don't see how that's superior. Preventing sprawl is much easier than reversing it. Whether or not you considered these neighborhoods sprawl when they were created is not relevant here, as they are already well-established and there really isn't much room for growth within them.

As for being environmentally aware, again, I don't see how this is harmful to the environment. Given the current circumstances, this development seems nothing but beneficial. The land it is located on is what used to be a gravel pit, and now, there are great offices and restaurants located closer to the people who already lived in the area.

The problem with your argument that people in Cottonwood Heights deserve a place to work close to home without having to commute downtown is that I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of workers there don't live in Cottonwood Heights, but commute from all over the valley. Just anecdotally, I know of one person who commutes there from Provo and one from downtown.

I read an article about Phoenix many years ago that said the reason why Phoenix has such a small downtown and is such a mess is because they had the idea back in the '60 or '70s (I don't remember exactly when) to create 5 smaller centers so people could live and work locally and have shorter commutes, but they found that people would live in one community and commute to another for work. This resulted in major traffic nightmares in every direction.

Maybe 50 years ago when people tended to work 30-40 years at one job, this might have worked, but today people have an avg of 7 different employers throughout their career and it's not always feasible to pick up and move close to work every time you change jobs.

So, by having office parks spread throughout the valley, you create a nightmare for traffic planners as people commute every which way instead of to one centrally located destination. Also, it's harmful to the environment because we can't create efficient transportation usage.

[Orlando]

Thanks Stenar. Good point! John Martin, that attitude is still so passive and so not progressive. And, it does hurt the environment, and definitely affects downtown SLC.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The problem with your argument that people in Cottonwood Heights deserve a place to work close to home without having to commute downtown is that I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of workers there don't live in Cottonwood Heights, but commute from all over the valley. Just anecdotally, I know of one person who commutes there from Provo and one from downtown.

So you're saying because the majority of people who work there don't live in Cottonwood Heights (or rather what you assume is the majority, based on a hunch you have, influenced by 2 people you know), the people who live in Holladay and Cottonwood Heights don't deserve a workplace that is close to home. All you've done is pointed out that the attempt to solve the problem isn't perfect, and thus the problem shouldn't be addressed at all. Perhaps you should explain how another approach would be a more reasonable solution.

Even if the businesses were located downtown, hardly anything would change. People in Cottonwood Heights would simply have less opportunities to work in Cottonwood Heights, and people who live elsewhere would simply have to commute downtown, placing more pressure on the already traffic-laden highways going downtown. The only ones who benefit are those who already live downtown. On the other hand, if more people lived in and near downtown, which is what I proposed and advocate through the expansion of housing options downtown, then businesses would have a much greater incentive to locate downtown. But like I said, given the current circumstances, I don't think it is currently a reasonable solution to funnel all businesses downtown, and react to traffic problems as they spring up.

Furthermore, such a practice simply isn't realistic. How does Cottonwood Heights benefit by imposing restrictions on businesses, and by doing so (supposedly), send businesses downtown? If these communities only cared about the welfare of downtown Salt Lake City, then sure, you could expect them to do whatever is necessary to benefit downtown. Hopefully you see that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by Orlando

John Martin, that attitude is still so passive and so not progressive. And, it does hurt the environment, and definitely affects downtown SLC.

I'm not so much concerned about the classification of my attitude as I am about the welfare of the people these developments affect. I think you're looking at this a little too ideologically. I don't think suburban development is inherently good or anything like that, I simply don't think that imposing height regulations would be beneficial to anyone in this particular case. I would appreciate it if you could explain how this hurt the environment.. your claims are empty without warrants, and I already brought to light the fact that the birth of this development meant the demise of a dusty gravel pit.

[Future Mayor]

Bring back the Gravel pit

This parcel is the last developable parcel in that particular property so of course the developer wants to make the most of it. Secondly Cottonwood Height gets revenues from there being more people working in the area, and from a taller building. Sure there isn't local income tax in Utah, like in some states but the presence of more people will create more demand for shopping, restaurants and banks in the area. This in turn will be beneficial to those that live in Cottonwood Heights as it will provide them with additional options for their evening meals, with the potential to reduce their vehicle miles traveled.

If we are to go off of people we know that work in that area than I could say that the majority of them DO live in the Cottonwood Heights area. Because I myself worked in the Old Mill area, and our CEO specifically choose to re-locate the business there because he lived very near by. There were many other people that also lived with a few miles of the office.

Yes people commute from all over to all over, but often times decisions are made, based on those higher ups, as to where a business locates. It's the same with big corporate moves across the country, a CEO likes a location for some reason and chooses to move himself and the company there, but due to distance people have to move. If there were options for them not to move, many would continue to commute, ie. those that live or work in Boston and NY and commute the other way. If there are options to commute rather than move, they will. If the commute isn't worth the job, they will either move or look elsewhere.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by John Martin

I'm not so much concerned about the classification of my attitude as I am about the welfare of the people these developments affect. I think you're looking at this a little too ideologically. I don't think suburban development is inherently good or anything like that, I simply don't think that imposing height regulations would be beneficial to anyone in this particular case. I would appreciate it if you could explain how this hurt the environment.. your claims are empty without warrants, and I already brought to light the fact that the birth of this development meant the demise of a dusty gravel pit.

Okay, you asked for it John...

Here is a simple education on the adverse affects of sprawl so i can "warrant my claims".

http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landsca...wl/effects.asp

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...an_sprawl.html

http://futurewise.org/resources/publ...e%20Harbor.pdf

http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/pdf/c...nvironment.pdf

http://www.squidoo.com/sprawl_stinks


CEO's decision to move headquarters to a closer location to where they live is sefish, and of course not as convenient for the rest of them to live as close.

What kind of city do you want? A city like Seattle or Portland, or a city like Phoenix or L.A.?

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Orlando

What kind of city do you want? A city like Seattle or Portland, or a city like Phoenix or L.A.?

The really dense cities like Seattle, NYC, Chicago, Portland, etc. are always that way because of geography. Every city that can sprawl, does. It's hard to change that mindset, especially with our laws.

I do agree though, office space should be located in downtowns of the core city, and we shouldn't encourage otherwise. It's really about educating people on the matter.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Okay, you asked for it John...

Here is a simple education on the adverse affects of sprawl so i can "warrant my claims".

http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landsca...wl/effects.asp

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...an_sprawl.html

http://futurewise.org/resources/publ...e%20Harbor.pdf

http://www.cabq.gov/airquality/pdf/c...nvironment.pdf

http://www.squidoo.com/sprawl_stinks


CEO's decision to move headquarters to a closer location to where they live is sefish, and of course not as convenient for the rest of them to live as close.

What kind of city do you want? A city like Seattle or Portland, or a city like Phoenix or L.A.?

You're ignoring what I said. I asked how this development has had a negative impact on the environment, not sprawl in general. I already stated why I don't classify this as sprawl, and you ignored that. So the links really are irrelevant, unless my claims are all refuted (which you didn't bother to do).

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

The really dense cities like Seattle, NYC, Chicago, Portland, etc. are always that way because of geography. Every city that can sprawl, does. It's hard to change that mindset, especially with our laws.

I do agree though, office space should be located in downtowns of the core city, and we shouldn't encourage otherwise. It's really about educating people on the matter.

Portland isn't dense because of geography. They voted in the '70s to create a green belt around the metro that would never be developed. There is plenty of land surrounding Portland that could be built on. They've made a choice not to. Chicago and NYC are not great examples, either. They both have massive suburbs outside their cores that sprawl for miles.

[Future Mayor]

One note on the "never build Green Belts" is that as time goes on, the city continues to expand and the "green belt" is moved further out to allow for more development.

While I wouldn't consider this sprawl as is the case with Phoenix, LA, Denver and most EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE US, in a sense it still is. It is simply controlled growth, an outlying city/development doesn't get built until the current area is more built out.

In a way, we have simply allowed for new cities and communities to be built further out and the build out of the older areas comes later through infill and redevelopment.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by John Martin

So you're saying because the majority of people who work there don't live in Cottonwood Heights (or rather what you assume is the majority, based on a hunch you have, influenced by 2 people you know), the people who live in Holladay and Cottonwood Heights don't deserve a workplace that is close to home.

No, my hunch isn't only based on the 2 people I know. I was just using them as real-world examples of what I'd be willing to bet a million dollars are like the overwhelming majority of workers there. Just an aside, NOT PROOF OF MY POINT, I also know a LOT of people who live in Cottonwood Heights—my in-laws all live there—and not one of them works in Cottonwood Heights.

And no, the 2 or 3% of the workers there who also happen to live in Cottonwood Heights DON'T deserve to work close to home. We need to think more regionally and what is best for the region as a whole, not an isolated set of people who think they deserve what's best for their small set.

Originally Posted by John Martin

Even if the businesses were located downtown, hardly anything would change. People in Cottonwood Heights would simply have less opportunities to work in Cottonwood Heights, and people who live elsewhere would simply have to commute downtown, placing more pressure on the already traffic-laden highways going downtown.

If workers are centrally located, it makes things like mass transit more useful... more people riding it means they can add more cars and more frequent trips than every 20-30 minutes, as it is now. If the trains ran every 7 minutes it'd make mass transit way more useful.

Originally Posted by John Martin

Furthermore, such a practice simply isn't realistic. How does Cottonwood Heights benefit by imposing restrictions on businesses, and by doing so (supposedly), send businesses downtown? If these communities only cared about the welfare of downtown Salt Lake City, then sure, you could expect them to do whatever is necessary to benefit downtown. Hopefully you see that isn't the case.

Cottonwood Heights doesn't really benefit directly from office towers. There is a small blip in property taxes. They hope that the office workers will bring retail, which does happen to an extent, but the office complexes also bring additional costs to the city. And all of the roads get congested more quickly everywhere than if we had a regionally planned economy. So, Cottonwood Heights and other communities have to bond to pay to widen the streets, etc. It all adds up to congestion everywhere instead of congestion in more central arteries (such as I-15) leading to the central core. It's easier to manage traffic to the central arteries than traffic on all roads everywhere.

Personally, I think the best choice would be to only allow taller bldgs and office complexes immediately next to TRAX/FrontRunner stops and close to freeway exits.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The problem with your argument that people in Cottonwood Heights deserve a place to work close to home without having to commute downtown is that I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of workers there don't live in Cottonwood Heights, but commute from all over the valley. Just anecdotally, I know of one person who commutes there from Provo and one from downtown.

The same argument can go towards those who believe Office buildings should only be develop downtown. So the people who live downtown are the only ones who deserve a place to work close to home, while the rest of the valley have to DRIVE all the way to downtown? You say by having office parks spread throughout the valley, you create a nightmare for traffic. But just think how much of a traffic nightmare would it be if 1+ million people all have to get in their cars ( Not everyone can take trax or bus ) and drive to work downtown. You know there can be just as much traffic for people to have to drive from downtown to work at a business parks somewhere in the valley then it would for everybody to drive downtown to work.
Instead what we really need ( and I feel like we are well on our way ) is to have a mass transit line up and down the salt lake metro with a few City Cores set up (Downtown, Murray, Sandy, ect. ) Bring in some mix use development with housing and office space near Trax and frontrunner stops and that alone will take alot of the cars off the road.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

The same argument can go towards those who believe Office buildings should only be develop downtown. So the people who live downtown are the only ones who deserve a place to work close to home, while the rest of the valley have to DRIVE all the way to downtown? You say by having office parks spread throughout the valley, you create a nightmare for traffic. But just think how much of a traffic nightmare would it be if 1+ million people all have to get in their cars ( Not everyone can take trax or bus ) and drive to work downtown.

Why can't everyone ride TRAX or take a bus? I've lived in NYC, Chicago and Oslo, Norway and nearly everyone in those cities uses mass transit.

[delts145]

Residents on west side of Millcreek Township hope to join Murray

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/neighbo...urray.html.csp

A group of residents and business owners in Millcreek Township’s west end hope to bail from Salt Lake County and join up with Murray, a city they view as neighborly and well-run...

.

[delts145]

The Canyons bows out of Air Force hotel negotiations

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_15560680

The military has scrapped plans for developing a hotel at The Canyons, according to a prepared statement from Air Force officials...

...The Air Force has since selected Park City-based DDRM to join Wadman Corporation in building the military resort in Wasatch County, according to Moore.

DDRM Chief Executive Officer Stan Castleton said military officials hope to have a hotel on a roughly 100-acre parcel east of U.S. 40 near Jordanelle State Park. The land sits across the highway from the Deer Crest gondola.

..

[delts145]

Money Magazine Report: Selected cities had low crime rates, affordable housing, quality schools and a diverse mix of people and leisure activities.


Of the 600 communities nationwide with populations of 50,000 to 300,000 residents, four in Utah are ranked in the top 100. South Jordan(18), West Jordan(61), Orem(45), and St. George(80).

Utah cities are some of the “best places to live”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/neighbo...south.html.csp


Kevin Bench (13, West Jordan) leaps off the ten meter platform at the Kearns Oquirrh Park Fitness Center in Kearns Wednesday afternoon. Photo by Trent Nelson 08/20/2003

.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Why can't everyone ride TRAX or take a bus? I've lived in NYC, Chicago and Oslo, Norway and nearly everyone in those cities uses mass transit.

Because in the real world most people don't. There isn't a trax line or stations close by for most people. Sure with the new Trax lines such as "Jordan line", "West Valley line" ect that helps. But for those who might live clear out of the way such as Buffdale, herriman, Eagle mountain, ect. driving might be there only way to get around. And since UTA has cut a few of the bus routs then that only puts even more people on the roads. You can't compare Salt Lake to cities like Norway that has a by far better Mass Transit. Those cities were built around Mass Transit a 100 years ago while Salt Lake now has to be built around the Mass Transit that has only been built ten years ago. Unless there's Trax lines everywhere especially on the west side there's going to be far more people driving cars. That's just life.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by delts145

Residents on west side of Millcreek Township hope to join Murray

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/neighbo...urray.html.csp

A group of residents and business owners in Millcreek Township’s west end hope to bail from Salt Lake County and join up with Murray, a city they view as neighborly and well-run...

.

I say go for it. Murray only has about 46,000 people living in it while Millcreek has about 65,000-plus people. I wonder how many people live in the west end of Millcreek. What would that put Murray's population at?