Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

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.

You're talking about how SL Valley is now... whereas I'm talking about if things were better organized, more people could use mass transit.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by Stenar

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.

Okay, I said "influenced," but what is your hunch based on? Now you've said 2-3%, and as far as I'm aware, you still have no data other than the 2 people you know. It seems like you're being overly specific for something you just think.

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.

Building a transit system efficient enough to shuttle several hundreds of thousands of people from around the valley to downtown SL every day would be extremely expensive. It kind of seems pointless considering the fact that our roads are doing fine getting people every which way. I would agree with you if we were having this discussion 50+ years ago, but now that the SL valley is largely developed from end-to-end, it's a little late to be planning where people should live, where they should work, and how they should get around. A large downtown with an efficient and thorough transportation system, most of the businesses, and a large permanent population, is no doubt preferable in several ways to what we have now, but all we can really do now is plan for future generations by making downtown a more attractive option for future potential residents. It doesn't make sense to jump through hoops and hurdles to make everyone in a 20-mile radius work downtown.

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.

They don't seem to have had any overwhelming qualms with these developments, and they now have several major businesses with high-end jobs located in their city. They also have hotels, several restaurants, and other retail. The roads aren't overly congested and few improvements had to be made on the city's part. Furthermore, the development is very close to I215, which is hardly ever congested.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Stenar

You're talking about how SL Valley is now... whereas I'm talking about if things were better organized, more people could use mass transit.

We can't go back and redo the past. The best we can do now ( 2010 ) is to learn from our mistakes and make a better future for Salt Lake City. I think we are moving the right direction with "Trax", "Frontrunner", "Maxx" and maybe street cars in the near future. We are starting to see more and more options when it comes with mass transit.

[TimeSaltlake]

I know we all talk about building downtown...and downtown and downtown...any granted they will also build building out of the CBD...but I like how things are now. I never want to see the day salt lake is like Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Shangi...etc....

[Orlando]

I'll join in on this debate Stenar, but it can be exhausting, time demanding, and frustrating to get these guys to understand.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by TimeSaltlake

I know we all talk about building downtown...and downtown and downtown...any granted they will also build building out of the CBD...but I like how things are now. I never want to see the day salt lake is like Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Shangi...etc....

That is such a bad comparison. We are no where near anything close to those big time cities. How about comparing SLC to Portland, Vancouver, Calgary, Des Moines. All of those cities have a metro slightly larger or smaller than SLC, but have larger and better downtowns. Calgary's downtown is easily twice to three times larger than SLC's.

[UV4EVER]

Wow, quite the debate we have going here. I'm just glad it's stayed civil as these things tend to get out of hand sometimes. I don't have any problem with the 12-story building in Cottonwood Heights. I will admit that it does compete with downtown for office space (albeit, not directly though) but overall I think it is a good idea. I don't see this development as sprawl and I also agree with many of John Martin's other points. And I think you are way off base, Stenar, to say that people don't deserve to work close to home if they choose to live in Cottonwood Heights. Last I checked we were still in a free county run somewhat by a free market.

[Orlando]

Stenar is not saying that. Most people who will work there will live elsewhere that requires a commute, like from Bountiful, or Lehi, or West Jordan. The office location is tpyically closer to where a CEO might live, not where everyone else lives. And most CEO's like to have large property, and thus the location further and further from the central business district, and thus sprawl is perpetuated.

[UV4EVER]

Originally Posted by Stenar

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.



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.



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.

Orlando, that IS what he is saying.

[DMTower]

Downtown Salt Lake is not that far from anywhere in the Salt Lake valley. With a well designed transit system there is no reason why a large number of the people in the entire valley couldn't quickly commute downtown. Every sub-city in the valley does not need to have its own central business district. It sounds like a lot of the Utah forumers have a very L.A. style development mentality.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Stenar

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.

You're right, Chicago and NYC are pretty bad example of dense cities. I'll look for new examples.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

You're right, Chicago and NYC are pretty bad example of dense cities. I'll look for new examples.

I never said Chicago and NYC aren't dense. I am saying they aren't dense because of their geography, which was your claim that they were dense because of their geography.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by DMTower

Downtown Salt Lake is not that far from anywhere in the Salt Lake valley. With a well designed transit system there is no reason why a large number of the people in the entire valley couldn't quickly commute downtown. Every sub-city in the valley does not need to have its own central business district. It sounds like a lot of the Utah forumers have a very L.A. style development mentality.

And vise versa the Valley isn't that far away from downtown SLC that people living say downtown could hop on a Trax and commute to South Salt Lake, Murray or Sandy to work. As long as they ride Mass Transit that's ok right? You know it works both ways. The Trax line runs South as well as North. Not everybody is going to live downtown just like not everybody is going to work downtown or have their business downtown.
It sounds like a lot of Utah forumers are very one sided when it comes with downtown and how everything has to be downtown or everybody has to live downtown. I'm not a fan of L.A. ether, but lets be a bit more realistic.

[delts145]

PCMR plans nighttime skiing expansion - Construction on new lights begins in August

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_15560674

..

[cololi]

The biggest problem with these office parks in the suburbs is that they are not generally associated with other uses and are almost always auto centric. How hard and safe is it to get to Cottonwood Heights on transit? Or by bicycle? While Fort Union is a bit better in terms of transit access, it is a nightmare to get around by foot or by bike. I don't have a problem with jobs being located in the suburbs, I have a problem with the typical isolated site design and building layout and lack of networks for other modes of transit. Because of this, even a later introduction of bike lanes, transit service, etc. are insanely difficult and much more expensive. A perfect example is the 5 foot sidewalks in fort union or around Jordan Commons. Completely insuffucient to carry the generated demand required. The valley would be a far different place if the transportation mode would shift even by 10% away from cars.

I blame the zoning regulations for this, because most suburban communities do not have the political will to do anything different.

[John Martin]

I think the Old Mill development is actually surprisingly easy to get to via bike or bus, and the development itself seems very bike and pedestrian friendly. All of the buildings have showers and locker rooms, for example, and there is a dedicated, paved bike trail that goes along side the creek, away from the road. The bike trails dodge most of the busy intersections, and connect to bike lanes on Holladay Blvd. (I don't know how far south they go).

Red = Bus
Violet = dedicated bike trail

[cololi]

I consider pedestrian friendly to include sidewalks on both sides of all streets, buildings and primary entrances at the sidewalk versus behind a parking lot, crosswalks at intersections, even if not signalized, etc. The old mill/cottonwood corporate center does very little of that. They may have a bike trail, which is fantastic, but the rest of it is not very good in terms of multi-modal circulation. You just need to look at the little retail/restaurant area to see the lack of good pedestrian friendly design, everything is oriented to the parking lot.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by cololi

The biggest problem with these office parks in the suburbs is that they are not generally associated with other uses and are almost always auto centric.

I blame the zoning regulations for this, because most suburban communities do not have the political will to do anything different.

I can agree with that. But I think SLC also does a bad job as well. Look at all the office development west of 1-15, between the airport and WVC. It's just huge office parks. I realize some are industrial, but many aren't. And there's no mix-use at all. You'd have to drive a decent ways for commuting and lunch, and you couldn't live that nearby either.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=salt+l...22988&t=h&z=13

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by John Martin

So where in this map will that 12-story building go?

[Makid]

The 12 story building would be just north of the parking garage in the open space between the 2 buildings, 1 (4 story to (Old Mill 1)) the east and 1 (6 story (Old Mill 2)) to the west and I-215.

My graphic ability is small so I am unable to directly show where the building will be.

I work in this area directly. The big parking garage was build in anticipation of the approval for the 12 story building. The area used to be just surface parking.