Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Utah_Dave]

I wonder if some fellas on the Boise page will see my post and tell me to stick where the sun don't shine! No offense guys, we just want your water I can’t see why there would be an issue

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I love the idea of the depot being a hotel. The train hall was not meant to be an events center, it was meant to be a place to introduce people to Salt Lake City - to be a place of coming and going, and I think a hotel lobby would be the next best use of it. I would prefer the hotel to be built as planned vs not having the hotel. But I think building two towers - one over the Barns and Nobel store and the other over the restaurant to the south - is the better way to make the hotel happen. Putting the hotel on the far side of the gateway plaza defeats the point - though I would like to see a tower built there eventually, either as another hotel or as a residential place.

The current proposal doesn't use the main depot hall as a lobby. It's to be used as a ballroom/event space. I think an event space is better than something like this monstrosity.

[ajiuO]

I just went to the pioneer park farmers market and am absolutely irate over what the city has done to that park. They have gutted the whol center of the park including all of the tall trees. The elite ass clowns who make these desisions think they are so brilliant, but they’re not. If they seriously think that cutting down all the trees and making a new sidewalk pattern with small non shading trees is going to fix the park, then they are crazy. I’m sure small things could have been done to enhance the park, but cutting down the trees? Tall trees are one of the most desirable features of any good park. The big problem with pioneer park is the fact that the city allows people to camp and use/sell drugs there. It’s whats around the park, not the park itself. I think they should have waited until the homeless shelter closed and some of the real problems had been addressed and then assessed the park it self. With the amount of money they are spending they probably could have just hired a few full time security people.

The farmers market is less enjoyable now. A lot more sun gets through, making it hot, and less shady. I really hope they don’t tear out the trees around the perimeter of the park as well. I don’t know how the city continues to get away with their bad development desisions. As far as I’m concerned they can just rip the park out and build some more 6 story stucco apartment buildings there, because any charm that the park once had is gone.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Piping water into the Great Basin from other watersheds is not a new idea, in fact we already do it. Strawberry Reservoir exists so that water can be pumped through a tunnel from the Colorado River basin into the Great Basin. Most of this water is used for irrigation. In fact, most of the water use in the great basin is agricultural, not (as most people think) lawns. Lawns are not helping, but their not the main problem.

Bear Lake drains into the Bear River, which drains into the Great Salt Lake, so we already get all that water.

Getting water from the Snake River is an interesting thought. I would take it from the American Falls Reservoir and pump it up to Daniels, above Malad. From there water can flow into the Bear River and then into the Great Salt Lake. That distance measures 34 miles, which is an easy distance to build a pipeline.

The thing is, it's not the pipe that is expensive. It is the power required to pump the water, which is incredibly heavy. For a proposed pipeline from the Missouri River into the Colorado basin, the expected energy requirements were somewhere in the order of several medium-sized states worth of electricity consumption. Produced the conventional way, the greenhouse gasses produced by raising up so much water would offset any environmental good done by having the lake be full.

Now, in the not-so-far future when every rooftop has a solar panel and energy prices are essentially free, I can see this happening. But until then the best thing we can do is to conserve water.

Utah has no right to Snake River water. It is not part of the Colorado Basin. Strawberry reservoir is both in Utah and part of the Colorado basin for which Utah has an allotment under the Colorado River Compact (1.8 million acre feet IIRC).

Conservation really won't solve much as it simply allows water managers to develop the water elsewhere. Their job really isn't to make sure that rivers lakes and streams get enough water. Their job is to maintain their reservoirs to make sure that they can deliver that water to those who have right to it. They drain what is left or what they can't hold into our rivers. Conservation protects reservoirs it will not protect our lakes.

The only solution as I see it is to give Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake water rights. Instead of draining what is left over into the lakes we need to develop what is left over after we have committed inlays into them.

There does seem to be a general misunderstanding of our water systems out west. The continued connection that is made between Lake Mead and the drought in the upper Colorado basin is a perfect example. One has nothing to do with the other. The upper basin is required under the compact to deliver a set amount of water to the lower basin states just after Lake Powell. They have never fallen short of their commitment to do so. The lower basin uses that water and stores what is left over (nothing) in lake Mead. While a few wet years may raise the level of Lake Powell it will not fill Lake Mead.

[EPdesign]

Flash back Sat I guess

[EPdesign]

I like the original proposal better

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I just went to the pioneer park farmers market and am absolutely irate over what the city has done to that park. They have gutted the whol center of the park including all of the tall trees. The elite ass clowns who make these desisions think they are so brilliant, but they’re not. If they seriously think that cutting down all the trees and making a new sidewalk pattern with small non shading trees is going to fix the park, then they are crazy. I’m sure small things could have been done to enhance the park, but cutting down the trees? Tall trees are one of the most desirable features of any good park. The big problem with pioneer park is the fact that the city allows people to camp and use/sell drugs there.

Most of the trees in Pioneer Park (and Liberty Park, Washington Square, U of U, Temple Square, and the vast majority of old American parks for that matter) are reaching the end of their lives. Most city parks in America are a result of the “City Beautiful Movement” that swept the country in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, which resulted in the majority of parks, grand civic buildings, public spaces, and other historical city infrastructure we see today. With the exception of a few species, rarely do city trees live longer than 100 years, and often less. Hence, all these trees that were planted in American Parks will be and are already starting to be replaced. Most major cities, universities, and parks have started ongoing tree replacement/phaseout programs. Granted, they typically will plant the new tree nearby and wait 10 or so years before pulling out the old one, but either way those trees weren’t going to last much longer, and were due to be replaced. People tend to think of trees as permanent, but in many ways are just another aspect of infrastructure that you maintain until it’s time to replace. Many people think such large trees in city parks are ancient, especially in old European cities, but even there they are actually rarely over 100.

Unfortunately with trees, they tend to be small and non shading for the first 10-15 years... that’s just how they work.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

Most of the trees in Pioneer Park (and Liberty Park, Washington Square, U of U, Temple Square, and the vast majority of old American parks for that matter) are reaching the end of their lives. Most city parks in America are a result of the “City Beautiful Movement” that swept the country in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, which resulted in the majority of parks, grand civic buildings, public spaces, and other historical city infrastructure we see today. With the exception of a few species, rarely do city trees live longer than 100 years, and often less. Hence, all these trees that were planted in American Parks will be and are already starting to be replaced. Most major cities, universities, and parks have started ongoing tree replacement/phaseout programs. Granted, they typically will plant the new tree nearby and wait 10 or so years before pulling out the old one, but either way those trees weren’t going to last much longer, and were due to be replaced. People tend to think of trees as permanent, but in many ways are just another aspect of infrastructure that you maintain until it’s time to replace. Many people think such large trees in city parks are ancient, especially in old European cities, but even there they are actually rarely over 100.

Unfortunately with trees, they tend to be small and non shading for the first 10-15 years... that’s just how they work.

I've noticed this in Liberty Park. Down the central promenade, there are huge cottonwood? trees that are aging and dying. Just inside that line of trees, they've planted a row of Sycamores on each side so that when they remove the old trees, their replacements will already be mature:

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I've noticed this in Liberty Park. Down the central promenade, there are huge cottonwood? trees that are aging and dying. Just inside that line of trees, they've planted a row of Sycamores on each side so that when they remove the old trees, their replacements will already be mature:

Most of those are cottonwood and they probably won't die. You could cut them down to the ground and they would grow back (pretty fast actually). The problem is that it takes a ton of upkeep to keep a Cottonwood from being hazardous and they use an ass ton of water. If you look at those trees you will see bunches of cuts on them. Cottonwood trees grow to ridiculous heights fast in an effort to get their seed in the wind. In fact they often grow taller/larger than they can sustain delivering water and nutrients to the whole tree. Then they start to shed limbs. Big ones. So limbs have to be removed for safety. The tree tries to grow back with sucker branches but the limbs are not connected to the heart wood having started to grow after the tree was mature. They are very unstable and can grow at a rate of 6 feet per year.

You can see how it can quickly become quite expensive to have this tree in a heavily trafficked city park.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Piping water into the Great Basin from other watersheds is not a new idea, in fact we already do it. Strawberry Reservoir exists so that water can be pumped through a tunnel from the Colorado River basin into the Great Basin. Most of this water is used for irrigation. In fact, most of the water use in the great basin is agricultural, not (as most people think) lawns. Lawns are not helping, but their not the main problem.

Bear Lake drains into the Bear River, which drains into the Great Salt Lake, so we already get all that water.

Getting water from the Snake River is an interesting thought. I would take it from the American Falls Reservoir and pump it up to Daniels, above Malad. From there water can flow into the Bear River and then into the Great Salt Lake. That distance measures 34 miles, which is an easy distance to build a pipeline.

The thing is, it's not the pipe that is expensive. It is the power required to pump the water, which is incredibly heavy. For a proposed pipeline from the Missouri River into the Colorado basin, the expected energy requirements were somewhere in the order of several medium-sized states worth of electricity consumption. Produced the conventional way, the greenhouse gasses produced by raising up so much water would offset any environmental good done by having the lake be full.

Now, in the not-so-far future when every rooftop has a solar panel and energy prices are essentially free, I can see this happening. But until then the best thing we can do is to conserve water.

I foresee a time when the vast network of oil pipelines across the country are no longer needed so they could be repurposed to deliver water from the ocean to states (mostly landlocked) to provide reliable waters supplies in an era of climate change and large populations. If we expected that most, if not all, our water came from these sources we could stop extracting it from lakes and streams and return those areas to their normal water cycles. This would avoid large and expensive water projects and again reduce water anxiety since we would not be beholden to drought cycles.

Texas could replace the endless expanse of refineries with desalination plants that make money off of the new oil, cheap water. That water would be cheap because of advancements in membranes such as graphene, which reduce the energy costs by orders of magnitude. The Great Salt Lake would be great again (I for some reason am imagining red hats right now) as Dave mentions with all its important biological benefits. Agricultural in the Intermountain West would boom and benefit from a dependable supply.

Now if we wanted to get real crazy, I would suggest, rather than having water run from the snake river valley, we send the GSL water TO the snake. This would over time desalinate the lake and open up amazing opportunities for a lake that is now fresh. You could even dike the lake and create a deeper lake that doesn't suffer from such shoreline fluctuations that make building beach front property problematic. #pipedreams

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The current proposal doesn't use the main depot hall as a lobby. It's to be used as a ballroom/event space. I think an event space is better than something like this monstrosity.

Ah. My mistake. I retract my support.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I foresee a time when the vast network of oil pipelines across the country are no longer needed so they could be repurposed to deliver water from the ocean to states (mostly landlocked) to provide reliable waters supplies in an era of climate change and large populations. If we expected that most, if not all, our water came from these sources we could stop extracting it from lakes and streams and return those areas to their normal water cycles. This would avoid large and expensive water projects and again reduce water anxiety since we would not be beholden to drought cycles.

Texas could replace the endless expanse of refineries with desalination plants that make money off of the new oil, cheap water. That water would be cheap because of advancements in membranes such as graphene, which reduce the energy costs by orders of magnitude. The Great Salt Lake would be great again (I for some reason am imagining red hats right now) as Dave mentions with all its important biological benefits. Agricultural in the Intermountain West would boom and benefit from a dependable supply.

I can see this happening. On our current trend of increased size of infrastructure and connectivity it won't be too long before the calls for a 'national water system' (as opposed to separate municipal water systems) to be taken more seriously. The day will come when removing water from the environment instead of the ocean will be considered as taboo as removing oil from the ground. Replacing outdoor farming with indoor farming will also help reduce the demand for new water.

"The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that is going to get us out of it." - attributed to Albert Einstein

[Hatman]

This picture needs to be bumped. It didn't get enough screen time.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by Hatman

This picture needs to be bumped. It didn't get enough screen time.

I like this a lot. It is ambitious. I am happy to see the density that happening on the west side. No more needing to long for the density that was there when the area was more industrial. Also...Five FrontRunmer cars. That’s a whole lot of people.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

This picture needs to be bumped. It didn't get enough screen time.

I agree. I don't always quote images because of the bandwidth but this is a case where the image somewhat needs it for a few reasons.

First is that I am hoping that this is the long anticipated planned movement of UTA's HQ to the Central Station.

Second is the incorporation of Amtrak into the station finally.

Third is probably the most important portion of the image, the completed Central Station with a covered area between Trax and FrontRunner, a mostly covered FrontRunner waiting area, and the pedestrian bridge to get people over the tracks to limit additional interactions with trains.

The image is set for the 5 years out range with the pedestrian bridge in the 3 years out. My understanding is that it is only set that far out due to the new Bus Building timeline and UTA cannot do anything with the current bus maintenance and storage property until the new project is complete.

The funds from the sale/lease of the current bus land will primarily fund the new HQ and station work along with parking fees from the upcoming parking garage in the 3 year out phase (on 2nd south), grants and low interest loans. No funds from any tax increases for transit service will be used for the station/tower work.

Lastly, UTA had an agreement with SLC when the Central Station was being planned to eventually build a commercial tower that would be able to exceed the area zoning heights.

It should be noted that the commercial tower will not be fully occupied by UTA, UTA will only be taking up at most 30% of the tower. The rest will be available for lease.

The goal of the commercial tower at the Central Station is (to use a term from another post) to be the "Weenie" of the district.

[EPdesign]

City Arches. I love this city

[asies1981]

RDA officially adopted the 9 line and state street project areas, hopefully this will help spur more growth in these neighborhoods.

[grasscom]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

City Arches. I love this city

Eh, its alright... not much of a city, just a bunch of low density sprawl in the middle of no where. Kinda like Phoenix

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by grasscom

Eh, its alright... not much of a city, just a bunch of low density sprawl in the middle of no where. Kinda like Phoenix

A city isn’t just the buildings. If that is all it is to you, then we experience the same city differently.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by asies1981

RDA officially adopted the 9 line and state street project areas, hopefully this will help spur more growth in these neighborhoods.

The State Street project area is a lot bigger than I thought it would be. It includes the full block to the north of the CCR/PRI full block parking on 4th South between West Temple and Main also known as "Earl Holding Memorial Parking Lot", on down to 2100 South.

I didn't realize the project area was that large. There will be a lot of overlaps with other project areas but hopefully that will help to provide the funding for projects throughout the area.