Provo MSA Development Thread

[urbanboy]

Anything on the Gehry Development yet?

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by delts145

Midtown debt sparks lawsuit

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...243494,00.html


A near-complete south wing of the Midtown Village development is seen from the project's unfinished north wing in November 2007. (Stuart Johnson, Deseret News)

OREM — Nothing is growing or expanding at the half-finished Midtown Village development in Orem, except the debts.
In fact, the $100 million-plus project has racked up enough IOUs that more than a dozen companies recently sued Midtown Joint Venture LC in 4th District Court for millions of dollars in unpaid labor.

.

Who knew the Daily Herald could do actually reporting .

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/273382/

It goes into more detail about what is happening and where the hang ups are. I really goes back to all the people who put money down to get a unit now can't get financing to buy their properties.

It was set up that the south building would be built, then the units sold, then the north building would follow and finally the west building, but with the units in the south building not being able to be financed, many buyers have backed out altogether.

Is that right Wasatch?

[delts145]

HERALD POLL: Bridge would benefit lake

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/273855/57/



In 25 years, Utah Valley will have a million plus residents, and the Cedar Valley area will have as many people as Salt Lake City has today... the expanding megalopolis of Utah Valley-Cedar Valley will create corridors running east and west.

.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by delts145

HERALD POLL: Bridge would benefit lake

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/273855/57/



In 25 years, Utah Valley will have a million plus residents, and the Cedar Valley area will have as many people as Salt Lake City has today... the expanding megalopolis of Utah Valley-Cedar Valley will create corridors running east and west.

.

It truly is a dilema, Utah is going to grow and while a large number of people will want to live in more urban settings in and near downtowns and town centers, that will continue to not be the choice for others, this is the US and we have freedom to make choices. The people have to live somewhere, and as was pointed out on the transportation thread Portland instituted a growth boundary but every few years that growth boundary continues to expand, because just like Utah, Oregon is also growing.

As for the comments in the article regarding places with stagnant or declining populations, it really hits things right on. There is no money to make necessary improvements let along desired improvments.

I'm not a huge fan of accomidating the inevitable growth in the Cedar Valley area, but were do we put people? I'm not saying I'm for a crossing of the lake but if it has to be done, I would prefer a bridge design that makes a statement, that is stunnig to view and iconic. A causeway is just a horrible idea.

If a bridge has be be built in the proposed vineyard location it could go be something like this. I looks to be about 6 miles wide as that location. They could built two very nice bridges about 2.5 miles long each. This would provide for some ramp space on each end, and a nice island in the middle that could possibly have a nice place to stop and view the lake and the mountains. I'm no engineer but obviously the bridge would probably need to have at least one support in the span, but having two bridges and a small island area would be the best, if a road is neccesary across the lake, alternative, in my humble opinion.

If any road in the state is to be a toll road a bridge across the lake would be a no brainer, or you could walk it or ride your bike across it for free. That would be an enjoyable bike ride.

The article does make another good point. While parts of the lake are pretty, and it is trying to clean itself up, It ain't Tahoe!

[i-215]

I agree with your sentiments. Unless we can set growth limits, a bridge is inevitable. And I don't see growth boundaries making it through our state legislature anytime soon.

And ditto on a full causeway. I'm an advocate for the bridge, and even I wouldn't want to see a causeway. I guess I wouldn't mind if it had causeway sections interconnected with bridges ... but they've gotta keep it open so the ecosystem stays connected and boaters can continue to use the full lake.

In some ways I actually think a bridge could aid in the clean-up of the lake because it will be directly in the public's eye as they drive across it and they'll say "Ick! Somebody should do something about that."

[Orlando]

Future Mayor, there is a ton of room to grow and build on the east side of the lake. There is absolutely no reason to build an environmental eyesore of a bridge across the Utah Lake. To conclude that Cedar Valley will inevitably grow to those proportions are because planning and people aloow that to happen. Though, Portlands growth boundary has stretched over time, it has curtailed stupid leapfrog development and planning like this crap devlopment sympathy for Cedar Valley and Eagle Mountain. Those people moved out there because it was super cheap. They should now deal with the consequences. I cannot believe the sympathy that is going on in this forum. Please, all of you, get educated about sprawl. I'm not advocating all of us live downtown. We need smart growth principles that don't allow for people to live anywhere in the heck away from already invested infrastructure and then demand us to sympathize with them and have our tax money go to bail them out. Wake up forumers! This is ignorance at its best. Take a look at some of the great urban cities in the world or in America. The ones least liked are the ones that have huge sprawl problems.

[Orlando]

I get so tired of always advocating against urban sprawl on this forum, when all of you guys, except for maybe a few always sympathize with sprawl. We will never stop it if we always sympathize. Another thing, just because some of you have city planning degrees does not make you educated about urban planning! I have take some city planning courses and know people who have majored in city planning. City planning is nothing but numbers and figures, current zoning laws, measuring current statistics of land-use, etc. There is very little about how to shape the urban environment. It is about how to provide numerically and statistically for the status quo as is. You guys never actually get an education on the great cities of the world and urban design or urban growth principles. There is very little in city planning about being innovative or doing anything different from the current norm. You are not educated to be people that advocates change. I would venture to say that you city planner guys have had very little, if any, education on urban sprawl!

[Future Mayor]

I realize that there is a lot of room to continue for new development on the east side of the lake. As of 2006 there was an estimated population of 465,000, I'm not expert on exactly how much available land is on the east side of the lake but I don't see that it can accomodate more than double the population. Lets see you have stated that the Gehry project is a bad idea, and I assume you think those that like it are uneducated, you complain that growth or being a realist and understanding that growth in cedar valley and on the west side of the lake is going to happen is being uneducated. Look Orlando you can't have it both ways, which is it, Ghery is bad or cedar valley is bad.
The Gehry project brings density to the east side of the valley, yet its a bad idea, cedar valley shouldn't grow because there is plenty of space of residents on the east side, but density at the Gehry project is.......................blah blah.

Is every bridge that crosses some body of water and environmental eyesore? It sure is sounding that way. Maybe a few of these bridges need be torn down and people that use them will just have to find some other way, afterall it's there fault for needing to use the bridge in the first place.


photos courtesy of portland bridges.com, andrew hall

[Orlando]

Future Mayor, those picture of bridges are in an entirely different context!!! C'mon man, you should know better!!! Those are bridges spanning from very populated areas or for a major highway corridor to get across a body of water! Cedar Valley is none of that! This is so ridiculous! Look at that map again! Do you see the idiocy of building a bridge for the people on that side, yet? There is lots of room for growth on the east side of the lake and absolutely no justification for people to continue to build a bridge. Maybe in 40 years from now, when there might be hundreds of thousands of people. Hopefully not. If we could get someone into office, like yourself, that is brave enough to fight against these stupid ignorant planning developments that would be great!

The Gehry project is way out of proportion for the location. Don't tell me that you agree that a 40 story highrise hotel is a good location in farmland Lehi? Ha ha ha Brandt Andersen is a naieve boy! Did you not look at the downfall of the midtown project just posted a few posts before us?! Don't get me wrong. I think that having something from Gehry would be great! The scale for that location is what is ubsurd and ridiculous and stupid and ignorant and stupid again!

[wrendog]

Why is it so black and white? Urban = good, suburban = bad. Why? Because you are an urban junkie. There is a place in this world for good suburbs. It's ok that people would rather live there than in an urban setting. You can have your opinions, but there are more viewpoints than just one.

[SLC Projects]

I have a feeling that the way the market is right now the Gehry project will be downsize and that 40-story hotel will only be like around 20 floors if we are lucky.

Also Lehi isn't as much as a "Farmland" as it used to be. maybe 10 years ago it was. But with all the growth now it's more like a city then farms. The farmlands would be more south pass Provo. Like Payson.

[Future Mayor]

I have said all along that I don't feel that the Gehry project will happen as it is proposed, and yes it is slighly out of proportion. Yes I realize that those bridges connect major highway or population centers. Orlando you state that maybe in 40 years when there might be hundreds of thousands of people out there, while many of us may hope not, it is a real possibility. So why not provide the transportation options sooner than later, possibly in line with the growth rather than in response to the growth. Even if a bridge were to be built does anybody seriously think it would be built anytime in the next 15 or 20 years anyway, I don't?

In 15-20 years with energy prices they way they are there will be a large influx of residents back to more developed areas, so by the time the bridge is built substantially more property on the east side of the lake will have been developed, (crossing our fingers that it will be in sustainable ways). At that time there truly will be a need for more housing options in Utah Valley and with the majority of the east side developed, Cedar Valley here we come (not me of course). So a long range plan with funding sources in place and right of ways from the proposed bridge location extending to I-15, and other necessary right of ways purchased it will be the right time to connect two large population centers.

I'm sitting at 709 posts right now, I wonder if I can get that up to 1,000 before I move back to the 801!

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Why is it so black and white? Urban = good, suburban = bad. Why? Because you are an urban junkie. There is a place in this world for good suburbs. It's ok that people would rather live there than in an urban setting. You can have your opinions, but there are more viewpoints than just one.

I'm not so anti suburbs. I am pro-smart growth. Living in Sandy, Draper, Lehi, Clearfield, etc. is way much better than Herriman or Eagle Mountain, and having tax money bail you out because there was no infrastructure there. Smart growth means that you develop in a planned manner cohesively so that you can plan on having an efficient infrastructure of transportation, shopping, schools, and all the other necessities. Developing together with planning controls in place will curb developments like those taking place in Herriman and Eagle Mountain. Yes, people should have the freedom to choose where they want to live. But, they must deal with the consequences of that. If they chose to live across the lake where there is no existing infrastructure, they should suffer the consequences or pay for it themselves instead of relying on others who chose to live closer to existing infrastructure to pay for roads, bridges, sewer, etc. for them.

Here are some statistics to put things into perspective: the U.S. population is about 5% of the total world population, but the u.s. consumes about 50% of the world's total energy. The reason why gas prices are rising is because developing countries like China, and U.A.E(where Dubai is located) are now using cars more and more. They are becoming more and more like the U.S. in their consumption. If the trend continues as is, when people consume as much as us in the U.S., and the U.S. does not change its energy consumption habits, we will become an environmental disaster, and the future for our children and grandchildren will be really bad. Sprawl perpetuates this trend and must start to plan better and think smarter now!

[UTPlanner]

Orlando, that was quite the rant earlier. I will attempt to not take offense from your post. It's great that you have taken some city planning courses but it appears that you still don't understand who makes the decisions in a municipality. It is the governing body that is representing the residents of that area. Planners ONLY make recommendations to governing bodies. City planners do not make land use decisions.

If you are not happy with the development of a certain area then contact the leaders of those communities. Please also remember that people have certain rights that are attached to private property and if a governing body takes away all development rights on a piece of property, it is known as inverse condemnation and that governing body must pay to purchase that property. Maybe you didn't stay in class long enough to learn about that concept.

If you don't know what you're talking about you really shouldn't say anything. It sure makes you look like an idiot.

I, for one, do not support a bridge across the lake. I do not think that it is inevitable. If people are going to live in Cedar Valley then they should travel north or south around Utah Lake. Living on the fringes comes with some benefits but will also come with inconveniences.

[Northernlad]

Orlando,
I admire your ferver and I too think developing on that side of Utah Lake is a mistake. Who wants to live next to a polluted, shallow, smelly lake? I think that the main focus should be to clean up the lake and make it more of a treasure for Utah, something we can be proud of. Utah Lake has a unique setting, but it currently is not a lake to be proud of.

I agree that this is a bad idea to build a bridge which will lead to endless sprawl. I am amazed at how some, not all, local forumers are so pro -sprawling growth just because it adds to the population base which in turn might lead to a few more towers hear and there. Utah is not known as an environmental hotbed, and the growth our state government is madly pushing for is leading to more pollution all up and down the Wasatch Front. I just don't see the glory in having a couple of million people packed into a narrow valley, it is not smart. Developing Cedar Valley is a mistake, lets leave it rural and not a place full of cheaply built homes.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

Orlando, that was quite the rant earlier. I will attempt to not take offense from your post. It's great that you have taken some city planning courses but it appears that you still don't understand who makes the decisions in a municipality. It is the governing body that is representing the residents of that area. Planners ONLY make recommendations to governing bodies. City planners do not make land use decisions.

If you are not happy with the development of a certain area then contact the leaders of those communities. Please also remember that people have certain rights that are attached to private property and if a governing body takes away all development rights on a piece of property, it is known as inverse condemnation and that governing body must pay to purchase that property. Maybe you didn't stay in class long enough to learn about that concept.

If you don't know what you're talking about you really shouldn't say anything. It sure makes you look like an idiot.

I, for one, do not support a bridge across the lake. I do not think that it is inevitable. If people are going to live in Cedar Valley then they should travel north or south around Utah Lake. Living on the fringes comes with some benefits but will also come with inconveniences.

Oh, I think I'm quite dead-on about what planners do. I'm no idiot. Or did you just get offended because I made a stink about all you planners assuming you know what you are talking about when it comes to sprawl and development? I know planners only provide information to the governing body. That's why I stated that they primarily measure statistics, growth, etc. They provide imformation to the governing body, and are rarely implementors of change or are relied upon for ideas related to change. I stated that previously, or did you not read my post correctly? What I get upset about is that you planners state opinions on this forum related to sprawl and and current urban design/urban growth movement/trends, when you guys actually have very little education regarding the topics, and most of the time it is quite sympathetic to status quo. Like I said, your education is about measuring current statistics etc., and very little about urban character, quality, etc. or studies of other major cities other than maps, statistics, and data maybe from other cities.

[SmilingBob]

Growth is going to come to Utah County and Cedar Valley. Estimates are that the population is going to double in less than 20 years. The growth is coming regardless of whether we want it or not, and yes, people are willing to move to Eagle Mountian or Cedar Valley if necessary.

Why? Because that's where they can find a house in price range they can afford. Few people really want to live that far out, but if you can only afford a $200,000 place, that's where you go to get one. (About all you can get for $200,000 is a condo or small townhome now.) Where do they go for a small house with a yard? We need more options that are affordable so people don't feel the need to go to Eagle Mountain or Cedar Valley.

But to try and stop development out in the suburbs is naive and moronic. Controlling growth and sensible planning in Cedar Valley are necessary. Thousands of people are going to move there in the next 20 years and we do need plans in place for transportation. Why not build a bridge or causeway across Utah Lake? It would be at least 10 years until it could be built and by then it may provide the transportation option that makes sense.

People are going to continue to build out there and the Mountain View Corridor is going to make it happen faster than a bridge across Utah Lake.

[Orlando]

I understand the economic reality. This is the incentive for sprawl-like development. Why don't I go buy some property further west of Eagle Mountain? That land would probably be even cheaper. Great? Now, I can sell lots of homes for stupid people who think they are saving money by buying a cheaper home. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THE REALITY IS: GAS IS EXPENSIVE! Highways and sewer lines are also very expensive, and dispoportionately more expensive to build way out there for those residents! Do they pay for all that? NO! The other 90% of residents who chose to live in closer areas do. Not fair is it? To say that it is inevitable that people are going to move out there by the hundreds of thousands, and that whoever resists this is naieve and moronic, is cowardly sympathetic to status quo trends. It is giving in and accepting a reality that isn't. We don't have to accept that at all! Did people think about the gas prices going up when they bought those homes out there? Did they think about how much it would cost for infrastructure to live out there? Did they realize that they are OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE?! and did they realize that they have to drive an hour to get to anywhere?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Sorry if you think I'm moronic to accept stupidity!

[wrendog]

Orlando, you are coming off as a know it all blow hard. You don't have all the answers. You have good opinions, but you don't know everything.

Didn't we just go through this with urbanboy?

[PhxSprawler]

Orlando, I seem to recall just 20 years ago when Sandy, Draper, Farmington, and even South Jordan were "Out in the middle of nowhere," so to say it is a bad decision in the long term is a rediculous assumption. Also, you missed probably the most important part of an urban planner's job: promoting citizen participation to make decisions based on the taxpayers of a municipality.

Having said that, I agree with your views completely that sprawl such as Eagle Mountain is completely unfair to existing taxpayers and would never defend spending multi-millions in infrastructure, which in turn will only induce more sprawl.

In short, you don't have to insult others opinions and occupations to try and make your own points sound better.