Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[DMTower]

Another reason dense development is better than sprawl is forced social interaction... people in this country are becoming social idiots because we no longer interact with each other. Ideas are not being spread among people because we all live so far apart from each other, commute in a secluded car instead of mass transit, and more and more work from home so we don't interact at work either. It also causes us to gain our perspective of the world from the mass media instead of our neighbors and the people we share the world with. Besides breeding ignorance, this mode of living is possibly creating a lot of unhealthy neuroses in people.

[arkhitektor]

Look, I'm not trying to argue that these are all frivolous ideas, just that its not productive to declare everyone who wants to live in a suburb a wingbat who wants to destroy the earth with their lifestyle and try to mandate urban living for everyone instead.

Its inevitable that there is going to be suburban growth. Just look at say, every city on earth.

There are always going to be people who, for various reasons prefer living outside the urban core. It would be a better use of resources to encourage smarter suburban (and urban) growth patterns than to simply rant about how awful these people and their choices are.

I would look at a community like Daybreak. It's certainly in a suburban location, but is built to address many of the problems of suburban life that we've addressed here and will include mass-transit options for people who live there and commute to the city as well as roads and freeways. Daybreak has become so popluar among suburban buyers because they recognize the added value that such a community offers and are willing to pay for it.

I live in a suburb and commute using mass transit and don't feel the least bit guilty about my lifestyle or its impact on society.

[urbanboy]

I don't think developers really are giving the people what they want.

You say look at any other city, well how about Portland? Yes, they have some sprawl, but they've curbed it with urban growth boundaries. It is possible! We have plenty of suburban subdivisions for those who like that lifestyle, actually, more than enough. There are many people who live in the suburbs that would prefer to live in the city. Give them urban options, and those houses will free up for those who prefer the suburbs.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I don't think developers really are giving the people what they want.

You say look at any other city, well how about Portland? Yes, they have some sprawl, but they've curbed it with urban growth boundaries. It is possible! We have plenty of suburban subdivisions for those who like that lifestyle, actually, more than enough. There are many people who live in the suburbs that would prefer to live in the city. Give them urban options, and those houses will free up for those who prefer the suburbs.

This issue has less to do with developers meeting buyer's demands and more to do with urbanites trying to make everyone want what they want.
If people didn't want to live in the suburbs, nobody would buy homes there.
If people really do prefer to live in the city, why don't they buy homes there instead? Developers build where there is demand, they don't create it with what they build.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by DMTower

Another reason dense development is better than sprawl is forced social interaction... people in this country are becoming social idiots because we no longer interact with each other. Ideas are not being spread among people because we all live so far apart from each other, commute in a secluded car instead of mass transit, and more and more work from home so we don't interact at work either. It also causes us to gain our perspective of the world from the mass media instead of our neighbors and the people we share the world with. Besides breeding ignorance, this mode of living is possibly creating a lot of unhealthy neuroses in people.

While I think this may be true on some levels, it isn't on all levels. People with yards go out and work in them, and meet their neighbors. People in high rises tend to walk down the hall and shut their doors. I have plenty of friends in high rises that no none of their neighbors, while people that live with a slight yard in a subdivision know their neighbors. Like I say, on some levels urban living breeds people knowing each other, but it certain doesn't force it in all aspects.

[urbanboy]

I disagree with you about developers building what people want by building subdivisions. I don't think the free market is entirely run by the consumers.


Urban areas are designed to maximize on human interactions. There are plenty of opportunities to make close friends in almost any environment, whether urban or suburban. However, there are even more opportunities to strike up conversations with an array of diverse perfect strangers in urban areas, where perhaps one may learn a thing or two out of the ordinary. One needs not depend on their church for community, and one is perfectly capable of getting around on their own (even children and seniors) since there is a dense enough population to support an extensive and efficient public transportation system. More people buzzing around means more natural surveillance and community crime watch, therefore there is less crime. I think one who has learned prejudices can unlearn them and relearn love for humanity much faster in an urban environment than in a suburban one, because it's actually in interacting with people who are different than you that helps you unlearn your prejudices.

[DMTower]

^^^
^^^ A better word might have been "encourages" them to interact. Living where there are lots of people certainly gives you more opportunities to meet. The suburbs aren't the sole cause of this anti-social trend, but it's part of this whole "culture of convenience" attitude that is enabling people more and more to stay in their comfort bubble and become reclusive.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I disagree with you about developers building what people want by building subdivisions. I don't think the free market is entirely run by the consumers.

Well, developers are going to build where they can make money.
Land in the city is far more expensive and unless buyers are willing to settle for much less or pay much more, the 'burbs are going to be more appealing to many buyers.

So, when it comes to choices, many people may say that they prefer city life, but show otherwise when it comes time to buy.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I don't think developers really are giving the people what they want.

You say look at any other city, well how about Portland? Yes, they have some sprawl, but they've curbed it with urban growth boundaries. It is possible! We have plenty of suburban subdivisions for those who like that lifestyle, actually, more than enough. There are many people who live in the suburbs that would prefer to live in the city. Give them urban options, and those houses will free up for those who prefer the suburbs.

I lived in Portland for two years. I'd never go back.

An urban utopia only trades one set of problems for another. For starters, mobility that's horrible. You can't get anywhere in town faster than 25 MPH, be it on a train, bike, or car. I make better time in L.A. during rush hour.

Portland has a legitimate reason to curb sprawl. The Willamette Valley has the most fertile farmland in the world. There is nothing really worth preserving in Nevada and western Utah.

Rather than hinder growth, I'd rather see a better mix of job-creating zones with residential zones. We can require developers to put pathways in connecting their cul-de-sacs, that tie to local retail areas. We can reduce setback and minimum parking requirements. We can allow apartment complexes to mix with single-family neighborhoods. We can allow small-scale commercial to mix with residential.

There's so many things we can do that can help pedestrian activity that help growth, rather than trying to hinder it.

Freeway planning doesn't replace neighborhood planning.
Neighborhood planning doesn't replace freeway planning.

In my lifetime that valley will fill up. We can help it have good circulation by preserving road, freeway, and rail corridors ... or we can let Ivory Homes decide how best to plan it.

The choice is ours. I say, we plan for I-415 and Frontrunner West.

[urbanboy]

My point exactly! It's about where developers can make the most money; It's not just about making enough money to make the development worth it. There are ways to make profits on infill developments within existing infrastructure. There are ways to make a profit on affordable downtown housing or mixed use developments. But they're not always as lucrative and sometimes more work than the easy subdivision out in the boonies. Many people want to live downtown, however, the options to do so are not as readily available.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by i-215

I lived in Portland for two years. I'd never go back.

An urban utopia only trades one set of problems for another. For starters, mobility that's horrible. You can't get anywhere in town faster than 25 MPH, be it on a train, bike, or car. I make better time in L.A. during rush hour.

Portland has a legitimate reason to curb sprawl. The Willamette Valley has the most fertile farmland in the world. There is nothing really worth preserving in Nevada and western Utah.

Rather than hinder growth, I'd rather see a better mix of job-creating zones with residential zones. We can require developers to put pathways in connecting their cul-de-sacs, that tie to local retail areas. We can reduce setback and minimum parking requirements. We can allow apartment complexes to mix with single-family neighborhoods. We can allow small-scale commercial to mix with residential.

There's so many things we can do that can help pedestrian activity that help growth, rather than trying to hinder it.

Freeway planning doesn't replace neighborhood planning.
Neighborhood planning doesn't replace freeway planning.

In my lifetime that valley will fill up. We can help it have good circulation by preserving road, freeway, and rail corridors ... or we can let Ivory Homes decide how best to plan it.

The choice is ours. I say, we plan for I-415 and Frontrunner West.

You might be moving faster in L.A., but your not getting anywhere faster; L.A. is so spread out. Portland is more dense and amenities are much closer together. Slower speeds are part of what make the downtown pedestrian friendly. Once out of the downtown area, speeds are nationally comparable, and there is a freeway. There has actually been a movement here in Downtown Salt Lake to reduce speeds to 25-30 miles an hour.

Strengthening our centers is a good enough reason to curb sprawl.

We'll continue to naturally grow in population as a community. But to really bring growth, we need to strengthen our centers to help our appeal as a community to live work and play in.

[anyiliang]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Highland Drive is just like this. They have been planning ahead and if you go to Google maps you can see the path that Highland Drive will take. It goes through Sandy and connects in Draper.

[esirhgih]

Maybe we should just let the government tell us all where to live.
Central planning has worked so well elsewhere....



....I bet that the people who live here don't even own cars. Its a dream come true!!!

[urbanboy]

I bet they have great mass transit options!

We need more urban housing options. Urban housing will strengthen our centers, which will really help our mass transit thrive! And vise-versa.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I don't think developers really are giving the people what they want.

You say look at any other city, well how about Portland? Yes, they have some sprawl, but they've curbed it with urban growth boundaries. It is possible! We have plenty of suburban subdivisions for those who like that lifestyle, actually, more than enough. There are many people who live in the suburbs that would prefer to live in the city. Give them urban options, and those houses will free up for those who prefer the suburbs.

I think the Bay Area is also a great example! You've got 8 million people packed away comfortably in clusters - nothing like La La Land! There are traditional suburban areas such as San Ramon, Fremont, San Jose (basically the South Bay), but even these are restricted with open space ordinances that require a city to restrict boundaries, force developers to leave a certain percentage of their land as open space, etc. Then you have denser suburban areas like Walnut Creek, Dublin, Pleasanton (East Bay). Then the inner Bay (SF, pretty much the whole penninsula in the West Bay, Oakland, Berkely, Richmond,) is very densely packed together. All of these areas are interconnected with regional transit, freeways, bridges, tunnels, buses, ferries, etc. All parts of the bay have joined together to plan transit systems in solidarity to a common goal. Each county has it's own system that interconnects to a region-wide transit system. Everyone is situated in a way they desire to live, they are all inter-connected, and they have greatly limited outward sprawl.

One thing that Utah MUST learn from the Bay Area is mass transit incentives - discounts on fares for frequent users, contests, and free-fare days during high pollution days. In the Bay Area, the regional transit council would declare a "Spare the Air Day" when pollution levels were particularly high. When they did this, transit systems throughout the region would offer all services for free. Can you imagine UTA doing this on our bad inversion days?? On spare the air days, I could ride the $8.50 round-trip train ride into down town San Francisco absolutely FREE! Yes, trains become very crowded, but they would add trains to routes and lengthen each train by an additional car or two to help compensate. I must say that it worked very well. There was a noticable change in freeway traffic patterns on these days, and I'm sure the air was much cleaner!

[cololi]

You are up in the night if you think that developers are going to only listen to consumers. There is far more factors that come into play. Financing is a huge one. It is very difficult to get funding for projects that are high risk. Most multifamily residential developments need to demonstrate at least 40% of the units as presold just to get someone to listen. without that, a project is dead (see sugarhouse). In good years, developers have a pro forma that shows a 10-15% profit. Most average around 10-12%. Right now, some averages around the country are as low as 6%. Those figures are killed if there are any delays, unexpected setbacks etc. because interest rates on construction loans are more than that.

The overwhelming majority of people in Utah want a yard for their kids, a two car garage to park in, a large kitchen, 4 bedrooms and an office. That translates to a single family home on about 8,000 square feet. it may not be what urbanists want to hear, but it is the truth.

"forced socialization"? Are you kidding me? I would much rather choose to socialize whne I want and in a manner that I choose. I don't always want to talk to my neighbors, drink coffee on my front porch, or watch my kids play soccer in the front yard. Let me choose how I want to socialize. The government should stay out of that.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by cololi

"forced socialization"? Are you kidding me? I would much rather choose to socialize whne I want and in a manner that I choose. I don't always want to talk to my neighbors, drink coffee on my front porch, or watch my kids play soccer in the front yard. Let me choose how I want to socialize. The government should stay out of that.

If you read the posts regarding the original comment, what was meant was that living around more people encourages social interaction as a natural consequence. There was never any mention of government or any organization "forcing" anybody to socialize... as if it could even be done. I think you would have to be trying to take that comment the wrong way... and you illustrate my point perfectly. People have comfort bubbles, and many will take the easy, comfortable path of avoiding others in order to stay in that bubble. The more neighbors you have, the more likely you are to be near extroverts who will initiate a conversation with you and "force" you into social interaction. Unless you are a complete dick, you will probably get at least a moment or two of conversation in and even if you aren't in the mood to talk it is still good for you.

[Future Mayor]

I find if very interesting. I have lived in two very urban environments. Owning a home in a SLC neighborhood, and living in an 8 story apartment building in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. I found that I knew my neighbors much better and actually interacted with them in the neighborhood setting rather than the apartment/condo setting. The reason this was so is because of the more suburban qualities of the neighborhood, like working in my yard, walking to and from my car, as opposed to living in the more dense downtown area and hardly even communicating with people on the elevator.

While densities attempt to encourage interaction I don't think they necessarily succeed more often than suburbia. I'm not saying that living on a acre lot in the burbs is the solution but often times city neighborhoods and more traditional suburbs sometime create more neighborly interaction between individuals. Yes living in a more dense environment puts you around more people but doesn't guarantee socializing.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by DMTower

If you read the posts regarding the original comment, what was meant was that living around more people encourages social interaction as a natural consequence. There was never any mention of government or any organization "forcing" anybody to socialize... as if it could even be done. I think you would have to be trying to take that comment the wrong way... and you illustrate my point perfectly. People have comfort bubbles, and many will take the easy, comfortable path of avoiding others in order to stay in that bubble. The more neighbors you have, the more likely you are to be near extroverts who will initiate a conversation with you and "force" you into social interaction. Unless you are a complete dick, you will probably get at least a moment or two of conversation in and even if you aren't in the mood to talk it is still good for you.

Your original post says "forced social interaction." You are right, no comment about who was going to do the forcing, but usually, this is something done by the government. Like FM, I have lived in two very urban environments (downtown San Diego and downtown SLC) and now live in a neighborhood of single family homes about 2 miles from downtown. I have had much more neighborly interation in my neighborhood now than in either downtown areas. the lack of interaction is mostly due to being in a car for longer periods of time, from spending free time in front of the tv or on teh internet, and not necessarily from living in a single family home in the suburbs.

[DMTower]

Maybe we are having two different conversations here, but what I am referring to is "new social interactions". Having grown up in a suburban environment myself I see what you are saying about people in the suburbs being very neighborly. When you see the same people all the time you get to know them and as trust is gained you allow them into your comfort zone. With a dense, urban environment you can have that same thing, it's just more a question of whether you own or if you're renting. If you own you are probably going to be there for a while and you will have the chance to get to know your neighbors, whereas if you rent you may not... but more neighbors = increased odds of meeting someone you click with. When I lived in London every aspect of life outside your home was a social experience. The vast majority of people took mass transit, and many times I found myself in conversations with strangers that I did not initiate... and whether you were talking to people or not, you still were observing social interactions everywhere you went. The new social interactions are what I think is important because those are the people that get you outside of the box and thinking in new ways. Your friends in the neighborhood are great for keeping you in touch, but it's the strangers that make you grow as a person. Anyway, tying this back to transit and TOD's... mass transit and density is great!