Provo MSA Development Thread

[Erector]

Love your zeal Orlando, and Urban boy for that matter. I too would love to see physical limits placed on developable lands in Utah County, problem is, ain't gonna happen.

I was asked to provide research to a task force assigned by Utah County in 1996. At that meeting in the former UVCC, County commisioners, mayors, UTA, school district supers were all in attendance. Try having 29 incorporated towns and cities, most in any county within the state, come to a general concensus regarding county wide transit, water usage, open space, industrial zoning, etc. Thing is, without a comprehensive countywide growth plan, Utah County is doomed to be the Orange County of Utah. No general CBD for business and finance, big box at every freeway exit, med sized highrise and hotels dotting every city, and years of freeway, highway and mass transit creation because nobody wants them running through their back yard. Until then each city has their own development plan and infrastructure needs. And it will stay that way till either the county comes together to provide a unified model, or the water runs out. Has nothing to do with uneducated planners, and everything to do with money. Because of this, don't worry, there will not be any bridge or major highway going west for a hell of a long time.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Orlando

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.

Apparently you don't know fully what planning schools teach. Some teach statistics many don't, and there are many schools out there that teach some of each. My particular course of study focused on creating senses of place and re-inventing economies to create critical mass of employment sectors. Our main focus as was stated was to create livable communities and how to make connections, in all forms, but particularly walking communities places were people feel like they belong. Some focus on GIS mapping some don't. Depending on administrations planning departments often have a large part in shaping the look and design of the city, including transportation options, street scape requirements, and set back requirements. If planning was strictly about researching data and compiling statistics I would have in no way choose that educational pursuit.

[i-215]

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 think you've hit the nail on the head. I think it's simply an issue of what we all like.

Urbanites like the city life, high-rises, and walking down vibrant sidewalks. They see the city with rose-colored glasses while minimizing the problems of the city. In turn they hate new outward growth because it reduces the demand on the city to construct new high-rises.

Suburbanites (like me) love sailing across a fly-over ramp at 75 MPH watching the city cruise past me. They like yards and the greater control over their real estate. We too look at our suburbs through rose-colored glasses minimizing the costs of the suburbs. In turn, I love new outward growth because it generates demand for new highways which lets me see even more city.

Since we're on a SkyscraperPage, I'd say most people here are Urbanites and I'd actually argue there's a strong bias here against suburbia (which makes sense on a skyscraper web site).

I'd say there's truth on both sides of the aisle. It's true we westerners don't always add up all the costs of suburbia - and we probably should. But I also don't believe they will be the "downfall of America" like some over on the Skybar predict.

[Future Mayor]

Well this should be interesting, can't wait to hear the replies you get from that comment i-215. Tomorrow should be some fun reading.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by Erector

Love your zeal Orlando, and Urban boy for that matter. I too would love to see physical limits placed on developable lands in Utah County, problem is, ain't gonna happen.

I was asked to provide research to a task force assigned by Utah County in 1996. At that meeting in the former UVCC, County commisioners, mayors, UTA, school district supers were all in attendance. Try having 29 incorporated towns and cities, most in any county within the state, come to a general concensus regarding county wide transit, water usage, open space, industrial zoning, etc. Thing is, without a comprehensive countywide growth plan, Utah County is doomed to be the Orange County of Utah. No general CBD for business and finance, big box at every freeway exit, med sized highrise and hotels dotting every city, and years of freeway, highway and mass transit creation because nobody wants them running through their back yard. Until then each city has their own development plan and infrastructure needs. And it will stay that way till either the county comes together to provide a unified model, or the water runs out. Has nothing to do with uneducated planners, and everything to do with money. Because of this, don't worry, there will not be any bridge or major highway going west for a hell of a long time.

Erector: You summarized precisely what I have felt for a very long time. Nice job.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by Orlando

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!

Orlando: Love the message. Not real happy with the messenger at the moment. Don't beat up on planners. They're actually some of your best potential allies. Compared with sprawl developers, they're saints!

I, too, hate, in your well-chosen words, "sprawl development." Everyone has a right to a double-car garage and a yard, if they can pay for it. There is no reason why taxpayers should fit the bill for leap frog developments.

In the same vein, we all seem to revere agriculture. In Utah, and much of the rest of the West, it's a sham. Water is artificially cheap and incredibly wasted in agriculture. Power to farmers is subsidized. Taxes are too low. And then there are crop and milk subsidies. It's a joke. If people truly want to farm, they need to go to Iowa or Arkansas or somewhere else where Mother Nature intended there should be farms. Agriculture was essential during the early development of the West. Not now. We cannot afford it any longer. So there it is. For the few readers of this forum you haven't already pissed off, I think I just did.

[TimeSaltlake]

As much as I would like to argue against your point I-215, I have to say that I too like the driving. Considering that the culture that has developed has been based on the automobile, it is really difficult to not want to drive. In-fact, if we were true to the stand of "take up less space," and "better for the enivornment," our entire population would be gathered in a massive city in the middle of siberia somewhere. All human Population especially in the Americas (Modern Civilization) could be considered some form of sprawl. If there is not need for West Jordan since we can move everyone to the city center, there should too, be no need for Salt Lake, Denver, Boise, and other Mid Continental cities since we could all be gathered into larger metros like LA and New York, adding to their population. Continuing the Argument until we are all be part of a large city, maybe Mexico City (D.F.) since that is the largest city on this side of the planet. Thus adding density to the ultimate "Center"

Then what is the real problem we are trying to address? One could not ask us to abandon Salt Lake because it would be better to move to LA, and yet we expect people to be understanding when we argue againts their place of residence. So tell me on what ground does limiting growth stand, when this city it self would be victim to the argument if the contex were on a larger scale.

p.s.
I dont like suburbs, even if my statement makes no evidence of that fact.

[TimeSaltlake]

Since 5% (the United States)of the population uses 50% of the resources, how dare we ask others not to follow us. the United states has placed it self as the Leader of the World. We hold our morals as the president of what others should be, yet we like to believe that others should take a diffrent path to was has been successful for us. The United States has been called to lead the world, and even if people don't like it is what we demand. "the world calls you(united states) to lead. If you don't want to lead, get out of the way so others can." A quote that was stated after the united states was one of the countries that stood in the way of a new world agreement on environmental standards and expectations. I do not have all the info or spec but if anyone would like to know more, let me know. I thought it a real powerful statement. Oh, later the United States agreed with the new treaty or what ever it was.

[Future Mayor]

Wouldn't it be nice if there were developments to talk about on here, so we could argue the particular merits of each development, rather than opinions on what planners do and the pros, cons and definitions of fraud?

So has anyone heard about a new development proposed in American Fork?

Ok this was #713, maybe I should shot for 800 posts prior to my triumphant return to the 801 , instead of 1000 posts.

[wrendog]

^^^^^ Which new development in AF? Do tell...

[Erector]

Originally Posted by i-215

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think it's simply an issue of what we all like.

Urbanites like the city life, high-rises, and walking down vibrant sidewalks. They see the city with rose-colored glasses while minimizing the problems of the city. In turn they hate new outward growth because it reduces the demand on the city to construct new high-rises.

Suburbanites (like me) love sailing across a fly-over ramp at 75 MPH watching the city cruise past me. They like yards and the greater control over their real estate. We too look at our suburbs through rose-colored glasses minimizing the costs of the suburbs. In turn, I love new outward growth because it generates demand for new highways which lets me see even more city.

Since we're on a SkyscraperPage, I'd say most people here are Urbanites and I'd actually argue there's a strong bias here against suburbia (which makes sense on a skyscraper web site).

I'd say there's truth on both sides of the aisle. It's true we westerners don't always add up all the costs of suburbia - and we probably should. But I also don't believe they will be the "downfall of America" like some over on the Skybar predict.

Unfortunately there are an absurd amount of Utah Valley folk that agree with you.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by wrendog

^^^^^ Which new development in AF? Do tell...

I actually haven't heard about anything I was just trying to change the subject and thought maybe there really was something out there in AF. I know not cool.

[wrendog]

I did hear that In n Out has purchased land in AF, but who knows if that is true.

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by 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!

They choose to live out there because it was cheaper, but now with gas prices, it makes less sense. My point is that we need cheaper housing in our current cities. Better developments that can provide a yard, even a small yard, but at a price people are able to afford.

Moronic means that you are trying to get people to accept your reasons why they shouldn't move out to Cedar Valley--long commute, sprawl, limited transportation options-- when the main reason is they want a house with a yard at a certain price.

Give them a reason to live East of Utah Lake and they probably will, but if someone can only afford $200,000 for a house and the only option is west, then that is what they will do.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by i-215

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think it's simply an issue of what we all like.

Urbanites like the city life, high-rises, and walking down vibrant sidewalks. They see the city with rose-colored glasses while minimizing the problems of the city. In turn they hate new outward growth because it reduces the demand on the city to construct new high-rises.

Suburbanites (like me) love sailing across a fly-over ramp at 75 MPH watching the city cruise past me. They like yards and the greater control over their real estate. We too look at our suburbs through rose-colored glasses minimizing the costs of the suburbs. In turn, I love new outward growth because it generates demand for new highways which lets me see even more city.

Since we're on a SkyscraperPage, I'd say most people here are Urbanites and I'd actually argue there's a strong bias here against suburbia (which makes sense on a skyscraper web site).

I'd say there's truth on both sides of the aisle. It's true we westerners don't always add up all the costs of suburbia - and we probably should. But I also don't believe they will be the "downfall of America" like some over on the Skybar predict.

These aren't the only reasons why, i-215. Urban development is more efficient than Sub-urban development. Furthermore, Urban development is more respectful to the environment.

[Future Mayor]

The key is truly smart development. Unoccupied land is going to be developed, either now as it has been (not the prefered solution) or in the future as populations continue to expand. The key is smart development, there is an intersting article in the June 2008 Urban Land, that talks about greening the suburbs, both existing and future suburbs. There is a crucial need to provide mixed uses in what we traditionally see as the suburbs. The June 2008 issues is stricly focues on Green.

Development need to be centered around existing infastructure and around the most logical expansion of infastructure. Such as a development in Santaquin or Nephi makes more sense than on the west side of Lake Mountain, simply because the I-15 corridor contains a major part of the road infastructure through the Wasatch and secondly and more importantly in many ways, is Santaquin or Nephi are an obvious choice for extending mass transit ie Front Runner.

There is also another interseting article in the same issue "Grey or Green" The international community is still divided on wheterh building tall is an appropriate approach to sustainability for exsiting and future urban centers. I you fellow planning and development geeks don't subscribe to Urban Land it is a must read publication.

Gotta get back to work otherwise I would comment further.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Urban development is more efficient than Sub-urban development.

But it never is. It's simply a proximity problem. For example, if I want to buy a home near Liberty Park (which I think is a fantastic neighborhood, and I'd love to live there), I can't afford it. Homes are way out of my price range.

But if I go out to West Valley, I'm more likely to be able to afford it. It's simply math. Dense construction always means paying more to get much less.

The only solution is to bulldoze entire swaths of old neighborhoods, replacing them with row houses. But then Sugarhouse and other towns will lose their charm. Plus I'd have to pay for the redevelopment, adding more to the cost of the town house. High-rises won't work because they always cost more than wood-frame construction.

Even with transportation costs and adding new utilities, new/existing growth in neighboring cities still comes out cheaper than living in the city proper. I don't see that changing ... even if it means Americans start driving more Vespas instead of SUVs.

Remember we aren't European in history. They've lived in dense towns for centuries. They're used to it because it goes way back in their history. But in the US (particularly in the west) there's lots of open land - and our ancestors lived in small towns and farms with lots of elbow room. We in turn look at our history and want space. Heck, that's why my grandparents moved out to California in the first place. They hated the crowds back east.

[TimeSaltlake]

People are look to get the most bang for their buck. I was looking at the cost of the Broadway lofts. THe base price for a one bedroom was +$140K. So I have to think about wether I want a one bed room loft or keep my home that runs for the same price. My house won out. I makes no economical sense.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by i-215

But it never is. It's simply a proximity problem. For example, if I want to buy a home near Liberty Park (which I think is a fantastic neighborhood, and I'd love to live there), I can't afford it. Homes are way out of my price range.

But if I go out to West Valley, I'm more likely to be able to afford it. It's simply math. Dense construction always means paying more to get much less.

The only solution is to bulldoze entire swaths of old neighborhoods, replacing them with row houses. But then Sugarhouse and other towns will lose their charm. Plus I'd have to pay for the redevelopment, adding more to the cost of the town house. High-rises won't work because they always cost more than wood-frame construction.

Even with transportation costs and adding new utilities, new/existing growth in neighboring cities still comes out cheaper than living in the city proper. I don't see that changing ... even if it means Americans start driving more Vespas instead of SUVs.

Remember we aren't European in history. They've lived in dense towns for centuries. They're used to it because it goes way back in their history. But in the US (particularly in the west) there's lots of open land - and our ancestors lived in small towns and farms with lots of elbow room. We in turn look at our history and want space. Heck, that's why my grandparents moved out to California in the first place. They hated the crowds back east.

What are you responding to? I said Urban Development is more efficient than Sub-urban Development. When I say efficient, I'm referring to efficient use of space, and efficient use of energy.

[i-215]

I guess it depends on your definition of efficiency. To me it's a matter of what folks are able to afford for the amount of income, and high-density is always going to cost more.

From a transportation standpoint - you are right, high-density is much more energy and land efficient.

But all it takes is a sudden innovation in energy (like a high-amp solar panel) and we may find that's no longer an issue.

Land is an issue in some places, but really not so much here. While we need to be careful with our mountain valleys, but the whole basin-and-range area is pretty much fair game as far as I can see. Folks could learn to be better neighbors with prairie dogs and a few desert critters (rather than just poisoning them). But I don't see space as the real problem - at least not in Utah.

Now in Oregon it is. They have some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Hawaii it is. Florida has wetlands. The Northeast is already built-out.

But in Utah? It's not like we're going to run out of desert prairie anytime soon.