I don't see the same degree of malice that some on here seem to perceive. I feel like Comrad points out the main reason the State acts the way it does: Salt Lake City is really only about 7% of the State's population. Most of the State Legislature does not represent Salt Lake City. Instead, they represent Sandy, Draper, South Jordan, Bountiful, Provo, St. George, Ogden, etc.
They represent what they perceive to be the interests of those communities, not Downtown Salt Lake, which is a fraction of even Salt Lake's population.
They are mostly representing what they think to be suburban interests rather than urban interests and their actions show this friction.
I don't think, for the most part, the Utah Legislature is acting against the interests of Downtown Salt Lake to 'own the libs' or because they hate democrats. Heck, several opponents of development projects in Utah are democrats.
Do I think legislators are wrong to incentivize projects like stadiums in the far-flung suburbs and not downtown? Yes, of course! But I understand they are trying to promote their own communities and what they think would help them.
I think we should be doing is pointing out the fact that a strong, growing, and successful urban core is CRTICAL to the continued strength and success of it's surrounding and dependent suburbs. This is especially true now in the 21st century as opposed to the urban flight of last century, as cities are more and more defined by their urban centers and are in a tough national and global competition of business, brains, and workers.
I actually think the majority of Utah's legislators understand this. Are there a few bad eggs? Sure. But I would contend they are not remotely the majority. However, most represent suburban and rural voters that do not understand planning principals, the importance of the urban core, the importance of increased density, why we have a housing shortage and how to solve it, etc. So many legislators, even if they understand, are answerable to constituents that don't. This dynamic does have an overall impact on decisions by the State. It is also a dynamic that virtually every other US State is grappling with at the moment, not just Utah. Is this a legit excuse for them opposing smart growth? Not at all. But I do understand it.
So I don't think the actions of the legislature is overall malicious, they are just doing what they think they need to do to get reelected and to represent their specific districts.
I support the project at The Point, not because I want there to be less development downtown, but because I think we need better examples of dense, smart growth development in the suburbs. If the project succeeds, it could help change perceptions of what density and lower level urbanism can mean for Utah. It would also put more legislative districts in more urbanized areas and could help change perceptions of the legislature in the future. I feel the same about the planned development of a downtown Daybreak. Just as the success and health of a city's core lifts all boats, the urbanizing and improvement of a core's existing suburban neighborhoods can help lift the core up as well.
That said, I do think things like a major league stadium or any other professional level stadium should be located in Downtown Salt Lake City or close by like The Power District, as projects like that genuinely benefit and feed off of the proximity of a downtown as opposed to being in the suburbs. I don't think Salt Lake
needs these stadiums to succeed, but I do think it could be made even better by them.
Anyway, I'm rambling. This is just how I perceive it at least.
Prev
Linear Mode
