Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145
You'll note that I had changed my post and I hadn't even read your response yet. Of course, I'm not surprised that you're telling me to F off. I mean that's pretty much the temperament of your last few posts.
Look, you seem to have difficulty when it comes to not casting overly broad strokes. Among other things you continually insist that ALL developments and ALL people in the Salt Lake area are inherently stupid. That's simply ridiculous. You've been on this forum long enough and should know the difference between sharing a criticism and trolling.
|
Your original post essentially told me to F off, which I assume is why you went back and edited it. I never suggested that all people in SLC are stupid, I suggested there Is bad leadership on the planning level, and short-sightedness/greed from developers (this from developers is to be expected, which is why there needs to be good leadership on the city/state level). I didn't say that all developments were bad either, just 95% of them. There are several large developments happening in SLC right now that are great. Block 67, Paperbox, even the CCH is better than I expected. Residential infill is where SLC is really struggling, and the vast bulk of approved proposals going up throughout the city are pretty terrible. It's not necessarily retail at the base that is lacking (although it is), it's the massively wide, wall-like proposals with no active ground floor uses (that does not always mean retail!). So many of the developments on 400S just have massive parking garages with a little lobby at street level. Many of them have brick walls with tiny windows and flower beds at street level. Also horrible. It's not unreasonable to enact zoning & review requirements that chop up the horizontal size of these developments. Zoning & review that requires quality materials, with a majority of glass and door access facing the street (with the potential to add retail later). As people have mentioned, even town-home style walk-outs at street level create engagement. Small grocers, gyms, laundromats, ice cream parlors can all thrive in the world of Amazon. These things have to be planned for at the beginning though. Creating the density without the walkability and thinking you can create a walkable, interactive neighborhood later is not working. The time to plan for that is at the beginning. The reason SLC struggles with retail spaces isn't just because Amazon exists. Other mid-sized cities are still thriving with neighborhood retail in spite of Amazon. You just need to make it a neighborhood that people want to be in, and walk around. SLC still needs more people downtown yes, but it also needs to create new neighborhoods in such a way that people will want to explore on foot, and not just go to destination points that require driving to shop. The Denver Union Station area was extremely sketchy before they started redeveloping, yet they didn't fill it up with unwalkable fortress style development so people could jump in their cars and "feel safe". They created a walkable, engaging neighborhood that put a lot of eyes on the street and feet on the ground. That makes an area far safer than massive fortress-like development. It's entirely possible for SLC and developers to do. There just has to be the will and the vision to see it through.
Prev
Linear Mode
