PDA

View Full Version : Provo MSA Development Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

RFPCME
Jun 15, 2008, 1:27 AM
(keeping fingers crossed for a Boise Tower type situation) ;)

Wasatch_One: HOW TO ANNOY A CONSERVATIVE:...Work hard, be happy, use your brain, and build in Pleasant Grove.

wrendog
Jun 15, 2008, 2:50 AM
^^^^^ I believe that is how to annoy a liberal.

SLC Projects
Jun 15, 2008, 4:47 AM
Lol

Wasatch_One
Jun 15, 2008, 8:44 AM
...I think we may have an annoyed liberal as we speak ;)

...say no to Osama Obama! :)

RFPCME
Jun 15, 2008, 1:56 PM
...I think we may have an annoyed liberal as we speak ;)

...say no to Osama Obama! :)

Wasatch_One: Yup! Happy Fathers Day!:D

poodledoodledude
Jun 15, 2008, 5:38 PM
hey...i'm a liberal! :cheers:

well, a UTAH liberal-- registered democrat, but anywhere else in the country i'm sure a utah county democrat is like a national republican...:haha:

go figure..

poodledoodledude

delts145
Jun 16, 2008, 10:39 AM
Connector plan called vital link - It would help ease traffic woes during Utah County I-15 project

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700235013,00.html

The Vineyard Connector, one of four roads in the Access Utah County project, would provide access in the north part of the county without drivers having to jump on I-15.

"It will be a vital link during the I-15 reconstruction in Utah County," said Joe Walker, public involvement coordinator for the Access Utah County project.

..."There have been times when UDOT has been criticized for not anticipating growth," he said. "This is an opportunity to anticipate growth and put the infrastructure in place before the growth hits full bore."

... MAG projected the road would need to be in place to facilitate movement when the area explodes with growth, he said.

...Walker also said that the road would connect into the Vineyard station for the commuter-rail service that will be coming to Utah County.

.

delts145
Jun 27, 2008, 1:41 PM
:tup: While not earth-shattering development news, it is kind of a cool little first-timer trend for Utah and also a good sign of contd. growth in northern Utah Valley. This particular location of American Fork/Lehi is doing phenominal business with all of it's new Mom & Pop shops and new national firsts for the area. I think it's important to note that even the national brands are often franchises owned by local entrepeneur families. Another nice little bit of progress is the new Olive Garden, which is proceeding nicely and should be completed and opened soon. The Olive Garden will also be located in this Meadows Center of American Fork. Also of note is the continued tranformation of Am. Fork's old Main street leading to The Meadows shopping district. Many stately old 19th century mansions which were showing signs of deterioration, continue to be restored and turned into boutique offices, restaruants and shops.

Additionally along the commercial news line of development, two huge commercial centers are currently under construction along what will soon be the highway 92 Parkway in Highland and on the Highland/Lehi border. This Parkway will be state of the art and another first in design for Utah. For those of you not familiar with the 92 corridor, it's the old highway leading from Thanksgiving Point to the entrance of Am. Fork Canyon. The development and transformation occurring along this 92 corridor right now is amazing in it's sheer size and sudden transformation.

American Fork/Lehi - First El Pollo Loco in Utah opens today

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/271495/

.

delts145
Jul 3, 2008, 12:44 PM
:banana::banana: UVU's arrival at last:banana: :banana:

http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/5639886.jpg
Jason Olson, Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700240085,00.html

And now we have a university in our swelling valley with a student body expected to expand from 24,000 to 40,000 by 2030.

.

delts145
Jul 4, 2008, 12:26 PM
Pleasant Grove adopts downtown plan - Action comes after input from new advisory board

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700240485,00.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/5727424.jpg
Evan Harris cuts Ron Firth's hair in his barbershop Thursday. The barbershop is at the cenbter of Pleasant Grove's downtown area (Stuart Johnson, Deseret News)

PLEASANT GROVE — After months of debate and reworking, Pleasant Grove has adopted a downtown 2020 action plan that it hopes will create an aesthetically pleasing downtown.
The original 2020 plan was drafted by city staff months ago, but people came out in droves to several community meetings earlier in the year to make sure their voices were heard before the plan was implemented...
...A main change the board suggested when it finished reviewing the plan in early June was making sure that the height of buildings is appropriate for mixed-business and residential areas. Another main suggestion is to require corresponding setbacks depending on the height of the buildings.

"We worked really hard to come to some sort of compromise that protects the residents of downtown and yet encourages developers to come in and risk money to make our downtown nicer," Downtown Advisory Board chairwoman Laurel Backman Riddle said.

The board came to a conclusion that the appropriate maximum height of buildings in the area would be 48 feet, with buildings up to 60 feet allowed if approved through a conditional-use permit process. Those numbers differ from the current city ordinance that sets a 55-foot maximum and up to 80 feet. After reviewing the board's recommendation, city staff felt that 55 feet, and up to 68 conditionally, made more sense, allowing for a four- or five-story building.

.

PhxSprawler
Jul 7, 2008, 4:47 PM
:previous: Making Pleasant Grove one of the only cities in the country determining that lower height limits "make more sense" in its downtown core.

UTPlanner
Jul 7, 2008, 4:59 PM
I disagree with you PhxSprawler, there are many cities in this country that would like to have a downtown with shorter height limits. Especially cities that have very historic, vibrant downtowns. Chattanooga, TN is a great example of a dense, exciting downtown that has severe height limitations.(or at least they did when I was working in the area.) I think that allowing taller buildings in that situation would ruin the atmosphere and the community they are trying to create.

Just as making a project dense does not make it good, smart, or sustainable necessarily, neither does a lot of height.

PhxSprawler
Jul 7, 2008, 5:57 PM
Your point is well taken. Some of my favorite spots in the world are limited to 3 to 5 story buildings, however, combining shorter buildings with corresponding setbacks depending on height is known to be in conflict with a dense, sustainable city. It will, however, allow the city to widen the main roads if it chooses to do so in the future. It strikes me as odd to see a suburb announcing shorter height limits in its core in this decade, whether it is the right thing to do or not.

Regardless, Pleasant Grove is not in my top 2000 places to visit, so I likely will never go there unless by chance.

delts145
Jul 7, 2008, 6:20 PM
It is very important to have an understanding of a particular town first. Pleasant Grove has never been, or will it ever be just a bedroom community. Since it's inception in the 1800's, it has remained a distinct and pleasant town with a sizeable wealth of historic charm. Of course, as is typical with metro areas the borders of towns have grown together, such as Lehi, American Fork and Pleasant Grove. However, Pleasant Grove has it's own intimate and rather smallish Main Street, at the core of a very historic, old city. While the Main Street has little to reccomend of italianate commercial buildings,banks etc., the surrounding streets are full of jaw-dropping pioneer mansions that number among the mountain regions most graceful. It is the intention of the local residents to enhance these beautifully restored homes with an adjacement commercial district, that doesn't overwhelm the old-town intimate residential scale. Four and five story, historically acurate buildings are the sensible solution here. I agree with the residents that the taller projects should continue to develop in other areas of Pleasant Grove's State Street or Pleasant Grove's new Hotel and commercial and convention center adj. to I-15. These areas have been set aside already for much larger, taller commercial developments.

SmilingBob
Jul 7, 2008, 7:35 PM
[quote=Future Mayor;3613846]:previous:

Poodle, I understand what you are saying about referring to most of Utah County as Provo, when it's other people from the Wasatch Front or Back referring to Orem as Provo that is lame. Out of towners I can totally understand referring to it in that way or UT county residents to out of towners. quote]

Were you implying that Wasatch One or Back refer to Orem as the same as Provo?


Because if you are, you haven't read Wasatch's Thread just for Provo, not Orem, not Vineyard, just Provo.


IMHO, Wasatch could tell you to the house what is Provo and what is Orem.


BTW, to compare Provo and Orem is like comparing green grass to the cow fertilizer put on the lawn to make it green. Orem's crap of a city planning makes Provo looks beautiful and well planned.

Future Mayor
Jul 7, 2008, 8:02 PM
[quote=Future Mayor;3613846]:previous:

Poodle, I understand what you are saying about referring to most of Utah County as Provo, when it's other people from the Wasatch Front or Back referring to Orem as Provo that is lame. Out of towners I can totally understand referring to it in that way or UT county residents to out of towners. quote]

Were you implying that Wasatch One or Back refer to Orem as the same as Provo?


Because if you are, you haven't read Wasatch's Thread just for Provo, not Orem, not Vineyard, just Provo.


IMHO, Wasatch could tell you to the house what is Provo and what is Orem.


BTW, to compare Provo and Orem is like comparing green grass to the cow fertilizer put on the lawn to make it green. Orem's crap of a city planning makes Provo looks beautiful and well planned.



I'm not following what you are asking or saying here Bob.

I was simply saying that people not living along the Wasatch Front or the Wastach Back might refer to cities in Utah County as "Provo" just as they might refer to cities in SL County as "Salt Lake" and that I didn't think that was a very big deal. But that if people living in those same areas refer to it that way, they are being ignorant.

I wasn't refering at all to "Wasatch One" the forumer.

Wasatch_One
Jul 7, 2008, 8:08 PM
dang, but I like when my name stirs controversy! ;) :banana: :whip:

Future Mayor
Jul 7, 2008, 8:13 PM
dang, but I like when my name stirs controversy! ;) :banana: :whip:

Controversy this Wasatch_One! :eviltongue:

hows that, does that work? :haha:

Wasatch_One
Jul 7, 2008, 8:19 PM
Haha, weeeeeell, add in a couple four letter words, and I'm satisfied. ;)

delts145
Jul 7, 2008, 9:20 PM
:previous:

:haha:

SmilingBob
Jul 8, 2008, 3:31 PM
[quote=SmilingBob;3658112]

I'm not following what you are asking or saying here Bob.

I was simply saying that people not living along the Wasatch Front or the Wastach Back might refer to cities in Utah County as "Provo" just as they might refer to cities in SL County as "Salt Lake" and that I didn't think that was a very big deal. But that if people living in those same areas refer to it that way, they are being ignorant.

I wasn't refering at all to "Wasatch One" the forumer.

I think what we are seeing here is that Provo is no longer the dominant city in Utah County that it used to be. When I moved here Provo was dominated by BYU and Orem had Genenva Steel. Over the past 2decades that has shifted to the point that developers don't look at Provo at the only place to build large developments.

I don't know that I like all the sprawl, but I also don't see a push to centralize the large developments. What would the valley look like if the Gehry project and Thanksgiving Point business Park , the Embassy Suites Convention center project in PG and Midtown were being built in one central location in Provo? Say South of Downtown between Center and 500 South?

Any thoughts?

wrendog
Jul 8, 2008, 4:00 PM
If those projects all ended up in Provo, it would legitimize Provo as a real city.

delts145
Jul 8, 2008, 4:56 PM
Provo has a lot of positives going for it, and the day will come that it's central business district will grow at an even faster pace. But first there must be more of a shift of population size and wealth to the south end of the valley. Right now there's a much larger and more ideal demographic at the northern/southern areas of Ut.and SL. County.

delts145
Jul 9, 2008, 12:08 PM
Hastings to expand in Utah

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/272603/18/

http://hastingsshop.com/images_s/storepics/HastingsStore.jpg
hastingsshop.com

An Amarillo, Texas multimedia entertainment superstore chain is looking at eight cities along the Wasatch Front including three in Utah County for its planned expansion.

"People still have a little disposable income here. Utah isn't as hard-hit as some of the other Western states like Arizona and Nevada," he said.

.

SLC Projects
Jul 9, 2008, 4:55 PM
Hastings. Never heard of them. Are these guys like Smiths or Harmons?

arkhitektor
Jul 9, 2008, 5:34 PM
Hastings. Never heard of them. Are these guys like Smiths or Harmons?

They sell books, music, games, movies, etc.

I thought that they had gone out of business years ago. Guess not.

ski_steve
Jul 9, 2008, 8:12 PM
Hastings haha :haha: There was one in Layton about 8 or somethin years ago. Yea I thought they died i guess not haha

delts145
Jul 10, 2008, 12:07 PM
FrontRunner could help UVU expand

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700241951,00.html

.

SmilingBob
Jul 11, 2008, 9:52 AM
Recent Population numbers:

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-49.csv
from 2000 to 2007



Alpine city9,5839,2818,9548,695

8,3688,0397,6657,289
Eagle Mountain city17,83217,39112,3328,7607,6286,4384,9712,980
Highland city14,59114,08912,99812,12411,14110,3819,1018,264
Orem city93,07892,69692,23391,19187,62786,34685,65284,416
Provo city117,592116,217115,135111,718108,828108,076110,057105,690
Lehi city36,88533,51630,98927,63324,72322,87421,23719,715
Saratoga Springs city11,57010,7508,9327,3213,3132,3761,6971,253


Alpine has grown a bit, same with Orem and Provo, but it's funny to remember when Eagle Mountain was announced and now has probably over 18,000 people out there, add in Lehi city's growth of almost doubling and Saratoga going from barely over 1000 people in Y2K to now having 10X.

That's over 42,000 more people in Northern Utah County from a bit east of I-15 in Lehi to Cedar Fort. It makes the demographics look good for possible tenants in the retail developments.

SmilingBob
Jul 11, 2008, 10:01 AM
duplicate post

delts145
Jul 11, 2008, 12:50 PM
When you drive around Eagle Mtn. from the north end and then cross over into Cedar Valley to travel over to the south end of eagle mtn., you realize just how much room there is for that city's expansion. I wouldn't be surprised to see Eagle Mtn. become the largest city in Utah Valley within our lifetime. Cedar Valley is a no-brainer as far as broad flat plain, with endless space, relatively cheap land, and none of the natural barriers that block Provo and Orem from growing too much more. They are now settleing in to commercial development for the local residents, which was much needed. It will be an interesting area to watch. Cedar Valley could easily become an area that will propel Utah County population totals past Salt Lake County in the next few decades.

Future Mayor
Jul 11, 2008, 1:08 PM
:previous:
I just shudder at the thought of Cedar Valley growing that much. :yuck:

delts145
Jul 13, 2008, 1:43 PM
^^^
Well Future Mayor, I don't think there is one expert who wouldn't agree that Utah County growth is going nowhere but waaaay up, especially nothern Ut. County. That growth will have to be accomodated somewhere. There's still some decent room at the southern end of the valley in what is now mostly agricultural. Although, that is some of the more farm-active, richest and most ideal agricultural ground in the State. However, Cedar Valley ground is relatively cheap and more strategically located for future growth, "of course, as highway infrastructures move forward as planned." A little added plus is that the views of the Oquirrh's in Cedar Valley are very beautiful, taking on a very large and majestic look.

Lehi continues to develop it's commercial and office inventory at an amazing rate, giving Cedar Valley close and convenient access to it's day to day needs. Cedar Valley will be another catalyst for putting tremendous pressure on what could very likely become the new, very dense, Lehi/Thanksgiving Point/Traverse Ridge/Gehry Center, "the Wasatch version of L.A.'s Century City." I think certain forumers are finally beginning to understand what Brandt Andersen is sitting on. "Land purchased for a song and not overburdened by cumbersome debt, and the world's formost 'Starchitect' as a willing and giddy fan of the plot's probable future potential.

Spanish Fork:
Spanish Fork's new justice center complex is almost finished.

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/273260/17/

http://2008.heraldextra.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=126793&g2_serialNumber=2
ASHLEY FRANSCELL/Daily Herald

.

urbanboy
Jul 14, 2008, 5:28 AM
When you drive around Eagle Mtn. from the north end and then cross over into Cedar Valley to travel over to the south end of eagle mtn., you realize just how much room there is for that city's expansion. I wouldn't be surprised to see Eagle Mtn. become the largest city in Utah Valley within our lifetime. Cedar Valley is a no-brainer as far as broad flat plain, with endless space, relatively cheap land, and none of the natural barriers that block Provo and Orem from growing too much more. They are now settleing in to commercial development for the local residents, which was much needed. It will be an interesting area to watch. Cedar Valley could easily become an area that will propel Utah County population totals past Salt Lake County in the next few decades.

Hurry, let's set some urban growth boundaries as fast as possible!!!!! Why destroy more habitats? Why continue to sprawl out? It is inefficient! It is irresponsible, and in my opinion, unethical! We don't have the water to support much more of this type of development, especially when everyone want's there .5 acres of lush, water guzzling, grass! Also, this type of development separates people and destroys community.

SmilingBob
Jul 14, 2008, 7:10 AM
Hurry, let's set some urban growth boundaries as fast as possible!!!!! Why destroy more habitats? Why continue to sprawl out? It is inefficient! It is irresponsible, and in my opinion, unethical! We don't have the water to support much more of this type of development, especially when everyone want's there .5 acres of lush, water guzzling, grass! Also, this type of development separates people and destroys community.

So your answer is to build more inner city projects? Massive high rise buildings with thousands of inhabitants?

Also, have you been out to Eagle Mountain? Ever? Most of it is small lots, less than .15 acre lots with a mix of condo's and townhomes. While there are some houses with big lots, that is not the norm for most Eagle Mountain residents.

I don't mind the building that is going on. Utah's population is growing and we have housing needs. I actually think Eagle Mountain has done a reasonable job mixing many housing types in the city.

With that being said, I'm not a big fan of the tremendous growth out there. With limited transportation options for many years, I think a limit should be placed on how fast they can grow, but unfortunately;) we live in a free country where the federal government can't impose it's will on the people whenever they think they are right. Were we to operate like China we could force entire cities, millions of people to move based on what the government thought was best. :notacrook:

The basis of the problem is educating people to accept options beyond a large yard and far from where they work go to school and shop. In a best case we would all live within walking distance of our jobs, school and shopping. Schools and shopping are relatively close, but jobs change. You can't count on your job staying in the same area of a city or town.

The other problem is the lack of public transportation options. Which is a chicken and the egg thing. Without more riders, UTA can't afford to add routes and without better routes, people don't want to make the switch.

Does anyone know if they have UTA out in Saratoga or Eagle Mountain? But once again buses are limited to roadways and the more roads you build, the less likely people are to ride public transportation.

Do you stop building roads, force people to live in condos and town homes, and then ride public transportation?

If so, then you live in the wrong country.

delts145
Jul 14, 2008, 12:35 PM
Very well said SmilingBob, And as you also noted, Eagle Mtn. is actually a sensible mix of lot sizes and common areas. Infact, I would say it's far more sensibly laid out than much of Salt Lake Valley. I don't think that anyone expected Eagle Mtn. to become as popular as it has, while I do understand some of the reasons though. It's very beautiful vistas, and relatively cheap land and close proximity to both Salt Lake and Provo. The much needed highway expansion and commercial development is now taking shape.

I'm not sure of the UTA system for that area at this time. I do hope that BRT becomes very popular along the entire Wasatch. Clean burning, fuel efficient buses with state of the art right-of-way, like what we saw this past week along 3500 south, would be an incredible option for Wasatch Fronters.

delts145
Jul 16, 2008, 11:54 AM
Midtown debt sparks lawsuit

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700243494,00.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/5767145.jpg
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.

.

delts145
Jul 16, 2008, 12:18 PM
The other problem is the lack of public transportation options. Which is a chicken and the egg thing. Without more riders, UTA can't afford to add routes and without better routes, people don't want to make the switch.

Does anyone know if they have UTA out in Saratoga or Eagle Mountain? But once again buses are limited to roadways and the more roads you build, the less likely people are to ride public transportation.

Do you stop building roads, force people to live in condos and town homes, and then ride public transportation?

If so, then you live in the wrong country.


[/INDENT]


Cedar Valley wants buses

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/273528/17/

http://2008.heraldextra.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=127449&g2_serialNumber=2
Traffic on Main Street in Lehi is backed up from center street to the interstate during rush hour on Tuesday, July 15, 2008

.

SmilingBob
Jul 16, 2008, 3:47 PM
Cedar Valley wants buses

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/273528/17/

http://2008.heraldextra.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=127449&g2_serialNumber=2
Traffic on Main Street in Lehi is backed up from center street to the interstate during rush hour on Tuesday, July 15, 2008

.


My neighbor is probably the person mentioned as the "spokesman who didn't return the messages." (He's at scout camp with his son:haha: )-- no really, he is.


I'll have to ask him about why no service to Cedar Valley even if they go for the sales tax increase. Seems like the quasi government/business structure of UTA there should be some way to force them into establishing bus service. Even if it were a run from one or two locations in Cedar Valley to the Orem and SLC.


BTW, getting to SLC isn't nearly as bad as trying to get to I-15 from Saratoga/Eagle Mountain or at least I've been told that by many people out there.


Still don't like any of the transportation options for Cedar Valley, but they are already there and more are likely on the way, so something needs to be done, but I wish it had more mass transit options. All you hear about is more roads.

SmilingBob
Jul 16, 2008, 4:44 PM
Midtown debt sparks lawsuit

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700243494,00.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/5767145.jpg
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.

.


This development is doomed.

First of all it took years from when this was announced to breaking ground and then it's taken years to actually get to the point of having finished condo's. Then when the finished the condo's very few people could get a mortgage. If you can't sell your current inventory of condo's no bank anymore is going to give you more money. I think funding for this has dried up.

Currently the developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have finished units that no one can purchase. Because of the dual nature of this development with retail and offices, it is categorized as a mixed us development which made getting financing difficult even before the mortgage melt down. Even people will large down payments had trouble getting financing and now I would think it almost impossible to get a mortgage on any units.

IMO, where they went wrong was not having a mortgage solution in place for potential buyers.

If the developers can't sell the units that are finished, they can't get more funding to finish the project. Until they find out a way to sell the units, no one is getting any money and the lawsuits and liens will make if all the more difficult. I would image it will be years until this eyesore is finished if at all.

Just what Orem needs is another piece of blight in a city of blights.

Orem's new slogan, "City of Blights"
Unwatered lawns and now this, what is the city turning into?:shrug:

Any idea on how this will affect the Centerville development?

urbanboy
Jul 16, 2008, 8:13 PM
Anything on the Gehry Development yet?

SmilingBob
Jul 16, 2008, 10:42 PM
Midtown debt sparks lawsuit

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700243494,00.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/photos/midres/5767145.jpg
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
Jul 23, 2008, 12:47 PM
HERALD POLL: Bridge would benefit lake

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

http://www.willieholdman.com/images/large/100370106410.jpg

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
Jul 23, 2008, 1:31 PM
HERALD POLL: Bridge would benefit lake

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

http://www.willieholdman.com/images/large/100370106410.jpg

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!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/2695900066_67f66b14ac_o.jpg

i-215
Jul 23, 2008, 2:50 PM
:previous:

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
Jul 23, 2008, 7:11 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 7:31 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 7:36 PM
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. :koko:

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.
http://www.portlandbridges.com/photoimagefiles/fremont-bridge-d300crw08027-s.jpg
http://www.portlandbridges.com/photoimagefiles/st-johns-bridge-d300crw07981-s.jpg
photos courtesy of portland bridges.com, andrew hall

Orlando
Jul 23, 2008, 8:05 PM
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:jester: :jester: 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
Jul 23, 2008, 8:12 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 8:16 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 8:31 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 8:53 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 9:17 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 9:30 PM
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. :koko: 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
Jul 23, 2008, 10:40 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 11:06 PM
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
Jul 23, 2008, 11:40 PM
:previous:
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! :whip: 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
Jul 23, 2008, 11:54 PM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 1:25 AM
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.

Erector
Jul 24, 2008, 1:53 AM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 2:10 AM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 3:21 AM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 4:16 AM
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. :yes:

RFPCME
Jul 24, 2008, 4:26 AM
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.:cheers:

RFPCME
Jul 24, 2008, 5:03 AM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 6:19 AM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 6:35 AM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 1:34 PM
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 :laugh:, instead of 1000 posts.

wrendog
Jul 24, 2008, 3:44 PM
^^^^^ Which new development in AF? Do tell...

Erector
Jul 24, 2008, 3:51 PM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 4:00 PM
^^^^^ 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
Jul 24, 2008, 4:01 PM
I did hear that In n Out has purchased land in AF, but who knows if that is true.

SmilingBob
Jul 24, 2008, 5:45 PM
:previous:
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! :whip: 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
Jul 24, 2008, 6:23 PM
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
Jul 24, 2008, 6:35 PM
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
Jul 25, 2008, 2:42 PM
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
Jul 25, 2008, 5:18 PM
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
Jul 25, 2008, 10:21 PM
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
Jul 26, 2008, 12:10 AM
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.

Future Mayor
Jul 26, 2008, 2:30 PM
While yes the desert prairie is very expansive I think the a huge issue is spending the money to get to those prairies, and with people wanting to have there 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots that type of development pattern really is a problem. We are the 2nd driest state in the nation yet because it snows in northern Utah we don't seem to realize that little fact. Although I'm still not sure how Utah is the 2nd driest behind Neveda, I mean how much more snow and rain do we get as opposed to AZ? Yet someone we are dryer than them.

Anyway, continuing the status quo development patterns will stretch our water capacity to the limits. Its not the fertile farmland or the wetlands that are at issue with Utah development, is is simply WATER!

Not to mention that we also have one of the higher levels of emissions pollution. Creating more roads out to these desert prairies will only increase that amount, unless everyone starts driving those new water Honda's.

i-215
Jul 26, 2008, 2:57 PM
I think you make some good points, especially pollution. If we stay on oil for another century then we may have some serious problems. But there's some reason ... there's just thing nagging thing in my head that says we may be really close to a huge innovation in energy. I think we'll see an energy crisis in the next 10 years and out of it somebody will probably discover a high-ampreage solar panel, and suddenly it opens up possibilities for powering our homes, freeing up cleaner CNG for cars ... and eventually solar cars.

Maybe I'm dreaming. I hope I am, but if what I say does come true, we may find the energy issues related to suburia disappear.

There will still be water, transportation, and land issues however. But I think with some planning people can still enjoy home ownership - even if it means a 1/6 acre instead a 1/3. I do think setbacks are too big on most homes - especially the sides, but I don't like row houses either. Maybe a 4-foot setback instead 8 or 10 like in most places. Front yards could also be much smaller.

Right now we need to get UTA and UDOT to sit down with MAG and start buying up right of way. They need to say "we'll build commuter rail here, the freeway there, the bridge there, and grid of collector streets here - these will have businesses on them, these will not."

Then they can county zone certain areas to be walkable, other areas to be more suburban - and have regional trails that connect to schools and shopping.

Then it can truely be smart planning ... rather than Portland suburban projects which claim to be new urbanism ... but simply end up being row house neighborhoods that are hard to drive in ... and really not that interesting to walk through either.

Smart growth should make it good for the driver ... but also very good for the pedestrian.

I guess that's where I'm going with this.

delts145
Jul 26, 2008, 3:34 PM
True Future Mayor, we are as a whole the second driest State. Utah does have some very interesting and unique topography that makes it ideal to capture large amounts of moisture at high elevations and store it in numerous resevoirs and lakes. Utah, to the surpise of many, does have the fifth most shoreline in the nation. That said, of course we still need to develop additional methods of water conservation and smater usage. We also could do a much better job of water storage than we do now. The West as a whole, (especially California, which takes so much of it's water from Utah) also needs to start taking their talk of ocean desalination seriously.

I have to agree with a lot of what I-215 is saying about new modes of energy development, particularly in regard to our personel autos. The advancement of the auto away from oil, is proceeding at a furious pace.

I was reading a thread the other day about the new popularity of the motor scooter. While I think that a scooter would work well for certain situations, I will still hang on to a large passenger car. Even if I were not able to take advantage of or afford what is currently coming out, or what will be available soon in the way of incredible battery technology for cars, I would want to convert a currently owned sedan or truck over to natural gas. CNG is incredibly plentiful, CHEAP @ .63 to .73 cents per gallon. Also, it is extremely clean. Anyway, there are sooo many clean auto options coming out now, that I think I won't worry too much about auto pollution, as long as people convert over to the new modes in the coming years. To me the advent of the new auto is very exciting, and one of the bright spots in this whole oil crisis.

I want to see new oil development, but not as a way of providing for our auto's or energy needs, but for all the many uses which accompany oil, such as plastics,etc. Hopefully, plastics and other materials will also become less dependant on oil in the future. However, for now numerous products will continue to require petroleum as a key ingredient.

i-215
Jul 26, 2008, 3:40 PM
It's Saturday morning .... so here's some ideas ....

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l183/utradioguide/cedarvalley.jpg

The red-striped areas are car-friendly shopping centers, the bubbles are walkable transit areas. Green is front runner ... blue is LRT/BRT, Red freeway, and black 5-lane collector roads. Inside those developers could choose to build true suburban neighborhoods, or more walkable based around the regional purple trails.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l183/utradioguide/pods.jpg

delts145
Jul 27, 2008, 10:57 AM
Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs focus on roads

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700246281,00.html

EAGLE MOUNTAIN — Not surprisingly, transportation leads the agenda in two rapidly growing communities.
In a recent joint work session, the Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs city councils came together to bounce ideas off each other about the future of the neighboring cities and to establish an alliance as they approach county and state government for support on several items. Almost everything revolved around roads.

Eagle Mountain
http://www.scherf.com/images/emcpic3.jpg

http://www.scherf.com/images/empic-12gc.jpg

http://www.scherf.com/images/emcpic2.jpg

http://www.scherf.com/images/emcpic6.jpg

http://www.scherf.com/images/emcpic7.jpg
scherfimages.com
.

delts145
Jul 27, 2008, 12:16 PM
Vineyard road a necessity - Just build it

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/272549/57/

That's the only reasonable conclusion for current studies of the proposed Vineyard Connector. The Utah Department of Transportation is conducting its usual thorough analysis of routes for the highway, but the key element is this. It's needed now, will be desperately neeeded in two years, and will still be needed for years to come...

.

RFPCME
Jul 27, 2008, 1:08 PM
I think you make some good points, especially pollution. If we stay on oil for another century then we may have some serious problems. But there's some reason ... there's just thing nagging thing in my head that says we may be really close to a huge innovation in energy. I think we'll see an energy crisis in the next 10 years and out of it somebody will probably discover a high-ampreage solar panel, and suddenly it opens up possibilities for powering our homes, freeing up cleaner CNG for cars ... and eventually solar cars.

Maybe I'm dreaming. I hope I am, but if what I say does come true, we may find the energy issues related to suburia disappear.

There will still be water, transportation, and land issues however. But I think with some planning people can still enjoy home ownership - even if it means a 1/6 acre instead a 1/3. I do think setbacks are too big on most homes - especially the sides, but I don't like row houses either. Maybe a 4-foot setback instead 8 or 10 like in most places. Front yards could also be much smaller.

Right now we need to get UTA and UDOT to sit down with MAG and start buying up right of way. They need to say "we'll build commuter rail here, the freeway there, the bridge there, and grid of collector streets here - these will have businesses on them, these will not."

Then they can county zone certain areas to be walkable, other areas to be more suburban - and have regional trails that connect to schools and shopping.

Then it can truely be smart planning ... rather than Portland suburban projects which claim to be new urbanism ... but simply end up being row house neighborhoods that are hard to drive in ... and really not that interesting to walk through either.

Smart growth should make it good for the driver ... but also very good for the pedestrian.

I guess that's where I'm going with this.

I-215: A very thoughtful and thought provoking post. Well said. Yes, there will be some break through in our approach to energy. Don't know what it will be, but it will be. Maybe there will be some giant advance in technology, like plasma fusion. Or maybe, rather more likely, some seemingly small advancement, possibly even in planning or regulation, that will have enormous positive benefits. A great example is the ingenious "cap-and-trade" regulatory system that Murdoc introduced us to, which has been so successful environmentally that it has made the acid rain that was plaguing the North East, not so many years ago, essentially manageable.

We spend so much of our time being fearful, thinking of reasons why something will not work, that we avoid new solutions, many that may seem small at the time (such as reduced setbacks for single-family dwellings) but may yield the benefits we all seek.

I keep thinking of Michael Crichton's 2004 novel, The State of Fear, which basically made the case that global warming was fast becoming the science of politics, fear based, rather than science based. My favorite example from Crichton's book is his suggestion, tongue in cheek, that if we want to reduce CO2 emissions, a direct approach would be to eradicate termites, because termites produce far more CO2 emissions each year than the burning of fossil fuels.

I am currently reading Isaacson's biography of Einstein. Einstein, a rebel by nature, did not make the many breakthroughs he did by reinventing the wheel each time. He simply looked at all the evidence around him and put the details together in new ways, which is exactly what we need now.

Our solutions to energy, urban sprawl, mass transit, smart development and probably all else lay in rational attention to the details, not general dismissal of options because they may run counter to what is popular thinking at the time.

delts145
Aug 1, 2008, 12:33 PM
http://www.archpaper.com/images/anp_logos/anplogo.gif

07.25.2008

There's Something About Gehry
New Serpentine Pavilion's fractured design draws crowds

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/Serpentine.jpg
Iwan Baan/Courtesy Serpentine Gallery

The Serpentine Gallery’s annual foray into temporary architecture has brought Frank Gehry’s first English building to the crowds of Kensington Gardens. The result, a tumbling composition of wood, painted steel, and glass, is the nearest the gallery has got to a pavilion, in the traditional sense, since Zaha Hadid’s take in 2000, which reinvented the marquee tent. After Hadid’s project, the pavilions have become more like buildings, losing the lightness of touch, temporality, and playfulness one might hope to find in London’s famed royal park.

http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/Serpentine2.jpg
IWAN BAAN/COURTESY SERPENTINE GALLERY

The structure is more early-Gehry than his now-signature silvery, voluptuous, shape-shifting architecture, as in the renowned Guggenheim Bilbao. Here the deconstructivist-Gehry, who started chopping into his house in California in 1978, has returned. On approach, it looks like a greenhouse frozen mid-collapse, but once inside, it is a disappointingly formal and over-engineered structure. The sense of danger and energy from the flying glazed panels at perilous angles suspended above one’s head is defied by the reality of a bulky, rather flat canopy.

There are certainly references to fortifications, and elaborate catapult designs, as Gehry claims were his inspiration, with solid Douglas fir square-cut beams stacked to form the seating, and raised viewing platforms flanking the entrance, like watch towers, but the primitive is rather undermined by the incongruous matching of materials. White painted handrails, heavily etched glass panels, and the sober, gray stone floor that rolls through the center like a carpet leading to the gallery’s entrance, all make the experience feel altogether corporate, rather than providing the intended “urban street” effect. The seating area, a wide, stepped bank joining the two entrances, impressively framed by unwieldy columns set high in the air, like skewed torii gates, deviates from the amphitheater space the Serpentine Pavilion attempts to provide the public.

Nonetheless, it has been received with unabashed applause from the British national and architectural press and the general public alike. The Serpentine Gallery’s ambition “to bring architecture to a wider public” is satisfied by the countless tourists, families, picnickers, and wandering Londoners who take a moment to visit Gehry’s grotto. Officially open on July 20, the pavilion will hold weekly events from July to October. The biggest test will be when architects, academics, and philosophers take to the pavilion in October for the season’s tour de force, the annual Serpentine Marathon. The fact that the structure doesn’t perform as a shelter from the celebrated British summer rain makes it a less than convincing response to what could be an exciting addition to the gallery’s legacy of landmarks.

Gwen Webber

.

urbanboy
Aug 1, 2008, 4:16 PM
It's Saturday morning .... so here's some ideas ....

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l183/utradioguide/cedarvalley.jpg

The red-striped areas are car-friendly shopping centers, the bubbles are walkable transit areas. Green is front runner ... blue is LRT/BRT, Red freeway, and black 5-lane collector roads. Inside those developers could choose to build true suburban neighborhoods, or more walkable based around the regional purple trails.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l183/utradioguide/pods.jpg

E for effort. Your roads are too spread out. Also, who is the light rail serving? I hate the bridge across the lake! Personally, I'd rather Cedar Valley not be developed and remain open space.

wrendog
Aug 1, 2008, 4:29 PM
I'm guessing this is 50 years out. The LRT line should be on the Cedar Valley side, not the SS side though.

Future Mayor
Aug 1, 2008, 5:15 PM
I'm guessing this is 50 years out. The LRT line should be on the Cedar Valley side, not the SS side though.

Agreed, there will be a much larger population on the Cedar Valley side than the SS side. LRT would serve a lot more people on that side. I also think that there shouldn't be a freeway on the East side of Lake Mountain (SS), if they decide to extend the Mtn View Corridor it should head west at Lehi and around the west side of Lake Mountain and join back around Mosida, or slightly north. (has anyone every even heard of Mosida, until that map was posted? :shrug: )

I know this could cause some controversy but I also think they should ad a 280 that cuts through the Tooelle valley and join up with the Mtn View corridor at Eagle Mtn. I think as the population surges along the I-15 corridor that would be a critical route for trucks coming from I-80 west to access southern utah or to get to I-70, and vice versa.

#751 I don't think I'm going to make 800 before I get back to Utah.:(

delts145
Aug 3, 2008, 11:19 AM
Roads get first dib, rail coming fast

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/275394/17/

http://2008.heraldextra.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=129322&g2_serialNumber=2
A cyclist wheels her bicycle onto the UTA Front Runner train to Ogden from Salt Lake City on Thursday, July 31, 2008.

Commissioners recently got an advance from the Utah Transit Authority for about $55 million total over the next three years to boost the building of roads that are needed as Interstate 15 alternatives. The freeway will be undergoing massive expansion beginning as early as next year. It will be the most expensive road project in state history.

SLC Projects
Aug 3, 2008, 5:36 PM
I'm looking forward for the expansion of the frontrunner line down to provo.

delts145
Aug 4, 2008, 1:27 AM
I'm just glad I'm at the north end of the Valley and won't have to deal with the construction mess so much. Of course, they are turning the 92 from Alpine/Highland to I-15 into a parkway, but I don't think it will be as bad as the interstate makeover.

That will be phenominal to have FrontRunner all the way down to Provo. There are going to be some great TOD's popping up in Utah Valley before long.

RFPCME
Aug 4, 2008, 2:06 AM
I'm just glad I'm at the north end of the Valley and won't have to deal with the construction mess so much. Of course, they are turning the 92 from Alpine/Highland to I-15 into a parkway, but I don't think it will be as bad as the interstate makeover.

That will be phenominal to have FrontRunner all the way down to Provo. There are going to be some great TOD's popping up in Utah Valley before long.

Delts: I never thought about the TOD phenomenon occurring in UT County! What a great notion, possibly as good as the Gehry project in Lehi.

Speaking of the Gehry project in Lehi, I read the review of his display in Kensington Gardens. Typical English snobbery, although I will admit I did like the comparison of the Gehry display to a greenhouse suddenly collapsing. Pretty good description.:banana: :banana: :banana:

Neuroguy
Aug 4, 2008, 3:38 AM
Delts: I never thought about the TOD phenomenon occurring in UT County! What a great notion, possibly as good as the Gehry project in Lehi.

Speaking of the Gehry project in Lehi, I read the review of his display in Kensington Gardens. Typical English snobbery, although I will admit I did like the comparison of the Gehry display to a greenhouse suddenly collapsing. Pretty good description.:banana: :banana: :banana:


I've been able to decipher many of the acronyms used here but I haven't cracked TOD. Someone out there willing to condescend to my level and fill me in as to what TOD stands for? Thanks.

In regards to the Gehry project, I have to admit I'm a bit worried about it for many reasons, design being among them. Interestingly enough, I find the Kensington Garden pavilion to be one of my favorite projects Gehry has done. I've have analyzed this introspectively and concluded that this is because it is a pavilion vs. an enclosed structure and therefore the asymmetrical angles, shapes and materials work for me. I guess I have a more traditional view for buildings and less so for other structures.

As for transportation, Frontrunner out of Utah Valley is a must. I ride the express busses from down here regularly, and they are getting packed. Trying to get a seat on the 6:30 am 801 express will require driving to an early stop, as it is standing room only from University Mall onward.

Stenar
Aug 4, 2008, 4:45 AM
I've been able to decipher many of the acronyms used here but I haven't cracked TOD. Someone out there willing to condescend to my level and fill me in as to what TOD stands for? Thanks.


TOD = Transit-Oriented Development

A mixed use development that is within walking distance of a mass transit station.

Neuroguy
Aug 4, 2008, 6:03 AM
:previous: Ah, thanks. That makes more sense now.

Future Mayor
Aug 4, 2008, 1:42 PM
Sometimes we forget that not everybody speaks or developer/architect/planner geek language. Feel free to ask us definitions of a acronyms anytime.

UTAZLoVer
Aug 4, 2008, 8:15 PM
Common development lingo: (Feel free to add to the list guys)

TOD - Transit Oriented Development
NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard (used as "NIMBIES" to describe annoying people who would rather die than see development in their area)
DINK (Dual Income No Kids)
RFP - Request For Proposal
PUD - Planned Unit Development
PAD - Planned Area Development
CBD - Central Business District
GIS - Geographic Information System
LOI - Letter of Intent (to purchase a piece of land etc.)
MSA - Metropolitan Statistics Area
CO or CofO - Certificate of Occupancy
CDBG - Community Development Block Grant
HUD - US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
BP - Building Permit
DU - Dwelling Units
GDP - General Development Plan
GFA - Gross Floor Area


blah blah list could go on forever but those are some pretty common one! hope it helps...there'll be a quiz later. hehehehehe.:whip: