Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always imagined Salt Lake City in the narrow, long, and vertically-oriented valley that it sits in would have quite the amount of foothills and amazing mountain scenery. Lots of inland Western cities are flat, usually in a valley and basin with tall mountains BUT those mountains are generally far away, allowing for a big city. However in the case of SLC, the mountains are VERY close in. With any city that is in a valley there are foothills which extend for probably a mile or two off the mountain, again this depends. Here in Tucson the foothills are roughly two miles wide, and much longer than that.
Assuming Salt Lake City has a similar foothill structure (two miles wide before development has to stop because mountains) it would be rather hilly and make for interesting development because that would I think leave only a couple miles (wide, much more length-wise) or so tops in flat land in the center of the valley. This would mean probably around where the I-15 is you get amazing scenery of suburbia on both sides as it sort of rises above you. This would mean also amazing views from the outskirts on the East or West side. I always imagined this made an interesting topography of the city itself and its suburbs. Though someone can refute what I'm saying as I've never been there myself.
Foothills are always interesting, here in Tucson they are quite elaborate with a lot of ups and downs as they scale up the mountain. Tucson is surrounded by foothills on three sides (North/Catalina Foothills, West/Tucson Foothills, and East/Rincon Foothills) and it has led for interesting development here since because of airplanes and rockets (Airplane Graveyard, Tucson Airport, Davis-Monthan AFB, Raytheon, and Tohono O'odham Reservation) we can't really develop south, and the Foothills can only develop so much (also the rich don't want too much development in their area) means a more centralized city in the basin. A traditional city layout. This is against most Western development which has multiple hub areas, like Phoenix, Los Angeles, etc.
If Salt Lake City does have foothills like I am claiming then city development would not only align vertically (most likely along the I-15 area) but would also create interesting suburbs with amazing views on all sides, creating an interesting city structure and topography. Someone who has been to SLC though can probably refute what I'm saying, as it's just an assumption from my part. Hills are generally an unknown thing out in these parts, unless they are the slow gradation of mountains.
Those are good views of downtown, but they aren't the same, because they are from quite a distance away, instead of basically on a cliffside directly across from downtown.
I work downtown, and I can see the church which is in the rear of the panoramic shot very clearly from my work window.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
