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.
That's disappointing. I hope it's indeed due to wanting to await the election and bring this back on the table, and not because the plans are to scrap this altogether and wait for Ivory to come in and propose a bunch of ugly, 3,500 square foot homes with 3 car garages on a third of an acre to appease the masses while being as inefficient with Salt Lake County's limited land resources as possible.
Not permitting developments like these are why real estate prices in SLC and surrounding areas are going to continue trending upward until they become unaffordable, as they sort of already are for many, but I suppose many don't mind this - politicians especially.
I'm sure you would probably like the idea of cramming 33,000 people into 930 acres, a higher density than most areas of New York City or Los Angeles, unless you live in the area yourself. I'd feel the same way, we need more affordable housing, lets put them way over there, away from where I live my life so I don't have to deal with them. Well the truth is people do live in these areas that developments like this are being proposed and it threatens not only their way of life but their quality of life. Higher density and affordable housing is one thing, but cramming this level of density into an area with virtually no infrastructure was reckless and absurd. Thank goodness for the Veto, lets come up with something that makes sense!
I'm sure you would probably like the idea of cramming 33,000 people into 930 acres, a higher density than most areas of New York City or Los Angeles, unless you live in the area yourself. I'd feel the same way, we need more affordable housing, lets put them way over there, away from where I live my life so I don't have to deal with them. Well the truth is people do live in these areas that developments like this are being proposed and it threatens not only their way of life but their quality of life. Higher density and affordable housing is one thing, but cramming this level of density into an area with virtually no infrastructure was reckless and absurd. Thank goodness for the Veto, lets come up with something that makes sense!
Sorry, that's just flat out wrong. Please refute this if you don't believe it. The density of this project is about the same as Queens which is overwhelmingly single and double family homes with a bunch of 15 story apartments scattered all around along with large parks, open spaces and industrial land where nobody lives. the Bronx and Brookly are about 50% higher and Manhattan is double that. Regardless, the problem isn't the density per se, it's the absence of larger civil planning on the infrastructure etc that makes such densities possible, such as water, water treatment, transportation, etc. It's not clear to me that the developers had any plan at all for any of that, though I could be wrong. If so I'd like to see a link to such planning.
Its not flat wrong you misread my statement, I said most, not all, areas of New York City. Olympia Hills would have rank #15 in the United States for density within that amount of space. This is based on US Census data that ranks US communities by population density. The plan was 37 people per acre which is 5 higher than queens. They wanted to throw this in the middle of Herriman, without considering roads, jobs, water, schools, police, traffic, etc. https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...6b&oe=5BDF9A50
Last edited by MaxPowerUtah; 07-27-2018 at 11:26 AM..
Its not flat wrong you misread my statement, I said most, not every, city in New york. Olympia Hills would have rank #15 in the United States for density within that amount of space. This is based on US Census data that ranks US communities by population density. They wanted to throw this in the middle of Herriman, without considering roads, jobs, water, schools, police, traffic, etc. https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...6b&oe=5BDF9A50
Sorry, I can read and it's quite clear. You said: "...a higher density than most areas of New York City ..." That's incorrect. Now you're misquoting yourself.
Regardless, I fully agree, to even propose such a plan without consideration of infrastructure is just the worst kind of incompetence. And since our state legislators and governor are of growth-at-any-cost mindset we'll all suffer. The legislators are a particularly self-interested lot. Yet the people of Utah don't seem to mind.
Last edited by kletter1mann; 07-27-2018 at 11:22 AM..
Reason: omitted point
Sorry, that's just flat out wrong. Please refute this if you don't believe it. The density of this project is about the same as Queens which is overwhelmingly single and double family homes with a bunch of 15 story apartments scattered all around along with large parks, open spaces and industrial land where nobody lives. the Bronx and Brookly are about 50% higher and Manhattan is double that. Regardless, the problem isn't the density per se, it's the absence of larger civil planning on the infrastructure etc that makes such densities possible, such as water, water treatment, transportation, etc. It's not clear to me that the developers had any plan at all for any of that, though I could be wrong. If so I'd like to see a link to such planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPowerUtah
Its not flat wrong you misread my statement, I said most, not all, areas of New York City. Olympia Hills would have rank #15 in the United States for density within that amount of space. This is based on US Census data that ranks US communities by population density. The plan was 37 people per acre which is 5 higher than queens. They wanted to throw this in the middle of Herriman, without considering roads, jobs, water, schools, police, traffic, etc. https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...6b&oe=5BDF9A50
guys I think you're getting caught up in minutia ... whether Olympia Hills is more dense than any boroughs of NYC is of no consequence. The real issue is that it would be the densest area in the state. To place the densest area of population in the state just south of the mind is lunacy and irrational at best.
They literally are creating the need for 30,000 commuters daily to get to the extremes of the valley. Everyone living out there would need to get to far ends of the valley for work/school as it's a bedroom community. This works in other areas of the country where a strong transit infrastructure exists but in SLC we're still struggling to get trax "right". I would be all in favor if they were going to continue transforming the area between downtown and the U into much higher density housing. Also the south end of the valley between Bluffdale and Lehi should be getting higher density projects. The investments just need to be made in an efficient manner.
guys I think you're getting caught up in minutia ... whether Olympia Hills is more dense than any boroughs of NYC is of no consequence. The real issue is that it would be the densest area in the state. To place the densest area of population in the state just south of the mind is lunacy and irrational at best.
They literally are creating the need for 30,000 commuters daily to get to the extremes of the valley. Everyone living out there would need to get to far ends of the valley for work/school as it's a bedroom community. This works in other areas of the country where a strong transit infrastructure exists but in SLC we're still struggling to get trax "right". I would be all in favor if they were going to continue transforming the area between downtown and the U into much higher density housing. Also the south end of the valley between Bluffdale and Lehi should be getting higher density projects. The investments just need to be made in an efficient manner.
Completely agree. It's worth stressing that those regions that do have strong transit infrastructures have them because of long term planning and investment. Local and state govt alike seem to be extremely enthusiastic about building, building, building without the corresponding enthusiasm for long term planning, investment in infrastructure, water supply, schools, etc. However, there is one thing to be learned from the NYC vs Olympia Hills comparison: Look at the transportation infrastructure in the Bronx, for example. It's vastly denser and more interconnected than anything even contemplated here and is still inadequate. Yet it that's the scale of infrastructure needed for such densities.
To put my usual political spin on it, the political culture hasn't yet matured to the point of recognizing that there is a legitimate role for govt planning (and taxation). Laissez-faire just doesn't cut it with stuff like this. Utah will suffer as a result. In fact, it already is.
Last edited by kletter1mann; 08-01-2018 at 11:20 AM..
Reason: forgot detail
Completely agree. It's worth stressing that those regions that do have strong transit infrastructures have them because of long term planning and investment. Local and state govt alike seem to be extremely enthusiastic about building, building, building without the corresponding enthusiasm for long term planning, investment in infrastructure, water supply, schools, etc. However, there is one thing to be learned from the NYC vs Olympia Hills comparison: Look at the transportation infrastructure in the Bronx, for example. It's vastly denser and more interconnected than anything even contemplated here and is still inadequate. Yet it that's the scale of infrastructure needed for such densities.
To put my usual political spin on it, the political culture hasn't yet matured to the point of recognizing that there is a legitimate role for govt planning (and taxation). Laissez-faire just doesn't cut it with stuff like this. Utah will suffer as a result. In fact, it already is.
It's not really a political issue but a growth issue. Those areas of efficient mass transits infrastructure experienced long periods of slow, steady, predictable growth. We are seeing a relative hyper-growth period where it's build build build.
Look at cities like Miami - FTL, Dallas - FW, Denver, Atlanta, Portland, Seattle. Those cities the traffic is a nightmare and they have become large urban sprawls 1) because of rapid population growth 2) because they had large landmasses they could expand into.
We are bounded by mountains (thank god) so have geographical limitations of expansion. But long-term strategy would be to build up not out. Urbanization and high density projects are not negative/bad connotations. If done correctly with proper planning and thought they are highly efficient and beneficial in the long-run health of a metropolis. I just would argue that putting this type of community where it is proposed is not with long-run efficient planning in mind.
The goal should be to get the maximum amount of people as close to where they work and go to school as possible.
It's not really a political issue but a growth issue. Those areas of efficient mass transits infrastructure experienced long periods of slow, steady, predictable growth. We are seeing a relative hyper-growth period where it's build build build.
Look at cities like Miami - FTL, Dallas - FW, Denver, Atlanta, Portland, Seattle. Those cities the traffic is a nightmare and they have become large urban sprawls 1) because of rapid population growth 2) because they had large landmasses they could expand into.
We are bounded by mountains (thank god) so have geographical limitations of expansion. But long-term strategy would be to build up not out. Urbanization and high density projects are not negative/bad connotations. If done correctly with proper planning and thought they are highly efficient and beneficial in the long-run health of a metropolis. I just would argue that putting this type of community where it is proposed is not with long-run efficient planning in mind.
The goal should be to get the maximum amount of people as close to where they work and go to school as possible.
Yeah, totally. We agree violently! BUT.... when traffic becomes a nightmare it means that growth and sprawl are prioritized without due consideration for infrastructure. It's a broad brush statement, but having lots of land to expand into fosters a car mentality and it's very hard to muster the will and $$ to do the expensive stuff, like mass transit. And that's political.
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.
