Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Utah > Salt Lake City area
 [Register]
Salt Lake City area Salt Lake County - Davis County - Weber County
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2018, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 2,668,894 times
Reputation: 3604

Advertisements

I still like to keep tabs on development and redevelopment in Salt Lake County. I read in the Tribune about this proposed development in Southwest Salt Lake County this afternoon:

Olympia Hills Proposal for nearly 8,800 new homes and apartments in southwest Salt Lake County project OK’d despite drawing fire

I think it sounds appealing. It'll certainly be a departure from the soulless sprawl generally associated with Southern Salt Lake County. 938 acres with 8800 units is about 0.1 acres per unit. I know in most of Utah people would shudder at this kind of density, but I think it sounds fantastic and will really make the SW part of the county relevant and desirable to younger people.

What are your thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2018, 07:24 PM
 
54 posts, read 90,012 times
Reputation: 106
Lots of the people up in arms about it possibly changing the community's "way of life" and crowding local infrastructure often have no basis to complain. I swear it's almost always the people that decided to have 4+ children that get up in arms meanwhile they're the driving factor in the current undersupply of affordable housing.

I think over a large trajectory this will make Salt Lake City's culture more evenly spread throughout all of Salt Lake County with the increased density, which I see as a net positive assuming there are viable public transit connections and walkability implemented within its development. The one thing that surprises me is that anyone would be willing to live so close to the eyesore that is the copper mine. Here's the area that's being cited, which, from what I understand, is currently unincorporated:


It could prove difficult to connect this to the existing transit infrastructure given its alignment.

EDIT: If you're curious about the more concrete plans, you can check out this pdf from the Salt Lake County Zoning Meeting. The docs were surprisingly difficult to find:
https://www.herriman.org/wp-document...oZoningMtg.pdf
https://slco.org/WorkArea/DownloadAs...?id=2147582609

Last edited by Wata-Z; 06-06-2018 at 08:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2018, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,138 posts, read 22,821,936 times
Reputation: 14116
People on the Wasatch Front had better get used to high density development... there's not much open land left and the population IS going to double (at least) over the next 20-30 years...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2018, 09:11 PM
 
121 posts, read 190,649 times
Reputation: 164
They might need another bar or two to go with it

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/...de-them-do-it/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 06:14 AM
 
9,375 posts, read 6,982,208 times
Reputation: 14777
Will be a disaster for west side infrastructure that is already a relative disaster. There needs to be a 215 of the West that connects with i15 and i80 to the north and Lehi/Provo to the south. Bangerter is not it and they have been taking about the Mountain View corridor for a decade with little improvement. Going east / west on the west side near commute hours is a no go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 07:40 AM
 
2,895 posts, read 2,144,574 times
Reputation: 6907
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...cils-approval/

some unhappy folks i guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 01:28 PM
 
9,375 posts, read 6,982,208 times
Reputation: 14777
I agree in theory that higher density is the way to go to solve the housing shortage problem. The issue here is that it's a highly inefficient distribution of people geographically. The density needs to be developed near where people work or need to be.... Downtown, the U, and Provo/Lehi are where the jobs and education are. That is what is bringing people into Utah so we need to align them in that manner.

Adding 30k people South of the copper mine is not doing any favors to our transit infrastructure. We need for true urbanization to happen not an urban sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 08:37 PM
 
246 posts, read 320,798 times
Reputation: 410
As a former Copperton resident, I can tell you there are two things that have directly led to this:

1) the County Council never adopted the West Bench Master Plan we, and the other west side communities, were working on around 2006. Even though this area is outside of it, failure to have any west side development plan means “anything goes”.

2) the Metro Township bill reduced the west side Townships to just their developed boundaries. Communities, such as the Southwest Communtiy where this development is located, were completely eliminated. There are no community councils or town councils that stand between the developers and the County Council.

A side affect of the Metro Township bill is the County Council is going to approve anything that increases the unincorporated County tax base. Stabilizing the tax base was the whole reason for passing the Metro Township bill. But this won’t last too long. Because another side affect of the Metro Township bill is that they will either eventually annex into Herriman, South Jordan, or they will incorporate into their own city. Copperton is the closest Metro Township and they aren’t going to have their 900 voices diluted by this development’s 33,000.

I wouldn’t worry too much about them clogging up Bangerter or 215. They will head north on MVC & 111, which will dump them out in Magna & West Valley. If you take 201, expect that to get worse. East & West traffic in the southwest corner of the valley will be the hardest hit with people trying to find places to shop and dine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2018, 09:36 AM
 
9,375 posts, read 6,982,208 times
Reputation: 14777
Hooray McAdams vetoed the bill! Good to see a person take feedback from his constituents and represent the people and not his pocketbook.



Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams vetoes Olympia Hills development proposal | KUTV
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2018, 06:00 AM
 
246 posts, read 320,798 times
Reputation: 410
It’s a pure politicial calculation. McAdams is running in district 4. He can’t beat Mia Love if he doesn’t have the southwest Salt Lake County suburbs. He’s punting the decision until after the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Utah > Salt Lake City area

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top