kennecott, the new west valley, er west jordan, no ... BFE

[stefan]

this kennecott talk just doesn't stop ...

you know, the further we sprawl out, the greater the driving distances one must travel, the more pollution is created, the more gas is used, the more one needs to spend on gas, the more time you waste traveling, ... also the more housing prices increase in the city centers.

i beat the drum again ... "we should be building UPWARDS not outwards!"



Kennecott opts for incremental development for SL Valley's west bench
By Jeremiah Stettler
The Salt Lake Tribune

Instead of touting its vast vision for Salt Lake County's west bench, Kennecott now will pitch its projects one Daybreak at a time.

The copper giant confirmed Thursday that it no longer will push for approval of its entire 41,000-acre master plan for west-bench development. Growth still will come, officials say, but in pieces.

Kennecott insists its blueprint hasn't changed - sprawling foothill communities, thousands of new jobs and perhaps a first-ever Oquirrh Mountain ski resort - but the building boom will pop up here and there as the company determines whether the property is better mined for real estate or minerals.

"This has always been a very long-term project for us," said Jim Schulte, vice president of long-range planning. "The vision is fully intact. We have every expectation that, over the course of decades, that vision will be implemented."

While mining operations are expected to continue until 2036, Kennecott already has unveiled plans to transform its sprawling west-side holdings - stretching from the Great Salt Lake to the Bingham Mine south of Herriman - into massive residential and business communities that someday could house up to a quarter of Salt Lake County's population.

That development - projected over the next 50 to 75 years - could bring 200,000 homes to the rolling Oquirrh foothills and create 109,000 jobs, according to the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

It also could include the valley's first west-side ski resort - with elevations reaching 9,350 feet.

Kennecott's timeline hasn't changed. Neither have plans to complete South Jordan's Daybreak, where the copper company has carved a quaint west-side community that someday will stretch over 4,200 acres.

But open-space advocates worry about how effectively the county can push for land preservation without a comprehensive master plan of west-bench development.

"We have less information to deal with," said Lorna Vogt, the county's open-space program manager. "I don't know if that will mean we have less land in the future."

Kennecott leaders expect to huddle soon with county officials to discuss future developments. Schulte wouldn't say where those new neighborhoods would sprout, only that they likely would resemble Daybreak.

Until then, Kennecott's days of ore are far from fading. The company reported $1.6 billion in earnings last year with sizable spurts in copper, silver and gold production.
jstettler@sltrib.com


* Kennecott owns 41,000 acres of developable land along the west bench, or 53 percent of the property still available for development in the Salt Lake Valley.

* West-bench development is expected to house about 600,000 people, amounting to 26 percent of the Salt Lake Valley's population by 2060.

* While Kennecott's properties would sprout with about 200,000 homes, it also could include 58.6 million square feet of business space.

* The company also plans to build an Oquirrh Mountain ski resort that would rise to 9,350 feet.

* Once complete, the west bench would provide enough business to generate 109,200 new jobs and spawn a total of 261,700 positions countywide - an economic boost of $12.5 billion in personal income.

Source: Kennecott, University of Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research

[James_B_Wads2000]

Daybreak is a joke. Now that the housing economy has crashed they can't give those houses away, the new ones. And if you have already bought one and are trying to sell it, good luck because it will never happen. I work near the airport and during that last snow storm Wednesday there were people here that it took them three hours to get home instead of just the one hour.

My brothers and sisters some times make fun of my small old house in Murray. But I would happily buy a smaller and older house rather than drive 2.5+ hours a day to and from work. I

[sparker1]

Funny how Brigham Young chose the SLV primarily because no one else wanted it. The people have done too well at showing the world how nice it is to live in Utah, so now are a victim of their own success. Building up might help, but won't make everyone happy. Here in Florida, the goal of everyone was to live on the coast. The solution was to build many high-rise condo buildings, which certainly provide coast living for huge numbers of people. Of course, it is difficult to even see the water through those buildings, so we have a new form of "pollution" that disturbs many people.

[Mooseman70]

Yeah, Daybreak is a joke. I've got friends from CA who purchased a second home in Daybreak, planning on moving here. Shortly after they bought it, plans changed and they've had it on the market for over a year. No offers. Drive through Daybreak sometime and you'll lose count of how many 'For Sale' signs you see.

I heard from a co-worker recently, who does real estate work on the side, that Daybreak recently dropped the prices on their new home upwards of $100,000 or more because sales have come to a screeching halt! What a joke.

[stefan]

Building up might help, but won't make everyone happy.

considering nothing will make everyone happy, i guess it's no big deal. on the other hand, continually building outward because "everyone wants their own bit of happiness and vista" isn't a sustainable process and comes with a serious cost.

the city centers are in the center of the valleys. building upwards here is a reasonable thing to do and should be able to concentrate more people within the centers of the metropolitan area. it's starting to happen somewhat in downtown salt lake, but needs to be far more.

they project 5.5 million people in the wasatch front by 2050. i'd rather there be density over insane sprawl.

i wonder if there will be enough water for that many people.

Here in Florida, the goal of everyone was to live on the coast. The solution was to build many high-rise condo buildings, which certainly provide coast living for huge numbers of people. Of course, it is difficult to even see the water through those buildings, so we have a new form of "pollution" that disturbs many people.

no doubt a new form of pollution. although having lots of tall buildings would block the views of the surrounding mountains, (1) this would be more of a local thing, as tall buildings wouldn't fill an entire valley (unless you're in a european city, e.g. athens) and (2) i'd prefer this over the alternative ... the open space surrounding the wasatch front metropolis is already being spoiled a great deal. having many more tall buildings and confining people more to the cities will allow for more preservation of open space (you know the wonderful views that make the wasatch front great) and might actually make the city ... you know, more city-like ... as opposed to the deserted town it often seems like.

everyone "needs" their little(or rather BIG) piece o' heaven ... but it's just not sustainable

[sparker1]

It seems to be an American peculiarity to want your own piece of land, and it is unreasonable for those who have theirs to prevent others from having it. I have always been impressed by the cities that make it desirable for folks to live downtown (most of which are outside the US). Calgary is one that comes to mind, although it still has a lot of sprawl.

[stefan]

It seems to be an American peculiarity to want your own piece of land, and it is unreasonable for those who have theirs to prevent others from having it.

i think it's clear where this line of logic goes ... developing the hell out of our open space. it's not about the haves preventing the have nots. it's simply about coming to a realization and changing our ways.

I have always been impressed by the cities that make it desirable for folks to live downtown (most of which are outside the US). Calgary is one that comes to mind, although it still has a lot of sprawl.

and europe of course developed under different times, mode and mentality.

i guess what bugs me is the apathy towards urban sprawl. it's recognized but most are quite indifferent to it, it seems to me. it's almost as if america has decided this is the way of things, which is truly unfortunate.

oh ... and i can't WAIT to see washington county in 50 years ... zion should be a truly lovely place then, thanks to a forward thinking government

[JP]

everyone "needs" their little(or rather BIG) piece o' heaven ... but it's just not sustainable

I don't think it's a case of needing, it's a case of wanting. That's what we work for in life, the American Dream. Some love the city life, some love the outskirts and some want nothing to do with city life. They want space, space away from others. Everybody deserves their little piece of heaven and states, cities, towns and counties know this. It's tax base, it's growth. Do I believe in it, somewhat, but these agencies should be wise in considering growth. At the end of the day, the dollar speaks the loudest. I feel for Stefan, but growth is a hard thing to combat. When whatever agencies finally decide to be land conscious, it's too late. Take that from an East Coaster that has seen quite a bit of growth in my lifetime as to where there is just about nothing left to develop.

My girlfriend's son's girlfriend who lived in Arizona most of her life, now living in Colorado where he is working, came out here for Christmas. She was really taken back by how many roads we have back here. I know with my trips out to you guys, how few roads you have, what a plus. You have no idea.

I hear Stan loud and clear about coastal Florida. The growth down their every time I go visit my Mom is incredible. Stan, what about SR50? Can they put anymore Home Depots or Lowes on that road? Seems like when your leaving Orange County going into Lake, those things are every half mile or so You can see that wave of growth heading right for the West Coast

[sparker1]

it's not about the haves preventing the have nots.

Maybe some of the haves should lead the way by giving up their piece of earth in favor of a newcomer, then moving into a high-rise.

[stefan]

Maybe some of the haves should lead the way by giving up their piece of earth in favor of a newcomer, then moving into a high-rise.

no problems there, although, i am not sure this is a big deal in the long term. folks move all the time. however, once you create (more) incentive to live in the city, i think it's possible to dramatically change your have/havenots dichotomy issue. unfortunately this requires a while new way of thinking ...

[rockgremlin]

It seems to be an American peculiarity to want your own piece of land, and it is unreasonable for those who have theirs to prevent others from having it.

i think it's clear where this line of logic goes ... developing the hell out of our open space.

Not necessarily. People enjoy land ownership for various reasons...very seldom of which are sinister. For example, how many people in your town have dogs? In Green River, I would guess that about 75% of the general populace has at least one dog. If all of those folks lived in an apartment, where would their dogs live? On the balcony? Americans have a love affair with their dogs. Some people treat their dogs better than their own kids.

Then there's the issue of privacy. It's difficult to get a good night's rest in an apartment when your neighbor's kids above you are jumping up and down, your neighbors to the right are playing the stereo at full volume, and your neighbors to the left are having wild passionate sex.

[Scout Master]

further we sprawl out,

You people keep using this word SPRAWL What the HE11 is Sprawl and what is the alternative. Should we all live in High rise condos down town ???

[stefan]

i think it's clear where this line of logic goes ... developing the hell out of our open space.

Not necessarily.

so ... adding 2-3 times (or more) the current population of the wasatch front ... where do you think are all those people going to go, rock?

People enjoy land ownership for various reasons...very seldom of which are sinister.

you know, it's not so much the individual, here, it's the reality of individuals en masse. also, it's not sinister ... it's just that some "good things" do have negative consequences ...

[stefan]

further we sprawl out,

You people keep using this word SPRAWL What the HE11 is Sprawl and what is the alternative. Should we all live in High rise condos down town ???

kaysville, eh?

so tell me, if your children's children continue to live in the wasatch front, what would you like it to look like when the population triples?

[Scout Master]

What is the Alternative ?

[rockgremlin]

so ... adding 2-3 times (or more) the current population of the wasatch front ... where do you think are all those people going to go, rock?

Sorry I offered a differing opinion....no need to take it personally. I'm not attacking your stance (personally I agree with you), I'm just sayin that the motives behind land ownership AREN'T because they have an agenda...people just like privacy, and it's difficult to acheive that when you have 4 different neighbors in your lap all of the time. Personally, I think land ownership is overrated...mowing and grooming land is tiresome.

We Americans do things somewhat backwards compared to the rest of the world. A penthouse apt downtown is the coveted mode of living in almost everywhere but the USA. Only the destitute and transient live on the open space at the edge of town.

[stefan]

so ... adding 2-3 times (or more) the current population of the wasatch front ... where do you think are all those people going to go, rock?

Sorry I offered a differing opinion....no need to take it personally.

i didn't take it personally. you appeared to challenge my statement of developing the hell out of our open spaces. i didn't suggest that the reason for doing this was malicious or sinister. my point was simply that if everyone wants their little slice of heaven (as i repeated a couple of times) , and if sparker says that it's inappropriate for someone who has a slice of heaven to tell someone else they can't have it, then, following that line of logic, everyone who has a slice of heaven along the wasatch front will grow from 1-2 million to 5-6 million ... that's a lot of slices of heaven ...

and of course it's understandable why folks want their slice of heaven, but ...