Salt Lake looks at Northwest Quadrant plans

Is development by the lake inevitable or even doable?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Utah CleanAir
    March 22, 2010 1:24 a.m.

    This is absolutely correct about the air quality. This is a horrible plan for the environment AND for human health in the area!

  • Norah
    Feb. 3, 2010 2:26 p.m.

    Developing in the Northwest Quadrant is a horrible idea. Growth is just not sustainable. Most of the land is unusable, we can not sustain enough water to carry that many more people, tax payers will pay for new schools and such and more commuting will degrade the air quality. What should be the focus is using what we currently have to work with and improve the area, making it "greener". The most sustainable cities grow up, not out. Using money that would be used to make new schools and roads in that area could be put towards renewable energy, improving public transportation to improve the air we breathe. Developing west would do harm to the environment and the people in the valley. We have a great city with a great location but the air can't get better with expansion. It's impossible. Lets focus on improving the cities carry capacity, air quality and energy issues. We are too intelligent of creatures to continue creating communities that can't sustain themselves. We could transform the city we have. Yes we can build new sustainable communities but works unless we reuse what we already have!

  • Chachi
    Dec. 21, 2009 4:25 p.m.

    New Urbanism is the way of the future, if it's to be a sustainable future. Look up Andres Duany on YouTube--there's an outdated (early 90s) but very worthwhile lecture in nine parts on some core principles of good urban planning and smart growth.

  • think
    Dec. 21, 2009 4:10 p.m.

    I am for mixed-use, dense, non-sprawling development, especially when served by light rail. However, I agree that we need to focus on greater density and intensity of uses along existing corridors of rail and not on raw land. North Temple is a valid point.

    If we really want to put our money where our mouths are, we need to "densify" before we sprawl, not after we've run out of places to sprawl to. Green sprawl is still sprawl.

    For heaven's sake, I don't see how this is a east side/west side issue.

  • @McGurkus
    Dec. 21, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    How expanding suburban sprawl going to help the current westside or help to increase food production? Your comment makes no sense. Build up the current Westside with improved housing options and services rather then just spread the sprawl. As someone that grew up on the westside I would much rather see this part of the city get its due then see the money head west of the airport.

  • McGurkus
    Dec. 21, 2009 10:03 a.m.

    The previous comments are obviously from people with an eastside bias who want the westside to remain poverty stricken and undeveloped. This is wrong! The NW quadrant is not there to suffer so that eastsiders can feel good about themselves. When children on the eastside grow hungry and join gangs because of a complete lack of adequate housing and economic development, then the eastsiders will have a right to comment on this situation.

  • Davis
    Dec. 21, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    When the lake once again rises and floods these fools out, who is going to pay? You don't build in a flood plain, especially one where you will be constantly hit with wind driven salt spray and chemical crap from Magcorp or whatever it keeps changing its name to.

  • urban density
    Dec. 21, 2009 7:40 a.m.

    Salt Lake should focus on urban density rather then sprawl out into the wetlands with more suburban sprawl. There is plenty of opportunity for growth within the city itself.

  • thinkingwoman
    Dec. 21, 2009 6:32 a.m.

    Garrott is right. This area won't support growing more than salt grass and sagebrush. It's salty, sandy soil will turn to mush in an earthquake. The flies and mosquitos will be terrible, and if you just spray them all dead, then you kill the food supply for millions of birds that nest on these shores every spring.

    Not to mention that it's easy to plan while the water is at its lowest point in a century, and when it rises again -- and it will rise again -- all of the uplands that would become the new nesting grounds will be filled with development, people and pets.

    Bad idea, Salt Lake City. Bad idea!

  • Poor judgement planning
    Dec. 21, 2009 4:26 a.m.

    What are they thinking? This land is not a place to develop and put people in harms way. First of all it is a wildlife sanctuary, a flood plain, and no, trees won't grow there. To put homes there also encroaches the noise and flight paths of aircraft to the airport.

    If it were developable there is no doubt that developers would have already had it developed. This land is also down stream from the old Kennecott smog smoke tailings and the land is contaminated with chemicals. Partly why it is so dead with no trees or wildlife animals.

    The voice of a city putting citizens in harms way again.