rhappahannock posted: I think a Billion dollar downtown development is a
distraction for the church. The four missions of the church should be the focus.
A billion dollar development is not the proper use of the church resources, as a
prudent financial reserve does not require that much.You need to
understand that there are various fiscal branches/arms to the Church. The City
Creek Project did not come from the Church tithes. Rather, It came from the
profits of investment which were in origin from a donation of a wealthy
benefactor back in the 1920's. This investment has been further invested to
grow it, so it can in turn do even more than what the 1 Billion could have ever
done by itself. It's my understanding that one of the things this
investment covers, is the stipends that those General Authorities who receive a
stipend, comes from. The stipends do not come from general Church tithes. I
can also envision them taking surplus funds and transfer to Church general fund,
to cover things like the recent "explosion" in Missionary service,
surely an expected huge financial burden.
Jacob_Z,But Mannheim's streets are 36 feet wide including
sidewalks. (according to GoogleEarth measurements) and are 2/3 lane one way
streets. Only the downtown core is grid, urban sprawl messed up the
rest of the area.
No one wants cities laid out in grids any more. When the Mormons laid out the
streets of SLC, they expedcted at that time that probably only Mormons would be
residents there in large numbers, and that there would not be
"undesirables" at large whose access to certain areas needed to be
blocked. This was the same premise the Founders of the our republic had wehn
they simply assumed that all future residents of the U.S. would be predominantly
Europeans from enlightened countries where civil liberty had at least been
imagined.The reason for all this is that, despite the warm fuzzies
of brotherhood, and all that, for the most part, a diverse population ends up
being a hotbed for crime, for the simple reason that every ethinc group,
including the majority ehtnic group has a certain percentage of criminals in it,
and mising them all togther just increases the crime in a way that looks as if
the percentages of each group are simply added to get a combined percaentage for
the total population. Politically incorrect, but true.
I think it was an H.G.Wells story set mostly in a future London that was a cube
or a 3D rectangle. Didn't want to live there.Cities have many
straight lines, while there are few in nature. (Look at a tree.)Other
factors are energy of going up one level as compared to horizontal movement.
Imagine taking a deck of 52 playing cards and placing them on a table side by
side in both directions. How much energy does it take to go from one corner to
the diagonal corner as compared to from the bottom card in a deck to the top?Take a block of land with a multi-story building on it. The land is worth
$X/Sq foot. Now take each floor and place them side by side on the table. Is the
land how covered by each one story building more or less expensive?
Consideration for utilities and roads will add if more than one block is
considered.All in all, I still wouldn't want to live in a large box.
"The pursuit of Happiness is defined as real property with title."Baloney.... hog wash and total silliness. Land ownership is part of the
American dream, but it is not essential nor required for the "pursuit of
happiness". It may be a prerequisite for some, even many, but
it is not a codified part requirement for either the quest or obtainment of
happiness. That is part of what is wrong... making material
positions requisite for happiness.Urban planning does not require
anyone to live in urban settings. You want to go live amongst the trees... no
one is stopping you. But the vast majority of high paying jobs are in urban
areas, and to complain or imply that you can have a better standard of living
where there is not planning is just bizarre.No one is taking your
choice away. You want to live in a city... do so. If you don't...
don't. No one is taking your freedoms away.
In NW Oregon where I live, we have an Urban Growth Boundary which prevents
sprawl. Development is severely restricted outside the UGB, meaning living
density is higher inside the UGB and almost non-existent outside. Because of
that we don't have the ugly sprawl of say, Phoenix or LA (or SL Valley).
There is nothing wrong with dense living as long as you have open space
incorporated also. Where I live there are bike & ped trails and mid-block
crossings just for peds. Autos no longer rule the world here. And I love it.
I can ride my bike for almost 20 miles without competing with autos on streets.
And if I have to be on the street, there is a bike lane.
The Rock: Yes there are highly populated areas with high crime rates. But it
isn't the highly populated factor that magically creates a high crime rate.
Crime is higher in places where people don't own the outdoor space. If a
city is auto-oriented and laid out in such a way that people cannot safely
navigate without their cars, then you are going to have a higher crime rate. If
non-auto mobility is easy (trails, sidewalks, bike-paths, etc.), people will be
out and about, and crime rates will be lower. I know. I live in western Oregon
and this is what is happening here.
Brigham Young and Joseph Smith designed cities with people and their futures in
mind. Currently, much of the so called 'planning' is done with the
developer and his/her profits as the primary driving force. There is little
concern as to how a plan will effect a community much more than a few years down
the road once the checks have cleared and the next project bid has been placed.
Doctrine & Covenants 104:17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and
to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to
be agents unto themselves.The Prophetic vision of Joseph Smith Jr.
and Brigham Young was and is NOT Smart growth and new urbanism as described in
this article. High density dwelling without possibility of producing for ones
self is not smart and people are easily controlled by forces and circumstances.
The Founders understood this very well and the Declaration of
Independence says it succinctly. "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, The pursuit of Happiness is defined as real property with title. They
knew liberty was at risk when people were dependent on others particularly
government. King George was not about to give up his property to the Americans
as it would render him impotent.
I think a Billion dollar downtown development is a distraction for the church.
The four missions of the church should be the focus. A billion dollar
development is not the proper use of the church resources, as a prudent
financial reserve does not require that much.Better the church run a
one-room school in Africa, where it is desperately needed, than a billion dollar
corporate real estate empire in downtown Salt Lake City. One contributes to the
Church's central mission, the other a giant distraction that could be done
by commercial entities.Look at the AA central office. They serve
millions of people with a very small financial reserve. The money goes to serve
people instead of building up a real estate empire that is hard to liquidate,
and locks large amounts of resources into a non-spiritual entities.Some want to escape intellectual analysis and claim that everything the church
does is perfect. Look at Bruce R. McConkie and Mormon Doctrine as pertaining to
people holding the Priesthood. Just as McConkie was wrong on the priesthood,
current leadership may be misguided on priorities. Building schools in Africa
helps the church, and would be positive PR.
We may not be a true agrarian society any longer but we still would do well with
large tracts of arable land surrounding our cities of modest size. We'd
all function better. But we seem to know better than that, which is why
we'll continue to fail at urban planning like we do.
Thankfully Joseph Smith and Brigham Young envisioned the need for "City
Planning." That is the biggest lessson here. Although their plans were
laregely for an agrarian society, much of what they envisioned can be adapted to
today's urban society. Some of their thinking does not translate entirely,
such as the large single family lots, but the wide right of ways and grid
patterns translate well. To those who think Smart Growth is some kind of
conspiracy, you are wrong. The principles of Smart Growth are basic City
Planning principles that make for a more livable urban community. They have
been around for many years and are logical principles for the urban society that
we have become. The principles are sound and used extensively world wide for
planning modern urban cities.
Moabmom,Calling Craig Galli a wolf in sheep's clothing is
laughable. Craig makes a straightforward case for why every Latter-day Saint
should be an environmentalist. That is not to say that every Latter-day Saint
has to take a liberal approach to environmental issues, but that every member of
the Church should do his or her part to treat the earth and its resources as a
wise steward, and influence institutions to do the same.
If Ernest T Bass does not see the "anti-freedom" aspects of Agenda 21,
he is either in agreement that man is not capable of governing themselves and
needs to be under the control of "centralized planning", for their own
good and for good of the planet and the collective, of course, or he has not
bothered to read the actual UN document for himself and is content to take the
"urban planners" word for it that all is unicorns and lollipops in Zion.
"proves that they have no concept of prophetic city designs."My goodness. Cant anything just be the work of a smart guy?Why
does everything have to be labeled "prophetic"?
19th century urban planning models of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young may have
been practical for their times. In today's world, light rail and rapid
transit carry more weight with city planners than making a street wide enough
for an ox team and wagon to make a circle.
I have to laugh at the comment about "god never intended people to live in
Rabbit Hutches". Good grief... has the writer of that never visited
"the holy lands"? It at the time of Christ was Rabbit Hutch central...
and not much has changed.
The title of the article caught my attention as I knew that there is no way to
imagine that Salt Lake and other cities are following the plan of Brigham and
Joseph which were both genius in design and concept.Seeing folks prattle
about how things can no longer be that way due to dense populations, simply
proves that they have no concept of prophetic city designs.Obviously they
have no concept of the State of Deseret which would have included parts of 5
more states and were in the plan of Brigham.After being chased from every
state they had settled in, upon arriving in the Utah Territory of Mexico, they
began soon after to badger Brigham and John Taylor to press for statehood.They
had to abandon several practices including their own political party and the
plans of Deseret extending to San Diego was also given up.Satan's
plan is well in force in the design of cities.To hear folks claim that we
are not an agrarian society merely proves that we lost the rights to that long
ago, but not the NEED.
Agenda 21 being anti-freedom....someone is being deceived and has too much time
on their hands for bitterness.
The best part of the Salt Lake valley is from North Temple to 9th South and 8th
West to 9th East. Wide navigable streets accommodating multiple use. Move
outside those boundaries and you get narrow pathways that are barely useful for
one mode of transportation. Trying to solve this problem with Bangerter Highway
and the new Mountain View Corridor is like trying to empty the ocean with a
There is certainly no shortage of wolves in sheep's clothing in SLC. Using
Joseph Smith to put the stamp of approval on UN Agenda 21 and it's policies
is disgraceful and beyond the pale!! If the proponents of "smart growth"
really cared about the people of SLC, private property rights, and freedom more
than they cared about the ICLIE money, Federal compliance monies and status
received for being good little "yes men" , they would be doing
everything they could to rid the city of Agenda 21 policies instead of doubling
down on implantation of them. Calling it "Urban Planning" doesn't
change what it is. Educate yourselves on what "smart growth" and
"sustainable development" as defined in Agenda 21 really is. Again,
using Joseph Smith to push this anti-freedom agenda is disgraceful and is the
absolute antithesis of what Joseph Smith believed in. Shame on you!!
American ingenuity in the planning of cities by these two leaders reminds me
when JFK called for us to put a man on the moon. Young people all over the
country grew enthusiastic about studying physics, engineering, and the space
sciences. We became a more technically proficient people. And we became the
first nation on earth to put a man on the moon.From wagons turning around
in a city street to SLC using multi-use streets with street cars, bikes,
pedestrians and cars is just another example of derring-do, and faith in
providence helping us see into the future needs of this country.
Mannheim, Germany, is laid out in a grid. On Wikipedia there are a couple of
images where you can see it, one from 1758.
toosmartforyou,It's true. Joseph Smith envisioned communities
of no more than 20,000 people. But he did not envision sprawl. Joseph's
City of Zion plat and urban design patterns were thought up with buffer areas in
mind. Large parcels allowed for citizens to grow much of their own food, while
the outside of each city is where farms were. Farmers were to live in the city
in order to take part in community life. I recommend taking a look at Craig
Galli's BYU Studies article on the subject. He goes into much greater
detail concerning the commonalities of Joseph's City of Zion plat and Smart
As someone who lives in an urban environment with a great deal of crime, it
would help to have "urban planning". Here in the Midwest, August Busch
was the force behind the modern development of an urban giant. Sadly, even
Macy's last week "threw in the towel". This city could look
favorably toward the model of development used by Salt Lake.
It's about the jobs.Where do you go every day? For most of us it
isn't downtown.Urban planning is a pipe dream unless the jobs are
centralized. They aren't.
This is a topic in which I have had a long term interest. Some of the
principles of 19th Century planning implemented in SLC are certainly good, but
there are some drawbacks. The fact that SLC has had to adapt to changing times
is an indicator that the system was not perfect. And I've never really
considered the Utah model as all that pedestrian friendly. Orderly, yes.
Interesting, not as much. Further, the concept of religious freedom in terms
of city planning borders is absurd. This speech seems to contain a certain
amount of pandering to the local audience.
@2SmartForUI've lived on 3 cul-de-sacs with my family. I would
never live (if I had the choice) on a through street. I know we've all
gotten hooked on our cars but at a certain point, cities are MORE liveable if
they have some areas blocked off to traffic where you get out and walk. It
improves business (which is why people built malls and are now back to village
style open areas like City Creek) and makes a visit to a town or city center
more enjoyable than if your only access to shops and restaurants is across 6
lanes of traffic. Try going to a town like DC or Boston or virtually any city in
Europe where they have these features and you will see it improves the quality
of life. Get out of your car and walk once in a while. You'll
enjoy the fresh air, meet more people and be healthier...
I would not blame the modern idea of high density housing in multiple use
complexes on prophets of God. God never intended people to live in rabbit
hutches. There is a reason that highly populated areas experience massive crime.
I agree that Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were visionary in their concepts
of city planning and they intended for people to be independent and self
sustaining all the time owning land of their own for that very purpose.I have a very hard time buying into the idea that Smart growth or new urbanism
as taught in the universities today is what Joseph Smith saw in vision, in fact
it's a blatant misrepresentation. New urbanism is an urban
planning and transportation theory strait out of the UN ajenda-21 and it's
local partner, Envision Utah that concentrates growth in compact
pedestrian-friendly, urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact,
transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood
schools and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices.Daybreak is NOT what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young had in mind. Try planting a
garden or a fruit tree without HOA's approval let alone in a 500 sf back
yard. Try getting anything past the HOA that would provide for your self
The wide streets are the best part of the Zion plan.Once these planners
step outside of these conferences into reality......people aren't
farmers any longer....their jobs are spread out over a wide area....spouses go in different directions to work....transit lines cannot
follow people around to these scattered workplaces....biking is not an
option for most due to distance and weather.These conferences ignore the
reality and point to City Center as though it were a panacea. A plan like that
can never accommodate large numbers of moderate-income people.The ship
they talk of has sailed.
One thing to keep in mind.Brigham Young was certainly a smart guy.
But dont discount the fact that he had a clean slate to work with and a
completely obedient group that he could dictate to.
"European-style" grid? I know of no cities in Europe with such a design.
In fact, no city or town built before the automobile has much of a grid style as
streets followed the roads connecting to other towns and cities and followed the
rivers or valleys.
Planners need to keep the grid system and get rid of narrow streets, one-way
streets, round-abouts, and culdesacs. A true grid gives multiple options for
moving people from point A to point B. Interesting that modern planners think
so highly of Brigham's model, yet call multiple cities touching each other
"sprawl." Joseph said cities should not get too large yet today's
planners want to compact millions into a little bit of space and make everyone
"walk." They pay lip service but go against the very principles these
two leaders espoused in city designs. Just look at how the streets around the
Symphony Hall are practically useless because of TRAX, no right turn lanes,
single lane streets, etc. TRAX should have gone into West Temple and not ruined
Main Street, as well as 2nd South and South Temple going east (running opposite
directions), not decimating 4th South. And the outlying areas got away from
compass points to orient the streets. Brigham would turn over in his grave if
he could see the mess of today's enlightened planning.
I look at the ad hoc mess towns like Lehi have become, I really do with they
city fathers (and mothers) would take their lead from those who did take their
jobs in generations past seriously. It is disconnected business/strip mall
after another. There is no reason for it other than lazy planning and bending
over backwards to appease businesses that don't have the communities best
interest at heart.Brigham Young proved that under even extreme
circumstance, proper planning can be leveraged all the while encouraging
economic growth.... what is going on today is a cocktail of greed and laziness.