Friday, April 07, 2006

The Boyer Company Spoilers

Daybreak is a residential development that is supposed to be based on principles of "New Urbanism". As such, it was designed to provide essential needs for each resident within a walkable half mile of their home. As originally envisioned, daily shopping and dining would be an easy walk and reduce dependence on their cars and improve the quality of life. The Boyer Company is busy building an enourmous big- box retail center at the gates of Daybreak hoping to lure residents back into their cars and over to the Super Target. Thanks to The Boyer Company efforts, basic necessities will not be walkably available to Daybreak residents. According to a Daybreak representative, the development has had to scrap its original retail plans and is trying to work out exactly what kind of retail could possibly survive in the shadows of The Boyer Company.

10 Comments:

Blogger theorris said...

Remember their other old nugget: "Gateway won't harm Main Street" and "We don't want big department stores like Nordstrom in the Gateway."

More fiascos from this fine fine fine company.

4/07/2006 12:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just remember, someone somewhere believes the line Boyer's selling, and if you visit this site regularly, chances are you voted for them.

4/07/2006 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Allen said...

"New urbanism" is a handy flavor of the day. Developers will embrace it as long as it's selling because they get to sell smaller houses on even smaller plots of land for just as much if not more money than they have been. And they'll enjoy it until people start to realize owning a house that's 5 feet off the street and 4 feet from their neighbor is different from being in an apartment only that they have bigger bills.

Yes, I'm cynical about this one, can you tell? The one nice thing aobut this is that they're pushing for the mid-vale LRT line.

4/07/2006 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger theorris said...

"...if you visit this site regularly, chances are you voted for them." Really, anonymous? So one is always a political slave to what one reads? I, for example, happen to like Rocky despite all the faults that Ethan so readily outlines. Just by regularly reading this site I am some sort of ditto-head? Pah. Grow some and post as an identifiable person and then I might give you a slight amount of consideration for your non-sensical, spite-driven comments.

4/07/2006 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger Shawn said...

The thing is New Urbanism works, but not when it's half-assed like what's going on with Daybreak and the Boyer Spoilers. Unfortunately, Boyer has now effectively sabotaged the Wasatch Front's first large New Urbanist expirament and people will point to Daybreak and say "see, it doesn't work."

4/10/2006 07:31:00 AM  
Blogger That One Guy said...

Being in the mortgage industry, I have done MANY mortgage loans for homes out in Daybreak. Myself, I couldn't FATHOM living out there, for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that you BETTER like your neighbors, as you will be sharing lots of things with them, more than you would think.

For me, it's not my kind of place at all. Not even slightly. I've driven around out there, and I ask the question, "what will the palce be like once all the developers pull the trailers out and quit doing the things that make it appealing so they can continue to get the home-buyer traffic?" It will look like any other medium- to high-density housing area, populated by people who are house-poor, and struggling to get that mortgage payment made.

Coulda been a nice community, but again, the developer sold out for more cash... like everything else around here, including the gravel pit in Sandy. I've seen the extensive plat maps for this too. Who would want to buy a $220,000 condo right next to a Wal-mart? Ummm, not me. I don't care how many walking paths and baseball diamonds they put in there, it's still right next to the walmart (a company I vehemently oppose anyway). And I do mean, RIGHT NEXT. You'd have to be NUTS to buy anything in there. Unless you don't mind 18-wheeler traffic early in the morning. And garbage all over the place. And snarled traffic. Bad deal.

4/10/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

Personally, I prefer old urbanism. Old urbanism gave people the latitude to tear down and rebuild their properties according to demographic trends. In a place like Salt Lake City, you would be seeing old single unit houses pulled down and replaced by duplexes, etc..

We stopped the engine of old style urbanization with aggressive zoning. Only the rich and politically powerful can get properties rezoned. The result is a city population that is stagnant and shrinking.

Even worse, we added to aggressive zoning the idiocy of redevelopment. The RDA philosophy is to use taxpayer dollars to encourage property owners to let their properties become blighted.

If you own a property, you can't get it rezoned and build a structure suitable for current demographic trends. What you have to do is hold the property until it becomes blighted. You can then sell to a politically connected developer who will get the rezoning and taxpayer dollars to build something that fits the political climate.

Old style urbanism let the community evolve and made more livable cities than the new style urbanism which reduces humanity to manfufactured units to be placed in cans and sealed.

4/10/2006 12:17:00 PM  
Blogger Shawn said...

Actually, the majority of the property in the eastern part of Downtown SLC (South of South Temple, West of 700E, North of 400S, East of State) is underutilized despite the zoning in place; what is allowed in most of the zone districts there is far denser than what has been developed. To give you an example, the new Emigration Court Apts on 500E between 300S & 400S are share the same zone district as the majority of the properties in the neighborhood; in other words, that particular property owner has opted to maximize his/her density. I think the reason that you don't see the maximum density developable in SLC is because most Utah developers are still in the business of tract homes and aren't convinced there's a market for urban condos yet.

4/10/2006 01:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate Shawn's knowledge and citing of actual fact to back up his assertions.

4/10/2006 02:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a Daybreak resident. I live in the tightest density housing short of a condo (its called a parkside, 6 feet to each neighbor on the side).

Neighbors in Daybreak actually talk to each other, smile and wave as you go by, etc.

I'm hoping to see some "towne centre" type development. Little caf├ęs and such, rather than the big boxes at the District, which I rarely visit other than an occasional visit to the theaters.

We have our issues and growing pains, but I think many of the residents are passionate about making a real community out in Daybreak.

We do need some HOA governance changes written into the law and such to put a little more control into the hands of the residents.

-- From the Red House in the middle of the block.

10/02/2006 02:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home