Two Creeks in Herriman, Utah: A Disaster in Density

In an earlier post I mentioned housing density and how it impacts the surrounding community. The main point of the article was to show that density in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, if a dense development is not properly planned and located, it will almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the community.

When writing that article, I was not aware of the aspirations of a developer to build a high-density rental development in Herriman. Considering the proximity to Daybreak, this development will almost certainly affect those residents of Founders Park Village. Daybreak as a whole will be affected by this new development as the new high school for the area will be located adjacent to the development.

The new development will be called Two Creeks. Miller Timbergate Associates LLC appeared before the Herriman City government to gain approval for the first two phases of the project: Timbergate and Farmgate. These two phases will be dense. At around 20 units per acre, this will truly be the densest development around. Even Daybreak following the concept of new urbanism cannot claim densities as high as this development. Even if densities get higher in Daybreak in the future, they will be integrated into the community with a transect style of planning. Two Creeks is located near homes that are not even close to the planned density of nearby developments. Imagine your home next to multiple 4 story, 32 unit complexes. The Two Creeks plan suggests that the developer wants to develop his land his way without regard to the surrounding community in a piecemeal fashion that really doesn't fit.

The estimated population of the two approved projects is 1,696 people. With this many people, traffic is a real concern. However, this development will be located next to the proposed path of the Mountain View Corridor. By doing this, much of the traffic from the development will likely be dissipated. Not a bad idea right? Most local governments are in cooperation through Envision Utah to put higher densities next to the transit corridors. One problem with this plan is that it assumes that the Mountain View Corridor will be built and that when it is built that it will not be a toll road. If it is a toll road, I cannot imagine many of the residents of Two Creeks utilizing the road. TRAX is nearby, but these residents will be made to cross not only 118th South, but also the Mountain View Corridor to access it. Unless significant infrastructure is put in place to make this crossing safe, you will see additional problems. It will just be easier for them to hop in a car and drive. The location of this development, on the fringe of Salt Lake County, should also be a consideration as the price of gas would prevent the necessary long commute for many of these residents. Most of which are calculated to not have substantial financial means.

The traffic problem will only be exacerbated by the fact that the new area high school will be located literally within feet of the development. I wonder if all of the sports facilities that come along with the high school will be perceived as amenities for Two Creeks. Also, with the concentration of a lower socio-economic population you will have dual working parents and transient families. With many of the parents gone, I can imagine quite a few students hanging out in Two Creeks without supervision after school.

The single worst part of this development is that it will concentrate thousands of citizens of a lower socio-economic class. As stated in an earlier post about density this can cause a multitude of problems. Crime and social disruption will increase in this area with such a large concentration. This cluster will enable all of the myths that are associated with a higher-density development to have an opportunity to come true.

I have it from a good source that these units are meant for government Section 8 housing. The Section 8 program allows those who qualify to pay rents that are adjusted to their income. 30% of their income goes to rent. For example, if a low-income family made 1500 dollars per month they would spend about 450 dollars for rent each month. The government covers the rest. This program can truly help those in need, but the idea is to spread those who are on the program over a wide geographic area not concentrate them. We already have Section 8 families in our community, but they are dispersed.

So why is this happening and why now? With the housing market being in doubt there are many people waiting out the market in hopes to buy when the market starts to go up again. Other people cannot afford a mortgage as the new lending criteria prevents them from qualifying. So what do these people do? They rent. With Utah’s strong economy, there are more people moving to the valley in search of jobs and many will opt to rent for a variety of reasons. All of this combined has pushed monthly rents up 10% in the last year alone. The rental market is starting to look really attractive to a lot of investors. I would not be surprised to see a lot of developments pop up in various communities that are high density and haven’t been integrated properly. That is why people need to be more involved at the local government level about what happens in their community. I believe the Sunstone residents (just to the west of Daybreak) would agree with me as they seem to have attended the relevant meetings and have even appealed the approval of Two Creeks. Hopefully this mess will be stopped before it is too late.

Mountain View Corridor

The proposed Mountain View corridor has been in the news a lot lately. This new highway will contain up to eight lanes that run North and South along the East side of the Oquirrh Mountains. For those who would like to drive North from Daybreak in the future, this highway will definitely beat taking bangerter. However, the Mountain View Corridor will bring with it all of the things that we hate about I-15. Pollution, noise, and dust come to mind immediately. It will bring these unwanted side effects directly in to Daybreak as the corridor passes directly through the town center. There is always a price to having such a convenience nearby. In short, the region and county needs this transportation corridor and running it near Daybreak makes sense. With the growth that is expected in the next 30 years the region would suffocate in traffic unless this highway is built. The good news is that the pollution aspect of vehicles will have greatly diminished by then. As you have seen in the news cars have become more efficient and suitable alternatives are being speedily researched in the midst of escalating oil prices. In fact the government predicts that the more stringent federal regulation of emissions will drive vehicle emissions down even though the number of vehicles on the road will have increased and estimated three fold.

So why so close to Daybreak? If you look at the map of the proposed route, they could build the road around Daybreak, but why would they run it through a future subdivision of Kennecott? It would have the same effect and it would cost more. Looking at the West Bench plan Kennecott has compensated for this by having the corridor pass through the more urban section of Daybreak - the town center. So the highway wont necessarily be in your backyard.

What about the noise and the dust? The solution to those problems will essentially be the same barriers that you see along the existing freeways. If Kennecott is smart, and I think they are, they will plant lots of trees and other such vegetation to act as natural noise absorption barriers with the added benefit that they filter the air. Local governments and UTA have been working together to bring Trax and other mass transit options to the west side as well. Considering that Kennecott made a massive contribution to the environmental impact study that was conducted for the jordan light rail line, I feel that they have also promoted mass transit in Daybreak as well as the West bench. Kennecott seems likely to continue this encouragement in the future as they tend to follow new urbanism principles.

Another feature of this new highway that raised my eyebrows was the consideration of a toll for use of the road. This would essentially make those who use the road pay for its maintenance and construction. Not a bad idea, but why should residents of the west side have to pay a toll for their North-South mobility while the rest of the county does not? I will address this and other issues in later posts.