Oquirrh Mountain Temple Open House Scheduled

The dates for an open house and the dedication of the new Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple in Daybreak, South Jordan were announced Saturday by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The open house will take place weekdays from June 1 through Aug. 1, except for the July 4 and July 24 holidays. The temple will be dedicated Aug. 14-16, with 12 dedicatory sessions scheduled. The 130th operating temple for the church — the 13th in Utah — was announced at the October 2005 general conference. Groundbreaking ceremonies occurred Dec. 16, 2006.

The temple will serve roughly 83,000 residents in the western Salt Lake Valley. It is the fourth temple in the valley. South Jordan will be the first city in the world with two LDS temples.

A Look Behind at South Jordan, Utah

For the greater part of last century South Jordan, Utah was a rural community on the fringe of Salt Lake County. While this town is still suburban, the growth of South Jordan in the last two decades has been phenomenal. You can look at the numbers from census data, but that does not quite capture the growth in a manner that shows the sweeping nature of the population wave that has swept over Salt Lake County. Today I found a website that shows this growth visually. Trulia Hindsight's map uses the year the properties were built to show the growth of streets, neighborhoods and cities over time. Click here to see South Jordan's growth over time.

TRAX in Daybreak - Real Estate Boost?

As we experience a declining housing market in the U.S., it is important to consider the geography of areas both losing and gaining property value. In Utah we are currently seeing some neighborhoods decline as they are primarily constituted of homes in the higher price ranges. Beyond this trend, there is another subtle trend that I have noticed taking place across the country. Homes within a walkable distance to light-rail stations are fairing better in this down market and some are even gaining value.

The Washington post reported on this trend, showing the percent change in the median home price of individual zip codes of Washington D.C. and its surrounding counties. The paper found that areas without direct access to metro stations - ones that were typically suburban in nature - experienced greater losses in median home value.

In Denver, where they have pushed light-rail construction heavily, the Denver Post reported that values have increased for homes near light-rail stations:

Margarete Humphrey knows her bungalow near the Louisiana Station light-rail stop is in a hot neighborhood. But she was surprised to learn the value of her home has increased over the past two years as much of the metro Denver housing market has declined. Homes near light-rail stations along the southeast line, which opened in November 2006, have increased by an average of nearly 4 percent over the past two years, according to an analysis by Your Castle Real Estate. But the rest of the Denver market declined an average of 7.5 percent.

While most of the studies indicate that transit increases property values, there are a few that have found that it decreases property values. In looking at these studies these negative impacts occur because of the negative side effects that are realized by those properties located right next to rail facilities. The noise, aesthetics, and traffic were cited as the primary culprits. In these studies homes that were in extreme close proximity lost value, but homes further away (but still within walking distance) gained value. However, most of these negative impacts can be mitigated by proper planning. The Daybreak plan looks to mitigate these factors as the TRAX line follows commercial, industrial, and retail properties in its penetration of the community. So these "nuisance effects" are absorbed by these non-residential areas that actually benefit from the traffic of cars and people. Further benefit is realized as these non-residential properties will be using the TRAX parking to their benefit.

So how does transit increase property values? Because it increases access to area destinations for residents in close proximity to transit stations. It is for this very reason that TRAX may be able to add maximum value to the Daybreak community. Daybreak essentially lies on the fringe of development in Southwest Salt Lake County. To get to most destinations, residents must travel either East or North to arrive there. Right now there are limited options to do this and accessibility is definitely a problem. TRAX offers a direct route to Salt Lake City, the University of Utah, various sports complexes, shopping centers, commuter rail, etc. While gas prices have recently gone down drastically, I do not expect them to stay there. The more gas prices increase the more people will see TRAX as their best transportation option. This will only increase property values more.

Overall, transit adds value to communities like Daybreak regardless of the economic climate. Neighborhoods and communities with strong connectivity will thrive in the long-term. Transit has the ability to increase (or at least sustain) value because it provides more people with access to essential destinations in a given area; it also improves one's quality of life in congested metropolitan areas such as the Wasatch Front.

Housing Density and NIMBYs

Housing density has been and will remain the most common disagreement with regards to new development in existing towns. The politics surrounding this issue can be fierce with strong emotions on all sides. The battle over density usually starts when a developer purchases land with plans to build medium to high-density residential. One resident will hear about the pending project and will rally the troops. This person is usually referred to as a NIMBY which stands for Not In My Back Yard. This neighborhood watchdog will then broadcast the message that an evil developer is trying to profit with a new development and does not care about its impact on the surrounding community.

This was the case with Daybreak and many other new urban communities across the nation. The question that I would like to ask most NIMBYs is this: how did you inform yourself about the topic of density and its effects? Some of them call on first-hand experience. The neighbors near many developments complain about the traffic that the development is causing. Of course while the infrastructure that will accompany the development is only starting these neighbors pass judgment by what they see immediately. This short-term, subjectivity should not be taken as fact, but many NIMBY’s present it as fact. Many NIMBYs that I have talked to use the words “its just common sense” all too often when trying to explain their information source. While I feel that common sense is a valid tool that cannot be underestimated, I also feel that it is sometimes confused with myth.

These myths are traditional in my opinion. Passed down through the generations and are added to with each new generation. The history of where these myths started reaches back as far as the 1800s. The US started as an agricultural nation and transitioned into an industrial nation with factories and mass production. This transition was accompanied by waves of immigration from Europe. Each new wave contained different ethnic groups that were overtly discriminated against. This discrimination clustered these immigrants into densely populated areas with the least desirable jobs. This segregation along socio-economic status lines resulted in the materialization of many of the myths that are associated with density.

Fast forward to the age of suburbia that started after World War II. Being enabled to travel long distances via automobile, people could more economically live in the suburbs and further segregate themselves. Zoning use ordinances specified separation of land use and from then on commercial could no longer coexist with residential. In many cases this meant separation of density as well. Fast forward again to the 70s and 80s where the government decided to build “project housing” which not only segregated people of lower socio-economic status, but actually concentrated them. Many of these were an immediate failure with rampant crime and social problems. The images created by these projects reverberated with further intensity in the media particularly in movies and television. The “inner city” was a dangerous crime ridden area only suitable for those “other” people. All of these events perpetuated the myths of density with a simple philosophy: guilty by association.

So what is the real story behind density? The best way to answer this question is to address the myths often cited by NIMBYs one at a time.

Myth: Density will lower the value of my home. Many things can lower the value of a home, but density is not by itself one of them. In fact researchers have conducted many studies on single-family housing that is located in proximity to dense residential developments. The conclusion of these studies is that there is not a significant difference in the appreciation rate of those single family homes located in close proximity to high residential developments and those single-family homes located further away. In fact the percentage of appreciation is 2.9 versus 2.7 percent. This is not a significant difference. However, if you have an apartment building located next to your home that is 5 stories tall, over 30 years old, the grass is browning, windows are broken, loud music is blaring from the windows, and the paint is literally peeling like a sunburn, then this will obviously lower the value of your home. Of course, if a single family residence was in the same state, then it would lower the value of your home as well.

Another myth is that dense housing will create more traffic. Obviously if you add more cars to an area you will have more traffic. However, research has proven that higher density housing decreases traffic per person. Single family detached homes average 10 car trips a day. Compare that to the 6.3 car trips per day made by people living in townhomes and condominiums. Density is also needed for public transportation to be feasible. The Mid-Jordan TRAX line would not extend to South Jordan at all if not for the density that will make up the Daybreak Town Center. This mode of transportation will bring an additional choice for transportation that is likely to be used considering gas prices. Daybreak further mitigates traffic by having most necessities within walking distance which encourages the two-legged commute.

The most prominent myth about density is that it creates crime. This claim is absolutely false. Numerous studies have been conducted and the conclusion is that per population, crime is the same in higher density housing as it is in single family housing. The perception of crime is perpetuated when the observer holds an entire apartment complex to the same standard as one single family home. So when three juveniles from the same complex commit a crime and the police show up at the apartment complex three times in one year, it is considered “crime ridden.” On the other hand if the police show up for a juvenile in a single family residence this is considered an “anomaly.” Crime research indicates that crimes increase in accordance with certain socioeconomic indicators such as education attainment, unemployment (particularly of males), and the poverty rate.

The final main myth is that dense residential housing is unattractive and is only desired by lower-income households. Considering the changing demographics and preferences of consumers, this assumption is not based in reality. This market appeals to empty-nester and first-time home buyers tremendously. As with anything in real estate it is all about location, location, location. You can buy a single-family home in some locations for half of the price of a town home in south Jordan. Considering that the average income earner in Utah currently cannot purchase high-density housing in many areas, I would have to say that it is not just the poor that are moving into condos and townhomes. If the housing has a good design and is well maintained it will attract quality residents who care about and participate in their community.

So who is winning this battle, the NIMBYs or the New Urbanists? The New Urbanists have the clear lead, but this depends greatly on where you live. In North Dakota and Oklahoma , the NIMBYs are holding their ground. If you live in Utah , Colorado , Texas , Florida , or California on the other hand, the New Urbanists are definitely ahead of the game. Since its inception in the early 80s, New Urbanism has grown at a phenomenal rate in most states. Locally, more and more new urban developments are popping up. They are called by different names such as smart growth or transit oriented developments, but they are the same with respect to density.

In fact, South Jordan will shortly be surrounded by these developments. With the Herriman Towne Center , Daybreak, Jordan River , and other future communities coming to light, New Urbanism will also be the future of development locally. A number of strong forces demand this density. Energy costs demand homes that are more efficient, smaller, easier to take care of, and closer to the necessities of life. Businesses now want to locate their operations in communities that are vibrant, walkable, and have transit nearby. Density is the vehicle that has to be used to accomplish these attributes. The government wants density as it allows for less expenditure on infrastructure per tax payer. Finally, people are demanding more density and they are voting with their feet. The success of dense New Urban communities speaks volumes about this demand.

Density will have its place in the future of South Jordan, but if not planned correctly it can cause problems. Density cannot be thrown in a community in a half hazard manner in order for the developer to make a buck. Instead it should be planned and integrated correctly according to transect planning and community needs. These new developments must feature good designs that are sensitive to the context of the surrounding community. These designs and features must be maintained by a community organization such as a HOA. I can see why many NIMBYs are opposed to housing density, but assumptions should not be made based on false associations of the past. To those NIMBYs who will fight till their last breath any development that has more density that 2 units per acre consider if your beliefs about density are actually true. Also consider if your energy might be better spent ensuring that these developments are integrated properly instead of trying to ban them all together. Density is here to stay. Instead of a battle of how many units per acre, we need to ensure that these units are built, maintained, and located in a fashion that will enhance the community for all of us.

Daybreak Demographics

When you study demographics you study the future. What does the future of Daybreak hold? Lots of kids. According to recent census information, 35% of south Jordan's population is under the age of 18. With another 31% falling between the ages of 18 and 44. Instead of a bell curve South Jordan's population looks like one large declining slope with a jagged peak in the middle. The most recent demographics of Daybreak indicate a whopping 43% of residents are under 18 with the majority of those between the ages of 0 and 3. Yeah lots of kids. No matter when I walk or drive the streets of Daybreak kids are out playing and having a good time. It makes a nice atmosphere. What about income? 75% of households in South Jordan gross more than 50,000 dollars a year with 25% making over 100,000. Much higher than average. People who live in South Jordan tend to be more educated with 31% holding a bachelor's degree or higher level of education. These demographics have been formed by a formidable population explosion. In 2000 the population was around 30,000, but now it has grown 67% to just over 50,000. City officials estimate that South Jordan's population will top out at around 90,000. This will probably happen once Daybreak has been completed. In short South Jordan as well as Daybreak are budding communities that will see years of substantial growth. This is definitely in drastic contrast with many older, but declining neighborhoods and towns in the Salt Lake valley. All of this bodes well for Daybreak residents as demographics such as these facilitate a healthy community. Hopefully it will stay that way for generations to come.

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.