Seattle could take a cue from Salt Lake planners

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Brigham Young famously wanted streets wide enough to turn a team of horses and wagon in, and the superblocks were designed to be neatly divided into plots that would give the settlers enough land to grow crops, have an orchard and sustain themselves.

Few wagon trains are pulling U-turns in downtown Salt Lake these days, and the office buildings and parking lots don’t leave much room for fruit trees. And even the most meticulously planned community loses its luster over time and needs some modernizing especially if the alternative for new investment is not unsettled wilderness but the growing suburbs and towns strung along the Wasatch front.

So Salt Lake is embarking on a major redevelopment effort under an umbrella plan called Downtown Rising in which nearly $2 billion will be invested in new offices, residential and retail buildings, arts, culture and governmental facilities and transit projects.

There’s a Seattle component to this. Seattle-based architecture firm Callison is a participant in one of downtown Salt Lake’s biggest projects, City Creek, a 20-acre mixed-use project across the street from Temple Square.

Seattle-based retailer Nordstrom was one of the drivers behind the redevelopment effort generally and City Creek in particular.

“Frankly, the heart of downtown has for the last 20 years been slipping into a worse state of repair,” says Callison principal Stan Laegreid. “It was turning into quite a liability. Everyone agreed something needed to be done.” As a downtown tenant with a lease nearing its end, Nordstrom was “watching the value of a downtown and a commercial market just steadily slip away.” The retailer was reluctant to stay unless “there was a larger commitment to turn downtown around.”

Beyond those specifics, Salt Lake’s efforts to rejuvenate its downtown have some interesting parallels and contrasts for Seattle as it considers its own redevelopment efforts in places such as South Lake Union, south downtown and Sodo.

Salt Lake and Seattle are hardly alone among western U.S. cities considering large-scale redevelopments that involve millions of dollars in investment and years of planning and wrangling. Some cities get a blank canvas to work with in the form of abandoned rail yards that cover acres of potentially prime developable real estate. Sacramento, Calif.; Santa Fe, N.M.; and Spokane are in varying stages of rail-yard redevelopment projects. Renton is working with former Boeing property near Lake Washington. Yakima is looking at what it can do with a former sawmill.

Salt Lake differs somewhat in that it’s trying to work a somewhat coordinated plan into and around an existing downtown, although Laegreid says there’s actually considerable open property in the downtown core.

But the biggest difference between Salt Lake and Seattle is the influence and participation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Temple Square is at the physical heart of downtown, drawing visitors as both a religious center and tourist destination.

“They have deliberately spearheaded this effort,” Laegreid says. “That introduces a dynamic and a patronage in the process that very few cities have. That was a big trigger in allowing this to happen.”

Contrast that with development efforts in Seattle. One striking feature about Downtown Rising is the breadth of business sector and governmental participation in a shared plan for downtown. With Seattle’s fractious political scene, very little gets done in a coordinated fashion unless, of course, a private developer such as Paul Allen’s Vulcan in South Lake Union has the size and drive to come up with a large-scale redevelopment plan on its own and push it to reality.

Not that having such an influential partner meant immediate unanimity in Salt Lake. “There still were a lot of vested parties that collectively had to share a vision,” Laegreid says. Once the first ideas were floated, human nature took over. “Everyone’s got opinions,” he says. “There was a certain amount of compromising, everyone getting their voices heard.” Although Salt Lake isn’t as consensus-crazy as Seattle, “given the high profile of the project, it started to feel much more like a Seattle” process.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Google outlines Web development investments in three areas

Friday, May 30th, 2008

To encourage the creation of more Web-based applications during the next several years, Google Inc. will invest in three key areas for developers, including opening up its servers to host their applications, encouraging pervasive connectivity to the Web, and making the browser more powerful, said Vic Gundotra, Google’s vice president of engineering, who gave the opening keynote speech at this year’s Google Developer Conference at the Moscone Center in San Francisco.

“Google was born in the era of the Web,” Gundotra said. “It’s the only platform we’ve known. It was a platform that was formed by consensus. It was all of us collectively that agreed to a few standards. We feel a debt of gratitude toward that community.”

Gundotra conceded that Web developers working atop Google-provided development tools and servers would lead to remunerative opportunities for the Mountain View, Calif.-based company. “As the Web gets bigger and enables better Web apps, it attracts more users. For us, more users means more Google searches, which leads to more revenue. But the money we make will get dumped back into the platform.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Apple Crumble Grumble

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

Apple doesn’t get a whole lot wrong does it? (Although I drafted this blog before seeing the lead story “Firefox chief fumes over Apple Safari update” on ZDNET this morning.) So it’s sometimes tough to have a decent grumble. Speaking as an owner of a pair of Mac laptops and a nice shiny iPod I’m hardly best placed to start venting my spleen, but I think I have grounds here…

First, there was the incident of my browser imploding on my old PowerBook G4. OK, so I’m only running Panther and the new Safari upgrade is for Tiger upwards. So why did the software updater let me install and then decide to send all copies of Safari down a spiralling staircase of thermonuclear destruction?

Software updates come at you so often with Apple that sometimes it becomes a case of ‘click to update’ without giving it too much thought. Thinking about it more closely, it’s usually just an upgrade to iTunes so they can sell me more “stuff” to download. Note to self for more caution in future - Firefox it is from now on then.

Then, after doing some digging around in the FAQ department of the online Safari support pages I noticed that there was a glaring lack of ‘mobile development’ info to be had. As I rifled through the reams of pages on best practices for development I thought, hang on – they have to be kidding, no web for mobile?

This was because I was already too far in – Apple appears to keep its ‘development for iPhone‘ section separate to its web development section. I think this is a strange move from a strategic point of view based on the consensus from the rest of the industry. Mobile device access is a natural extension of all development, web or otherwise – isn’t it?

Thinking about this little rant, I did speak to Apple’s VP of developer relations Ron Okamoto a couple of years back. He’s a lovely chap for sure, but our chat was all ‘big picture’ stuff and I wasn’t able to write up a Q&A from it. Does Apple invite us developer-focused journalists to the Apple Developer Connection? They do not.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related posts

US scraps futuristic coal plant

Monday, February 4th, 2008

WASHINGTON The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled a futuristic, virtually emissions-free coal plant scheduled to be built in Illinois, saying it preferred to spend the money on a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.”This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in making the announcement to scuttle the FutureGen program.Bodman said the Energy Department would solicit industry applications for participation in the new carbon capture projects. The idea is for the government to pay for building the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming, officials said.The shift has stunned officials in Illinois, where an industry group announced in December it would build the $1.8 billion FutureGen plant, three-fourths of which was being paid for by the federal government - funds now no longer available.The FutureGen program was envisioned as a unique research project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth. It would produce both electricity and hydrogen.First proposed nearly a decade ago with an estimated cost of just under $1 billion, its cost has soared to nearly double that. The project for years had trouble getting adequate funds and some critics long ago dubbed it “Never Gen.” But in 2003, President Bush hailed it as a potential breakthrough in clean coal technology and a key to eventually achieve wider use of hydrogen as a fuel.The FutureGen Alliance issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.Michael Mudd, the alliance’s chief executive officer, called the project “America’s best hope for near-zero emission coal technology” as quickly as possible. “It will take four to five years for DOE to evaluate new proposals, place contracts, and conduct environmental reviews for new projects,” said Mudd in a statement on the Alliance’s Web site.The Energy Department on Wednesday cited its concern about the FutureGen cost escalation. Officials said it was preferable to pursue separate clean coal technologies instead of what one official called “a living laboratory” concept. It will begin a process leading to a solicitation of industry bids for projects by the end of the year.”There was a consensus view that the price of this project will only increase,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell of the FutureGen program.Sell said FutureGen was viewed has having little prospect of commercial viability. If industry pulled out of the program at some point in the future “it would put taxpayers at risk,” said Sell.The announcement to cancel the program came 43 days after the FutureGen Alliance, the private coalition developing the program, announced it would build the plant in Mattoon, Ill., winning a competition with two other sites in Texas.Illinois’ congressional delegation waged a last ditch, and unsuccessful, appeal to the White House to keep the project intact.Illinois Reps. John Shimkus and Timothy Johnson, both Republicans, contacted President Bush aboard Air Force I.”President Bush did take the time to listen to our concerns,” said Shimkus.Some Illinois officials, noting Bush’s connections to Texas, said they believe the plant was scuttled because the industry group had selected Mattoon, Ill., over a proposed side in Odessa, Tex.Sell called such a charge “outrageous” and said the department had tried to keep the FutureGen Alliance from making a site selection on Dec. 18, so as not to give false hope to the people of Mattoon, where the project would have brought thousands of construction jobs.Sell said he and Bodman learned only last March that FutureGen’s cost had escalated from an original $950 million to $1.8 billion. “I knew (then) that we were in to something that would not end well,” Sell told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.The department will propose as part of its fiscal 2009 budget to be unveiled next Monday $241 million for demonstration programs involving carbon capture and storage from coal-burning power plants, including $156 million related to the FutureGen “restructuring.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Lack of ‘killer app’ stalling fibre rollout

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008

That’s the warning from Ian Fogg, research director at JupiterResearch Europe, who was speaking during a Westminster eForum debate on the future of broadband in Britain.

Without investment to improve broadband infrastructure ?such as fibre to the home (FTTH) and fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) ?Fogg said the danger is “the next big thing on the internet may not work in the UK”.

But, even so, Fogg admitted that the business case for fibre is “incredibly hard” as the market has seen a slide in the average price for broadband over the last few years and consumers don’t see why they should pay more for fat-pipe access.

All-IP next-generation networks (NGNs) are being rolled out in the UK ?such as BT’s 21CN ?but NGNs do not solve the problem of legacy copper wiring at street level, from exchanges to cabinets and homes ?an issue known as “next-generation access” (NGA). NGA is the fly in the ointment of faster broadband in the UK.

Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), told delegates the prospects for early investment in NGA are not good. But he said this is an issue that is likely to trouble small businesses before it annoys consumers, as SMEs might feel they are losing a competitive edge for accessing and competing in global markets where fibre deployments have ?or may ?outstrip the UK.

Consumer demand for upgrading the UK’s broadband infrastructure is less clear cut, Walker said. This point was echoed by Ofcom executive Peter Phillips, partner for strategy and markets development, who said there is still “a lot of uncertainty” about how long current broadband networks will deliver what consumers need.

The speakers at the eForum touched on various applications ?from videoconferencing to greater opportunities for home working to the rise of social networking and even the BBC’s iPlayer ?that might benefit from improved broadband infrastructure. But the general consensus was no “killer app” for NGNs has yet emerged.

JupiterResearch’s Fogg said: “No-one has yet identified that unique application that can only be delivered over next-generation broadband.”

Ofcom’s Phillips added that there may even be some advantage to the UK holding back on broadband development ?to see how things pan out in other countries and learn from their experience. The regulator is currently consulting on NGA.

The stance of the network operators was summed up by Andrew Lazarus, head of regulatory policy and strategy at BT, who said the company “does believe we can get a lot more out of copper”.

Lazarus cited ADSL+ ?coming next year, with top speeds of up to 24Mbps ?and said speeds would still “satisfy a lot of apps”. Issues such as broadband “not spots” ?areas not currently served by fat pipes ?and headline speeds are “not necessarily part of the fibre debate”, according to Lazarus.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

US scraps futuristic coal plant

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008

WASHINGTON The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled a futuristic, virtually emissions-free coal plant scheduled to be built in Illinois, saying it preferred to spend the money on a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.”This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in making the announcement to scuttle the FutureGen program.Bodman said the Energy Department would solicit industry applications for participation in the new carbon capture projects. The idea is for the government to pay for building the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming, officials said.The shift has stunned officials in Illinois, where an industry group announced in December it would build the $1.8 billion FutureGen plant, three-fourths of which was being paid for by the federal government - funds now no longer available.The FutureGen program was envisioned as a unique research project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth. It would produce both electricity and hydrogen.First proposed nearly a decade ago with an estimated cost of just under $1 billion, its cost has soared to nearly double that. The project for years had trouble getting adequate funds and some critics long ago dubbed it “Never Gen.” But in 2003, President Bush hailed it as a potential breakthrough in clean coal technology and a key to eventually achieve wider use of hydrogen as a fuel.The FutureGen Alliance issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.Michael Mudd, the alliance’s chief executive officer, called the project “America’s best hope for near-zero emission coal technology” as quickly as possible. “It will take four to five years for DOE to evaluate new proposals, place contracts, and conduct environmental reviews for new projects,” said Mudd in a statement on the Alliance’s Web site.The Energy Department on Wednesday cited its concern about the FutureGen cost escalation. Officials said it was preferable to pursue separate clean coal technologies instead of what one official called “a living laboratory” concept. It will begin a process leading to a solicitation of industry bids for projects by the end of the year.”There was a consensus view that the price of this project will only increase,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell of the FutureGen program.Sell said FutureGen was viewed has having little prospect of commercial viability. If industry pulled out of the program at some point in the future “it would put taxpayers at risk,” said Sell.The announcement to cancel the program came 43 days after the FutureGen Alliance, the private coalition developing the program, announced it would build the plant in Mattoon, Ill., winning a competition with two other sites in Texas.Illinois’ congressional delegation waged a last ditch, and unsuccessful, appeal to the White House to keep the project intact.Illinois Reps. John Shimkus and Timothy Johnson, both Republicans, contacted President Bush aboard Air Force I.”President Bush did take the time to listen to our concerns,” said Shimkus.Some Illinois officials, noting Bush’s connections to Texas, said they believe the plant was scuttled because the industry group had selected Mattoon, Ill., over a proposed side in Odessa, Tex.Sell called such a charge “outrageous” and said the department had tried to keep the FutureGen Alliance from making a site selection on Dec. 18, so as not to give false hope to the people of Mattoon, where the project would have brought thousands of construction jobs.Sell said he and Bodman learned only last March that FutureGen’s cost had escalated from an original $950 million to $1.8 billion. “I knew (then) that we were in to something that would not end well,” Sell told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.The department will propose as part of its fiscal 2009 budget to be unveiled next Monday $241 million for demonstration programs involving carbon capture and storage from coal-burning power plants, including $156 million related to the FutureGen “restructuring.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Is a recession on the way?

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

US scraps futuristic coal plant

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

WASHINGTON The Energy Department on Wednesday canceled a futuristic, virtually emissions-free coal plant scheduled to be built in Illinois, saying it preferred to spend the money on a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.”This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in making the announcement to scuttle the FutureGen program.Bodman said the Energy Department would solicit industry applications for participation in the new carbon capture projects. The idea is for the government to pay for building the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming, officials said.The shift has stunned officials in Illinois, where an industry group announced in December it would build the $1.8 billion FutureGen plant, three-fourths of which was being paid for by the federal government - funds now no longer available.The FutureGen program was envisioned as a unique research project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth. It would produce both electricity and hydrogen.First proposed nearly a decade ago with an estimated cost of just under $1 billion, its cost has soared to nearly double that. The project for years had trouble getting adequate funds and some critics long ago dubbed it “Never Gen.” But in 2003, President Bush hailed it as a potential breakthrough in clean coal technology and a key to eventually achieve wider use of hydrogen as a fuel.The FutureGen Alliance issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.Michael Mudd, the alliance’s chief executive officer, called the project “America’s best hope for near-zero emission coal technology” as quickly as possible. “It will take four to five years for DOE to evaluate new proposals, place contracts, and conduct environmental reviews for new projects,” said Mudd in a statement on the Alliance’s Web site.The Energy Department on Wednesday cited its concern about the FutureGen cost escalation. Officials said it was preferable to pursue separate clean coal technologies instead of what one official called “a living laboratory” concept. It will begin a process leading to a solicitation of industry bids for projects by the end of the year.”There was a consensus view that the price of this project will only increase,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell of the FutureGen program.Sell said FutureGen was viewed has having little prospect of commercial viability. If industry pulled out of the program at some point in the future “it would put taxpayers at risk,” said Sell.The announcement to cancel the program came 43 days after the FutureGen Alliance, the private coalition developing the program, announced it would build the plant in Mattoon, Ill., winning a competition with two other sites in Texas.Illinois’ congressional delegation waged a last ditch, and unsuccessful, appeal to the White House to keep the project intact.Illinois Reps. John Shimkus and Timothy Johnson, both Republicans, contacted President Bush aboard Air Force I.”President Bush did take the time to listen to our concerns,” said Shimkus.Some Illinois officials, noting Bush’s connections to Texas, said they believe the plant was scuttled because the industry group had selected Mattoon, Ill., over a proposed side in Odessa, Tex.Sell called such a charge “outrageous” and said the department had tried to keep the FutureGen Alliance from making a site selection on Dec. 18, so as not to give false hope to the people of Mattoon, where the project would have brought thousands of construction jobs.Sell said he and Bodman learned only last March that FutureGen’s cost had escalated from an original $950 million to $1.8 billion. “I knew (then) that we were in to something that would not end well,” Sell told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.The department will propose as part of its fiscal 2009 budget to be unveiled next Monday $241 million for demonstration programs involving carbon capture and storage from coal-burning power plants, including $156 million related to the FutureGen “restructuring.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Is a recession on the way?

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Lack of ‘killer app’ stalling fibre rollout

Friday, February 1st, 2008

That’s the warning from Ian Fogg, research director at JupiterResearch Europe, who was speaking during a Westminster eForum debate on the future of broadband in Britain.

Without investment to improve broadband infrastructure ?such as fibre to the home (FTTH) and fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) ?Fogg said the danger is “the next big thing on the internet may not work in the UK”.

But, even so, Fogg admitted that the business case for fibre is “incredibly hard” as the market has seen a slide in the average price for broadband over the last few years and consumers don’t see why they should pay more for fat-pipe access.

All-IP next-generation networks (NGNs) are being rolled out in the UK ?such as BT’s 21CN ?but NGNs do not solve the problem of legacy copper wiring at street level, from exchanges to cabinets and homes ?an issue known as “next-generation access” (NGA). NGA is the fly in the ointment of faster broadband in the UK.

Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), told delegates the prospects for early investment in NGA are not good. But he said this is an issue that is likely to trouble small businesses before it annoys consumers, as SMEs might feel they are losing a competitive edge for accessing and competing in global markets where fibre deployments have ?or may ?outstrip the UK.

Consumer demand for upgrading the UK’s broadband infrastructure is less clear cut, Walker said. This point was echoed by Ofcom executive Peter Phillips, partner for strategy and markets development, who said there is still “a lot of uncertainty” about how long current broadband networks will deliver what consumers need.

The speakers at the eForum touched on various applications ?from videoconferencing to greater opportunities for home working to the rise of social networking and even the BBC’s iPlayer ?that might benefit from improved broadband infrastructure. But the general consensus was no “killer app” for NGNs has yet emerged.

JupiterResearch’s Fogg said: “No-one has yet identified that unique application that can only be delivered over next-generation broadband.”

Ofcom’s Phillips added that there may even be some advantage to the UK holding back on broadband development ?to see how things pan out in other countries and learn from their experience. The regulator is currently consulting on NGA.

The stance of the network operators was summed up by Andrew Lazarus, head of regulatory policy and strategy at BT, who said the company “does believe we can get a lot more out of copper”.

Lazarus cited ADSL+ ?coming next year, with top speeds of up to 24Mbps ?and said speeds would still “satisfy a lot of apps”. Issues such as broadband “not spots” ?areas not currently served by fat pipes ?and headline speeds are “not necessarily part of the fibre debate”, according to Lazarus.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Archives

January 2009
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Other

Syndication