Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the great state of Utah, from the alpine peaks to the desert slots. Please post partners requests and trip plans here or in the Utah Climbing Partners section.
 

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jdzaharia » Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:55 pm

Where on the ridge or in that canyon could you possibly be that a 13-foot high coaster will be ruining your view, that the rest of the Snowbird resort is not already in full view.
User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Texas, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby marauders » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:23 pm

It's on the south aspect where there is currently no development. The resort is on the north side of the canyon. That's the issue. The south aspect is bare rock, cliff, etc. so this thing is right out in plain view on an otherwise natural, rugged mountain landscape. It's not the height of the rollercoster, it's the footprint on the mountainside for all of the dirt roads, slopecuts, maintenance buildings, etc. If you've seen Snowbird's current developed mountain terrain in the summer, it's a mess of cut roads and eroding slopesides. Snowbird is constantly lobbying for more land, ski terrain, development, etc. So once the south aspect has some development, give it a decade and the whole thing be "tamed" by development. In my opinion, a tragedy considering the stunning beauty of that terrain.
User Avatar
marauders

 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Orem, Utah, United States
Thanked: 13 times in 7 posts

The following user would like to thank marauders for this post
Dmitry Pruss, Ed F, jackstraw0083, Travis Atwood

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Ed F » Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:50 pm

Where on the ridge or in that canyon could you possibly be that a 13-foot high coaster will be ruining your view, that the rest of the Snowbird resort is not already in full view.


How about damn near everywhere east of the rollercoaster? Have you ever been to LCC? Seems odd to have such strong feelings about a canyon more than 1000 miles from you.
User Avatar
Ed F

 
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:15 pm
Location: High, Low, and in Between, Utah, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jdzaharia » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:13 pm

Ed F wrote:How about damn near everywhere east of the rollercoaster?

From the maps I've seen, the crosshairs on this map: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.58430,-111.65809&z=15&t=T are approximately the top of the proposed coaster. Looks to me that everything east of there, on the south side of the canyon, would already be on ski slopes and under chairlifts. And the north side of the canyon, east of the proposed coaster, is not within its viewshed, on top of being private property.


Ed F wrote:Have you ever been to LCC?

Nope. But, according to the argument about me being a property owner there, it doesn't matter.


Ed F wrote:Seems odd to have such strong feelings about a canyon more than 1000 miles from you.

What strong feelings have I expressed? I have asked honest questions because I truly want the answers to form an opinion on the subject. I also provided information based on the facts as I see them. I have not provided ad hominem attacks or red herring arguments, such as you have.

What do you know about me? How would you have any clue as to what places I have "strong feelings" for?
User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Texas, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Ed F » Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:40 am

jdzaharia wrote:
Ed F wrote:How about damn near everywhere east of the rollercoaster?

From the maps I've seen, the crosshairs on this map: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.58430,-111.65809&z=15&t=T are approximately the top of the proposed coaster. Looks to me that everything east of there, on the south side of the canyon, would already be on ski slopes and under chairlifts. And the north side of the canyon, east of the proposed coaster, is not within its viewshed, on top of being private property.


Ed F wrote:Have you ever been to LCC?

Nope. But, according to the argument about me being a property owner there, it doesn't matter.


Ed F wrote:Seems odd to have such strong feelings about a canyon more than 1000 miles from you.

What strong feelings have I expressed? I have asked honest questions because I truly want the answers to form an opinion on the subject. I also provided information based on the facts as I see them. I have not provided ad hominem attacks or red herring arguments, such as you have.

What do you know about me? How would you have any clue as to what places I have "strong feelings" for?


Calm down. See marauders' post above, which really says it all. Since you've never been there, it's hard to explain why a rollercoaster in that spot would be a rapid departure from even the massive development that already exists, your map spot notwithstanding. I think a rollercoaster in a mountain setting is ugly. Perhaps you don't. Whatever.
User Avatar
Ed F

 
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:15 pm
Location: High, Low, and in Between, Utah, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby builttospill » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:24 am

To me, the viewshed is a relatively minor concern. I think it would affect views from up-canyon, which are some of the most scenic in the state. Until you've seen Superior from near Albion Basin, especially with the sun setting, it's hard to describe. That said, I don't know how much impact this would have, given the size of the coaster. That's beyond my areas of expertise (wait, what are my areas of expertise again?).

My bigger concern is this: Snowbird, and other area ski resorts, have been known to use existing development (much of which was contested to begin with), to buttress their arguments for even more development. They basically insist on building Monstrosity X against all opposition, and then, a few years later, want to build Monstrosity Y and claim "but there's already Monstrosity X there, so what's the harm?"

This will sound familiar to anyone who has been paying attention to these issues for a few years. As I recall, even the signage atop Flagstaff was contested at the time, but those concerned were given the assurance that it was merely for surveying or some other neutral purpose. Turns out that surveying was for decidedly non-neutral purposes.

I'm not generally one to resort to slippery-slope arguments. But when they've got a big investment in a rollercoaster on the south slope of Superior, the next thing you know they'll be insisting on building a ski lift to the top to protect their asset from avalanches. Just saying.
User Avatar
builttospill

 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:53 pm
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
Thanked: 5 times in 4 posts

The following user would like to thank builttospill for this post
Ed F

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Dmitry Pruss » Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:38 pm

No, slippery slope logic isn't a mere figure of speech here. For example that's exactly what wilderness designations are about. If it is not pristine, then it won't be protected.

(Only the topmost 10% of this iconic ridge actually has Wilderness Designation at the moment ... not the most rugged midsection)

Even where the fed owns and protects the wild land, I'm afraid all bets may be off soon. The way the fiscal policies are being framed now, I'm afraid that this great nation will have to start selling the national assets very soon ... the scenic NF lands included.
User Avatar
Dmitry Pruss

 
Posts: 837
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:17 am
Location: Utah, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby marauders » Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:42 am

A positive update from Save Our Canyons concerning the proposed mountaincoaster:
______________________
A Coaster-Free Wasatch!

This past Monday, April 18th, the Salt Lake County Board of Adjustment (BOA) decided the January 12th Planning Commission decision to allow Snowbird to construct a "Mountain Coaster" on the slopes of Mt. Superior was ILLEGAL, siding with Save Our Canyons’ and another appellant’s appeal. Members of the BOA went through each point of both the Slope Waiver and Conditional Use criteria as laid out by State and County Ordinances, giving the issue the discussion it was warranted, but never received during the rushed January Planning Commission Hearing. Through their analysis, per our appeal, the BOA decided that the mountain coaster was not consistent with the definition of a “ski resort” as found in the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) and that it was also not compliant with the Wasatch Canyons Master Plan, which governs land use in the canyons.

Both the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News did a superb job covering the issue, which brought over 200 protesters to the Salt Lake County Complex in mid-March.

The controversial coaster united Save Our Canyons members, Snowbird patrons and condo owners, Alta residents, Alta School students and other numerous Wasatch lovers. Good things happen when we all work together! Thank you to everyone for elevating this issue and helping us reverse the County’s poor planning decision.

Snowbird has the opportunity to appeal the decision to the State of Utah once the decision is made final at the BOA’s next meeting on May 11th. Keep an eye on our website at www.saveourcanyons.org for future updates and annoucements.
______________________
User Avatar
marauders

 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Orem, Utah, United States
Thanked: 13 times in 7 posts

The following user would like to thank marauders for this post
spengy

Previous

Return to Utah

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.