7 ms·

I've been really impressed with SLC when I visit, and my brother recently moved there from LA. It's got a lot going for it and is quite appealing for tech, givi

by npunt 6y ago

I've been really impressed with SLC when I visit, and my brother recently moved there from LA. It's got a lot going for it and is quite appealing for tech, giving housing prices, a culture of reasonable working hours, and access to nature. SLC is also becoming more cosmopolitan, and the region seems like it is generally run quite well. Unfortunately, there's also bad pollution. The valley makes SLC prone to pollution and especially inversion layers in the winter and ozone in summer. You'd expect mountain air and you get that sometimes, but other times it's as bad as or worse than major cities elsewhere. One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. It's been slowly getting better due to car emissions standards (which Utah has no active involvement in), but there's still a lot of pollution sources that need addressing. There's an active refinery in town, at least one big mine across the valley, tons of trucks and trains passing through the region, and the airport is being expanded. Given the air is also extremely dry in the winter, I can't see myself moving there, despite it hitting a lot of my criteria for places to live. Were they to get their environmental house in order I'd say it's one of the best places to live. I hope someday SLC realizes its just not geographically destined to be an industrial hub, and makes responsible choices to shift away from that. http://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/states/utah/salt-lake.html http://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/states/utah/salt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_in_Utah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_in_Utah https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/01/28/salt-lake-citys-air/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/01/28/salt-lake...

remarkEon 6y ago
>Unfortunately, there's also bad pollution. The valley makes SLC prone to pollution and especially inversion layers in the winter and ozone in summer. You'd expect mountain air and you get that sometimes, but other times it's as bad as or worse than major cities elsewhere. I had no idea about this, wow. What causes it? Just the fact that it's in a valley? I've been to SLC only once to visit some friends, but I guess I didn't really notice (was only driving through).
- hunter-gatherer 6y ago
  My family lives north of Salt Lake and it does indeed get pretty bad, especially in the winter. I declined a job a Utah valley last year and the pollution was a major driver in that decision.
- gboss 6y ago
  I agree with the GP about the air pollution. I also find the Salt Lake reeks in the summer. When I would go with my dad as a kid on his business trips, the smell in the summer was really off-putting. I think it's the same problem Mexico City has. Salt Like City is in a bowl, and there's no coastal winds to blow the pollution away like the bay area has, so the pollution just lingers. I do think it's a really clean city on the ground though and Park City is so close and really amazing for Skiing / Snow Boarding. The national parks in Southern Utah are also top notch.
  - eco 6y ago
    The smell was likely from the lake rather than pollution. The lake can be famously stinky in the right conditions.
    - DavidAdams 6y ago
      More specifically, it's the smell of brine shrimp decaying on the lakeshore. But it's actually not a common occurrence for the Salt Lake stink to be present in the city itself. OP was just lucky!
- eco 6y ago
  Yeah, it's just the geography that causes it. It's enclosed on three sides by the Wasatch, Traverse, and Oquirrh mountains which causes cold air to be trapped there. The Salt Lake metro area isn't much different from other cities of similar size and makeup when it comes to actual emissions. It's just that those emissions stick around sometimes during a couple of weeks in the winter. Because of this, Utah meets all the annual mean PM 2.5 EPA requirements but fails the 24-hour limits (we have occasional very bad days but most days are good).
dimitrios1 6y ago
> One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. This is patently false. Some of the most beautiful states in the country are home to "red" policies, and there isn't any evidence to the contrary that being "blue" makes anything better, considering some of the most polluted states in the country are blue. California, for example, you might think has beautiful parts because of "being blue", but California wasn't always "blue", and it wasn't until the 90s where it started consistently going blue...which means the majority of it's natural beauty was designed and led under "red" leadership. Same for Colorado. There is plenty of "red" environmental think tanks these days. Mostly everyone agrees the environment is worth protecting, just disagree the ways of going about it. Check out the American Conservative Coalition, for example, which argues for a more reasoned approach to tackling climate change, one that many here would find agreeable, such as including natural gas as a transitional energy source off oil and coal, and utilizing nuclear power. https://www.acc.eco/ https://www.acc.eco/
- charwalker 6y ago
  I think they were addressing general mistrust of climate science and stubbornness to act against human driven climate change or even recognize its existence let alone prioritize environmental concerns like mine tialings and other pollution. In red states, run by conservatives who consider climate science a conspiracy and environmental regulations antithetical to business, this philosophy common. Many of these states (and blue ones too) have low population, no major urban sprawls or cities, and minimal pollution sources near people like chemical plants, refineries, and mines. SLC is in a red state that generally follows GOP talking points on these issues and has not acted strongly to protect air quality in the area. Polling in the state suggests people do support climate science though. If the city took action like LA/CA to improve emissions standards, implement better public transit to replace commuter cars, and pressed local companies and industry to limit emissions it could get an early start and a rising taxable population to fund these programs.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    Because they are politicians! It's their job to act stubborn and pander to their bases, especially in today's winner-take-all environment. They don't actually say what they mean or believe. They only say things that test well with their base and keeps them in power and re-elected. They focus-group most every position they even think about holding, and for the most part stick to blue-meat/red-meat issues. The sad reality is, if you are a republican with deep convictions that anthropomorphic climate change is the top existential threat in our world, you cannot talk about this publicly (Just like if you are a Democrat with deep convictions about the sanctity of life, you better keep that shit to yourself). Moderates have been booted out of each party. What they say, and what they do are usually (99.9% of the time) two entirely distinct realities.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
It doesn’t help that gas are two levels octane lower than in other places (so standard gas is 85, not 87), Denver does the same thing. I lived in SLC for a few years and it’s ok. In fact, I know of no other cities with 24 hour coffee shops, which is great when you want to code and write all night. But I have no feeling to return, it’s nice but kind of boring.
- jonnybgood 6y ago
  > It doesn’t help that gas are two levels octane lower than in other places (so standard gas is 85, not 87), Denver does the same thing. That’s due to high elevation. There’s no need for higher octane. I’m at the same elevation as Denver and my car requires 93 but the highest I’ll find is 91 which is just fine.
jsbg 6y ago
What's wrong with dry air in the winter? Humidity + cold is unbearable. I'd much rather have to put on lotion.
- foobiekr 6y ago
  Dry eye gets worse as you age.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    Humidifiers?
    - glioma 6y ago
      I live in a dry climate and humidifiers can only help so much
- buffington 6y ago
  Who said anything about dry air? Winter in SLC and Utah County brings an inversion layer that traps polluted air from the ground up to about 8000 feet above sea level. That pollution causes all sorts of respiratory issues. Speaking from experience - it’s awful. No lotion in the world fixes it.
donw 6y ago
> One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. Practically speaking... what would you expect that they do about it? As a California native, I've seen just how bad short-sighted environmental regulation can be. And it's not like pollution isn't an issue in Los Angeles or the Central Valley, both of which enjoy a strong geographic advantage compared to SLC. So, what sort of regulation could the state pass that would mitigate the problem? Given the geographical and economic constraints.
- npunt 6y ago
  As a California native who grew up in LA, I'm extremely grateful for California Air Resources Board [1], which set standards for air quality that helped LA reduce some pretty terrible historic pollution issues, despite growing significantly over the same period [2]. CARB has also been important to fighting climate change by creating a model for other states and nations to follow. LA is definitely not geographically advantaged when it comes to pollution, given it is a big basin. I'm not sure who wins the geographically disadvantaged olympics, but SLC and LA are more alike than not in this department. Utah could adopt CARB's stricter air quality standards for one. They could also shutdown or limit pollution sources, including those from home heating. And they could reduce the growing sprawl by encouraging density and public transportation. I'm not a regulatory expert so I can't give you more specifics than that, but it's not like these things aren't possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board [2] https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d
  - donw 6y ago
    Salt Lake already looks to have a better AQI than LA[1][2], though, and pretty much every new car sold is 50-state compliant (which includes CARB). So, Utah has already effectively adopted CARB standards, and the rest of your suggestions fit in the same category -- I don't see them making a difference, or being feasible. [1] https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/los-angeles https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/los-angeles [2] https://www.iqair.com/usa/utah/salt-lake-city https://www.iqair.com/usa/utah/salt-lake-city (On an unrelated note, I like your site -- mine is less populated, but is also a love letter to a less complicated Web.) :)

by npunt 6y ago

remarkEon 6y ago

>Unfortunately, there's also bad pollution. The valley makes SLC prone to pollution and especially inversion layers in the winter and ozone in summer. You'd expect mountain air and you get that sometimes, but other times it's as bad as or worse than major cities elsewhere. I had no idea about this, wow. What causes it? Just the fact that it's in a valley? I've been to SLC only once to visit some friends, but I guess I didn't really notice (was only driving through).

hunter-gatherer 6y ago
My family lives north of Salt Lake and it does indeed get pretty bad, especially in the winter. I declined a job a Utah valley last year and the pollution was a major driver in that decision.
gboss 6y ago
I agree with the GP about the air pollution. I also find the Salt Lake reeks in the summer. When I would go with my dad as a kid on his business trips, the smell in the summer was really off-putting. I think it's the same problem Mexico City has. Salt Like City is in a bowl, and there's no coastal winds to blow the pollution away like the bay area has, so the pollution just lingers. I do think it's a really clean city on the ground though and Park City is so close and really amazing for Skiing / Snow Boarding. The national parks in Southern Utah are also top notch.
- eco 6y ago
  The smell was likely from the lake rather than pollution. The lake can be famously stinky in the right conditions.
  - DavidAdams 6y ago
    More specifically, it's the smell of brine shrimp decaying on the lakeshore. But it's actually not a common occurrence for the Salt Lake stink to be present in the city itself. OP was just lucky!
eco 6y ago
Yeah, it's just the geography that causes it. It's enclosed on three sides by the Wasatch, Traverse, and Oquirrh mountains which causes cold air to be trapped there. The Salt Lake metro area isn't much different from other cities of similar size and makeup when it comes to actual emissions. It's just that those emissions stick around sometimes during a couple of weeks in the winter. Because of this, Utah meets all the annual mean PM 2.5 EPA requirements but fails the 24-hour limits (we have occasional very bad days but most days are good).

dimitrios1 6y ago

> One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. This is patently false. Some of the most beautiful states in the country are home to "red" policies, and there isn't any evidence to the contrary that being "blue" makes anything better, considering some of the most polluted states in the country are blue. California, for example, you might think has beautiful parts because of "being blue", but California wasn't always "blue", and it wasn't until the 90s where it started consistently going blue...which means the majority of it's natural beauty was designed and led under "red" leadership. Same for Colorado. There is plenty of "red" environmental think tanks these days. Mostly everyone agrees the environment is worth protecting, just disagree the ways of going about it. Check out the American Conservative Coalition, for example, which argues for a more reasoned approach to tackling climate change, one that many here would find agreeable, such as including natural gas as a transitional energy source off oil and coal, and utilizing nuclear power. https://www.acc.eco/ https://www.acc.eco/

charwalker 6y ago
I think they were addressing general mistrust of climate science and stubbornness to act against human driven climate change or even recognize its existence let alone prioritize environmental concerns like mine tialings and other pollution. In red states, run by conservatives who consider climate science a conspiracy and environmental regulations antithetical to business, this philosophy common. Many of these states (and blue ones too) have low population, no major urban sprawls or cities, and minimal pollution sources near people like chemical plants, refineries, and mines. SLC is in a red state that generally follows GOP talking points on these issues and has not acted strongly to protect air quality in the area. Polling in the state suggests people do support climate science though. If the city took action like LA/CA to improve emissions standards, implement better public transit to replace commuter cars, and pressed local companies and industry to limit emissions it could get an early start and a rising taxable population to fund these programs.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  Because they are politicians! It's their job to act stubborn and pander to their bases, especially in today's winner-take-all environment. They don't actually say what they mean or believe. They only say things that test well with their base and keeps them in power and re-elected. They focus-group most every position they even think about holding, and for the most part stick to blue-meat/red-meat issues. The sad reality is, if you are a republican with deep convictions that anthropomorphic climate change is the top existential threat in our world, you cannot talk about this publicly (Just like if you are a Democrat with deep convictions about the sanctity of life, you better keep that shit to yourself). Moderates have been booted out of each party. What they say, and what they do are usually (99.9% of the time) two entirely distinct realities.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

It doesn’t help that gas are two levels octane lower than in other places (so standard gas is 85, not 87), Denver does the same thing. I lived in SLC for a few years and it’s ok. In fact, I know of no other cities with 24 hour coffee shops, which is great when you want to code and write all night. But I have no feeling to return, it’s nice but kind of boring.

jonnybgood 6y ago
> It doesn’t help that gas are two levels octane lower than in other places (so standard gas is 85, not 87), Denver does the same thing. That’s due to high elevation. There’s no need for higher octane. I’m at the same elevation as Denver and my car requires 93 but the highest I’ll find is 91 which is just fine.

jsbg 6y ago

What's wrong with dry air in the winter? Humidity + cold is unbearable. I'd much rather have to put on lotion.

foobiekr 6y ago
Dry eye gets worse as you age.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Humidifiers?
  - glioma 6y ago
    I live in a dry climate and humidifiers can only help so much
buffington 6y ago
Who said anything about dry air? Winter in SLC and Utah County brings an inversion layer that traps polluted air from the ground up to about 8000 feet above sea level. That pollution causes all sorts of respiratory issues. Speaking from experience - it’s awful. No lotion in the world fixes it.

donw 6y ago

> One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. Practically speaking... what would you expect that they do about it? As a California native, I've seen just how bad short-sighted environmental regulation can be. And it's not like pollution isn't an issue in Los Angeles or the Central Valley, both of which enjoy a strong geographic advantage compared to SLC. So, what sort of regulation could the state pass that would mitigate the problem? Given the geographical and economic constraints.

npunt 6y ago
As a California native who grew up in LA, I'm extremely grateful for California Air Resources Board [1], which set standards for air quality that helped LA reduce some pretty terrible historic pollution issues, despite growing significantly over the same period [2]. CARB has also been important to fighting climate change by creating a model for other states and nations to follow. LA is definitely not geographically advantaged when it comes to pollution, given it is a big basin. I'm not sure who wins the geographically disadvantaged olympics, but SLC and LA are more alike than not in this department. Utah could adopt CARB's stricter air quality standards for one. They could also shutdown or limit pollution sources, including those from home heating. And they could reduce the growing sprawl by encouraging density and public transportation. I'm not a regulatory expert so I can't give you more specifics than that, but it's not like these things aren't possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board [2] https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d
- donw 6y ago
  Salt Lake already looks to have a better AQI than LA[1][2], though, and pretty much every new car sold is 50-state compliant (which includes CARB). So, Utah has already effectively adopted CARB standards, and the rest of your suggestions fit in the same category -- I don't see them making a difference, or being feasible. [1] https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/los-angeles https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/los-angeles [2] https://www.iqair.com/usa/utah/salt-lake-city https://www.iqair.com/usa/utah/salt-lake-city (On an unrelated note, I like your site -- mine is less populated, but is also a love letter to a less complicated Web.) :)