But it is a charming little place, in its own way. And in terms of the Three Principles of Real Estate - Location, Location, Location - it was an easy choice over the alternatives available.

The primary consideration was getting me to work with a minimum of gasoline burned - i.e., none, except maybe that which had already been purchased by the Utah Transit Authority. So we live close to downtown, where my office used to be, and not so far from the Gateway development, which is sort of downtown, where my office is now. I can walk a little and hop a bus. I can walk a little more and take a train. Or I can walk all the way and live longer.

We are also close to the core of the monthly gallery stroll, a couple of parks and the wonderful Salt Lake City Library. This is what I was thinking about recently when I suggested in Plato's Cave, the Editorial Board's Web log, that the best solution to Utah's traffic problems would be to stop building highways. As I wrote under the headline "Starving the beast II":

"When people figure out that they ought to work where they live, live where they work and demand expanded public transit - because the commute has just become unbearable - they'll make much wiser use of our limited land and budget."

The dozen comments posted in response are a lot for our newbie blog, and they reflected both my belief that commuting is for the birds and the idea that the state's primary duty is to lay more asphalt. Or is that too slanted a way of portraying it?

The first comment received was supportive, but not hopeful:

"Your idea of people working where they live and living where they work seems just too logical for the various powers involved in helping to influence such decisions in our country. So logical, in fact, that if such a policy became reality, there would be way too much money lost by these various powers. . . . We deserve to have our suburban houses with lots of water-using Kentucky bluegrass, the opportunity to be away from the hustle bustle of the city and, above all, the opportunity to drive long distances and help contribute to global warming."

Soon thereafter, a dissenting view:

"I don't want to live where I work any more than I want to eat where I defecate. One solution is better cars and mass transit, not the European model of living, a.k.a. squalor."

Squalor? I haven't been to Europe. But, while I'm sure the great cities of the Continent have their share of slums, the urban neighborhoods that combine commercial and residential uses, often in the same building, with comprehensive mass transit systems are more generally referred to as civilization.

Another comment in that same vein:

"If I can't live in the country (rural place), then I want my subdivision to, at least, be commercial free. Who the hell wants to live where they work? Get real. . . . Let's build highways for our kids."

A subdivision without businesses not only requires a lot more car trips, it also strikes me as dull as dust. With luck, new designs such as those envisioned for the soon-to-balloon West Bench will include mixed-use projects where people could actually walk to the store, or even to work. Plus, I'd rather build schools for the kids, not highways.

Another comment on my side:

"Our kids maybe will need some new highways, but if we keep building them and keep focusing mostly on automobile transportation, what will that look like? . . . How about throwing in some higher density living places - condos, apartments for low-, moderate- and high-income people that might prefer this at certain stages of their lives? Aren't there lots of possibilities and lots of preferences? "

Other comments were based on the perception that near-downtown neighbor- hoods are either run-down and crime-infested or regentrified and thus beyond the reach of most homebuyers. Affordability of housing is an issue everywhere. And if a neighborhood where there is life on the street after sundown scares you, then you've got a long commute in your future.

I just don't feel so good paying for another highway to superflia when I just wore out another pair of shoes.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/editorial/