I have been communicating with City Manager, Layne Long and also Councilman Bill Rappleye today about the proposed Verizon Cell Tower update. In May 2009 Verizon met with residents about potential sites (see Cell Tower label on right-hand sidebar for full history) and options.
Today, the Owner's Association sent out a request at 2:00 requesting input on the cell tower for a meeting tonight that began at 6:00pm. Here is some of the correspondence:
Layne sent me the pictures of the proposed styles.
The top one is the Water Tower and the bottom is the called the Stealth Monopine. The location is just south of the market/The Cove.
Comment if you have an opinion or preference.
18 comments:
What's wrong with the tree? I like it.
Does the fact that it's a Verizon tower mean that it will only work if you have a Verizon phone? I'm clueless about this kind of thing!
Initially Verizon said there was room for three different carriers on the cell tower. I sent Layne an email asking if that was still the plan and I will post what I find out.
I have seen the "stealth" monopine in Provo, and they look at natural as a big plastic unnaturally-placed-branched tree could look. I think the water tower is more appropriate for the Suncrest aesthetic.
It would be great if multiple carriers could have signals on the tower. (I'm an AT&T customer.)
A few comments:
1. Where is the proposal to place the cell tower near the fire station, and why are there only photo simulations of the Sal Potato Hill location? If we are proud of our open spaces up at SunCrest, we should be leery about constructing a tower such as this in our remaining open spaces. If decorated appropriately, the water tower could be an appropriate and even aesthetically pleasing addition to the village green area (think Trolley Square tower).
2. There is no question in my mind that other carriers must be allowed to lease space on this tower. If we are all going to have to look at it, we should all be able to benefit from it.
3. How are the funds collected from this site going to benefit SunCrest residents? Can we expect to see a portion of the revenue generated from this proposal going toward the cost of our soon-to-be-opening community center?
Peter-great questions. I will add them to my list.
I agree with Gina, the tree towers do look very unrealistic! I like the water tower. I like the location (not very far from the Village green), and of course I'm happy with it being Verizon that proposed it, since that is my carrier.
We prefer the tree. They can look bad, but I've seen some that look fine. We live on top of a mountain and when I drive down the road, I think I'd rather look at a "fake" tree then a water tower.
We like the tree. I know they can look bad, but I've seen nice ones also. When driving down the road, I'd rather be looking at a "fake" tree then at a water tower.
I am with Peter. (Especially since I see the Sal Potato Hill location every time I look out my window). Why not put it by the fire station, info. center, etc. instead of taking up more open space?
If I do get to look at it everyday, I think I would prefer the water tower. I am glad something is being built!
I have also seen the cell "tree" in Provo--it looks really ridiculous. I vote for a water tower.
To be honest, I don't care too much what it looks like. This is something we desperately need up in Suncrest. Suncrest is a great community, although it has a few drawbacks. Lack of cell service is right up at the top of that list for me. We recently got rid of our home phone, and rely on our shoddy Verizon signal. Even with a femtocel booster antenna mounted on our roof, the reception is awful, and we can almost never make or receive a call. And Verizon is the best you can get up here right now.
I personally am not a big fan of the fake tree towers, but I'll take anything at this point. If it's something we have to pay for (it seems like we have to pay for everything, so why would this be any different), then I say let's put in the antenna that costs us the least amount of money. If Verizon is providing the funds, then let's go with the water tower. But my bottom line is: let's just get it built, and finally get the cell phone coverage Suncrest has never had!
The tree looks so unnatural and everytime I drive by the one in Provo I think to myself, "I'm so glad I don't live by that eye-sore." The water tower has a Park City look to it and is by FAR the best looking option.
I like the water tower, the tree just looks weird..I wish their were more choices.
Water Tower!!!
At risk of being two months late to the party: Water Tower. No question in my mind. I like the proposal to place it near the community center as well. Trolley Square is the first thing I thought of, too. It adds character, and the tree add nothing but cell reception. (It would look good at Christmas with lights! Not that Verizon would provide access for that, but it would look nice...)
And to reinforce two points that have already been mentioned:
1) I think that it should be non-negotiable that if this thing is built that other carriers be allowed to use it. We have no way to force any carrier to use it, but Verizon needs to grant access.
2) Funds paid to Suncrest for leasing the land should be used to benefit residents.
What kind of term do these contracts usually cover? 10-20 years?
I am buying a home in Suncrest. Has a tower been built yet?
Post a Comment