HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6341  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2019, 11:16 PM
brankrom's Avatar
brankrom brankrom is offline
Transit Advocate
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Liberty Wells-- SLC
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utahn View Post
Yes, that's the new Salt Lake County Library branch. They're calling it the Granite Branch. It's already moved fairly far through South Salt Lake's planning process if not the whole way. You can see a rendering at link to this staff report (I've seen better, but this is what a quick google search pulled up)

http://www.southsaltlakecity.com/upl..._19_Final_.pdf
I wonder what is going to happen to the Columbus Library after this new place opens?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6342  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2019, 2:46 PM
jedikermit's Avatar
jedikermit jedikermit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by brankrom View Post
I wonder what is going to happen to the Columbus Library after this new place opens?
I was wondering that too...half of that building is used as a community center (I'm not sure if it's for South Salt Lake or Salt Lake County). I hope that continues to be used, and they can expand their services there if necessary.
__________________
Loving Salt Lake City. Despite everything, and because of everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6343  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2019, 3:47 PM
Utahn Utahn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 29
I know that this isn't actually part of Salt Lake City proper, but I'll comment again because we're here already. From what I understand, the Columbus Library will remain open. However, the Calvin E. Smith Library a few blocks away on 900 East is scheduled to close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedikermit View Post
I was wondering that too...half of that building is used as a community center (I'm not sure if it's for South Salt Lake or Salt Lake County). I hope that continues to be used, and they can expand their services there if necessary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6344  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2019, 5:33 PM
scottharding scottharding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,567
Next phase of Hardware Village, from Building Salt Lake:

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/new...YKipqoL-dIwFkk
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6345  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2019, 6:13 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 15,415
^^^

Very nice!! I'm really liking the look of this one. More of these please. That totally looks like it could have been one of those great turn of the century westside downtown buildings that we lost to demolition many decades ago. We seriously need more infill along this line of design around Downtown or North Temple/Fairgrounds area. This gives the city some added soul.


https://i0.wp.com/www.buildingsaltla...78%2C381&ssl=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6346  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2019, 8:17 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,134
Greek Trinity Church development?

Has anybody heard anything new about this proposed development?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/...e-utahs-greek/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6347  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2019, 11:47 PM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Liberty Wells, SLC, UT
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
^^^

Very nice!! I'm really liking the look of this one. More of these please. That totally looks like it could have been one of those great turn of the century westside downtown buildings that we lost to demolition many decades ago. We seriously need more infill along this line of design around Downtown or North Temple/Fairgrounds area. This gives the city some added soul.


https://i0.wp.com/www.buildingsaltla...78%2C381&ssl=1
I just wish there was more mixed-use in the Hardware Village development. It has the density and the urban feel, but you still have the leave the development to do anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6348  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 1:26 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,134
You are so right. This is one of the biggest problems with recent Salt Lake developments. The city needs to enforce ground level retail with these developers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6349  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:29 AM
Pencil's Avatar
Pencil Pencil is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Future SLC resident
Posts: 77
"Salt Lake City approves deal to give Utah Theater to developers, in exchange for affordable housing"
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/12/...ty-gives-utah/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6350  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 8:06 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,134
I wish I could read these SLTrib articles. Every time I open up an article it asks for a subscription. Deseret News doesn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6351  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 8:26 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
I wish I could read these SLTrib articles. Every time I open up an article it asks for a subscription. Deseret News doesn't.
Open it in an incognito tab or private window and you will be able to read it.

Last edited by Atlas; Dec 4, 2019 at 8:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6352  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:54 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pencil View Post
"Salt Lake City approves deal to give Utah Theater to developers, in exchange for affordable housing"
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/12/...ty-gives-utah/
This whole thing seems designed to make me perfectly angry. There is so much wrong I need to resort to a numbered list.

1) The wanton destruction of a historic building. This has been beat to death already but TL;DR - the theater is far enough back that there is space to build a highrise and preserve the theater. The two are not exclusive. The theater does not need to be restored now, so nothing needs to be done to it now. Let it sit. In time, support and funding will rise. It is a foolish and shortsighted mistake to smash things now that could be invaluable later.

2) The handouts to developers. They are just giving this site to the developers for literally ZERO dollars, even after the city paid $5.5 million for the building. I don't know how anyone can justify giving such an expensive city asset to a private developer.

3) "Affordable Housing." I am aware that my opinion is unconventional, but here it goes. I think the whole notion of 'affordable housing' is as short-sighted and dumb as demolishing a future public asset in favor of an empty backlot 'park' and a private tower. Paying for someone's housing isn't nearly as helpful as other solutions; sure the rent is cheaper, but the groceries, the goods and services, the parking/transportation, the taxes, and every other cost of living downtown is still just as expensive as before. If you really want people to have better access to jobs and school, then MAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT FREE! Seriously, we "spent" literally $5.5 MILLION to get 30 'lower cost' apartments. How many people will that help? At 4 people per apartment, that means 120 people pay slightly less money for rent.
Great, that's just Great.
120 people can fit into 1 BRT bus. ONE BUS. Meanwhile, places like Kansas City just voted to spend $8 million per year so that public transit is FREE TO EVERYONE in the city. That's over 400,000 people who now have no cost barrier to getting between a place they can afford and the work, schools, commercial centers, libraries, public offices, and everything else in the city.
My stance: Affordable housing is a waste of public money that benefits only a very few individuals who would be better helped by that same investment being made in GOOD and FREE public transit. Affordable Housing is a political handout meant to earn popularity and votes for politicians; it is not a serious solution to any problem. It is treating the symptoms, not the cause.

And the fact that the theater that could become a downtown destination is being demolished for something as wasteful and ineffective as a mere 30 reduced priced apartments... this makes me furious.

I am reminded of another very short-sighted decision that was made just before the 2002 Olympics. The city had been looking at buying the Union Pacific Depot for some time to use as a transit hub. Everyone knew that commuter rail would be coming back one day, and the Union Pacific depot is the best place for a transportation hub. Look at Denver's Union Station, and compare that the the miserable excuse we have for an intermodal hub.
What happened instead? The sale of the depot site to a mall developer was approved, and instead of a transportation hub we have the Gateway. This thing is not necessarily bad, but we all know how it has struggled financially and otherwise. What is worse is that it could have been built anywhere. Even if they wanted to build it around the train station, they did not need to rip up the tracks. Imagine how cool it would be to have commuter trains stopping at a station surrounded by that much commercial development!
But our city is so short-sighted that our future intermodal hub was killed less than 10 years before FrontRunner opened in 2008.

A similar thing is going to happen to the Utah Theater. Just as downtown is revitalizing, short-sighted development is going to demolish a long-term asset in favor of short-term private profit. The city is going to tout what a good thing this is to low-income people (even though only a very few will actually benefit, and they know it!), and people on this thread will sing its praises as a wonderful, new, modern development that will really make Salt Lake City stand out...
But in the end, it will just be another tower among many, and downtown will have lost one more thing that could have made it awesome. In the long term it will be obvious how bad a decision it was, but that has never stopped short-sighted people with wrecking balls from getting rich.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6353  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:27 PM
FullCircle FullCircle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 89
^^^
I agree with numbers 2 and 3 and appreciate that people are actually starting to look at the bigger picture of why housing is expensive instead of just throwing public money at brand new luxury apartments to make them more affordable. Better/lower cost public transit would definitely help, and zoning changes are another thing that need to be looked at to lower housing costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6354  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:31 PM
nushiof nushiof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 155
Having Front Runner come through Union Pacific would have been so cool. That was a big miss for downtown.

Another big miss in my opinion was allowing Sandy to steal the RSL stadium and build it in the suburbs. Having Rio Tinto by Grand America or some other block in the downtown area, would have been great for downtown. I can't remember the details but I think Sandy offered some tax incentives that SLC wouldn't match.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6355  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:33 PM
FullCircle FullCircle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 89
It wasn't that SLC wouldn't match the offer, it was that the State legislature passed a law that made it so a city couldn't use RDA funds to fund entertainment venues, which was how SLC was proposing to fund the stadium. That left SLC in a lurch and couldn't come up with a competitive offer. Sandy said they had a funding mechanism that didn't use RDA funds, but was cagey and vague about it. Once Sandy was awarded the stadium the Legislature changed the law, and Sandy used RDA funds for the stadium. It was some of the dirtiest politics I've seen, or at least, that I followed closely. I vowed to never forget that and to boycott RSL and Sandy since then. I think I've eaten a meal or two at a Sandy restaurant since then, but overall I try not to give any of those crooks money. Probably silly and vengeful, but eff them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6356  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:16 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 15,415
Well said Hatman. My sentiments exactly!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6357  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:26 PM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Liberty Wells, SLC, UT
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
This whole thing seems designed to make me perfectly angry. There is so much wrong I need to resort to a numbered list.

1) The wanton destruction of a historic building. This has been beat to death already but TL;DR - the theater is far enough back that there is space to build a highrise and preserve the theater. The two are not exclusive. The theater does not need to be restored now, so nothing needs to be done to it now. Let it sit. In time, support and funding will rise. It is a foolish and shortsighted mistake to smash things now that could be invaluable later.

2) The handouts to developers. They are just giving this site to the developers for literally ZERO dollars, even after the city paid $5.5 million for the building. I don't know how anyone can justify giving such an expensive city asset to a private developer.

3) "Affordable Housing." I am aware that my opinion is unconventional, but here it goes. I think the whole notion of 'affordable housing' is as short-sighted and dumb as demolishing a future public asset in favor of an empty backlot 'park' and a private tower. Paying for someone's housing isn't nearly as helpful as other solutions; sure the rent is cheaper, but the groceries, the goods and services, the parking/transportation, the taxes, and every other cost of living downtown is still just as expensive as before. If you really want people to have better access to jobs and school, then MAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT FREE! Seriously, we "spent" literally $5.5 MILLION to get 30 'lower cost' apartments. How many people will that help? At 4 people per apartment, that means 120 people pay slightly less money for rent.
Great, that's just Great.
120 people can fit into 1 BRT bus. ONE BUS. Meanwhile, places like Kansas City just voted to spend $8 million per year so that public transit is FREE TO EVERYONE in the city. That's over 400,000 people who now have no cost barrier to getting between a place they can afford and the work, schools, commercial centers, libraries, public offices, and everything else in the city.
My stance: Affordable housing is a waste of public money that benefits only a very few individuals who would be better helped by that same investment being made in GOOD and FREE public transit. Affordable Housing is a political handout meant to earn popularity and votes for politicians; it is not a serious solution to any problem. It is treating the symptoms, not the cause.

And the fact that the theater that could become a downtown destination is being demolished for something as wasteful and ineffective as a mere 30 reduced priced apartments... this makes me furious.

I am reminded of another very short-sighted decision that was made just before the 2002 Olympics. The city had been looking at buying the Union Pacific Depot for some time to use as a transit hub. Everyone knew that commuter rail would be coming back one day, and the Union Pacific depot is the best place for a transportation hub. Look at Denver's Union Station, and compare that the the miserable excuse we have for an intermodal hub.
What happened instead? The sale of the depot site to a mall developer was approved, and instead of a transportation hub we have the Gateway. This thing is not necessarily bad, but we all know how it has struggled financially and otherwise. What is worse is that it could have been built anywhere. Even if they wanted to build it around the train station, they did not need to rip up the tracks. Imagine how cool it would be to have commuter trains stopping at a station surrounded by that much commercial development!
But our city is so short-sighted that our future intermodal hub was killed less than 10 years before FrontRunner opened in 2008.

A similar thing is going to happen to the Utah Theater. Just as downtown is revitalizing, short-sighted development is going to demolish a long-term asset in favor of short-term private profit. The city is going to tout what a good thing this is to low-income people (even though only a very few will actually benefit, and they know it!), and people on this thread will sing its praises as a wonderful, new, modern development that will really make Salt Lake City stand out...
But in the end, it will just be another tower among many, and downtown will have lost one more thing that could have made it awesome. In the long term it will be obvious how bad a decision it was, but that has never stopped short-sighted people with wrecking balls from getting rich.
Do you really think free transit would matter to these same poor people if rent were $1,500+/month for a one-bedroom? They still wouldn't be able to afford it.

I agree that we should make public transit free...but this isn't an either/or proposition. It's better that we help some people with housing than nobody. The problem is much bigger than just Salt Lake City. In order for the affordability housing crisis to truly be "solved" it would require efforts from the local, county, state and federal governments alike. Not just free transit, but free healthcare, free or significantly cheaper higher education, wholesale changes to how low-income housing credits are distributed and how you qualify for them, how to incentivize developers to build cheaper housing, etc. I think getting mad at affordable housing credits in lieu of free transit is missing the forest for the trees.

This country criminalizes being poor, and the root causes of housing unaffordability runs much deeper than what Salt Lake City alone can grapple. It's a national issue.

I don't want to spark a big political debate about free healthcare, etc, I just find your outrage misplaced, or at least too narrowly focused. 20 affordable housing units is not much and will ultimately not accomplish much, but it will still help people. Housing is (or at least should be) a human right and the MOST important thing to help people get on track with their lives is to have stable housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6358  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM
FullCircle FullCircle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 89
^^^ You don't want to start a political debate, but then you made extremely strong political statements? Interesting.

I'm not speaking for Hatman, but free transit would allow people to live in the cheaper suburbs and still make it to downtown for work without the high cost of commuting in their own vehicle (plus all the other benefits of fewer cars on the road, less polution, etc.). I think that was what he was referring to (sorry if I'm wrong, Hatman, but I'll go ahead and make the statement for myself either way).

Second, the affordable housing subsidy issue is also about "bang for the buck" as it were. Subsidizing a luxury highrise is a horrible return on investment if the goal is helping low income individuals not end up homeless. The way you speak suggests to me that you're not actually paying taxes (I seem to recall you recently saying something that suggested you are rather young, so that's understandable) and therefore don't have any skin in the game for how taxes are spent. Helping people is a good thing, but there are always costs associated with that (when it's a government doing the helping), so it's entirely reasonable, and yes, even compassionate in the big picture, to ask how to best do that without unduly burdening the greater populace. Thomas Sowell (extremely intelligent economist) suggests asking three questions when looking to implement government programs: 1. Based on what data? 2. Compared to what? 3. At what cost? In my opinion, subsidizing new construction, luxury highrises falls down on all three of these questions, but especially the third.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:38 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.