HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


View Poll Results: When will Salt Lake City ever get it's own signature tower?
By 2020 19 14.73%
By 2030 39 30.23%
By 2040 12 9.30%
By 2050 or later 7 5.43%
Never 52 40.31%
Voters: 129. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 4:07 PM
TonyAnderson's Avatar
TonyAnderson TonyAnderson is offline
.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Salt Lake City | Utah
Posts: 2,788
Right after Sandy gets theirs.
__________________
Instagram | Twitter

www.UtahProjects.info
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 6:47 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
IMO the OKC skyline was ruined by that behemoth. A city that small shouldn't have an 900-ft building. Wouldn't you SLC folks rather have a classy, beautiful 500 ft tower that pokes out a bit above the rest of your towers, yet still blends in, rather than a 900-foot (or however tall that OKC thing is) monster that makes it look, from a distance, like your downtown only has one building in it?

(Also, it's "a lot," not "alot". Man, that drives me crazy. )
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 6:53 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
a middle finger on the skyline.
Perhaps you're borrowing a phrase that was already coined by someone else but, I love that phrase. It got a legitimate lol out of me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 7:58 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Something I feel I should add, because it seems like common knowledge to me, but maybe it's not:

Nobody is building $300 million speculative projects these days. They are simply impossible to finance (except for maybe in the absolute largest markets - NYC). Upfront equity requirements are higher, pre-leasing requirements are higher, credit is tighter in general, and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Add to that - the bigger the building, the more expensive it is on square foot basis, and the longer it takes to permit, build, and bring online.

So not only do you need ever-more and earlier commitments for bigger projects, somebody willing to commit to lots of space all at once, they also have to be willing to make that commitment 2-3 years before that space is actually available. So you need a company that knows with certainty they will need a ton of space, but can wait a few years to get it. Also rare.

Basically, everything about market fundamentals is pushing us toward more modest buildings that require less $ up front, and can be built quickly. Uncertainly, modest growth, and tight money trump ego in 99% of developments.

The odds are very much stacked against any moderate sized city getting large towers unless there are no other alternatives. And out west, we have alternatives. I suppose you could, as a region, zone out office building anywhere but your downtown. But as long as a 200,000 sf building can be tossed up, that'll act as a release valve that prevents enough demand pressure from building to get you a big building, except in the rarest of circumstances.

EDIT: Incidentally, we see the same thing in other types of development as well. You can't get a bank or bond buyer to finance infrastructure/residential/retail development without guaranteed revenue streams to back it up anymore either - no more assuming development will follow. It's all equity up front until you've got something guaranteed to show a bank. Interesting times we live in - post-great-recession...requires some real creativity.
I have to completely disagree about how long credit will remain tight as it pertains to real estate investment. Let's not forget that the execs in the financial industry are pretty dang good at finding, and lobbying for, loop-holes in financial regulations that allow them to wildly throw money into the most speculative, aggressive schemes they can come up with, so they can bring in as much bonus-money as possible during their brief, 2 to 3-year lifespan as an officer - regardless of what financial devastation may eventually come of this risk-taking, and regardless of what lessons the industry has supposedly learned from history. (This is not to say the next great, reckless scheme will necessarily apply to speculative office towers; I'm just pointing out that you're giving the financial industry far too much credit here.) The financial industry has a very short memory. A decade or two from now, the so-called Great Recession will be totally forgotten while the bubble/burst cycle continues on as it always has. The current tight-credit situation is almost certainly temporary - perhaps very temporary.

I think you're spot-on about the current market and I'm actually kind of impressed with your grasp of it. But neither you nor anyone else could possibly know a damn thing about what the market for speculative office towers will look like 10 years from now - let alone 20 years from now. Yours are just wild guesses IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 8:02 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Hill View Post
I have to completely disagree about how long credit will remain tight as it pertains to real estate investment. Let's not forget that the execs in the financial industry are pretty dang good at finding, and lobbying for, loop-holes in financial regulations that allow them to wildly throw money into the most speculative, aggressive schemes they can come up with, so they can bring in as much bonus-money as possible during their brief, 2 to 3-year lifespan as an officer - regardless of what financial devastation may eventually come of this risk-taking, and regardless of what lessons the industry has supposedly learned from history. (This is not to say the next great, reckless scheme will necessarily apply to speculative office towers; I'm just pointing out that you're giving the financial industry far too much credit here.) The financial industry has a very short memory. A decade or two from now, the so-called Great Recession will be totally forgotten while the bubble/burst cycle continues on as it always has. The current tight-credit situation is almost certainly temporary - perhaps very temporary.

I think you're spot-on about the current market and I'm actually kind of impressed with your grasp of it. But neither you nor anyone else could possibly know a damn thing about what the market for speculative office towers will look like 10 years from now - let alone 20 years from now. Yours are just wild guesses IMO.
Banks execs are total douches = tall shiny skyscrapers for everyone!

See now? I'm not cynical. I'm just optimistic!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 9:20 PM
brankrom's Avatar
brankrom brankrom is offline
Transit Advocate
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Liberty Wells-- SLC
Posts: 292
I was optimistic and chose 2040. Honestly Utah has a lot overcome to get out of the crazy nutty image it has built up over the last century and the annual folly of the legislature and the still largely xenophobic dominant culture is a lot to overcome in convincing a mega-corp to relocate.

There's no question SLC is a decent place to live, but there has to be more to the equation and there are a lot of negatives from weather to air quality to the isolation from other economic centers and large cities to consider. Utah is known for an educated work force, affordable housing, and proximity to outdoor activities but what is the driving force behind our economy? Mining? Natural gas extraction? Multi-Level marketing scams? Vitamin Supplements? If I had to guess it would be tourism but it depends on what the measurement metric is.

The only compelling reason for a signature tower in the future if the status quo is maintained would be to build something tall enough to be above the inversion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 9:54 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,448
Good points. Harsh, but true. I guess it comes right back around to what we define as a signature tower. There is the possibility, if you use the term liberally, to get it with the convention center hotel - but without even a hint of size or what the building will potentially look like, it's hard for me to vote on it concretely.

The city should push for more residential high-rises in and around downtown. I don't know if there is a need, and maybe there isn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's where a new signature tower lies ... because I don't foresee the demand, outside maybe the LDS Church, for a tall skyscraper.

Let's be honest - the only commercial tower developed in the city since '98 has been 222 Main, and it's far from a signature tower. That's a stretch of more than a decade and it's possible it'll be another decade between 2009 and when the UPAC Tower is eventually opened (would it surprise anyone if it's not completed before 2019?).

That leaves more residential, a new hotel and potentially some unforeseen mixed-use tower that maybe could get the green light between now and who knows when. Likely? I don't know about that - and even then, who knows if it'll have any significant impact on the skyline, or if it'll be a 222 Main clone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2013, 11:29 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
At some point I would like to see Salt Lake get pass the adding two or three highrise/skyscraper per decade.
90's - 1. One Utah Center 1991
2. Wells Fargo Center 1998
3. Gateway Tower West 1998

2000's - 1. Grand America Hotel 2001
2. 222 South Main
Lame decade I know, ok now....

10's - 1. 99 West 2011
2. The Regent 2011
Off to a good start for this decade with the Cascade, UPAC tower, C.C. hotel and Tower 8 in the works. Hopefully we can add at least two more by 2020.
Salt Lake just needs another 80's highrise boom. 80's by far the best decade in terms of adding to it's skyline. About one or so per year.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 10:24 PM
mrawesome's Avatar
mrawesome mrawesome is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Hill View Post
IMO the OKC skyline was ruined by that behemoth. A city that small shouldn't have an 900-ft building. Wouldn't you SLC folks rather have a classy, beautiful 500 ft tower that pokes out a bit above the rest of your towers, yet still blends in, rather than a 900-foot (or however tall that OKC thing is) monster that makes it look, from a distance, like your downtown only has one building in it?
Totally agree with you.

Last edited by mrawesome; Mar 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 10:45 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 19,318
Welcome Mrawesome. I also agree. I'm hoping that the next signature tower will be the CCH, and that the tower portion will be a sexy, slender height of around 500-600 feet. At this stage that would set more than a high enough bar for the next decade to rise to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 11:42 PM
StevenF's Avatar
StevenF StevenF is offline
The Drifter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,171
I personally never want to see anything over 700 feet built in Salt Lakes downtown. I think anything over that height will begin to detract from Salt Lakes great backdrop, which are the mountains. Would 1 or 2 700+ buildings mess it up? probably not. But if we cap the height between 600-700 feet we will always have that great post card distance shot we all love.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 11:50 PM
ToysNoiz's Avatar
ToysNoiz ToysNoiz is offline
Destroy 200 S. Carl's Jr.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenF View Post
I personally never want to see anything over 700 feet built in Salt Lakes downtown. I think anything over that height will begin to detract from Salt Lakes great backdrop, which are the mountains. Would 1 or 2 700+ buildings mess it up? probably not. But if we cap the height between 600-700 feet we will always have that great post card distance shot we all love.
People don't go downtown for mountain views, they go for skyscraper/skyline views. The mountains only add to it. It's not like the mountains will ever be completely covered.
__________________
'Cause at night the sun in retreat made the skyline look like crooked teeth in the mouth of a man, who was devouring us both...

Salt Lake City throughout 2015 in the My City Photos Forum >>>http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=215244
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 12:21 AM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToysNoiz View Post
People don't go downtown for mountain views, they go for skyscraper/skyline views. The mountains only add to it. It's not like the mountains will ever be completely covered.
Actually people don't go downtown to views the skyline either. They will go downtown to the inner workings of the city and to view one building at a time, but just like the mountains, you view the skyline from a distance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 1:00 AM
ToysNoiz's Avatar
ToysNoiz ToysNoiz is offline
Destroy 200 S. Carl's Jr.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
Actually people don't go downtown to views the skyline either. They will go downtown to the inner workings of the city and to view one building at a time, but just like the mountains, you view the skyline from a distance.
Of course, people manly go DT for the inner workings, but they'd go DT too for the skyscrapers, not mountains. What you said is right, I really should have reworded what I said.
__________________
'Cause at night the sun in retreat made the skyline look like crooked teeth in the mouth of a man, who was devouring us both...

Salt Lake City throughout 2015 in the My City Photos Forum >>>http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=215244
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 1:05 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Hey this thread is back. Is there any precedent for a church building a signature tower? I mean, the LDS church itself has to be one of SLC's largest "companies," why could they do it?

There's a skyscraper Methodist church in Chicago I visited once that made me wonder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 3:13 AM
Scraperdude801's Avatar
Scraperdude801 Scraperdude801 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Hey this thread is back. Is there any precedent for a church building a signature tower? I mean, the LDS church itself has to be one of SLC's largest "companies," why could they do it?

There's a skyscraper Methodist church in Chicago I visited once that made me wonder.
The northern most building in our skyline is the LDS Church Office Building, our second tallest (looks tallest because of elevation), and it is currently at capacity. One of the LDS church's for-profit arms just took over construction of our newest tower, which will probably house the spill over from the Church Office Building, but this tower won't be our new tallest, so...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 3:43 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Yeah but it would be exceptionally rare for a company to come in with no prior presence and build something huge. Much more common would be a company with a large existing presence spread over a couple buildings deciding to consolidate into something bigger.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 5:31 AM
Skystruck's Avatar
Skystruck Skystruck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
This was once a good poll, until the Denver forumers hijack the polls by all voting never.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it... it's just for fun anyway. I voted 2030 but I'm hoping for 2020!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 4:33 PM
jedikermit's Avatar
jedikermit jedikermit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post

There's a skyscraper Methodist church in Chicago I visited once that made me wonder.
That's an intriguing building. They also have a high rise prison/detention center. I like the idea of them.
__________________
Loving Salt Lake City. Despite everything, and because of everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2014, 5:22 PM
Scraperdude801's Avatar
Scraperdude801 Scraperdude801 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedikermit View Post
That's an intriguing building. They also have a high rise prison/detention center. I like the idea of them.

Wasn't our DT jail like 9 stories or something? Seemed like a good use of space. It was a hideous building, but still.

Could you imagine how tall the point of the mountain prison would be if it was consolidated into a DT skyscraper? It is being moved and all... Never mind, a signature prison tower would make SLC look like a police state.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 10:29 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.