Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Sandy, but I just don't think it will fly in this market. I think it would be awesome though.

:previous:
True. I'm also a little worried about the market. I just hope the market can hold out to support both the Sandy project and the South Salt Lake project. :tup:

I don't think anything higher than 10 stories should be built outside downtown SLC. For one thing, it makes taller bldgs less likely downtown when we dilute the critical mass needed to make downtown more vibrant.

:previous:
And that's where we disagree. Why should highrises only be in downtown. Other cities should have the right to built up.

:previous:
I don't think anything should be built above the ground outside of Salt Lake City proper... oops too late. :doh:

Projects, the reason why is simply stated by Stenar. Building something at that scale in SL metro as far out from the core as Sandy is, will dilute from the vibrancy of our already suffering downtown. The whole reason why the LDS church is bulding City Creek Center is to protect Temple Square from blight! The two downtown malls were suffering because of competition to the Gateway mall and suburban malls. And these malls in downtown were developed to compete with all the new mall springing up in the suburbs. The city was trying to prevent urban blight due to suburban flight. Do you get it now? Sandy should have development there for sure, but not at the expense of our capital city. People come to visit Salt Lake City, not Sandy. Let's make our city beautiful! :tup:

Sandy looks to give a lift to its skyline
First phase of planned development includes 40-story condo, office tower

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10011358

By Rosemary Winters
The Salt Lake Tribune

Sandy could grow to new heights.
Still weighing a code change to allow the burb's first 30- to 40-story skyscrapers as part of the planned Proscenium development, the Sandy City Council could allow 15-story buildings across the board in the central business district.
Currently, building heights in the district, which spans the Interstate 15 corridor from the South Towne Exposition Center near 9400 South to the South Towne Mall near 10600 South, are capped at 140 feet, or about 10 stories.
The council is considering extending that limit to around 200 feet, or roughly 15 stories.
"Besides The Proscenium, maybe we should allow greater height, in general," says Assistant Community Development Director Nick Duerksen. "We don't know that going above 140 feet is a bad thing."
A switch to 15 stories could mean taller office buildings on four undeveloped parcels near the Expo Center, Duerksen says, but the change would not help Orem-based Proscenium Development Inc.
Plans for the first of three, mixed-use towers near Interstate 15 and 10000 South have leapt from 30 stories to 40 stories. Sandy's planning staff is crafting a new zone that could accommodate a 500-foot-plus building.
"I don't think we'll see a lot more taller buildings. The Proscenium is probably a unique situation," City Councilman Bryant Anderson says. "It has a lot of significance to the city as an icon, especially with the arts district tied in."
The $560 million Proscenium would be built in three phases. The first phase, expected to open by fall 2010, would feature a 2,400-plus-seat Broadway-style playhouse, a performing-arts high school, a 500-seat venue and a black box theater in addition to a 40-story tower with office space, a hotel and condos.
Despite the dramatic makeover in store for Sandy's skyline, few residents have participated in public-comment periods on the topic.
Kim Lane, who lives in a neighborhood near The Proscenium site, has called the towers an environmental "blight" that would obscure Sandy's mountain views.
Cathy Spuck, the lone commentator at a recent hearing who worried about a "concrete jungle," is pleased council members have backed away from an ordinance that would have allowed builders, including Proscenium Development, to break the height limit with the approval of the Planning Commission.
"They've taken the time to really consider some other factors and look at it thoroughly," she says.
After attending a few meetings, Spuck no longer opposes a 40-story high-rise in Sandy because she agrees with the developer that it's the most cost-effective use of the land.
"I'm still concerned that I'm really the only one showing up to investigate," she adds. "I'd love to see more citizens get involved."


What's next

* At 7 p.m. on Tuesday , Sandy's City Council plans to consider a code change to allow additional height, perhaps 15 stories, or 200 feet, in the city's central business district. The meeting is at City Hall, 10000 S. Centennial Parkway (170 West).
* Sandy staff is crafting special zoning - allowing even taller buildings - for The Proscenium project's planned 30- to 40-story high-rises. The Planning Commission could review the ordinance as soon as Aug. 7. After that, it would go to the City Council for approval.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...iumTheater.jpg
.

Okay, I don't understand the reasoning behind the height restriction in Sandy. Usually a height restriction is so that some existing landmark isn't dwarfed or hidden, for example the temple or the capital. Without the height restriction in Washington DC, you'd have something like New York or Boston, which would totally destroy the character of the city. A 10- or 15-story restriction in Sandy seems very arbitrary. I'll bet the city council will okay any height you want.

Height restrictions
 

A lot of suburban communities have height restrictions because they simply don't want to live in an urban environment, which is why the people moved to the suburbs in the first place.

One example is the the community of Belmont outside Boston. It has height restrictions around 75 or 100 feet. When the LDS church wanted to build their temple there with 6 spires over 100 feet, people had a fit. If you've ever been to Belmont, you'd see there are absolutely no landmarks there to be blocked by tall buildings.

Orlando & Stenar
 

I just think (with my crazy way of thinking:D ) that cities like Sandy or Murray that are on the east bench are running out of land to built on. So with projects like the "Proscenium" seems smart to me since the developer wants to built 2,400-plus-seat Broadway-style playhouse, a performing-arts high school, a 500-seat venue and a black box theater in addition with office space, a hotel and condos all on a few acres of land. This projects saves alot of space and land by building upwards instead of outwards like most projects in the suburbs. Just think how much space this project would take it these hotels and condos buildings are only 3 or 4 stories each. How many buildings would they need to build to get the same S.F. And since Sandy is running out of land the city is now to the point that it will have to start building up. Otherwise the city would stop growing. We live in a valley and we can only built out so far. Beside I thought we all hated "sprawl". This project isn't sprawl.
My next point is that maybe not everyone who lives down on the southend of the valley want to drive to downtown SLC for EVERYTHING. Would it be smarter to build some office buildings and condos down on the south end of the valley to and keep more cars off the roads. With gas at $4 per gallon most people want to limit their driving. So with this "Proscenium project" since it's a mix-use project people can live on one floor and go to work on another floor with out ever leaving the building. How bad would our roads be if every office building was built in downtown SLC and everyone would have to drive to salt lake city for work? 1-15 would be a parking lot. ( I know I've make this point a few times before. )
I just feel people hate this project just because it's in Sandy. If it was in Salt Lake or South Salt Lake or even Murray I don't think people would be freaking out as bad.
What about the Market Station project in South Salt Lake? That isn't downtown but people seem to be ok with that. Should South Salt Lake be limit to only 5 story buildings? Why is it ok for South Salt Lake to built up but other cities like Sandy or Murray or P.G or Lehi can't.
Besides I like tall buildings and I welcome Sandy for trying to develop more of a city center. :tup:
That's just my thought.

What about TRAX? Can't they take TRAX?

I don't get why it's so hard to understand that this proscenium project is terrible for downtown? SLC is our capital and the regional economic center of the Wasatch front. If SLC isn't thriving, it hurts the region. People who come here to do business don't want to be driving all over a valley they aren't familiar with. They want their needs to be met downtown. They also might want to catch a broadway play while they're here, and they sure as hell aren't going to drive out to Sandy to do that. Having a vibrant downtown core not only benefits locals, it provides a nexus for national and international business to take place. If you build a 30 story commercial building in Sandy I guarantee most of the people that work there are not going to be living in Sandy... they will be commuting there. Build a large commercial building somewhere dense, like say DOWNTOWN, there will already be a larger proportion of workers living nearby.

The Denver Tech Center
 

Delts: I think there is more to the issue here than meets the eye.

First, the Denver Tech Center is a classic case of when urban development is not concentrated. The Tech Center, just south of the inner belt loop in Denver, sucked away much of the development that would have normally gone downtown. It also significantly contributed to the sprawl in the south end of the Denver metro area, much like the Sandy project would do to the sprawl occurring in southwest SL and northern Utah counties.

Second, and I think this might be the real reason, the proposed Proscenium development makes no sense from a lot of development perspectives. Where is the client base for high rise office development in the south end of the valley? If you look at all the development that has taken place along the Jordan River in South Jordan, those businesses are not the kind that are going to pay premium lease rates for high-rise offices.

Where are the home buyers going to come from to suck up the condos in the development? Not trying to being smug, but there is not much of a track record of urban development in the south end of the valley, so I suspect people with the means to purchase those condos will put their investments elsewhere.

Finally, the whole project hinges on artists wanting to live and work in the south end of the valley. The few artistic people I know in the area would gag at the thought of choosing Sandy over downtown SLC. Sandy is not exactly a bastion of creative thinking and free expression. Ironically, the lack of tolerance in Sandy for diverse opinions would seem to be the death knell for this project. The whole concept makes much more sense if it were anchored by the Gehry development in Lehi, whose designer is a renowned artist and very creative thinker. I'll take the Lehi project, which, by the way, is much closer to a major university with well developed arts programs, over Sandy if major high-rise development is going to occur outside of the SLC CBD, which must happen sooner or later.

:previous:
I'm sure more people are riding Trax due to high gas prices, Not everyone wants to ride Trax. UTA needs to build alot more trax lines and stations before alot more people will be willing to ride it. And they are doing that now with the West Valley line and the mid Jordan line. But no matter how many trax lines we get there will still be more people driving then riding Trax.

:previous:
:previous:

RFPCME, I think you might have attributed the wrong quote to me.:shrug:

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that it is actually right to do it. It's like a tragedy of the commons. But oh well, suburbs will do as they will and all we can do is hope for the best.

RFPCME brigns up one of the best examples in the tech center in Denver. While commercial nodes need to develop, they need to do so in a manner that respects their locale. I would rather see sandy develop something smaller scale, similar to what they have now. There is not problem with sandy wanting to create jobs, they should. But they need to do so in a moer sensitive way. I was at the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute conference a few years back and heard that there are more jobs in the Tech Center than all of downtown. It would take decades for SLC to recover from that type of impact. I do not know if they could.

Height restrictions serve many purposes, including reducing shadowing, reducing the need to have special emergency response equipement, urban desig (although probably not much of a consideration in Sandy), etc. I think the emergency response impacts are often under appreciated by people. Sandy is not equiped to provide this to a structure of this size, hell, not even SLC is. It would costs millions of dollars for equipment, personnel, training, and housing this equipment. I have no clue what types of impact fees sandy has, but this should be a consideration for this type of development. I think sandy would be very smart to limit their building heights to 5 stories and alter their building codes to allow wood construction up to that height. It would provide a huge incentive to builders because it is much cheaper to build.

I am not a huge fan of the Proscenium, I do think that proscenium has the potential to hurt DT but again as excited as the developer and the city are, the demand must be there for a development of that size.

I am not however opposed to Sandy gradually getting taller. As someone has said, Sandy is nearly built out and have very little developlable space reaming, with a few areas that could use some redevelopment. Many cities want to mature and grow up and I think Sandy is a natural city to do that. It is the 2nd largest city in the Valley that substantially faces I-15, the main commercial corridor in the state. Sandy and every other city will need to continue to spur economic development in order to maintian services and pay for improvements. I would rather see two 10 story buildings built at Sandy City Center than four 5 story typical suburban type buildings.

Just like SLC, Sandy is at a point were it needs to go vertical in order to continue to make it worth a developers time. 40 stories vertical just seems a little to much and I will say it again, if the market isn't asking for it, it won't get built.

My apologies
 

Sorry Delts. It was a quote from Projects.