Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Rileybo]

Bummer that this will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future. I guess I’ll take endless 5-over-1’s instead.

[rockies]

One of the most prominent corners in the city and the most important in sugarhouse is about be just another random apartment building for many decades into the future and beyond the doubling of our population. It is very shortsighted and I'm sure between now and then there could be some downtownish-height tower built in sugarhouse anyway. Of all locations in the downtown sugarhouse area, that one would have been the best. You have two busy corridors and the public plaza across the street begging for something special

Personally, I think the canyon crest condos and those buildings look awesome at night and I don't consider them ugly at all... also we are talking about highland and 21st south the center of urban sugarhouse

[bob rulz]

Again, you guys are really overestimating the heights in Sugarhouse. The current height limit is 105 feet, and yet only 1 building so far has been approved at that height. If there were a massive demand for buildings of that height, we would've seen more proposals. 150 feet would still be an improvement. Like I said, I don't disagree that we could allow higher in Sugarhouse, but also the evidence doesn't exist that there is a demand for higher. You could point to the initial proposal for a 300 ft. skyscraper, but personally I was skeptical of the feasibility of that project anyway, not just in terms of getting zoning approval, but of developers promising something like that and not being able to deliver, which is a very common theme in this city.

Hell we were just having a conversation about how we feel like the skyline of Salt Lake City hasn't changed enough in the last 20 years, despite the fact that we are a booming city and have felt like we've had a lot of proposals. It's certainly not an issue of height - again our D-1 zone allows unlimited height. It's a general Salt Lake City issue that developers just don't build tall here, and that a lot of the more ambitious projects just never come to fruition.

Originally Posted by Comrade

It's close enough lol

150 feet is small potatoes.

It won't be prominent. That's just wishful thinking.

No more than the Lincoln Towers:

You keep using examples that are not 150 ft tall (again this example is probably half that height) and are not good comparisons for what a tower would look like in the heart of Sugarhouse. Even if you want to argue it wouldn't be "prominent", which I think is a bit subjective anyway, it would 1) still be significantly taller than anything around it and 2) wouldn't look like this example or the Redman Tower. Hell I don't even think the Redman Tower is the best example.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7254...5410&entry=ttu

Imagine if it were twice as tall. I would argue that would be at least somewhat "prominent".

Additionally, any skyscraper on that corner would come right up to the street and would be skinnier than a lot of towers in Salt Lake City. Those factors would help with the visual impact.

Originally Posted by Rileybo

Bummer that this will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future. I guess I’ll take endless 5-over-1’s instead.

You think this would happen in Sugarhouse any time in the foreseeable future anyway? Also you do realize that 150 ft allows for significantly more than 5-over-1's right?

Originally Posted by rockies

One of the most prominent corners in the city and the most important in sugarhouse is about be just another random apartment building for many decades into the future and beyond the doubling of our population. It is very shortsighted and I'm sure between now and then there could be some downtownish-height tower built in sugarhouse anyway. Of all locations in the downtown sugarhouse area, that one would have been the best. You have two busy corridors and the public plaza across the street begging for something special

Between now and "when"? When is this future "then" you're talking about? And I don't think we're losing out on the "best" possibility for height necessarily. I would argue that any future redevelopment of the shopping centers would probably provide a better opportunity - more land and more capital could be invested in those areas.

I'm not really making a case for what should or shouldn't happen here, or whether this is the best solution or not. It would be good if we got zoning allowing for greater height in Sugarhouse. I'm sure iI made a post at some point expressing that I'd be fine with a 300 ft. skyscraper in the middle of Sugarhouse. But we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[Rileybo]

Lol no I didn’t think that picture would happen anytime soon, my point is now it’s impossible. We won’t see that view in our lifetimes. The city likes to put a cap on possibilities.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Rileybo

Lol no I didn’t think that picture would happen anytime soon, my point is now it’s impossible. We won’t see that view in our lifetimes. The city likes to put a cap on possibilities.

100% for sure. Cities NEVER change their zoning regulations. Never.

Listen, I think taller buildings would be great in sugarhouse, but I also want to see downtown core get bigger. Sugarhouse with 10-15 story buildings would look dense and great.

[i-215]

I'm the anarchist here who thinks it's time (on state levels) to abolish local zoning code entirely.

Have one statewide code that's based on a formula (distance to transit, roadway capacity, moderate-income and affordable housing targets, etc.). Feed in the site's attributes and the formula spits out the maximums. That way it's fair for everyone, everywhere. The more the state has spent on transportation and infrastructure in that area, the greater the allowable density.

(Don't want density? Don't ask the state for transportation money!)

It would lead to high-rise decentralization, though, as places like Sugarhouse or even Lehi would probably qualify in the formula equally.

-----------

What the heck is a toilet doing in downtown?

Iconic building, sure. But not in a good way. Imagine the tourism postcards of the skyline.

[Comrade]

Not really overestimating anything. Just pointing out it won't be all that prominent and it won't. But SugarHouse is one area of the city that should embrace high-rise living. I agree with rockies that it's totally shortsighted.

And the thing is, I don't see it changing. Even if demand was there, SugarHouse has been a bitch to work with when it comes to raising the height limits. And this is a perfect example of it. Push it to 200 feet at least.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by i-215

I'm the anarchist here who thinks it's time (on state levels) to abolish local zoning code entirely.

Have one statewide code that's based on a formula (distance to transit, roadway capacity, moderate-income and affordable housing targets, etc.). Feed in the site's attributes and the formula spits out the maximums. That way it's fair for everyone, everywhere. The more the state has spent on transportation and infrastructure in that area, the greater the allowable density.

(Don't want density? Don't ask the state for transportation money!)

It would lead to high-rise decentralization, though, as places like Sugarhouse or even Lehi would probably qualify in the formula equally.

I'm not in favor of abolishing zoning codes entirely by any means, but I do think we should be greatly simplifying them. That's why I'm looking forward to what Salt Lake City is doing by consolidating about 30 commercial and mixed-use zones into 6 zones.