Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[delts145]

I wonder what the Holding bottomline looks like these days since the oil profit bonanza. They should just about have the Grand America and Snowbasin paid for by now.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by delts145

Not quite sure why we would need to move Abravanel Hall or convince the LDS church to accomodate. From the drawing it looks as if the tower would occupy the southeast corner of 1st and Main. I would gladly exchange Bennion for that tower any day. While Bennion is okay as far as remakes, it lost it's historical appeal or significance about three redo's ago. That's also a great placement visually, when taking into account the future Towers 1,2, & 5.

to me in the drawing it looks like it is mid block between south temple and 100 south. That is why I said abrevenal hall, or somewhere in CCC. If it was truly 100 S. and Main on the south east corner at the bennon jewelers building then you would see a gap in the skyline from where the key bank tower used to be. ... I desperately hope we fill that gap someday.

as for the theater I am a fan of the squatters parking lot. Broadway is a really cool street, and this would only add to it to the artsy vibe that already exists there. Imagine getting a table at squatters or any other restaraunt along that road for dinner, then going for a gallery stroll at rose wagner and then head across the street to see the Lion King and a state of the art theater, and then walking down the road to your broadway park loft with roof terrace for a night cap. ... Plus I would like to see some height built there on 500 S. and Main in density in future years. Like some height on Holdings block and a tower on this courthouse parcel. ... Would really make the views from the library roof very stunning. ... I think we should try to avoid building smaller buildings in the areas between north temple and 600 S. to 200 E. to West temple as this is really the only areas where the city gives a thumbs up to height, and are the areas that will either make or break our skyline.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Actually, I'd prefer a tower like this to go on the South West corner of 100 South and State Street, there is also plenty of parking literally next door there at the Regent Street Garage.

At this point I'd be happy to have that tower just about anywhere downtown, LOL !

[wrendog]

Any word on social hall tower one? Viperlord's list on page one suggests that this tower will start construction this year.. anything?

[Viperlord]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Any word on social hall tower one? Viperlord's list on page one suggests that this tower will start construction this year.. anything?

Tower one on the Social Hall block located on the corner of 100 south and 200 east will be pushed back until 2009 at the earliest start date according to cowboy partners e-mail i got a few months back.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Just for fun (not real renderings):
Salt Lake City's Broadway-scale Theater

Urbanboy: Nice work! I'd like to see a lot more of your ideas, especially as they relate to the third concept...that one is particularly intriguing.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by murdoc9

Sorry guys, but oil shale isn't going to happen. Way too much water, way too much energy needed to profitably produce. Even if that wasn't enough you have the pollution and contamination problems. A cap and trade system is coming - sooner in Utah than elsewhere it seems, and makes this whole project a loser in financial and ecological terms.

Murdoc: Don't know where you're getting your facts, but they don't jive with what I'm reading from the US Geological Survey, nor the Bureau of Land Management, and a raft of technical publications.

Water is involved but no more than a standard oil refinery. Granted, if there is a limiting factor in oil shale development, it is water.

The question isn't if, the questions are when and how large. Remember the Athabasca tar sands in northern Alberta are already producing at over the 1M barrel per day level, with much of the product sold in the Mtn. West. And tar sand doesn't have the energy content that shale has. It is also more difficult to refine.

The energy issue isn't big either, because of the abundance of natural gas in the area. Ecologically, well managed, the development should have a far smaller ecological footprint than even hydrogen, considering the enormous infrastructure that has to be built to switch to a hydrogen source. Moreover, the hydrogen switch doesn't make sense because plasma fusion technology will arrive easily within the next 100 years, making the whole hydrogen discussion irrelevant.

I heard an energy economist some it up best, when he was discussing the impact of various options to crude oil. He saved the oil shale discussion for last, carefully delineating the economic pros and cons (including environmental remediation) of every major energy option besides shale. When he got to oil shale, he said "Game over! We cannot develop it fast enough. It is the only option that makes sense."

[urbanboy]

Here's a pretty standard theater design in the Squatters location:



I just threw the residential tower in there for the halibut.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

Tower one on the Social Hall block located on the corner of 100 south and 200 east will be pushed back until 2009 at the earliest start date according to cowboy partners e-mail i got a few months back.

Dang... I at least hope we get a rendering by the end of the year.

[T-Mac]

RFPCME, I have to agree with you. I was speaking with a client of ours today who now works for BP since they purchased the company he is with. We discussed the oil shale and tar sands in the Wyoming, Colorado and Utah area. He was mentioning that Nine Mile Canyon itself has enough natural gas in it to supply the state of Utah for over 80 years. That is just that little canyon. However, because of the ancient writings on the walls, no one can touch it. Also, we discussed the amount of oil shale and tar sands that exist in the area and getting at it. He said that there are at least 2 companies that he knows of right now that are testing different technologies to get at the shale. He also said that the technology to get at it is advancing quickly and has changed a lot over the last few years. He also said that they mentioned to him that they can make money on it at $80 a barrel. Now just to get the technology down to get it out of the ground without disrupting the environment to drastically. Just a little info from my discussion today.

[Scraperdude801]

Since Becker has voiced his idea of making Main Street pedestrian only (with trax sitll going down it) What would you guys think if we had a tower built in the middle of the road like this one planned for providence RI. I'm not a fan of this design, but I admire the arch tunnel. That could work for trax. Could have a bunch of Art in the tunnel so it was like a gallery you see on the train. ... Something like UTAZlover's Temple Spire tower or something ... LOL ... I like imagining wierd ideas for our fair city.



Check out the Arc Tunnel - not the building!

[Scraperdude801]

UrbanBoy I like your squatters theater idea!

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

Since Becker has voiced his idea of making Main Street pedestrian only (with trax sitll going down it) What would you guys think if we had a tower built in the middle of the road like this one planned for providence RI. I'm not a fan of this design, but I admire the arch tunnel. That could work for trax. Could have a bunch of Art in the tunnel so it was like a gallery you see on the train. ... Something like UTAZlover's Temple Spire tower or something ... LOL ... I like imagining wierd ideas for our fair city.



Check out the Arc Tunnel - not the building!

And we thought the CCC skybridge blocked the view corridor! I'm going to have to say NO on this one, maybe over some other street, like a minor mid block street, but not Main Street or any of the major streets.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Murdoc: Don't know where you're getting your facts, but they don't jive with what I'm reading from the US Geological Survey, nor the Bureau of Land Management, and a raft of technical publications.

Water is involved but no more than a standard oil refinery. Granted, if there is a limiting factor in oil shale development, it is water.

The question isn't if, the questions are when and how large. Remember the Athabasca tar sands in northern Alberta are already producing at over the 1M barrel per day level, with much of the product sold in the Mtn. West. And tar sand doesn't have the energy content that shale has. It is also more difficult to refine.

The energy issue isn't big either, because of the abundance of natural gas in the area. Ecologically, well managed, the development should have a far smaller ecological footprint than even hydrogen, considering the enormous infrastructure that has to be built to switch to a hydrogen source. Moreover, the hydrogen switch doesn't make sense because plasma fusion technology will arrive easily within the next 100 years, making the whole hydrogen discussion irrelevant.

I heard an energy economist some it up best, when he was discussing the impact of various options to crude oil. He saved the oil shale discussion for last, carefully delineating the economic pros and cons (including environmental remediation) of every major energy option besides shale. When he got to oil shale, he said "Game over! We cannot develop it fast enough. It is the only option that makes sense."

A Big Ditto to That RFPCME!! I anxiously await all of your current and future insights into this development. Just as a little side note, I'll take the facts and figures presented by the Huntsman team any day over the misleading disinformation, paid for by cronies of the fanatics or OPEC interests in Washington.

[T-Mac]

I drove past the Gateway this morning and saw rebar and concrete at the Hyatt location. I would imagine it is for the footings and foundation. I will stop and get some photos of it this weekend.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

Since Becker has voiced his idea of making Main Street pedestrian only (with trax sitll going down it) What would you guys think if we had a tower built in the middle of the road like this one planned for providence RI. I'm not a fan of this design, but I admire the arch tunnel. That could work for trax. Could have a bunch of Art in the tunnel so it was like a gallery you see on the train. ... Something like UTAZlover's Temple Spire tower or something ... LOL ... I like imagining wierd ideas for our fair city.



Check out the Arc Tunnel - not the building!

I would hate to see some massive bulding across a major street like Main.

However, I definately would like to see a building with an arc tunnel straddling the interior corner of an intersection. The arc would lead through the building and into a vibrant and interesting interior block full of mixed-use commercial/residential. Something very old world style, with a great fountain in the middle of the interior plaza.

[SLC Tortfeasor]

Originally Posted by delts145

A Big Ditto to That RFPCME!! I anxiously await all of your current and future insights into this development. Just as a little side note, I'll take the facts and figures presented by the Huntsman team any day over the misleading disinformation, paid for by cronies of the fanatics or OPEC interests in Washington.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but I Googled "oil shale water" and came up with several interesting hits. Here are a few of them:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/birger_shale.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060617 (Orrin Hatch says it takes 3 barrels of water to get one barrel of oil)

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20070915/VALLEYNEWS/109150056 (a summary of different perspectives on the oil shale/water issue; one person estimates you need 1-3 barrels of water per barrel of oil)

http://www.examiner.com/x-395-Colorado-Water-Examiner~y2008m6d17-Shell-Oil

Also, here's one recent article (an opinion piece) from the Deseret News. For your convenience, I'll just paste it into this post.

Processing oil shale squanders water
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jul 2, 2008 by Mark Danenhauer

It seems a day does not go by we don't hear something on the radio or read an ad in a paper about the importance of developing oil shale. Proponents of oil shale see it as another means to help the United States achieve energy independence, a very worthy cause. However, how much of this rhetoric is just good politics in these days of $4 a gallon gasoline, and how much of this is actually good, well-thought-out policy?

A very serious concern of mine relates to the impact of oil shale on our state's limited water resources. In case anyone forgot, we do live in the second driest state in the country, averaging only 12 inches of precipitation annually. More importantly, the area where most of Utah's oil shale is located averages even less. Utah has limited water resources, which are already heavily stressed and will be even more so as our population doubles in the next 40 years.

The oil shale in Utah is located near the Green and White rivers, major tributaries of the Colorado River. The Colorado River is one of the most heavily used and managed water systems in the United States. Millions upon millions of people all over the southwestern United States rely on water from this system for everything from growing crops to meeting drinking water needs.

The Colorado River Compact guides how this river system is managed. Recently, after years of debate, the compact was amended in order to determine how the water would be allocated in times of a drought. This was done because there simply is not as much water in the system now as there was when the compact was originally created.

Let's see how this water scarcity relates to oil shale.

Oil shale can be converted to a liquid by one of two processes: either above ground or in-situ. The method in Canada is above ground. This process requires an astounding five barrels of water to create one barrel of oil. The other process, in-situ, processes the shale in the ground. This process is still new, so the amount of water required for it has not yet been determined. In-situ has never been done on a large scale.

Regardless of which method is used, the fact remains that processing oil shale into oil requires an incredible amount of water. While it may be true that there is a huge quantity of oil shale in Utah, there simply is no way to meet the incredible water needs to produce oil from it. There are many unknowns when it comes to water and oil shale. How much water will it actually require? Where will that water come from? Does that water even exist? If processed in-situ, will the groundwater be polluted?

Utahns are incredibly aware and educated when it comes to water. They made it possible for people to settle in the dry western United States thanks to modern irrigation. Now, as we move forward into the future, let's continue to be forward-thinking and innovative and make sure we fully understand how the production of oil shale will impact our state's precious and limited water supplies.

We can't simply jump on board the bandwagon and proclaim that we need to develop oil shale without understanding what that means to our limited and precious water resources.

Mark Danenhauer is the river solutions coordinator for the Utah Rivers Council.

Copyright C 2008 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

[Future Mayor]

What about the possibility of using reclaimed water. There are plenty of people in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado using the bathroom. If Oil Shale is going to be so benificial, then maybe there is a cost benefit to piping the poo water to the extraction site. They will most likely have to build a pipeline to get the oil shale oil to the refineries so just construct an additional one for the poo water.

Just a thought, I have no idea any of the environmental concrens. I just know that it is safe to use in yards, and technically it's safe to drink, it's just that nobody wants to.

Speaking of reclaimed water. The entire Wastach Front needs to install a secondary water system in order to better manage the culinary supply, while still instituting water restrictions and guidelines.

[PhxSprawler]

Isn't Utah using a lot of its reclaimed water for parks, golf courses, and master-planned communities?

I have heard scientists toy with the idea of pumping air-collected carbon dioxide into the ground in place of water.

[Future Mayor]

Yes several communities use reclaimed water. I know that a huge portion of new development in the Tooele/Stansbury area uses it and I think daybreak does, although I am not sure. The majority if not all of the east side of SL Valley does not however.

Air instead of water, well that have have plenty of.