Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Reachforthesky

Found some interesting info concerning SLC annexing portions of Millcreek, It appears plans have been in place since 1979! Why's it taken so long to put into action?

http://www.slcinfobase.com/CouncilArchives/agendas/2002agendas/reports/5-7ITEMA3SYNOPSIS.pdf

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Obviously much of the plan can't be accomplished at this point, the part stating that all areas served by SLC water should be annexed into SLC. Holladay and Cottonwood Heights already incorporated and they are both served by SLC Water.

I do agree think it makes sense to at least shore up the boundaries a bit more. If you look at a map http://maps.slcgov.com/slcinternetmap/ the southern boundaries are all sorts of whacky. It looks like some property owners wanted to annex in, or the city had interest in certain areas, and they annexed those that were willing.

I think the city should at least shore up the southern boundary at 3300 S from 700 East up to 215, maybe a little bit of the area east of 215 right there as well.

Again the issue isn't simply SLC saying, "Hey we want all these parcels in our city" It takes an annexation movement by the property owners, or one initiated by the city. 51% of the total acreage has to be in favor of the annexation and 33% of the total value has to be in favor of the annexation, in order for it to pass.

A city initiated annexation would be very time consuming and costly, it would require staff to talk with each and every property owner. Staff would have to address a full range of concerns, from tax rates, to school boundaries and more.

The only way I see it happening is if a group of property owners decide they would like to be in SLC rather than Millcreek Township. These owners would need to initiate the process and be the ones to talk to all the property owners and address their concerns.

I believe there is also another route that can be taken, where the annexation would be put to a vote based on voting precincts. I am not familiar with this method however, but I know there was a vote a couple of years ago in the Willowcreek area, concerning annexation into Cottonwood Heights.

While I understand the difficulties and perplexities behind annexation, I simply don`t understand how SLC finds itself in its current predicament. I mean, when you look at the numbers, it is truly staggering! SLC`s official 189,899 population figure only represents 16.57% of the metro`s 1,145,905. I have pulled some figures from other cities just to show how wacky this is when compared to other metros and their respective core cities:

Percentage of Metro Population in Core City:

64.5% - Colorado Springs, CO
61.5% - Albuquerque, NM
46.6% - Omaha, NB
45.6% - Oklahoma City, OK
44.3% - Spokane, WA
33.3% - Boise, ID
29.9% - Las Vegas, NV:
23.8% - Denver, CO:

43.7% - Sample Average

16.6% - SLC

My question may be naive, but I am just wondering how virtually every other comparable city I can think of for SLC has been able to keep 1/4 to 2/3 of its metro population in the core city. If SLC had the average core/metro percentage as these other areas (40-45%), it would have a city population of 450,000 to 515,000 - which would seem a little more consistent with comparable metros. I would even take Denver`s relatively low percentage of 24%, which would make SLC`s population 275,000. But really, 190,000 is pitiful. It so inaccurately reflects the city`s true size!

PS:

I just pulled some historical data for SLC and it looks like it was in line with these percentages in 1960. At the time, SLC has the EXACT SAME population as today (roughly 189,500). The metro, however, was at about 406,500 (I added the county populations of Salt Lake, Tooelle, and Summit counties to get this figure). SLC`s 1960 population would have represented 46.6% of the total metro population at the time. Obviously, the reason for this decline was the rapid population boom in the suburbs. However, this is not a valid excuse, as many other cities experienced similar growth trends. They, however, were somehow better able to annex the rapidly growing areas on their peripheries. What happened in SLC that would explain why it was not able to annex these areas as other like cities were? Had annexation kept pace with metro population growth over the past 50 years, SLC would have a current population figure of 535,000. Imagine the potential tax revenue the city would have today were that to have been the case!

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by Boz

Hmmm... a box with a "tower" on one of the corners... What'll they think of next!

It's not horrible but I don't like it very much.

I don't really have an issue with its height, look or added density to that area. The issue I have is with it sitting on the corner and being just high enough to meet the 100' zoning requirement. Put it mid block and I bet most of us here would be okay with it.

I just think the Boyer Company was going for the minimum for everything on this project. They barely hit the zoning requirements for height and tried to get out of the retail fronting the parking garage. Who knows what else they went the minimum on.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by TimeSaltlake

I like it. However. I don't understand some of you. Not every building has to pay a respectable tribute to a historic style. Not every building has to have certain height. If this was built in sandy everyone would be complaining that sandy is getting buildings. Its filling in empty lots which downtown has plenty of. You want more density. Well fill up the empty spaces.

Actually buildings do have to be a certain height in certain zoning districts. This is D-1 and corners must be 100' minimum.

The updated images do make it look a bit better, and I agree with you Steven F, if it was mid block I think we'd all like the height much more.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by StevenF

Looks like they shortened it too and now only 7 floors and mechanical.

Lame. Which I don't get why developers keep doing that? Such a buzz kill to see a rendering a certain height only to see it lose a few floors in a 2nd rendering. 222 South Main, the Casade, maybe the PAC tower are some others I can think of to. Heck I believe that at one point both Eaglegate and One Utah towers were first planned to be taller then what they both turned out. So annoying that we keep seeing our buildings shrink with each passing rendering. Buildings on corners that are so close to the downtown core shoulding be shorter the 10-stories. Boyer, if you guys are going to be cheep by building a 7-story building, then just sell the land to a developer with balls who wants to put that land to better use. Downtown SL doesn't need any more lame ass 6-7 office buildings all over downtown. Save it for one big highrise.

[SLC Projects]

Seems to me then it's about time that maybe the city needs to up the D-1 zoning heigh to at least 150FT.

[Just A Thought]

Too be honest, I just absolutely thrilled the city have allowed a parking lot to be built on.

[Orlando]

Thank you Viperlord for the Boyer link for Office 101. Interestingly, it looks like Boyer may be renovating the adjacent Questar building, which they now call Office 102. Here is an image of the interior lobby. It looks like a rendering, and that they plan to open up some of the interior floor plates for this nice looking and spatious lobby. Though, I'm not certain regarding this. Is that existing? Their webpage doesn't say exactly. http://www.boyercompany.com/projects/projects-under-development/102-tower/






Fyi, it appears that the new 101 building will be about the same height as the 102 (Questar) building.

[sock puppet]

Regarding the Questar building 102:
The lobby pictured above is definitely just a rendering. When Questar was there it incorporated a defunct waterfall. It was just dark and depressing. It missed it's calling as a government building.

[Boz]

^^^

Wish we could "like" or give rep to a post.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by TimeSaltlake

I like it. However. I don't understand some of you. Not every building has to pay a respectable tribute to a historic style. Not every building has to have certain height. If this was built in sandy everyone would be complaining that sandy is getting buildings. Its filling in empty lots which downtown has plenty of. You want more density. Well fill up the empty spaces.

Those buildings are being developed in Sandy and West Valley and Murray and Cottonwood. I don't care if they're being built for the very reason I don't like it in SLC. It's an ugly building. It's already dated even before it's built. It's in an area of the city that is woefully underdeveloped and sprinkled with lame projects like this and it's just a stone's throw away from the heart of downtown.

I'd care little if this project was developed on 7th East instead of 2nd - but it's not. Now we're going to get this ugly suburban building, next to parking, in an area that has been utilized badly by the city the last 30 years - and the improvement is only minimal.

Look at that block, that's the last available land on that block unless we start demolishing (and the building on 200 S and 200 E should be the next to go) and it's going to this, something that'll be there for a considerable amount of time and bring little to the area.

Ideally, this would be the perfect spot for a nice 10 or 15-story residential tower. Instead...

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

While I understand the difficulties and perplexities behind annexation, I simply don`t understand how SLC finds itself in its current predicament. I mean, when you look at the numbers, it is truly staggering! SLC`s official 189,899 population figure only represents 16.57% of the metro`s 1,145,905. I have pulled some figures from other cities just to show how wacky this is when compared to other metros and their respective core cities:

Percentage of Metro Population in Core City:

64.5% - Colorado Springs, CO
61.5% - Albuquerque, NM
46.6% - Omaha, NB
45.6% - Oklahoma City, OK
44.3% - Spokane, WA
33.3% - Boise, ID
29.9% - Las Vegas, NV:
23.8% - Denver, CO:

43.7% - Sample Average

16.6% - SLC

My question may be naive, but I am just wondering how virtually every other comparable city I can think of for SLC has been able to keep 1/4 to 2/3 of its metro population in the core city. If SLC had the average core/metro percentage as these other areas (40-45%), it would have a city population of 450,000 to 515,000 - which would seem a little more consistent with comparable metros. I would even take Denver`s relatively low percentage of 24%, which would make SLC`s population 275,000. But really, 190,000 is pitiful. It so inaccurately reflects the city`s true size!

PS:

I just pulled some historical data for SLC and it looks like it was in line with these percentages in 1960. At the time, SLC has the EXACT SAME population as today (roughly 189,500). The metro, however, was at about 406,500 (I added the county populations of Salt Lake, Tooelle, and Summit counties to get this figure). SLC`s 1960 population would have represented 46.6% of the total metro population at the time. Obviously, the reason for this decline was the rapid population boom in the suburbs. However, this is not a valid excuse, as many other cities experienced similar growth trends. They, however, were somehow better able to annex the rapidly growing areas on their peripheries. What happened in SLC that would explain why it was not able to annex these areas as other like cities were? Had annexation kept pace with metro population growth over the past 50 years, SLC would have a current population figure of 535,000. Imagine the potential tax revenue the city would have today were that to have been the case!

It's not just a SLC thing. The city of Miami only has a population of 408,568 in a metro of 5,564,635 - which puts their core population at what, 7% of the entire metro population?

So, it isn't that unique. San Francisco's population is only 18% of their entire metro. Kansas City's population is only 22% of its metro. Boston is 13% of their metro.

It just depends on the city. Some decided to annex - others decided to consolidate their county as one city government (Louisville did this not too long ago). Others, like Utah, decided it was best to keep the city's historical boundaries.

[slc801]

Here are the pictures of the Eastside Apartments (350 S 600 E)









I really like how they are turning out. I like the throw back to the historical architecture in the area, the tiny door balconies that create a cool grid across the building, and the interesting white lines creating another grid across the metal. I really like the colors. What I especially like about it is that it is unique to Salt Lake. There isn't anything else in the area like it.

As far as the Boyer building, I don't hate it but I don't love it. It is much better than what is there. There are a lot of wishes found bigger buildings with dramatic architecture. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening for a while simply due to the vast number of open lots around Salt Lake City. Developers can have there way with design simply because anything they build, as crappy as it may look, it is better than what is already there, a parking lot, and there are a lot of parking lots to fill. Once Salt Lake starts to densen up, then I think the signature high rises will come. While the Boyer building isn't perfect or the signature tower that everyone is dreaming of, I think it gets Salt Lake one step closer to getting there by taking away a parking lot and adding density downtown.

[Twothirty8]

Salt Lake City should have a Design Review Board. I don't think that would have passed if they had a board with good architects and planners in it. In Portland and other cities, they have very extensive Design Reviews.

I agree, if Salt Lake doesn't have a DRB, they desperately need one, and a big part of that would be to give the city a design direction and unity.

The Boyer design is outdated, send it back, and we shouldn't be okay with it just because it's adding infill. Is it going to add to the beauty and attract people to downtown? I don't think so.

[Comrade]

It's not even the height that bothers me (though, I'd much rather start expanding the skyline with a bit more height there) - the look is just absolutely dated.

I'd even be okay with something like this:

[Viperlord]

salt lake city planning division open house:
april 18 2013 430 pm and 600 pm
salt lake city and county building

GIV Holdings is requesting approval from the City to develop a 115 unit apartment building, that includes a mix of market rate, special needs, ADA and affordable units, which will be 5 stories in height, at 24-72 North 600 West. Currently the land is used for single family homes. This type of project can only be approved if a Planned Development is granted. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6182 or [email protected] - Case number PLNSUB2013-00097)

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

salt lake city planning division open house:
april 18 2013 430 pm and 600 pm
salt lake city and county building

GIV Holdings is requesting approval from the City to develop a 115 unit apartment building, that includes a mix of market rate, special needs, ADA and affordable units, which will be 5 stories in height, at 24-72 North 600 West. Currently the land is used for single family homes. This type of project can only be approved if a Planned Development is granted. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6182 or [email protected] - Case number PLNSUB2013-00097)

I'm already rolling my eyes. There's a cluster of nice, historical homes on that site right now and I can only envision they'll be demolished, and replaced, for a building extremely similar to the Citifront Apartments, which are right across the street.

Unless those houses have become abandoned in the last couple years (since I was down there), I'd much rather have them remain than some ugly, cheap, nondescript apartments - and probably even if they are abandoned since I doubt they're rundown.

[delts145]

I totally agree Comrade. This has been one of Central L.A's biggest mistakes. Hundreds of beautiful old historical homes with incredible charm were bulldozed during the 60's and 70's , only to be replaced by nondescript crap apartments. Actually, apartments much worse than Citifront. I am hoping Salt Lake doesn't make that same mistake, and learns from LA's mistakes. Hopefully, there are enough forum lurkers making planning decisions that will hold back greed centered development, especially where charming, historical homes are concerned. PLEASE, get to know Central Los Angeles, "Salt Lake Decisions Makers" and LEARN from it's mistakes.

[gusam26]

Some nice houses but I wouldn't call them historical, that area is rapidly changing and that road of houses almost seem out of place.

I wouldnt mind that nasty building in that corner that has pretty much fallen on its own to be completely gone.

[Comrade]

I agree with you. They are out of place. They're much nicer than the cheap, ugly Citifront Apartments that are located across the street. So, you're absolutely right about that. But I don't care if the neighborhood is changing with tacky stucco apartments that will look like complete shit in 20 years, these homes have been around since the early 20th Century.

Your attitude toward those homes is what's so frustrating about the mentality of Salt Lakers. Because it doesn't necessarily fit your definition of what is historical, you're perfectly fine demolishing 'em for something that probably won't make it to the 2040s - or if it does, will be so trashy and cruddy (as we've already seen with Citifront) that they'll be eyesores. So predictable.

Those homes are in pretty damn good shape for being on the west side. We're not even talking rundown homes here - we're talking fairly nice residences that have been part of the fabric of that neighborhood longer than any of us have been alive. But that's okay - get rid of 'em! The neighborhood is changing!

But is it changing for the better? Can anyone really say Citifront or Bridges are improvements over those houses? If they want to build a crappy residential complex, go do it on vacant land ... lord knows there's a shit load of it on the west-side anyway. But to destroy a handful of decent housing for it? Psh.

I'm losing hope with the western side of Salt Lake. The development there is so unimaginative and lousy that I'm actually surprised anyone on here would be for demolishing good housing for it.

[Comrade]

And to further what I'm talking about ... has anyone actually read the user reviews of Citifront and Bridges? They're downright scary what some people say about those buildings.

Date posted: 4/6/2013
Years at this apartment: 2010 - 2011

The worst place to live. Would not let us out of our lease even after we witnessed drug deals in our hallway.
Prostitution, Drugs and homeless people if you don't mind this you can spend way to much and call this home.

Read more: http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/UT-...nt-Apartments-1630660.html#axzz2Plo2Fqux

Now maybe, by some act of God, this building will be much better, but I'm guessing that's a stretch (and I know Citifront is owned by a different management than what is proposing this new development...but still).