Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[DCRes]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

asies1981, I am not shooting the messenger. This is very telling and imformative:

"According to planning documents height limits are lower in the D-4 zone to maintain a pyramid type shape in the skyline with the tallest buildings on or near Main Street and to preserve views of the Salt Lake Temple, Oquirrh Mountains to the west and the Central Business District (CBD). Proposed buildings in the CBD, or D-1 zoning district can be up to 375 feet if it will occupy a corner parcel. In the D-1 zone, corner buildings can surpass the 375-foot height limit if approved through the CBSDR process."

So essentially, there IS AN ACTUAL code that limits height in SLC even in the D-1 corner areas. It is no wonder there are no 'real' Skyscrapers in downtown. I doubt any developer wants to go through the silly hassle of this 'so-called CBSDR process'.....

I feel vindicated.

Get it while you can I guess. As far as I am concerned if they don't make this CCH a new tallest, it will be a major disappointment. Make it a skyscraper for Pete's sake!!

For those in the know, how difficult is it to go through this bonehead CBSDR process?

111 is higher than 375, so they went through the process. There is a similar restriction for non corner lots of 100 ft and there are numerous examples of buildings that have gone through the process to get approval for additional height. 222 Main, Regent (residential at City Creek), recently approved Regent Hotel to name a few. This process just allows the planning commission the ability to have a say in the design of a building that will have a dramatic effect on the skyline. For example, Boyer proposed a mid block building at 151 S State which exceeded the 100' limit. The commission didn't like the square top, saying it looked too much like 222 and 111. Boyer then came back with an angled roof that I think looks a lot better.

If a developer is willing to go through all the hassle and cost of building a tall building, they aren't going to let this process stop them.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

asies1981, I am not shooting the messenger. This is very telling and imformative:

"According to planning documents height limits are lower in the D-4 zone to maintain a pyramid type shape in the skyline with the tallest buildings on or near Main Street and to preserve views of the Salt Lake Temple, Oquirrh Mountains to the west and the Central Business District (CBD). Proposed buildings in the CBD, or D-1 zoning district can be up to 375 feet if it will occupy a corner parcel. In the D-1 zone, corner buildings can surpass the 375-foot height limit if approved through the CBSDR process."

So essentially, there IS AN ACTUAL code that limits height in SLC even in the D-1 corner areas. It is no wonder there are no 'real' Skyscrapers in downtown. I doubt any developer wants to go through the silly hassle of this 'so-called CBSDR process'.....

I feel vindicated.

Get it while you can I guess. As far as I am concerned if they don't make this CCH a new tallest, it will be a major disappointment. Make it a skyscraper for Pete's sake!!

For those in the know, how difficult is it to go through this bonehead CBSDR process?

I'm not sure how difficult that process may be, but up here in Seattle, almost all new buildings proposed must go through some DR(Design Review) process.

[Ironweed]

I am all for design review and making sure iconic vistas are not destroyed or impeded, but you would't have that with a 500 or 600 foot tower in the D-1 area with the adjacent D-4 zoning.

Why in the world 375'? Who came up with that idea? Hopefully he now uses Viagra/Cialis/penial implant and has more confidence.

Was this height chosen in the 1960's/70's? With the expected growth of Utah, it makes no sense now.

I am almost certain that CBSDR stands for (Certainly Behind, Sadly, Downtown Renewal)...

May the skyscraper god please bless SLC!

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

I am all for design review and making sure iconic vistas are not destroyed or impeded, but you would't have that with a 500 or 600 foot tower in the D-1 area with the adjacent D-4 zoning.

Why in the world 375'? Who came up with that idea? Hopefully he now uses Viagra/Cialis/penial implant and has more confidence.

Was this height chosen in the 1960's/70's? With the expected growth of Utah, it makes no sense now.

I am almost certain that CBSDR stands for (Certainly Behind, Sadly, Downtown Renewal)...

May the skyscraper god please bless SLC!

I hear ya. However, Design Reviews in my experience are much more than vista impedance, etc. There are is a lot of design criteria to follow: setbacks, facades, adjacencies, pedestrian experience, overall design aesthetic, etc. Design Reviews allow the city and citizens the process of reviewing the design.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by asies1981

The surface lot being developed is one of the lots owned by the Greek Orthodox Church, a developer bought and I've been promised info once plans are finalized.

All those surface lots owned by the Greek Orthodox Church are starving for development. Does this happen to be a development that's been mentioned in passing on the forum before or is this yet another new development coming to light?

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

my pants. i need new pants.

Don't ever change.
I mean your humor.
Your pants, yes, as needed.

[wrendog]

Every time I drive through Austin, I am amazed at the amount of construction going on downtown.

SLC is primed for just such a boom. They just need a proposal like the Austonian, which, though tall, fits very well in the skyline.

[Stenar]

I was recently reviewing SLC's "Second Century Plan" from 1962 and found this item. It basically describes City Creek Center 50 years before it was built. I thought it was pretty interesting. Although, this was proposed for Block 57, the Gallivan Center block.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I was recently reviewing SLC's "Second Century Plan" from 1962 and found this item. It basically describes City Creek Center 50 years before it was built. I thought it was pretty interesting. Although, this was proposed for Block 57, the Gallivan Center block.

The 2nd century plan also included dolphins? LOL

[SLC2GeorgetownU]

Just for fun, I think that something of this nature is all Salt Lake city needs. Nothing much higher than what i put in this rendering. A well balanced, complimentary skyline. I prefer density over height. I went to college in DC and loved the feel of the city, very urban.

[ctobsl]

Looks like you have been busy. I love the towers you added to the city.

[wrendog]

Looks great, but too much uniformity in height. Throw in a 600+ footer and we are talkin'.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Looks great, but too much uniformity in height. Throw in a 600+ footer and we are talkin'.

Yeah but it's realistic because SLC has one of the most uniform skylines in the country.

[delts145]

Really enjoy studying these. Wish I had billions to buy up entire blocks and start the development of density. Particularly around blocks such as those lining the 4th, 5th, and 6th South corridors.

Originally Posted by SLC2GeorgetownU

Just for fun, I think that something of this nature is all Salt Lake city needs. Nothing much higher than what i put in this rendering. A well balanced, complimentary skyline. I prefer density over height. I went to college in DC and loved the feel of the city, very urban.

[Future Mayor]

Yes technically you're right there is a 375' height limit, but as DC Res pointed out. That height limit isn't going to stop a developer from building, IF The market demands something taller, as has been the case with 111, The Reget, 151, The Regent Hotel, 222 etc etc.

There are a few plain and simply facts as to why Salt Lake City doesn't have more skyscrapers. Availability of land, there is still so much available, and in large chunks, the second is just as important if not more so, DEMAND. When there is a demand for taller buildings, we will get taller buildings. We got a taller than 100' mid-block residential tower why? Because there was a demand for it. We got 222 and 111 office towers, one taller than the mid-block 100' and one taller than the corner 375', why? DEMAND!!!!!!!!!

Until demand increases and land availability reduces we are going to continue to see buildings in the same basic height range.

I know several differ on this opinion, but I'd rather have a more evenly populated downtown with multiple 350-450' buildings, such as 111, 222, 151, than one 600' building.

I'm not sure that the cialas/viagra comment was made in the appropriate direction. Whoever set the 375' height limit obviously didn't feel the need to over compensate, which apparently several demanding a 600' building rather than a more balanced downtown must be doing just that.

As for LaSalle, if they end up building a residential unit adjacent to the Utah Theater they are going to build something that either compliments Main St, and is a height within the historic fabric of the area, or they are going to build something of a decent height, maybe not skyline altering but not a 4 story on a podium design either, why? Same answer as above, DEMAND.

[jtrent77]

So just a thought about Zions Bank and new towers and the like. I think Zions should build a new tower that they own on the corner we have been discussing on 1st South and Main. Build it large enough to completely house all of their operations as well as several floor for expansion that they can rent out until they need them. This would then leave the current Zions tower empty at Main and South Temple. This building I believe is already owned by the real estate arm of the LDS church. So for at least an interim period bring all of the scattered LDS offices around the county into this location and have it be COB 2. That way quite literally across the street from everything else.

Two birds, one stone. Make it so.

Just my thoughts anyway

[Future Mayor]

A thought on the D-4 zoning changes. In my mind it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have different height regulations in the same zone, corner on this block can be unlimited in height, but that corner over there can only be 75'. Since the recommendation appears to be that the Salt Palace Blocks seem to have the same height regulations as the D-1, then they should simply re-zone the Salt Palace Blocks to be D-1.

Then on the D-4 blocks amend that zone to allow for taller corner buildings. They really need to go up to a minimum of 135' on the corners to be taller than the street is wide. (I measured back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk at 100 S and 300 W right around 130') and maybe max out at 150' on corner, and allow 75' for mid-block buildings. This still allows for view corridors, but also helps to visually narrow the street, as the corner lots will allow for buildings taller than the width of the road.

Email your Council Members and show support for this idea.

[s.p.hansen]

[SLC Projects]

Winter sucks, bring on summer.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Winter sucks, bring on summer.

I almost forgot about winter.... Doesn't seem like we have had one in a few years.... Hopefully the mountains get dumped on like crazy this year.