Quote:
Originally Posted by cololi
 Agreed. Height for the sake of height is a waste of resources in my opinion. Much more important is the realtion of buildings to each other and the public realm.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottharding
I prefer Arky's notion. I agree that it's a more functional design, and a more realistic one at that. Again, we have demand for a 1,000 room hotel. We do not have a demand for a 1,000 ft mixed use building. I know we're just fantasizing here, but where there is an acutal need for the hotel, I fall in with that one.
Also, in regards to the desire for an iconic tower, I understand that opinion. But I fall into the camp that would prefer better infill than some massive tower sticking way up beyond the skyline. I actually would prefer a 500 ft hotel, and two 250' towers to a 1000 footer. This is because I'm more concerned with downtown as a community than a skyline photo. It's my desire to see Salt Lake continue to evolve into a dynamic and sustainable urban center, economically healthy, diverse, and offering a vibrant lifestyle. I think this better achieved with smart planning sheep-dogging development that happens organically.
Again, I know we're just speculating here, but this forum is about opinions, after all, so I thought I'd throw out mine.
|
Ok I've got a
GREAT idea. Let's fill downtown with dozens of new short, stubby,
nondescript 200-400footers with humongous footprints, LOTS of parking lots and empty plazas.
I mean, what's the point of building UP when you can just build OUT? Why build
ONE ICONIC 1,000ft tower when you can build several midrises
wasting WAY more space? 
We should be thinking about the PRESENT and not the FUTURE, and waste as much as possible, right?
THAT WAY when it comes time to build a supertall, we can waste money, energy and resources demolishing one or two stubbies for the supertall that should have just been built in the first place.
Yep.
BRILLIANT IDEA.
I'm sure glad I thought of it.
BTW I hope you all recognized my extreme use of sarcasm.