Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Highrise_Mike]

I'm actually loving the snow right now! I'm sure I will feel diffent by the time February rolls around... Anyway, we need to build up some snow pack so we have a better water supply than the past couple years.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Great shot. I love our city when it's snowy. Absolutely gorgeous out there right now.

[airhero]

Does anybody know anything about what's going on with the convention center hotel? Supposedly the deadline was extended to the 11th but that was four days ago. Last time we knew immediately how many proposals had been submitted after the deadline had passed.

[UTPlanner]

I wanted to comment quickly regarding the required review process for corner buildings that exceed a certain height in the D-1 zoning district. I cannot say exactly where that number came from but I can say that it is extremely important that a developer that wants to exceed that amount should have to go through a design review process. Any building that tall will certainly have a significant impact on the city's skyline and deserves to be scrutinized. The absolutely worst thing that could happen without that process is to have the city's newest, tallest building to be a hideous mess. By going through this process it will also guarantee that the skyline is not just a sea of rectangular boxes but a collection of well designed, and interestingly detailed structures. Frankly, I think the threshold for what height should go through a design review process should be much lower. For those that have not been involved with the city's design review process, it is not difficult or a significant burden. Any serious developer would not shorten the height of their project just to avoid going through the process.

[linguisize]

Just in case anybody was curious, our little city has some great angles while standing on the balcony of the Ballet west building.

[Future Mayor]

I agree, that balcony offers a great view. Thanks for the pic.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

I wanted to comment quickly regarding the required review process for corner buildings that exceed a certain height in the D-1 zoning district. I cannot say exactly where that number came from but I can say that it is extremely important that a developer that wants to exceed that amount should have to go through a design review process. Any building that tall will certainly have a significant impact on the city's skyline and deserves to be scrutinized. The absolutely worst thing that could happen without that process is to have the city's newest, tallest building to be a hideous mess. By going through this process it will also guarantee that the skyline is not just a sea of rectangular boxes but a collection of well designed, and interestingly detailed structures. Frankly, I think the threshold for what height should go through a design review process should be much lower. For those that have not been involved with the city's design review process, it is not difficult or a significant burden. Any serious developer would not shorten the height of their project just to avoid going through the process.

I agree with this 100%; I'm certainly one of the first here to want a better design review process and to defend the general role of city planning when it comes to guiding the private sector toward quality development.

However, my concern is that we will not cut ourselves off from bad urban planning practices. Anyone who has studied urban planning, even just a little, knows that urban planning was pretty broken in Post-war America with policies aimed at reducing density, favoring cars over all other forms of transportation, and banning mixed use. These were bad times that didn't start to get reversed until the 70's.

When I look at the work that the RDA has done, I genuinely believe that they "get it." They are doing their best to re-create older styles of massing and development that looks and performs like a New Urban city space. Where I think we have a problem is our actual design review process; I don't believe the focus has left the early 60's... I know that part of the condition for building, the now Wells Fargo Tower, was greater offsets and creating Gallivan Plaza. We also have the priority of having all the tallest buildings on the corners of each block. We also surrounded the Library and the new Public Safety Building in seas of plaza and green space. We seem to have this obsession with framing large buildings with lots of low density.

This fear of density is suburban and it's cute for a place like Boulder Colorado or Park City (you know, cities that don't matter to real people), but it's really embarrassing for a city that wants to be taken seriously for its urban life. We have to get over our fear of density and we have to make sure that new developers understand walk-ability and street engagement. That should have been our focus before I was born in 1988. It's still not our focus.

This idea that plaza space and green space cancel out the evils of density is so behind the times and embarrassing. It operates on the hypotheses that dense cities objectify and degrade human beings. It also assumes that Salt Lake City is like some kind of island cut off from nature (which is laughable since we have a fucking park adjacent to downtown that goes into a protected canyon with cougars). If you can't see mountain views from your location downtown, when you take a lunch break walk a couple blocks away and look at the damn mountains, take it in and become less depressed of whatever the fuck mystical powers you derive from gazing at them. Maybe take an Uber up to capitol hill.

Everyone who thinks green space is the answer, stop playing sim city for second and take a moment to walk Salt Lake City. Pretend you are walking from the Ken Garff building at 400 S and Main up to Salt Lake City Roasting Company because you're thirsty. First thing you'll notice is that it feels like it's taking forever; that's because you're walking 3.5 blocks (a half mile) with zero street engagement. You are traversing a void full of green space and plaza space. For that kind of lifestyle you could just move next to Muller Park Jr. High in Bountiful; it's not what a city is supposed to be.

We need to better define design review and start from scratch based on street engagement. And, if the city wants developers to build with better street engagement, the city should probably start doing the same.

[Future Mayor]

You make some valid points regarding the walk up 400 S and the open space that greats you on that walk, however many more densely populated cities have swaths of open space often times associated with their Civic Buildings, just as SLC has from the City and County building to the PSB.

I see the main problem in that area is that there isn't the density surrounding those blocks that it creates an overall density in the area. I do agree though that the NW Corner of the PSB block could use some height.

Gallivan was actually built in the 80's around the same time as the One Utah/Chase building, well before American Stores/Wells Fargo. I actually think Gallivan is a perfect piece of open space within the heart of the CBD. We all complain all the time about how massive our blocks are, and the Gallivan Center does an excellent job of breaking up that block and allowing access points in every direction, essentially breaking the giant block into much more pedestrian friendly smaller blocks. With the addition of the new Gallivan Center Building on 200 S, I don't think that block lacks and sidewalk presence at all. It is completely surrounded by density, including office, hotel and residential, with more hotel and residential coming soon.

The Gallivan Center is a key componenet in a much large N/S mid-block pedestrian connection that essentially cuts through the entire CBD. Starting at the plaza in front of the COB, it extends all the way to 400 S. The area between 300 S and Exchange Place isn't all that fantastic to look at, but it does provide a mid-block connection through the entire block. That Regent/Gallivan pedestrian corridor breaks up 5 blocks into much more pedestrian friendly pieces.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

You make some valid points regarding the walk up 400 S and the open space that greats you on that walk, however many more densely populated cities have swaths of open space often times associated with their Civic Buildings, just as SLC has from the City and County building to the PSB.

I see the main problem in that area is that there isn't the density surrounding those blocks that it creates an overall density in the area. I do agree though that the NW Corner of the PSB block could use some height.

Gallivan was actually built in the 80's around the same time as the One Utah/Chase building, well before American Stores/Wells Fargo. I actually think Gallivan is a perfect piece of open space within the heart of the CBD. We all complain all the time about how massive our blocks are, and the Gallivan Center does an excellent job of breaking up that block and allowing access points in every direction, essentially breaking the giant block into much more pedestrian friendly smaller blocks. With the addition of the new Gallivan Center Building on 200 S, I don't think that block lacks and sidewalk presence at all. It is completely surrounded by density, including office, hotel and residential, with more hotel and residential coming soon.

The Gallivan Center is a key componenet in a much large N/S mid-block pedestrian connection that essentially cuts through the entire CBD. Starting at the plaza in front of the COB, it extends all the way to 400 S. The area between 300 S and Exchange Place isn't all that fantastic to look at, but it does provide a mid-block connection through the entire block. That Regent/Gallivan pedestrian corridor breaks up 5 blocks into much more pedestrian friendly pieces.

No one is arguing against breaking up blocks from the inside; that's an urgent need for the City. I heard that Gallivan was part of a design review, is that true? Was it for One Utah Center instead of the Wells Fargo Building?

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

No one is arguing against breaking up blocks from the inside; that's an urgent need for the City. I heard that Gallivan was part of a design review, is that true? Was it for One Utah Center instead of the Wells Fargo Building?

I'm not sure if it was part of a design review process or if the city simply required an open space requirement as part of the building of One Utah and it's attached parking garage. I recall looking out the window of a condo at American Towers in 1992 and Gallivan was being constructed or was recently completed. Wells Fargo wasn't started until 1996.

To argue UT Planners point, if Gallivan was the result of a design review process on One Utah, then we got a non square topped building and a great open space out of that process.

Back to your point about 400 S though, there are definitely some things that could be done to enhance the pedestrian experience. Since there is no longer a bank drive-thru in the Ken Garff Building I think they could eliminate that small surface lot with a nice piece of infill. While something over 132' would be nice (the width of 400 S right there) even something just 4 or 5 stories would help that block face. Obviously nothing is going to happen on the City & County building block, and the Library Block probably won't change, but as I previously mentioned, something of size, 150' at the minimum, (4th S is 132' wide), needs to be built north of the PSB. I think that stretch of 4th South will be improved with the development of a high rise on the NE corner of State and 4th, as well as the redevelopment of the Dunkin Donuts site at 200 E and 4th S, and even 7-11 on 3rd E, again a minimum of 150'. Visually narrowing 4th S.

The same thing needs to be done on 5th S. That road needs to be visually narrowed, particularly adjacent to the 3 Civic Blocks. Back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk on 5th S is 116' So at minimum each block needs the addition of some 125' buildings. While again this doesn't do much for the actual Civic Blocks themselves it does create a visual back drop.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I'm not sure if it was part of a design review process or if the city simply required an open space requirement as part of the building of One Utah and it's attached parking garage. I recall looking out the window of a condo at American Towers in 1992 and Gallivan was being constructed or was recently completed. Wells Fargo wasn't started until 1996.

To argue UT Planners point, if Gallivan was the result of a design review process on One Utah, then we got a non square topped building and a great open space out of that process.

Yeah, but let's pretend we're serious about having a building boom and we're gonna have like 4 more One Utah Centers (not in shape but in size). The rules are supposed to at least be predictable for a developer. What if that meant 4 more giant plazas downtown? That's Sandy style urbanism. It assumes a car will whiz you to and from everything because all this dead space in between (may as well be parking) will be void of city life.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Yeah, but let's pretend we're serious about having a building boom and we're gonna have like 4 more One Utah Centers (not in shape but in size). The rules are supposed to at least be predictable for a developer. What if that meant 4 more giant plazas downtown? That's Sandy style urbanism. It assumes a car will whiz you to and from everything because all this dead space in between (may as well be parking) will be void of city life.

I see your point, but we don't know for sure though if Gallivan was included in the design review of One Utah or not, or if the city already owned that property and simply sold the underground rights to the developer for the garage.

One Utah and Gallivan started construction 25 years ago. A lot has changed in the City since then, and is continuing to change. We already saw the design review process work in our favor with Regent Hotel, it no longer looks top heavy, and 151, isn't a square top. The transit corridor zoning has been put into place along 4th S as well as North Temple, which will help to increase overall density and reduce the dependence on cars. One major thing that has changed since One Utah and Gallivan were built is that the city is gaining population and there is demand for new development. The city isn't begging for anything and everything to come to the city as it was during the late 80's early 90's, and we are no longer getting Crystal Inn, suburban style development like we were in that era.

Things will continue to evolve, one place I think changes will occur is in reducing parking requirements for all types of buildings, shared parking, which is the case for 111, EPAC and Regent Hotel, none of those is building parking, because the city realizes that there is already plenty of parking, and that transit is a much more viable option than when One Utah was built. Other parking reductions need to be made with new residential as well as office. One concept is to combine parking requirements with transit requirements. Reduce the number of required parking spaces per unit and include a minimum number of transit passes per unit that the developer is required to provide.

I have shared that concept with two Council Members that I know well, and I am still trying my damnedest to get appointed to Planning Commission, under the new administration.

Update, if the 375' restriction was in place when One Utah was built then there was no Conditional height Design Review for One Utah, as it is only 350' and didn't need a conditional use to build beyond the 375'. There may have been something related to parking under Gallivan, but there wouldn't have been anything for the height.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Back to your point about 400 S though, there are definitely some things that could be done to enhance the pedestrian experience. Since there is no longer a bank drive-thru in the Ken Garff Building I think they could eliminate that small surface lot with a nice piece of infill. While something over 132' would be nice (the width of 400 S right there) even something just 4 or 5 stories would help that block face. Obviously nothing is going to happen on the City & County building block, and the Library Block probably won't change, but as I previously mentioned, something of size, 150' at the minimum, (4th S is 132' wide), needs to be built north of the PSB. I think that stretch of 4th South will be improved with the development of a high rise on the NE corner of State and 4th, as well as the redevelopment of the Dunkin Donuts site at 200 E and 4th S, and even 7-11 on 3rd E, again a minimum of 150'. Visually narrowing 4th S.

Here's the civic campus of San Francisco




Here's the civic campus of Denver




Based on these examples I think the areas in red on this next pic of the Salt Lake City civic campus should be developed along the street in question.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Things will continue to evolve, one place I think changes will occur is in reducing parking requirements for all types of buildings, shared parking, which is the case for 111, EPAC and Regent Hotel, none of those is building parking, because the city realizes that there is already plenty of parking, and that transit is a much more viable option than when One Utah was built. Other parking reductions need to be made with new residential as well as office. One concept is to combine parking requirements with transit requirements. Reduce the number of required parking spaces per unit and include a minimum number of transit passes per unit that the developer is required to provide.

I have shared that concept with two Council Members that I know well, and I am still trying my damnedest to get appointed to Planning Commission, under the new administration.

Godspeed on getting appointed!

[Future Mayor]

While I see your point about street engagement, I can't agree with developing any of those, except for the one adjacent to the Ken Garff Building.

The more populated the city gets, the more people that will attend the many many events that take place and occupy nearly the entire Civic Plaza space.

I would suggest surrounding development that frames the civic space.

Red 150' minimum, with incentives and design review for higher than the 375', particularly on the 4th S corridor buildings.
Green 100' minimum, taller with Design review.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I think all the hypothetical development that you have there is great. There's nothing to argue against there.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

While I see your point about street engagement, I can't agree with developing any of those, except for the one adjacent to the Ken Garff Building.

The more populated the city gets, the more people that will attend the many many events that take place and occupy nearly the entire Civic Plaza space.

I don't understand this idea of limited civic space. I've shown how much larger cities have smaller civic space and they are, quite frankly, much better at putting on events and getting a turn out of these events. We have the widest streets and tons of space as is, way more than Seattle or San Francisco. We have Liberty Park. What about the city claiming this civic space as park space is sacred to you? It's just a construct. Mohamed didn't even ascend from this spot. It seems very easy to re-imagine.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I think all the hypothetical development that you have there is great. There's nothing to argue against there.





I don't understand this idea of limited civic space. I've shown how much larger cities have smaller civic space and they are, quite frankly, much better at putting on events and getting a turn out of these events. We have the widest streets and tons of space as is, way more than Seattle or San Francisco. We have Liberty Park. What about the city claiming this civic space as park space is sacred to you? It's just a construct. Mohamed didn't even ascend from this spot. It seems very easy to re-imagine.

I never said I couldn't imagine it, I simply said I don't agree with it. I refer to it is Civic Space because that is where a vast majority of Civic buildings are located. It's not sacred, but I feel that is is very utilized, and will continue to be utilized. Yes we have Liberty Park, but that's not in the heart of downtown, and it hosts plenty of events itself.

It's simply a matter of opinion. I prefer to keep the Washington Square as it is, with the open space surrounding it, it's a beautiful and one of a kind building and I wouldn't want the views from all surrounding streets to be altered. Again, simply a matter of opinion. Although young, I was around when there was a vote that nearly brought the City & County building down and a completely redesigned City Hall and Washington Square. So I for one would like it to remain the open space that it has always been.

As for the much better at putting on and drawing. Can you provide some numbers on the draw, and the putting on is simply conjecture and a matter of opinion.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I never said I couldn't imagine it, I simply said I don't agree with it. I refer to it is Civic Space because that is where a vast majority of Civic buildings are located. It's not sacred, but I feel that is is very utilized, and will continue to be utilized. Yes we have Liberty Park, but that's not in the heart of downtown, and it hosts plenty of events itself.

It's simply a matter of opinion. I prefer to keep the Washington Square as it is, with the open space surrounding it, it's a beautiful and one of a kind building and I wouldn't want the views from all surrounding streets to be altered. Again, simply a matter of opinion. Although young, I was around when there was a vote that nearly brought the City & County building down and a completely redesigned City Hall and Washington Square. So I for one would like it to remain the open space that it has always been.

I don't see it as a packaged deal. We should keep the City and County Building and reconsider the park space. Parks aren't that great. They just aren't. Jane Jacobs talks a lot about this. We use them a few times a year for big events and the rest of the time they are full of creeps, bums, and people secretly or not so secretly masturbating on benches. In the case of the green space east of the library, there would probably be more human beings using the space if it was just a parking lot. That's the sad reality of it. Parks also increase crime significantly. In a real urban setting you have lots of eyes on the street from pedestrian friendly paths and lots of doors and windows at street level.

We have two streets we can shut off for events East and West of the Library Block. The street on the West side is twice the size of a normal street in Portland and 3 Portland blocks long. So that's like 6 Portland blocks of street on the west side alone. The street to the East is smaller so we'll say it's just 3 Portland blocks. So we have 9 Portland blocks of street for stands and such. Pride is the biggest Gathering and it doesn't use any of the green space East of the Library. The corners of the block that the City and County Building is on is also empty. How does a Pride event work? It's a lot like a fair that tours different cities with the same vendors. This means that it's about the same amount of stands as Denver.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

As for the much better at putting on and drawing. Can you provide some numbers on the draw, and the putting on is simply conjecture and a matter of opinion.

OK, the red rectangles can't be taller than the lowest part of the City and County Building where the masonry meets the roof.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

While I see your point about street engagement, I can't agree with developing any of those, except for the one adjacent to the Ken Garff Building.

The more populated the city gets, the more people that will attend the many many events that take place and occupy nearly the entire Civic Plaza space.

I would suggest surrounding development that frames the civic space.

Red 150' minimum, with incentives and design review for higher than the 375', particularly on the 4th S corridor buildings.
Green 100' minimum, taller with Design review.

I agree with most of this, since I would hate to see the green space go at Washington Square, but I am confused about what you are proposing for the block south of the library. The green is the Utah State Office of Education, where I work. I find it odd that you are only proposing redevelopment of our building, but leaving our sea of parking that extends to 600 S? Also, why does our building get demolished, displacing more State workers from downtown, but yet you're fine with keeping the scummy bail bonds building next door to the east?

I would be very much for redeveloping our building into a much larger building, since we could really use the meeting space, but I would hate to see us sell the building and leave downtown altogether.

Also a little confused as to why you are only proposing development on the north end of the car dealership block.

[Scraperdude801]

also, why are neither of you wanting to develop the SW corner of the block where the Matheson Courthouse is? It is currently parking.