Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5 - Page 843

Orlando · #**16841** Posted **Dec 3, 2023, 3:43 PM**

The issue is what is the appropriate scale for the area. I just showed an example of what might be appropriate. Even then, people might think it’s too big or too tall. Just because this is “skyscraperpage.com” doesn’t mean we should all jump at any high rise proposal anywhere it is proposed. That’s why planners set height limits for certain areas. The people in Sugarhouse will probably fight it, too. This will have to go through a public process. Btw, how much experience do you have in development related projects?

delts145 · #**16842** Posted **Dec 3, 2023, 6:16 PM**

Very much agree Orlando. My first thought was there's no way that Sugar House would be in favor of something along the line of 300 ft. The developer is probably just doing a mental game and aiming high so the compromise will be more along the 100-150 mark. As much as I want to see ever taller highrises especially downtown I personally think in that location it would stick out like a sore thumb.

Blah_Amazing · #**16843** Posted **Dec 3, 2023, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by delts145

Very much agree Orlando. My first thought was there's no way that Sugar House would be in favor of something along the line of 300 ft. The developer is probably just doing a mental game and aiming high so the compromise will be more along the 100-150 mark. As much as I want to see ever taller highrises especially downtown I personally think in that location it would stick out like a sore thumb.

How is this logic any different though from people who say they don't like 5 and 6 floor buildings going in areas near single family districts because they would 'stick out' and 'not fit the character of the neighborhood.'

You can make an argument of 'degree' of difference, but think of it this way. Some of the buildings in downtown Sugarhouse are around 100 feet tall. 300 feet would be triple the height of those buildings. How is this different than a 5 over 1 at 60 feet being triple the height of 2 floor single family houses?

The logic being presented is therefore not dissimilar to what NIMBYs argue every time a standard apartment building is proposed.

There is also several examples of towers jutting out along the east bench before Zoning really started to prevent them.

Most cities have towers outside of the downtown core. Heck, look at Denver. It has quite a few towers going up in their version of Sugar House. We all know that a single entity owns a great deal of the undeveloped D-1 zone and they are clearly not intending to build it out any time soon (I was particularly upset when I learned that the parking lot near Delta Center is already set to be the site of the medal plaza again in 2034 (temp structure), indicating that it will still be an empty parking lot a decade from now). So until then, market pressure needs to be relieved somehow.

wrendog · #**16844** Posted **Dec 3, 2023, 9:01 PM**

Just build the damn 300 footer in sugar house. It'll look great. Then keep on with the infill

TheGeographer · #**16845** Posted **Dec 3, 2023, 11:27 PM**

I’ve seen plenty of other US cities where there are 300 ft+ towers outside of the downtown core. Even more common and even kind of the norm in certain non-US cities to have 300 ft+ towers that are stand alones outside of the downtown core. I think a 200-300 ft+ tower could be done in sugar house. I’ll go as far as to say it would look pretty sweet and could really help SLC define itself some more if over the next 10-15 years a couple 300 footers were built in sugar house. You would drive right by a cluster of towers on I-80, giving SLC a more urban feel coming in and out of town

rockies · #**16846** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 12:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

How is this logic any different though from people who say they don't like 5 and 6 floor buildings going in areas near single family districts because they would 'stick out' and 'not fit the character of the neighborhood.'

You can make an argument of 'degree' of difference, but think of it this way. Some of the buildings in downtown Sugarhouse are around 100 feet tall. 300 feet would be triple the height of those buildings. How is this different than a 5 over 1 at 60 feet being triple the height of 2 floor single family houses?

The logic being presented is therefore not dissimilar to what NIMBYs argue every time a standard apartment building is proposed.

There is also several examples of towers jutting out along the east bench before Zoning really started to prevent them.

Most cities have towers outside of the downtown core. Heck, look at Denver. It has quite a few towers going up in their version of Sugar House. We all know that a single entity owns a great deal of the undeveloped D-1 zone and they are clearly not intending to build it out any time soon (I was particularly upset when I learned that the parking lot near Delta Center is already set to be the site of the medal plaza again in 2034 (temp structure), indicating that it will still be an empty parking lot a decade from now). So until then, market pressure needs to be relieved somehow.

That is a great way to frame it. It's like weaponizing the same kinds of overly restrictive zoning/processes just to enforce a slightly different aesthetic preference. I think neighborhoods around SLC are better off for having high rises like the landing and the hightower mixed in among single family. There is literally a massive smokestack that can be seen from every corner of the valley on the horizon - a 300 footer in sugarhouse will hardly stick out. It is a completely different vibe from downtown with the small streets and I would love to see a small skyline there in coming decades

Comrade · #**16847** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 1:09 AM**

I have no problem with a 300 foot tower on that corner.

As mentioned, for a long time, SLC used to approve high-rise buildings going up outside downtown. They seem to integrate well into those neighborhoods.

But I still am doubtful a 300 footer would be approved there.

bob rulz · #**16848** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 3:39 AM**

I would put the chances of Salt Lake City allowing a 300-foot skyscraper in Sugarhouse at about 1% personally.

ucsbgaucho · #**16849** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade

Salt Lake is pretty confident they'll be landing a MLB team. I am not sure what you're arguing. It's very likely a MLB team will be in SLC by the point of the Olympics and knowing people connected to the U, the expectation is that RES will not be used for the opening and closing ceremonies.

That doesn't mean it's a lock - but they are planning with the expectation that the MLB stadium will house the opening/closing ceremonies. That wasn't the case earlier in the year, tho. But things changed when Salt Lake began pursuing a MLB team.

I don't understand why you think Olympic officials would choose a small baseball stadium that's not set up for an Olympic ceremonies over RES, which has the capacity right now (and could easily be expanded between now and then), won't be in use at that time, and is already configured to host the OC/CC. SLC isn't going to build the baseball stadium to host the Olympics and THEN convert it back to baseball size, because if SLC does get an MLB team here, they're already going to be playing before 2034, which means the city is going to either construct a giant oversized stadium initially and then renovate it to downsize it to a proper baseball seating capacity, probably causing the MLB team to have to relocate for an entire season, with nowhere to relocate (Smith's Ballpark will be long gone so they'd have to displace the Bees to the eventual U of Utah stadium in that scenario). So that seems like a totally illogical route to take when RES is the right size and already built.

What's the logic of using the baseball stadium over RES?

freeshavocado · #**16850** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

I don't understand why you think Olympic officials would choose a small baseball stadium that's not set up for an Olympic ceremonies over RES, which has the capacity right now (and could easily be expanded between now and then), won't be in use at that time, and is already configured to host the OC/CC. SLC isn't going to build the baseball stadium to host the Olympics and THEN convert it back to baseball size, because if SLC does get an MLB team here, they're already going to be playing before 2034, which means the city is going to either construct a giant oversized stadium initially and then renovate it to downsize it to a proper baseball seating capacity, probably causing the MLB team to have to relocate for an entire season, with nowhere to relocate (Smith's Ballpark will be long gone so they'd have to displace the Bees to the eventual U of Utah stadium in that scenario). So that seems like a totally illogical route to take when RES is the right size and already built.

What's the logic of using the baseball stadium over RES?

I don't have any information either way, but why does an opening and closing ceremony need a certain seating capacity. Most winter olympics have had their ceremonies in venues smaller than Rice Eccles. I guess ticket sales / revenue would be the mine driver?

ucsbgaucho · #**16851** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeshavocado

I don't have any information either way, but why does an opening and closing ceremony need a certain seating capacity. Most winter olympics have had their ceremonies in venues smaller than Rice Eccles. I guess ticket sales / revenue would be the mine driver?

Well it just seems to make sense to use the larger venue if it's there. Here's the capacities of recent Winter Olympics opening ceremonies:

2022: 80,000 (Beijing Natl Stadium, used for 2008 OC as well)
2018: 35,000 (Pyeonchang, built specifically for the OC)
2014: 40,000 (Sochi, built for OC)
2010: 61,600 (BC Place Stadium)
2006: 35,000 (Turin, rehabbed existing stadium and increased to meet minimum IOC requirement)

So RES held just over 50,000 for the OC in 2002 with temporary seating added, and now the stadium holds about 51,000 with permanent seating. Just seems to make sense that because our bid is centered around "no new venues needing to be built", they would choose a perfectly good and beautiful venue, with a history connected to the 2002 Olympics, stunning views, and centrally located to the athlete village (which will probably be on the U campus once again I'd imagine), it doesn't make any logical sense to use it; farther from where the athletes will be housed, not as beautiful a view, not as large seating capacity (they won't have any problem selling out seats), and no money required to retrofit the construction for 2 uses.

Enemy4thePeople · #**16852** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 9:21 PM**

Public comment for the J Fisher Edison Street project is open until the 13th. Maybe everyone can email them a picture of the Sugarhouse concept massing.

Edison Street Design Review

Edit: that page says public comment closed in November, but I walked past the site yesterday and the posted notice says it's open until the 13th.

Atlas · #**16853** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 9:29 PM**

If you send comments in to the planning department about a specific item via email or whatever, they will typically include it in their report to the PC even if it was after the posted deadline.

So it's definitely still worth commenting on the Edison Street project if you have an opinion about it. Looks like the PC will be approving/denying it on December 13th.

wrendog · #**16854** Posted **Dec 4, 2023, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

Well it just seems to make sense to use the larger venue if it's there. Here's the capacities of recent Winter Olympics opening ceremonies:

2022: 80,000 (Beijing Natl Stadium, used for 2008 OC as well)
2018: 35,000 (Pyeonchang, built specifically for the OC)
2014: 40,000 (Sochi, built for OC)
2010: 61,600 (BC Place Stadium)
2006: 35,000 (Turin, rehabbed existing stadium and increased to meet minimum IOC requirement)

So RES held just over 50,000 for the OC in 2002 with temporary seating added, and now the stadium holds about 51,000 with permanent seating. Just seems to make sense that because our bid is centered around "no new venues needing to be built", they would choose a perfectly good and beautiful venue, with a history connected to the 2002 Olympics, stunning views, and centrally located to the athlete village (which will probably be on the U campus once again I'd imagine), it doesn't make any logical sense to use it; farther from where the athletes will be housed, not as beautiful a view, not as large seating capacity (they won't have any problem selling out seats), and no money required to retrofit the construction for 2 uses.

As a super unbiased outside observer, I say no more public funds to RES ever.

Go Cougs!