Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I watched the video too. The leak of the 300 foot tall tower was a mistake. The shorter 240’ tall tower is what they are proposing. I liked their presentation. Though, they needed some 3D aerial views to show how it fit in the context. I think they addressed the urban street frontage and parking really well.

They were absolutely hammered, though, by Nimby’s in force. It was so ridiculous. Some of the comments were so uneducated. One guy said that it was taller than the church COB tower in downtown because their original proposal was 30 stories vs. the 28 stories of the COB. But, the COB is 420’ tall because it’s an office tower vs. the 305’ tall previously proposed tower. AND, be didn’t even listen to the presentation that showed that their real proposal was 20 stories and 240’ tall. One guy repeatedly said that down SLC was horrible because of all the traffic and people and that he hasn’t been down there in 16 years. Most of the people were older residents. It was a disproportionate representation of the new demographic in SH. Many of them balked at the proposal to make it a more walkable neighborhood and that you will need lots more parking. Many of them thought that the developer was justifying the height to make it pencil. I only heard one resident in support of the project and he was a younger guy. Some of them were already weary of the current 105’ height limit. Lot if them want to preserve the old storefronts and vintage buildings, but the building the developer is proposing to demo is definitely not precious.

There’s a reality check to all you who are like, “It’s a freaking cool high rise. Build it!”

I think the 240’ is much better and I’d be almost okay with it. What they proposed would be much better than that very unlively existing building.

I think most of us 100% knew the NIMBYs would come out in force against this. No 'reality check' needed, thanks. I was just surprised to see their same BS from people on here too. I have to say, I was mighty disappointed to learn how some of y'all really think. NIMBYs in disguise (or denial?) I guess.

[RC14]

I think people are pretty good at seeing NIMBYism in others, but the second anyone wants to build anything in their neighborhood: "That's too tall!" In other words, the reasons NIMBYism has become such a problem is because everybody has something to complain about and all those complaints create this web of restrictions that prevent anybody from doing anything.

I agree that I would prefer to see this tower built downtown, but that's not where it was proposed. This is a residential building so opposing this development in Sugar House does not mean we get a tower downtown. Sugarhouse is where people want to live right now. That area is booming.
If the zoning, by some miracle, is changed to allow taller buildings, I don't think this tower will be out of place for long. I think more towers will follow.

The other point I wanted to address, was the people Orlando talked about who thought "that the developer was justifying the height to make it pencil." If true, doesn't that mean we should raise the height limits? If we need housing, people want to live in Sugar house and the price of land and the price of construction are so high now that developers can not make it pencil out unless they build up, doesn't that mean we should let them build up?

This, is exactly why we have a housing crisis.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

I think most of us 100% knew the NIMBYs would come out in force against this. No 'reality check' needed, thanks. I was just surprised to see their same BS from people on here too. I have to say, I was mighty disappointed to learn how some of y'all really think. NIMBYs in disguise (or denial?) I guess.

I never gave that same "BS" that those in the community gave. I'm an experienced urban designer that has worked in Seattle, Portland, & SLC. Their original proposal was way too big and tall for Sugarhouse. I'm okay for taller, just not the 300' tall tower they accidentally leaked. What experience do you have Blah?

[Blah_Amazing]

I took a few photos of Astra earlier this week and thought I'd share them.

Astra from State Street

Astra from Gallivan Center

Astra from City Creek - I love moments like this where new buildings poke out and appear in different and unexpected places.

[SaltCityScrapers]

The 200-foot IMC tower in Murray doesn't seem to overwhelm the area or destroy the 'charm' of Murray.
A 240-footer in Sugarhouse wouldn't turn it into Chicago or New York either.

[RC14]

That argument, actually made me rethink my position a little bit. When you drive down State St, the IMC does feel like it dominates the area, and that's only 200 feet. But I think that is also due to the fact that it's such a large complex with sprawling parking lots. The Sugar House tower would probably feel more like the Worthington Tower which, has a commanding presence but doesn't overwhelm the neighborhood.

[bob rulz]

I think 240 ft. is probably within the realm of possibility and I like that new rendering a lot. I still think it's probably unlikely though.

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

With how long zoning changes take this project will be dead before it gets approval.

It has been a year since Intermountain requested the rezone of 754 State, and the city has made no indication they intend to act on that soon.

Is that the city's fault though? It would be a huge, impactful development and hopefully they're working hard behind the scenes to make sure that IHC builds something of a good design. I imagine there would be additional updates to the D-1 code if this goes through. But yes, I hope it happens soon, but we don't know what goes on behind the scenes (unless someone here DOES have inside info on that, I suppose).

And hopefully now that the single-family zoning and affordability provisions were passed, and the Fleet Block rezone has FINALLY been done, that can free up a bit more staff time for other areas. I know Salt Lake City is struggling with planning staff time at the moment.

Originally Posted by SaltCityScrapers

The 200-foot IMC tower in Murray doesn't seem to overwhelm the area or destroy the 'charm' of Murray.
A 240-footer in Sugarhouse wouldn't turn it into Chicago or New York either.

I'm not opposed to a 240 ft. tower in Sugarhouse (especially not that proposal, which looks really good imo), but these areas are not really comparable at all. IMC sits in a massive sea of parking and there's only a little bit of residential nearby (old apartments to the north).

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by RC14

That argument, actually made me rethink my position a little bit. When you drive down State St, the IMC does feel like it dominates the area, and that's only 200 feet. But I think that is also due to the fact that it's such a large complex with sprawling parking lots. The Sugar House tower would probably feel more like the Worthington Tower which, has a commanding presence but doesn't overwhelm the neighborhood.

Just to add some extra context, 240 feet would make it about 10 feet shorter than Liberty Sky and just under 100 feet shorter than Worthington.

If built at 240, it wouldn't even be in the top 20 tallest buildings in SLC.

That said, I don't see why 240 feet is really all that different from 300 feet. I don't see why that additional 60 feet is the difference between 'way out of scale' and all the sudden being acceptable to people on here. Literally the same amount of NIMBYs will still show up to protest it regardless.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I never gave that same "BS" that those in the community gave. I'm an experienced urban designer that has worked in Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, & SLC. Their original proposal was way too big and tall for Sugarhouse. I'm okay for taller, just not the 300' tall tower they accidentally leaked. What experience do you have Blah?

Lets see, I have both an undergrad and graduate degree in planning, plus years of experience dealing with NIMBYs in the field, so I'd say enough. Thanks for patronizing comment though.

[Orlando]

Ok. I'll DM you, rather than argue on here.

[bob rulz]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a difference of opinion on this issue. I don't see the reason for the attacks from either. I don't think being opposed to a 300 ft. building automatically makes someone a NIMBY. Being pro-development doesn't inherently mean you are in favor of all development, everywhere, all the time.

I personally never said I was opposed to 300 feet in that location, only that I thought it was a pipe dream that the city would allow that height there.

[Orlando]

I always seem to regret when I get into a debate with someone on here. I usually end up saying something that is condescending or whatever.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by SaltCityScrapers

The 200-foot IMC tower in Murray doesn't seem to overwhelm the area or destroy the 'charm' of Murray.
A 240-footer in Sugarhouse wouldn't turn it into Chicago or New York either.

It's nice to have that height out there for that tower. The difference is that it's not right on State Street with all the older buildings of downtown Murray.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by RC14

That argument, actually made me rethink my position a little bit. When you drive down State St, the IMC does feel like it dominates the area, and that's only 200 feet. But I think that is also due to the fact that it's such a large complex with sprawling parking lots. The Sugar House tower would probably feel more like the Worthington Tower which, has a commanding presence but doesn't overwhelm the neighborhood.

Yeah. That's not a good comparison. IMC sits smack dab in the middle of of a massive parking area.

This will be right in the heart of the community.

Not to mention that 2100 S and 1100 East is much more narrower there than State Street.

I still support it, tho. I don't think it'll be bad for the area. But if you're trying to convince people, that might not be the best example.

[Atlas]

The planning staff report for the Edison street project (formerly Moda Luxe) is now available on the PC website. Along with some new renderings, they are recommending to approve the height reduction and building length variances requested by the developer.

Kinda disappointing for a D1 lot, and it's clear the developer just wants to build more cheaply than 100ft would require, but the street engagement is good. All 4 public comments were opposed to the height reduction.

[Boz]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

I took a few photos of Astra earlier this week and thought I'd share them.

Amazing, Blah. Thank you.

[PR_Utah]

Moving the Jazz from downtown would be a terrible idea! Time after time, cities who have moved their major attractions or sporting venues away from their downtown cores into suburbs have proven what a mistake this is. The surrounding developments and “entertainment” districts NEVER come to fruition (case in point, see REAL Salt Lake stadium in Sandy for a local example). The Jazz (and any other major sports team) belong in our capital city!

Here's a rough idea I through together to reinvest in downtown! Build a new “Jazz Temple Center” across the street in the unused parking lots owned by the Church. Where the Delta Center now sits can be turned into an expansion of the Salt Palace and an “Olympic Legacy” park with a life size replica of Delicate Arch.

[ajiuO]

I’m 100% done with the Utah Jazz if they move out of salt lake. I was okay with the North Temple Idea, but not Draper.

[Ironweed]

Anyone planning on attending the Rio Grande meeting on the 14'th? I'll be there. I am trying to find some clown bait to lure Comrade to show up.

[Blah_Amazing]

https://aca-prod.accela.com/SLCREF/Cap/C...87&agencyCode=SLCREF&IsToShowInspection=

Address: 451 E 300 S

Basics: 8 floors. 160 residential units (441 beds).

"The proposed development presents an innovative housing approach, offering a diverse range of unit types, including double occupancy suites, which are uncommon in the existing neighborhood."

Building Elevations:

Floor Plans: