Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

As someone who proudly waves the "I can't stand the look of the COB" flag, I'm going to have to disagree with you about Astra.

I am glad Astra was built. Far better than the C.O.B. Atlas, nice rendering.

[Rileybo]

I’d rather have Astra than not, it’s better than Carl’s Jr obviously. What makes me not particularly warm towards the structure is that hideous blank north side and the overall “cheap” feeling the exterior has. The roof area is a fugly, too but I’m hoping for cool lighting at night.

Now that both complexes are more-or-less complete, If I were to update my silly SLC skyscraper tier list from a few months back, I’d move Worthington up to B tier and lower Astra from B to D tier.

In my mind, that puts Worthington with the likes of One Utah Center and Eagle Gate West… and Astra sits with the COB and the Borg Cube.

[airhero]

I’ll save my final judgment until the buildings (Astra and Worthington) are finished. They both look better every day. For example the gaps were filled recently between some of the panels on Astra and I was surprised at how much better it looked afterward.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Rileybo

What makes me not particularly warm towards the structure is that hideous blank north side and the overall “cheap” feeling the exterior has.

They could have just stuccoed the north side. That would have been cheap and looked cheap. They covered the north side in white and gray panels. Those panels are not cheap.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Atlas

New tallest incoming?

Makes me wonder about the lost convention space though. Also, the southwest corner of the DC has a parking garage. That side of the DC is kind of a black hole for walkability right now and that won't be improved with this.

Been busy, finally catching up on all the SLC action. I don't see any details on the building heights, did you see something to think new tallest?

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by locolife

Been busy, finally catching up on all the SLC action. I don't see any details on the building heights, did you see something to think new tallest?

Not when I wrote that, no. It was just based on the observation that a billion dollars of public funding, and apparently much more than that in private funding, is being committed to the site. That had me thinking Edmonton ICE District for SLC.

But recently there actually has been some smoke because of the SEG plans/renderings and a 600ft height limit that's actively being proposed for D-4, which is oddly specific.

Originally Posted by joscar

Look like we're only get the conceptual plan for phase 1 of SEG's district. The good news is they're going to save the Fiedelity building.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Not when I wrote that, no. It was just based on the observation that a billion dollars of public funding, and apparently much more than that in private funding, is being committed to the site. That had me thinking Edmonton ICE District for SLC.

But recently there actually has been some smoke because of the SEG plans/renderings and a 600ft height limit that's actively being proposed for D-4, which is oddly specific.

Gotcha, thought I missed something.

Maybe SEG can add a casino as well, like Edmonton. I'd be all on board for that.

[Rileybo]

Originally Posted by Atlas

They could have just stuccoed the north side. That would have been cheap and looked cheap. They covered the north side in white and gray panels. Those panels are not cheap.

Could’ve used glass rather than blank paneling, too. My point is it looks and feels cheap, I understand that nothing about building a skyscraper is cheap. Leaving an entire side of a skyscraper blank is an odd choice/necessity.

Anyway, some of us like Astra.. some of us don’t. Next topic.

[Tippy]

Originally Posted by Rileybo

I’d rather have Astra than not, it’s better than Carl’s Jr obviously. What makes me not particularly warm towards the structure is that hideous blank north side and the overall “cheap” feeling the exterior has. The roof area is a fugly, too but I’m hoping for cool lighting at night.

Now that both complexes are more-or-less complete, If I were to update my silly SLC skyscraper tier list from a few months back, I’d move Worthington up to B tier and lower Astra from B to D tier.

In my mind, that puts Worthington with the likes of One Utah Center and Eagle Gate West… and Astra sits with the COB and the Borg Cube.

Worthington is looking better and better everyday as they change out the facade of the garage portion.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by i-215

That's a beautiful rendering. My concern is shutting down 100 S to vehicle traffic and making two megablocks. Granted, it would have street engagement, but we really need the eyes of cars going down that street (disabled, deliveries, visual observation from passersby)

Are you seriously saying that you consider cars as Jane Jacobs style 'eyes on the street?'

It seems you are saying that rather than have the street closed and become a pedestrian only space where people can freely walk around and potentially enjoy a Japanese themed plaza spaces, you think it's somehow 'safer' by having more cars there instead?

If cars acted as 'eyes on the street' and more cars = greater safety, than by that logic, State Street would be one of the safest streets in the city.

I think you need to actually get out of your car and start walking around the city and see which places feel safer as a pedestrian every single day.

I, for one, can say that the further I can get away from auto traffic, the safer I feel.

[Nebula3lem123]

^Not to mention that, with the Salt Palace there already, there isn't car traffic there so it's not like any drivers are going to lose their streetspace. There's a stark difference between a temple square main street plaza (generally bad because of the gates) and a pedestrianized street (good because its still a public street). The SEG's rendering seems to be more like the former, while Atlas' rendering seems to be the latter.

[i-215]

Anyone else notice something very rookie-league about the SEG plans?

The existing 200 W needs runway space to drop 15-20 feet below existing street level, which narrows the skybridge to a middle portion of the block:





Yet their proposed 300 W skybridge drops underground almost immediately beyond the crosswalk. Magic?

Or worse, they propose making this entire district on the second level, making it totally isolated from the street below. That's gonna kill pedestrian traffic around it.

What's more: Their plaza remains at the same level for both the 300 W and 200 W skybridges. It's like the "designer" of this has never heard of vertical elevation.

I'm telling you... Qualtrics may be a decent survey product. But Smith is new to this kind of development and is out of his league to build a small residential subdivision, let alone a massive multi-billion dollar TIF thingy.

He needs a development partner NOW. (Even the LDS Church, who have extensive development experience, partnered with Taubman).

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Are you seriously saying that you consider cars as Jane Jacobs style 'eyes on the street?'

I'd forgotten where I picked it up, but yes. From "Life and Death of Great American Cities."

One of the best things SLC has been doing is turning old alleys into streets people actually walk and (slowly) drive down. Regent Street is a perfect example:



Not only am I loathe to lose 100 S to total public access (albeit at 15 MPH or slower), but I really would kind of like to see a few of these blocks break up with alley space similar to Regent Street.

Public ownership. Public access, 24/7. It's a street like they have in big cities, not "fake streets" like they have in outdoor suburban malls.

It seems you are saying that rather than have the street closed and become a pedestrian only space where people can freely walk around and potentially enjoy a Japanese themed plaza spaces, you think it's somehow 'safer' by having more cars there instead?

I do think the main Delta Center to City Creek mid-block thoroughfare should be 100% pedestrianized, except perhaps mini trucks that the development operates for picking up trash, maintenance, etc. That part can be a privately-owned "Disneyland" (Downtown Disney, Universal City Walk, etc.)

If cars acted as 'eyes on the street' and more cars = greater safety, than by that logic, State Street would be one of the safest streets in the city.

State Street at 45 MPH? Of course not!

State Street at 25 MPH or slower? Absolutely. The most dangerous sidewalk is one with no witnesses. There's something comforting knowing there are other humans around who can see what's going on.

I think you need to actually get out of your car and start walking around the city and see which places feel safer as a pedestrian every single day.

Dude, I lived in Oregon without a car for an entire YEAR.

I'll take walking along Portland's public streets on nice wide sidewalks next to 25 MPH traffic all day, every day over the privatized alleyways that had no eyes on them.

I, for one, can say that the further I can get away from auto traffic, the safer I feel.

Just make sure you aren't making this an all-or-nothing comparison between Denver's 16th Street (a downtown with many closely spaced small streets) versus walking along 700 East by the park.

There are plenty of examples of safe streets that maintain public access while being nice places to walk.


Regent Street even has a PARKING STRUCTURE exit to it!


Does The Gateway feel dangerous with Rio Grande Street?

-----------------

Here's my rationale: Eyes on the street is not just for safety. It's also economic vitality. When someone can roll by slowly in their car, they can see the business. They are more likely to come back on foot to patronize it.

Portland DID pedestrianize NE 12th Avenue (leading up to the front door of Lloyd Center Mall). It was a ghost town when I lived there 20 years ago and it's a ghost town now:



It was so bad, when I'd walk down 12th Ave, I'd always feel like a security guard was going to walk up to me and yell at me to leave, like I was on private property or something.

Yet every other street in the area is hopping with tons of car, bicycle, and foot traffic. It did then. It does (even more so) now. I don't understand the human psychology behind it, but I certainly do observe it:



StreetView literally standing in the same spot, but turning the camera 90 degree to face the street with cars.

I walked down Broadway every day. It feels totally safe to walk down. Families pushing strollers, etc.

The only time Broadway got dangerous, ironically, was when a guy on drugs blew a parade barricade and drove down it while it was temporarily 100% pedestrianized. (Not stating this as an argument, but rather just because I thought it was funny. Nobody was hurt

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4FDL6-sP1ag

[Atlas]

Looks like there are some more zoning changes on the horizon. Seems like a good idea to simplify the code and consolidate some of the zones. It will be interesting to see the specifics for each new zone.

The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate a zoning text and map amendment to consolidate the existing residential mixed use, commercial districts, and form-based districts into a new mixed use district to achieve one of the Mayor Goals for 2024. The reasons for this proposal include:

• Simplifying the zoning code by combining zoning districts that are substantially similar;
• Reducing the administrative resources necessary to apply, regulate, and enforce the zoning code;
• Improving regulations to be easier to understand and interpretations of the code are more consistent; and
• Removing outdated regulations in these districts that do not align with the city’s adopted land use policies.

The proposal will utilize three existing zoning districts (FB-UN2, FB-UN11, and MU8) with some modifications and create two new districts. The districts are proposed to be consolidated as follows

[airhero]

This plan by SEG is a preliminary concept so we can't expect every detail to be figured out, though it would be nice to see some more details for specific items.

Originally Posted by i-215

Yet their proposed 300 W skybridge drops underground almost immediately beyond the crosswalk.

Yeah if they want the plaza to extend the entire block, where will the descent begin? How will that work with the adjacent intersections/TRAX? At what point do ventilation needs become a concern? I'd imagine minimal if it's like 200 W, completely contained to one block. But that will maximize the ugliness to benefit ratio.

Are Japantown patrons going to want to be adjacent to a gaping hole not only at 200 W, but now 300 W?

[TRex]

The Panning Commission voted unanimously against recommending the SEG rezone. Not 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 no votes but 6-0 against because the current SEG proposal is horrible.

I want SEG to succeed downtown. They can start by hiring i-215. Another great analysis by i-215 backed up with examples and reason. Some of the same points were made by members of the Planning Commission.

Maintaining city owned streets and right-of-ways allows developments to incrementally change in the future if needed. Smaller parcels can be sold and they still have access to a public street. When a large private mega block fails economically, it fails all at once just like a mall. We don't want to demolish the plaza, buildings, tunnels, etc at 300 W in the future. The urban design needs to work beyond the life of the Delta Center.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Looks like there are some more zoning changes on the horizon. Seems like a good idea to simplify the code and consolidate some of the zones. It will be interesting to see the specifics for each new zone.

My only concern with this is that it feels like this might be a slight downzone for some of the zones.

For example MU11 has a max height of 11 stories through design review and that's what they're using for TSA and Sugarhouse zones.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by TRex

They can start by hiring i-215.

Please, no. I'm an uneducated dummy who has never taken a single architecture class in my life (a few unaccredited urban planning classes).

But if even somebody as uneducated as me sees gaping problems in their plan, then SEG is in real trouble. They need to be bringing in an actual developer of this stuff to partner.

Even AEG, who own arenas in Los Angeles, Berlin, Hamburg, London, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Oakland, San Diego, Huston, and Dallas... were smart enough to bring in an outside firm to actually come up with L.A. Live. They didn't sketch it up themselves.

https://www.callisonrtkl.com/projects/la-live/

Renderings from the LA times (before planning commission approval, 2001):



The Draft Environmental Impact Report (required in CA, but only required in Utah if there are federal funds involved, which there won't be). This first graphic shows the way the project would interact with the existing street grid:


This is the level of concept SEG needed to be at before the legislature started throwing conceptual money at them. (Granted, I now understand it was the city approaching SEG and not the other way 'round, but still...):



A reasonably concrete concept that a city council, planning commission, and adjacent property owners can work with to come up with a consensus project that works.

LA's planning commission voted 11-0 in favor of AEG's LA Live. Partly because AEG hired professions and did their homework before presenting in front of the class, so to speak. They'd spent a year or more getting all the stakeholders on board and massaging their designs down to specific buildings with specific purposes.

Compare this with what SEG gave us:



They just whipped something out with Microsoft Paint and just assumed SLC would be on board with a half-cooked casserole that's really just a pan of cheese and ketchup and no noodles.

For SEG to succeed they need to:

1. Hire professionals. They won't be cheap. They won't be headquartered in Utah. They might not even be based out of the U.S.

2. Listen to the professionals.

3. Take early drafts to stakeholders (adjacent property owners, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.) directly in closed-door meetings. Let the professionals lead these meetings. They won't be cheap. Let the professionals tweak the designs.

4. Work with the planning commission in a preparatory (but ethically legal "closed door" way) to address concerns. Let the professionals lead these meetings. They won't be cheap, blah, blah, blah...

5. When you have a bulletproof concept that has all the stakeholders and city officials feeling good about it, then release a Twitter post to the public showing it off!

6. Then listen to the reasonable public feedback. Let the professionals conduct these meetings (similar to what Disney did in Anaheim). Adjust the plans to meet community feedback within the bounds of previous constraints from stakeholders.

7. After all this work... then present to the planning commission. It'll pass unanimously or nearly unanimously.

SEG are rookies. Until they bring in pros to help them, I'm worried this project is in real trouble. If they are struggling this much with the PLANNING part of the process, what do they expect the ENGINEERING and PROJECT MANAGEMENT part of the process to be like?

[bob rulz]

SEG was given like, what, 4 months to come up with a preliminary plan? Hardly anybody expected Utah to get an NHL team this upcoming season. And then the state mandated that the plan get moving within a very short time frame. If you think it's a half-baked plan, I would put most of the blame on the NHL and the Utah legislature.

[i-215]

One more note: Just for fun, I overlayed LA Live on top of the SEG/Convention Center blocks (at scale).



The total development for the entire LA Live project is a half block larger than the two SEG is considering playing with, so the scale seems appropriate. However only the RED area is what a typical person would consider "L.A. Live," and that's about equal to one SLC block.

So Ryan Smith probably could get away with just the block adjacent to the Delta Center if he wanted to (though that doesn't connect it to Main Street).

Consider: The Los Angeles market has 18,422,600 potential sports fans to patronize L.A. Live. Even split in half with the Clippers, that's still north of 9 million.

The Salt Lake City market (entire state of Utah) has 3,381,000 potential fans. One-third (or one-sixth) that of Los Angeles. Can the market support enough foot/fan traffic to support two or three blocks worth of development without severely cannibalizing tenants from other parts of the city? L.A. Live attracted entire new venues like the 7,000-seat Nokia (Peacock) Theater, the west coast headquarters for ESPN, the Grammy Award Museum, and a 54-story Marriott "J.W." hotel. And that's just inside the RED part. Will we attract all of that (plus maybe a second block?)

I mean, I hope so. But I think it's a question we need a potential consulting firm working for SEG to answer.

I'd rather see a scaled-down but successful "Jazztown" entertainment district than a gigantic one that's half empty. Or worse, one that kills the Gateway and wounds Main Street (again).

I've gone from being a 100% critic of this project to (thanks to heavy persuasion from you guys) someone who now wants to see it succeed but feels very concerned for its future. Not from the City Council but from itself.