Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[mstar]

Thanks Atlas! I hope you're right. I guess it is better than an empty lot with a stinking pond in the middle of it.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Comrade

The Planning Commission denied an additional 25 feet on the GEM development in SugarHouse unless they can come back and find 10% open space requirement.



At least that's my takeaway.

Maybe if it actually looked good. Man, that is ugly, and it has no massing and architectural relation to any of the adjacent newerish buildings. What is up with those funky 1970's postmodern ish rounded windows?

[I-15]

Originally Posted by MountainSkyline

7 stories
142 feet tall
1,203 parking stalls
rooftop helipad

FWIW, the taller tower is 209 ft and 10 stories.

[msbutah]

I hope they name the water feature / pond in the open area Sears Lake.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Maybe if it actually looked good. Man, that is ugly, and it has no massing and architectural relation to any of the adjacent newerish buildings. What is up with those funky 1970's postmodern ish rounded windows?

I like it?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I know we all like tall buildings here but, the more I travel to great cities, the more I realize that what downtown SLC needs is mid-rise infill around downtown (and more green space). There are far too many empty lots in the most dense part of the city. This and the WGU HQ are going to be massive economic wins for this part of the city and will lead to more development interest. The hospital planning application even says this explicitly:


There will be some taller projects announced soon

That would be fine if Salt Lake had actual tall buildings. Mid-rise infill when your tallest doesn't even break 500 feet is inconsequential to be honest. In fact, to all those cities you travel to, a mid-rise is probably closer to 20 stories than 5 like this development.

I think the issue is that Salt Lake downsizes everything and it creates a narrative that leads to avoiding any substantial height, especially outside downtown.

So, even mid-rise buildings are more on the lower end of a mid-rise than closer to a high-rise and a high-rise in Salt Lake never truly hits on skyscraper status (500+ feet I'd say).

I'm sure we'll get something that finally breaks 500 feet but I also don't anticipate much better opportunities for height outside downtown than this one (and maybe SugarHouse if people don't freak out) ... beyond possibly the Power District.

But it's a mentality that seems to feed on itself. People oppose height because they haven't experienced it and they don't experience it because everything developed outside downtown nowadays lacks it.

This was a big opportunity to kind of push things a bit and it's underwhelming all around. The thing is, it's not just the height - it's the whole structure that seems pretty meh. Reminds me of the DA office, which was also scaled down because that seems to be the case for every project in Salt Lake lol

[MountainSkyline]

Originally Posted by I-15

FWIW, the taller tower is 209 ft and 10 stories.

Thanks for catchinig that. I will edit the post

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That would be fine if Salt Lake had actual tall buildings. Mid-rise infill when your tallest doesn't even break 500 feet is inconsequential to be honest. In fact, to all those cities you travel to, a mid-rise is probably closer to 20 stories than 5 like this development.

The taller building here is 10 stories, comparable to 650 Main up the street. Believe it or not, it's actually taller than the GEM proposal in Sugar House.

And I'm not really getting what you're saying here. Tall buildings alone don't make a great city experience. The best parts of many great cities are not dominated by highrises. SLC has the extra challenge of its giant roads and blocks, and having large empty lots scattered around downtown makes things feel far away and disjointed.

This is a pretty big step toward changing that, even if the architecture and massing seem underwhelming. Similar story with the Fleet Block.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Atlas

The taller building here is 10 stories, comparable to 650 Main up the street. Believe it or not, it's actually taller than the GEM proposal in Sugar House.

And I'm not really getting what you're saying here. Tall buildings alone don't make a great city experience. The best parts of many great cities are not dominated by highrises. SLC has the extra challenge of its giant roads and blocks, and having large empty lots scattered around downtown makes things feel far away and disjointed.

This is a pretty big step toward changing that, even if the architecture and massing seem underwhelming. Similar story with the Fleet Block.

I think a lot of cities are great because they have dense, built up neighborhoods that Salt Lake lacks. There's no single area outside downtown, beyond that cluster of condos at the base of Emigration Canyon, where there's sizable density and decent height and I think it's exactly because we're conditioned on nothing of height being built out of downtown.

Something like the South Waterfront in Portland, which is maybe two miles out of downtown Portland, would never happen in Salt Lake.





Because there's zero push for height outside downtown. So, you get rows of 5 over 1s instead.

And when there's an opportunity to build upward, like that hotel by SugarHouse Park or the 20+ story building on the corner of 21st and 1100 East, the city shoots it down. It's the same with that tower that was planned on 100 South but scrapped because everyone in the neighborhood said it was too big for the area. And that was even more egregious because that area is literally in the shadows of downtown. Literally was proposed like a block from 95 State and City Creek.



But let's be honest with this conversation: all Salt Lake is building is the lower-end of mid-rise development. That's literally everything that is under construction it seems at this point. So, yeah I think it's reasonable to be a bit disappointed that something like a hospital, from the same people who brought us the Intermountain Medical Center and their 15 stories, underwhelms in this department ... because it's not like the area outside downtown is bursting with height - or proposed height.

And again, a lot of it is because the city doesn't act aggressively in promoting height outside downtown. It's unfortunate.

But beyond that, the building is uninspiring. So, not only are we getting something weak in terms of height, we're getting something weak in terms of design. If it actually dared to be bold instead of bland, I could maybe reason the lack of height.

[Makid]

My main problem with the hospital plan is that it doesn't account for growth. It is maybe 10% larger than LDS Hospital and is listed as its replacement. IMC is already at capacity, other Intermountain Health hospitals are also at or nearing capacity.

While this is good from a revenue standpoint, it isn't good in a growing area, especially for a new hospital. The downtown hospital will be at 90% capacity immediately after opening. It will be operating at 100% capacity within 3 years, if not faster. This means that patient care timelines slow down and costs increase. Again, this is good for the bottom line but not for actual patient care.

What would be better is if the Helipad was actually placed on top of the parking garage north of the hospital with a bridge connecting the helipad and the hospital. This way, the hospital could be engineered to allow for additional height expansion as demand requires. This would be similar to the BCBS building in Chicago. It was built only 50% total height for the first 10 years and occupied. As need arose, they completed the building to its full/current height.

Doing this would be cheaper in the long run for Intermountain Health and it would allow for faster construction of the expansion.

[MountainSkyline]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Juancrocco]

I’ll have to agree with Atlas and Price. Infill, density, and mixed use activation are what really make a city. I’ve traveled all over North America and the world. Edmonton has an awesome skyline and is one of the worst cities on the planet. Dead at street level, summer, fall, or winter. Houston has two
great skylines, went to an Astros game in the fall with great weather and it was dead all around. Now compare that to Boston or Chicago. Small buildings but you leave Wrigley or Fenway and it is as active as can be. Skylines are great for pictures and for the surround areas as a view. I want a larger one too. But for people who live in the city like I do, I welcome any and all activation. These are underwhelming but not bad, and will be great for those areas.

[Paniolo Man]

Week old picture, but the new tilt-up West High School is going up.



Truly a travesty to lose such a beautiful old school building.

[meman]

Does anyone on this thread know what is being built on the Northwest corner of 7th east and 5th South? Is this the 15-storey Trolley Corners Condos?

[Atlas]

There was a fantastic comment on the subreddit about the new hospital and why it might be smaller than we were expecting, and why it's still a big upgrade from the current LDS hospital and good for that part of downtown.

This person mentioned that the U is planning a huge expansion of their hospital (which is partly why the new Sears Lake hospital is smaller than expected) and he/she actually dug up some new info on that! This will be a massive 15+ story addition to the university hospital:

Project Overview: Expansion of inpatient, peri-operative, procedural, allied health and support services that will integrate with existing hospital services on the main campus.

Project Total Budget: $1,149,558,153

Project Estimated Completion Date:1/26/2032

Originally Posted by meman

Does anyone on this thread know what is being built on the Northwest corner of 7th east and 5th South? Is this the 15-storey Trolley Corners Condos?

Trolley North
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/07/30/slc-condo-high-rise-proposed/

(Salt Lake City Planning Department) Rendering from a southeast perspective of a luxury student housing complex with 195 units to be built at 675 E. 500 South in Salt Lake City.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That would be fine if Salt Lake had actual tall buildings. Mid-rise infill when your tallest doesn't even break 500 feet is inconsequential to be honest. In fact, to all those cities you travel to, a mid-rise is probably closer to 20 stories than 5 like this development.

I think the issue is that Salt Lake downsizes everything and it creates a narrative that leads to avoiding any substantial height, especially outside downtown.

So, even mid-rise buildings are more on the lower end of a mid-rise than closer to a high-rise and a high-rise in Salt Lake never truly hits on skyscraper status (500+ feet I'd say).

I'm sure we'll get something that finally breaks 500 feet but I also don't anticipate much better opportunities for height outside downtown than this one (and maybe SugarHouse if people don't freak out) ... beyond possibly the Power District.

But it's a mentality that seems to feed on itself. People oppose height because they haven't experienced it and they don't experience it because everything developed outside downtown nowadays lacks it.

This was a big opportunity to kind of push things a bit and it's underwhelming all around. The thing is, it's not just the height - it's the whole structure that seems pretty meh. Reminds me of the DA office, which was also scaled down because that seems to be the case for every project in Salt Lake lol

I think Comrade has a point here. Yes, street engagement is more important than height, and we need a lot more infill development...but he's correct that it shouldn't be this difficult to get approval for projects that in any other major city would be considered "on the lower end of a mid-rise."

We have a chicken-and-egg problem: people complain a project is "too tall" for the neighborhood, and because nothing close to that height ever gets built, everything keeps feeling too tall for the neighborhood. At some point neighborhoods have to be allowed to grow and evolve (especially when they're mostly surface parking lots and generic, suburban-style development to begin with.)

I'd also add that Salt Lake City proper is largely "built out" in terms of where housing can go, so taller projects are how we add density. More density means more housing and a larger population, which means more foot traffic, which means more active and vibrant streets.

[Atlas]

IMO downtown SLC is not even close to "built out". Probably 20% or more of the land is vacant, with a lot of that being legacy landowners just sitting on valuable real estate and collecting parking money (biggest offenders are the LDS Church, Bernolfo, and Priskos family). The city should enact some new fees on undeveloped parcels in the downtown zones, if you ask me. In the south downtown area there are also tons of car dealerships and one-story buildings that just aren't valuable or connected enough to be redeveloped yet.

I want skyscrapers too, and I think these nitpicky denials are disappointing, but I also don't think tall buildings are the main thing SLC is missing when it comes to walkability and urbanism. Our downtown is huge but fragmented by oceans of open asphalt.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by Atlas

IMO downtown SLC is not even close to "built out". Probably 20% or more of the land is vacant, with a lot of that being legacy landowners just sitting on valuable real estate and collecting parking money (biggest offenders are the LDS Church, Bernolfo, and Priskos family). The city should enact some new fees on undeveloped parcels in the downtown zones, if you ask me. In the south downtown area there are also tons of car dealerships and one-story buildings that just aren't valuable or connected enough to be redeveloped yet.

I want skyscrapers too, and I think these nitpicky denials are disappointing, but I also don't think tall buildings are the main thing SLC is missing when it comes to walkability and urbanism. Our downtown is huge but fragmented by oceans of open asphalt.

To clarify, when I said that the city is mostly built out, I ment that we can't build new subdivisions like they can in the southwest part of the valley. I agree that there is still plenty of greyfield and infill opportunities.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Atlas

IMO downtown SLC is not even close to "built out". Probably 20% or more of the land is vacant

I think you're both saying the same thing. Building "up" is the infill of grabbing all the underused land (parking lots) and repurposing them.

I mean, it's not like they're gonna take the parking by Little America and build a single-family subdivision on it. It will be built up.

[Comrade]

I am curious to see what happens with the Trolley Square development because I have a nagging feeling that'll go tits up too.