Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[DevdogAZ]

Where do private property rights factor into this? If the owner of the house wants to tear it down, why should he be forced to go through the exercise of showing that rehabilitation will not be economically viable? As long as his proposed use fits within the zoning (or he can get new zoning approved), I don't see any reason why he should be forced to retain an old house simply because it's old. There's nothing historic or architecturally unique about it. It's not in a place where saving it makes sense. It's simply not worth the effort.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Where do private property rights factor into this? If the owner of the house wants to tear it down, why should he be forced to go through the exercise of showing that rehabilitation will not be economically viable? As long as his proposed use fits within the zoning (or he can get new zoning approved), I don't see any reason why he should be forced to retain an old house simply because it's old. There's nothing historic or architecturally unique about it. It's not in a place where saving it makes sense. It's simply not worth the effort.

And then we'll have a bunch of people tearing down perfectly good housing just to build something bigger and more modern. A couple years ago this issue was big in Salt Lake's Yalecrest neighborhood because residents were moving into smaller tudor homes and demolishing them for bigger, suburban-style housing.

People wanted to demolish these homes:



For these:



I have a problem with that. You allow people to just come in and demolish historical housing for newer development and the city loses its entire character. Yeah you might not find it historically attractive, but I'm sure if it could be retained to the level it was 30 or 40 years ago, it would be more pleasing to the eye than some bland condo box. I think every city has a right to preserve its past, even if it goes against property owners rights. Far too many communities, especially in the west, give up their past to appease newer development, which often looks completely out of date 10 years down the line.

Hell, compare historical inner-city Salt Lake neighborhoods to those suburban developments built in the 1970s and you'll see exactly what I mean. Those suburban houses look completely horrid today, yet most older homes in Salt Lake, though run down, look far more pleasant than some of the older suburban neighborhoods in West Valley, Kearns, Midvale, Sandy and Murray.

[wrendog]

i like the second ones better.. i am not a fan of the 1930's bungalows.. but that's just me

[SLC Projects]

50 years from now these homes will be historical. Then people will want to tear them down to make way for newer homes.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by wrendog

i like the second ones better.. i am not a fan of the 1930's bungalows.. but that's just me

Those aren't bungalows. They're english style tudors, far nicer than the typical inner-city bungalows Salt Lake has.

50 years from now these homes will be historical. Then people will want to tear them down to make way for newer homes.

You mean like this Kearns house built in the 70s?



Sorry, but you can't even compare the two. Homes in Yalecrest are far more charming and historical than typical suburban homes built today. And most middle class suburban neighborhoods built in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s just don't look as good today. They don't age well, while housing built in the early 1900s -- especially in the Avenues, SugarHouse and Capitol Hill -- look far better with age than anything built in recent times.

But I do find it funny that those newly built suburban style homes I linked in my above post are trying to recreate the very feel some of you want to demolish. And what we're left with is a fake knock off of the real thing, which had far more character than typically anything built today.

[wrendog]

that is all your opinion comrade. I like the new suburban style homes (no, not the 70's kearns homes) and am not a fan of the old yalecrest, sugarhouse or whatever old neighborhood homes in SLC.. once again, that is my opinion.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by wrendog

that is all your opinion comrade. I like the new suburban style homes (no, not the 70's kearns homes) and am not a fan of the old yalecrest, sugarhouse or whatever old neighborhood homes in SLC.. once again, that is my opinion.

I never really said it wasn't my opinion, now did I? Luckily most in those neighborhoods and my city share my opinion and feel the need to save historical neighborhoods from ugly development that will be outdated in 20 years.

And while you don't like those 70s Kearns homes, they were modern and well thought of at the time they were developed too. I'm not so sure in 20 years the development we're seeing today, especially since suburban homes are still looking like they did in the 70s and 80s, will look good. Yet Yalecrest, SugarHouse, the Avenues, Capitol Hill and Central City have all stood the test of time. While places like Kearns and West Valley aren't known for their historical neighborhoods. And it isn't because their city isn't historical, it's because they have nothing worthy of being deemed historical. That's because generally people look at the development from the 60s on as half-assed, cheap and lacking character that made so many neighborhoods that were built in the early 1900s charming.

But you're right, it's all a matter of opinion. I do however have a problem with people coming in and demolishing historical homes just for the sake of progress. Especially if the house is perfectly sound, as nearly ever house in Yalecrest is (since that area is fairly upscale).

[i-215]

I personally hate that design ... all my friends grew up in homes just like that one. But, who knows? Perhaps our children and grandchildren will grow up to find them charming.

[airhero]

Why would you want to get rid of these homes? These old neighborhoods are what make cities historical and unique. Replacing them with condos would be a huge mistake. Almost all condo buildings begin to look trashy after a couple decades.

Restoring old homes is worth it. My sister bought an old home in Salt Lake that was extremely trashy. She wanted to restore it and I helped with the restoration. We tore out the walls where we found rat nests and cockroaches. It was disgusting. Now that the house has been restored, it looks very nice and we are glad we restored it.

Restoring these old homes is the noble thing to do. Tearing them down for new stuff is only greedy and selfish.

By the way, I like that house in Kearns. It reminds me of my years in Idaho.

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

People wanted to demolish these homes:



For these:

Put the same lush landscaping and old-growth trees in the second neighborhood and it would look every bit as nice, if not nicer than the first.

[Comrade]

That's your opinion, but I completely disagree. The second photo is cheap knockoff of the original.

And welcome to the board airhero. I agree with you completely, except about liking the Kearns house. My aunt lives in a house exactly like that one, but it's a different color and I've always hated it.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Those aren't bungalows. They're english style tudors, far nicer than the typical inner-city bungalows Salt Lake has.



You mean like this Kearns house built in the 70s?



Sorry, but you can't even compare the two. Homes in Yalecrest are far more charming and historical than typical suburban homes built today. And most middle class suburban neighborhoods built in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s just don't look as good today. They don't age well, while housing built in the early 1900s -- especially in the Avenues, SugarHouse and Capitol Hill -- look far better with age than anything built in recent times.

But I do find it funny that those newly built suburban style homes I linked in my above post are trying to recreate the very feel some of you want to demolish. And what we're left with is a fake knock off of the real thing, which had far more character than typically anything built today.

LOL, No I didn't mean the 70's. But I think we can all agree that the 60's and 70's were a big time mistake for design in any buildings. The style and color back then just blows my mind. What were people thinking back then. Who knows maybe our kids and grandkids will be saying the same thing about us today with our designs of new buildings and homes.
Also I was never a big fan of split level homes. Hate thoses.

[PHX602]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

That's your opinion, but I completely disagree. The second photo is cheap knockoff of the original.

I agree, the second set of housing is suburban crap. It's built on a culdesac for christ sake.

[wrendog]

Oh no! not a culdesac!

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by delts145

Historic homes may be razed

Condo developer has zoning on his side; Planning division wants to save them



The home at 268 S. 700 East. (Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune )

You can't compare the above homes to the tudor homes below. The tudors all fit in with the neighborhood while the homes on 700 East do not fit in with the neighborhood. I don't want to see the tudors below torn down for the "suburban look", but I would like to see the homes on 700 East torn down for condos.

It's about what fits for the neighborhood. If the homes on 700 East were a good fit for the neighborhood, great, keep 'em, but they are an eyesore and aren't worth keeping.

[SmilingBob]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Put the same lush landscaping and old-growth trees in the second neighborhood and it would look every bit as nice, if not nicer than the first.

I agree. These will be great looking homes once the landscaping is allowed to grow in.

I wouldn't agree though that this happen in a neighborhood surrounded by the tudor type houses. As I remember the big problem in the avenues was that they would tear down just a single house and replace it with something like these "suburban" houses. I don't like that and was glad to hear they put a stop to that, but if an entire neighborhood of split-level 70's homes is torn down to be replaced by the "suburban" houses, I think that could be done tastefully, and the end result be better for the community.

I don't think that you save old houses just because they are old. My example is City Creek Center. The malls and Key Bank tower needed to come down to be replaced with something nicer. Now the Deseret Building was a great building to keep even though it would have been cheaper and make the developer more money to tear it down.

Tearing down Key Bank Tower makes sense aesthetically and economically. But tearing down the Deseret Building, while more profitable, doesn't make sense aesthetically. It needs to be preserved because it looks great and fits with the neighborhood.

[Viperlord]

China Town Planned for South Salt Lake

by Marie Mischel


A taste of Asia is coming to South Salt Lake.

A 140,000-square-foot China Town will replace the Rocky Point Haunted House at 3390 South State St. The shopping center will include an Asian grocery store, an upscale Chinese restaurant and retail shops.

“Utah currently doesn’t have any development like this,” said Maria Mastakas of Metro Commercial Finance, which is providing the financing for the project. “The Asian community here is strong and there are quite a few Asian businesses. From a demographics standpoint, the development made sense.”

The owners and developers of the project, Yue So and Wai Chan, have built China Towns in Orlando and Philadelphia. They chose the South Salt Lake parcel because of its size and centralized location, Mastakas said. “The shape of the land is perfect, and the frontage on State Street is ideal. It is a high traffic area, and it is close to the freeway.”

Plans for the first phase of the project call for the existing building to remain as an indoor shopping mall with an 8,000-square-foot restaurant. A 28,000-square-foot grocery store will be built on the west side of the property and another 15,000-square-foot building for additional retail is planned for the east side. The second phase would include additional shops on the south side. That property is under contract but has not yet been purchased.

The architecture will include 50-foot Chinese-style gates at both entrances, said K.C. Liao, the project architect. Other ethnic touches will include Chinese lantern-shaped street lights and statues, he said.

“In the future, this China Town is going to be a landmark in the valley,” he said. “We already have a good population of Chinese here, and we’ve been talking about this for 10 years, but we haven’t been able to make it happen. But [the developers] know how to make it happen.”

The developers plan to bring chefs from Hong Kong to staff the restaurant and prepare authentic Cantonese food, Mastakas said, and they also intend to celebrate all Chinese holidays with special events.

The haunted house will continue to operate through May, and construction on China Town is slated to begin in June, with a completion date by the end of the year.

The city’s planning department has seen preliminary plans for the project. Once the building plans are submitted the approval process should take about four weeks, if there are no setbacks, said Michael Florence, South Salt Lake city planner. “We’re excited about this,” he said. “We don’t have anything like this in the city. I think it will bring some diversity to the area, and we’re hoping it will bring people to South Salt Lake.”

John Mastakas of Metro Commercial Finance did the financing for the property. For leasing information, contact Tracy Doong of Pentand Properties.

[SLCforme]

Very cool. I would like to see more ()-towns in the city. I know there is some desire for a Japanese town next to the salt palace and Italian and Greek neighborhoods on the west side of downtown. IMO these are great ideas that add character to the city and a sense of community for various ethnic groups. Good luck to the developers. I would love to have some high-end cantonese food in the valley.

[Northernlad]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

And then we'll have a bunch of people tearing down perfectly good housing just to build something bigger and more modern. A couple years ago this issue was big in Salt Lake's Yalecrest neighborhood because residents were moving into smaller tudor homes and demolishing them for bigger, suburban-style housing.

People wanted to demolish these homes:



For these:



I have a problem with that. You allow people to just come in and demolish historical housing for newer development and the city loses its entire character. Yeah you might not find it historically attractive, but I'm sure if it could be retained to the level it was 30 or 40 years ago, it would be more pleasing to the eye than some bland condo box. I think every city has a right to preserve its past, even if it goes against property owners rights. Far too many communities, especially in the west, give up their past to appease newer development, which often looks completely out of date 10 years down the line.

Hell, compare historical inner-city Salt Lake neighborhoods to those suburban developments built in the 1970s and you'll see exactly what I mean. Those suburban houses look completely horrid today, yet most older homes in Salt Lake, though run down, look far more pleasant than some of the older suburban neighborhoods in West Valley, Kearns, Midvale, Sandy and Murray.

The new homes are a cheap imitation of the old homes. No matter how large the new homes are, they still do not look as good as the originals, and they are not built as good either. Those newer homes have siding

[SLC Projects]

That is a great idea bring a "China Town" to this area.
It's much better then turning that old hunted house into another car dealership.