Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Page 84

SLC Projects · #**1661** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 12:14 AM**

What 222 South Main Rendering do you like best?

222 South Main 2002 Rendering.
22-stories
with spire

222 South Main 2006 Rendering.
21-stories
no spire

What do you like best?

delts145 · #**1662** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 1:12 AM**

Definately the first. Meaning the spire included. If nothing else,the spire gives the building a little bit of a unique quality. I don't think it's an unattractive tower without the spire,just kind of the norm anywhere USA. Also, I notice the top in the first rendering steps back, which gives it at least a bit of a break from another box standing on end.

wrendog · #**1663** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 2:11 AM**

First one for sure... Hope to see the new rendering soon!

Boiseguy · #**1664** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 2:22 AM**

whoa.. thats a good looking building.. love the lines.. I agree the spire one adds a bit of character to it... first one

Viperlord · #**1665** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 2:25 AM**

http://www.slcgov.com/boards/adminhearing/2007/April/sr_4800702.pdf

Occam Lofts

80 units 6 stories, 75 feet tall...

no rendering yet. but it adds some density to the pioneer park area.

i-215 · #**1666** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by delts145

Definately the first. Meaning the spire included. If nothing else,the spire gives the building a little bit of a unique quality. I don't think it's an unattractive tower without the spire,just kind of the norm anywhere USA. Also, I notice the top in the first rendering steps back, which gives it at least a bit of a break from another box standing on end.

Ditto. I couldn't word my own opinion better.

I also think the bottom of the scraper looks better on the tower rendering.

jedikermit · #**1667** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 3:26 AM**

I've always thought that the spire was ridiculous. Still do.

jedikermit · #**1668** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

http://www.slcgov.com/boards/adminhearing/2007/April/sr_4800702.pdf

Occam Lofts

80 units 6 stories, 75 feet tall...

no rendering yet. but it adds some density to the pioneer park area.

Good news--anything that brings more housing downtown is fine by me.

SLC Projects · #**1669** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

http://www.slcgov.com/boards/adminhearing/2007/April/sr_4800702.pdf

Occam Lofts

80 units 6 stories, 75 feet tall...

no rendering yet. but it adds some density to the pioneer park area.

That's good news. Six stories is tall for that area. Can't wait to see a rendering once it comes out.

Speaking of new Condos in that area is there any update on the "Metro Park" Condos? ( I think that's what it is called )

The one that was going to get built north of the Big-D building.

urbanboy · #**1670** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 3:54 PM**

Ummm, why do you guys like the older rendering so much? Is it because it has a spire? It looks 60's or 70's to me. I think the newer design is sleeker and timeless. Also I think the horizontal lines in the first rendering are too thick. The horizontal lines in the second remind me of the floor transition in the Main library downtown, which I happen to like better. Furthermore, I've seen renderings of what the building would look like at night--the glass surrounding the H-VAC area on top of the building is lit up. The rendering in fact, looked similar to the renderings of the WTC #7 building, which was also designed by Skidmore & Owings (same company that designed 222 south) only, cut in half.

SLCforme · #**1671** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 4:48 PM**

I also like the newer design. Cleaner lines, more of a sleek classic feel. I think the spire on the first one is kind of pointless. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not complaining if either of them get built.

Wasatch_One · #**1672** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 5:11 PM**

Yeah, Ill stick by my first thought. I like the spire, cause it would be something different in the skyline. I think the angle of the rendering makes it [spire] look bigger than it really would be. I also like the roof on the first rendering, it has an angled top (a la Gateway West (Beneficial Life bldg))

The second rendering is too bland for me. Ill take it, but nothing about the building stands out, its not really that tall, not really striking architecture... just kind of filler imo. The back side of it almost looks international styling (like the Ken Garff bldg.)

Now it if were as tall as the WTC 7, Id take it in a heartbeat.

Lets get it built either way.

Makid · #**1673** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 5:46 PM**

I like the coloring of the first one but like the sleek look of the second.

I also think it looks better without the spire. I personally would rather have a building that reaches one of the tallest in SLC based on roof height, not cheating using a spire. If the roof height was over 430 feet, then the spire might not bother me as much.

The pic with the spire almost looks like it is grasping to be noticed.

wrendog · #**1674** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 10:20 PM**

So comrade teases us with news that HP has changed and then gives us nothing? Come on Comrade!

DevdogAZ · #**1675** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 10:35 PM**

I think the spire on that rendering looks ridiculous. It just looks like a flagpole that someone decided to bolt on to the building as an afterthought. If they want to include a spire (which I'm all for, BTW), I want it to be something integrated into the building design, not just a pole that's stuck on the side of the building.

Is it an optical illusion in those first two renderings, or are the exterior walls not perfectly vertical? If so, I think that could be a very cool addition to the skyline.

jedikermit · #**1676** Posted **Jun 21, 2007, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

Is it an optical illusion in those first two renderings, or are the exterior walls not perfectly vertical?

Good call--I hadn't noticed that before, but it looks like you're right--can anyone confirm that?

And I completely agree with all the spire naysayers--it's ridiculous in that form.

jmonkey · #**1677** Posted **Jun 22, 2007, 5:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Ummm, why do you guys like the older rendering so much? Is it because it has a spire? It looks 60's or 70's to me. I think the newer design is sleeker and timeless. Also I think the horizontal lines in the first rendering are too thick. The horizontal lines in the second remind me of the floor transition in the Main library downtown, which I happen to like better. Furthermore, I've seen renderings of what the building would look like at night--the glass surrounding the H-VAC area on top of the building is lit up.

Agreed, urbanboy. I also like the second rendering better, for many of the same reasons. I think the top being lit at night would certainly make more of an impact on the skyline than the spire. Also, I loath the base on the first rendering; it's unfriendly to the street, and very fortress like. They got the base right on the second rendering.

futurist · #**1678** Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 7:35 AM**

Second rendering doesn't change all that much but it is clearly better. I say ditch the lightening rod. It's useless and has no design quality, unless they're planning on hanging a flag on that thing. Yuck. Now if the building, in whole or part, actually followed the vertical rod, and met at the apex, and the rod were there to accent the rise, then that would be different. But the thing is just ugly all around. Typical office space. No lightening rod / flag pole is going to do much. The base of the first image is straight off the Crossroads mall...horrible.

The second rendering looks better, just because it actually is 'rendered' by something digital. But the design is pretty much the same. It's a bit top heavy though, and it's not clear what materials they are using up there, but if it's not glass, it might have an upside down element to it. The base of the building is much better on this design, as it is clearly opened up with windows. It needs some kind of overhang though, to balance all that light pouring in at lunch time. "I can's see the menu!"

The only thing I really like about this building, though, is how the north side seems to veer inward and away from the east elevation. It has that little bit of differentiation to make it interesting. It takes the ugliness factor down a notch...

SLCforme · #**1679** Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

small update....

crane went up for the kirtland condos on 300 west and about 750 south. They broke ground a few weeks ago.

Also the central core is now up on the SoDo Lofts on about 250 west and 875 south.

hey viperlord,
I drove down 3rd west and saw both of these projects under construction, but haven't been able to find a website or rendering. You don't happen to have renderings do you?

Also the crane is up on One and Nine condos, but Marmalade still hasn't started construction yet but some townhomes just north are under construction. Angelinas Corner looks to be nearing completion so hopefully phase two will begin soon. Just my observations while attending the arts festival this weekend.

SmilingBob · #**1680** Posted **Jun 26, 2007, 12:05 AM**

Random Photo's of downtown SLC.

This one goes back many years.

It's going to have to be one heck of a skybridge: