Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC Rick
I agree with Comrade Reynolds. Totally!
Whose idea was this? Everyone wants to see impressive additions to the SLC skyline. No doubt they will come.
The concept of having a tower like the one proposes is dysfunctional on every level.
It would take a huge investment, it would take a huge tenant list and it would stick out like a sore thumb. No fluidity, no integration with the downtown itself ...not to mention impractical.
The really great focus and integration that SLC never had when I lived there is now in focus. A thriving and interactive DT. The whole present focus is impressive. The " presented" tower in the above image is dismal and it would act as the anti integration darkside.
Height is the nirvana if you do not have it but really need it. Height for the sake of height, when it presents so many negatives, is disastrous.
Salt Lake is much better suited with 600 ft and under buildings. That kind of infill is very impressive for any skyline density. That type of Downtown core lends to a busy and active core. It feels much more like the DT that any progressive city hopes for.
There will be a time (and very soon) for the larger buildings but iconic ego buildings are impractical in any city. Bragging rights for a 1,000 foot mistake
is so lame.
|
NYC Rick: Good point about "tall for tall's sake." Ego is not a good reason to build tall.
Another good point is the lack of integration. In fact, the lack of integration with the rest of the downtown area is the best argument for not locating a massive tower below 6th South. If a super-tall tower (or towers) were placed to draw more people into the streets between South Temple and 3rd or 4th South, the idea may be valid.
But there are some other reasons for pushing the envelope. Piecemeal development is always very expensive, more so than it needs to be. The Twin Towers on the lower west-side of Manhattan proved to be the catalyst for the need of more office space to support the financial community. Way led to way.
What SLC doesn't have now, and is the biggest reason against a super-tall tower, is the lack of a pressing need. You cannot lease a couple of million sq. ft. of office space based solely on law firms, consultancies, and accountants. You need some mega tenants, like Manhattan has the financial markets.
If the need arises in the next few years for an energy center or a technology nexus, then a full block, mega development may make sense. I can envision an energy center, occupied by the big four (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, BP, and Royal Dutch), where the companies locate their engineering and backroom offices to support the oil shale development in eastern Utah. If one commits, the other three will follow. Co-location in a building, or group of buildings, with the infra-structure to support their unique needs makes sense. These guys all use a ton of technology, so a business complex, built to meet these needs, has a lot of appeal. Way will lead to way.
I guess what I am objecting to is that it does not make sense to me to reject a way-out proposal out of hand. Utah is facing a way-out development scenario, quite possibly like nothing that has ever occurred in this country before, even outpacing the IT boom in the South Bay Area, the energy explosion in Houston, the go-go financial heydays of the 80's in Manhattan. Way-out ideas might be just what we need, in fear that a traditional approach my denigrate into piecemeal, catch-as-catch can development that plugs a hole temporarily and winds up with a hoge-poge for a downtown.
Calgary is on the backend of a frantic development cycle. Maybe there are some lessons to be learned from that city. Unfortunately I know nothing about Calgary. Possibly there are some reader of this forum who do.