Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Page 307

NYC Rick · #**6121** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

That's a out of date rendering. The developer will use Bricks, not glass.

Well, it is certainly good to know...that brick will be used and that particular
nightmare is not in the plans.

UTAZLoVer · #**6122** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

Thank you. As far as an introduction go, I am a professional planner by education and trade and work extensively in the downtown area. Due to the sensitive nature of what I do, I will not disclose who I work for, but some will probably figure it out soon enough.

I have followed this site for some time now, but just recetnly got around to register. I do not necessarily think that bigger is always better and have mixed feelings on the SLC skyline getting taller. Fuller, yes, taller, maybe. My perspective is geared more towards the pedestrian and the sustainability of structures, so I place a high premium on adaptive reuse projects. This website provides a lot if insightful information and opinions on wide array of projects, and it is the most used for local developments.

bienvenidos amigo!! You're right this forum is certainly one of the foremost compilations of information and opinions about development in Salt Lake City. Plus, all these guys are great! You are all guys right?.....Lol.

urbanboy · #**6123** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 6:02 PM**

Welcome new forumers!

Future Mayor · #**6124** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

The better design would have been to locate whole foods within the main building and build smaller retail pads along 700 East and 500 South. however, the owners and lessee's were not interested in that.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, I like have a mix of retailers within the historic trolley barns. I am always fasicnated by the the design and how each store fits in within the historic building. I would hate to see the interior of the orignal large barn be drastically changed into one store.

Welcom cololi, we look forward to your insights and can't wait to figure out who you work for.

UTAZLoVer · #**6125** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 6:58 PM**

A little side note.....

Did anybody else notice in one of the renderings of Trolley Square from the Mulvanny G2 Architecture Group that there was a Gucci so beautifully placed above Banana Republic.

See:

What do you think? Wishful thinking on my behalf? Wishful thinking on the developer's behalf? Or maybe some substance/behind-the-scenes workings going on to breathe a new life of luxury tenants into the mall (and a little slip from the architecture firm...)? Here's a link to the page if any of you missed it earlier: http://www.mulvanny.com/en-us/Show/Project.aspx?SectionID=2&ProjectID=136&ImageIndex=4

Just thought I'd point that out. Also, there's a Lacoste shown in one of the renderings of Station Park, but I didn't see it in the site plan. That'd be fun too.

Viperlord · #**6126** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:06 PM**

found this on the ksl.com website today....

anyone going to be home to watch it?

I would be guessing that they are just going to show the CCC fly-through video, but I could be wrong...

Comrade · #**6127** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:12 PM**

So our future is L.A.?

Interesting.

SLC Projects · #**6128** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:19 PM**

Isn't that the L.A. skyline? LOL

Stenar · #**6129** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

That is not the approved design. The new design pulls some of the details off of the historic building, including openings, store fronts, materials, etc. The structure is entirely brick and glass. While the building is probably a little too big for the site, it is similar is size to the other structures on the site, bigger than the two samller trolley barns, but substanitally smaller than the main building. The better design would have been to locate whole foods within the main building and build smaller retail pads along 700 East and 500 South. however, the owners and lessee's were not interested in that. The best thing about the Trolley development is that it insures the long term preservation of the historic site.

The new design is as problematic for me as was the very post-Modern design of that other bldg.

The Whole Foods and parking garage bldg are too large for the space.

Also, the use of a similar color brick and sort of copying the arches of the old structures, but not quite will make for a somewhat tacky, cheap imitation.

I think they should have used timbers and rich colors that would complement the old bldgs, but not try and mimic them.

i-215 · #**6130** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

So our future is L.A.?

Interesting.

Hurray! Just like Randy Newman, "I Love L.A."

When will I be able to start planting my citrus orchard?

cololi · #**6131** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, I like have a mix of retailers within the historic trolley barns. I am always fasicnated by the the design and how each store fits in within the historic building. I would hate to see the interior of the orignal large barn be drastically changed into one store.

I was thinking of the old theater space. With those areas demoed out, there is approximately 30,000 square feet (including corridor, back of house areas, etc) and they could have easily expanded west to gain the additional square footage to match the +/- 50,000 square feet of floor space of the original site. This would not have altered the interior much at all. Plus it would revitalize that corner of the complex. The exterior on the southwest corner has already been altered from it's original condition by a 1980's addition, so expanding below the signature arch on the exterior would have been entirely appropriate and given the site a better presence on the corner.

I was really opposed to the concept of adding the whole foods building, but it has grown on me. I guess I have a different opinion on the level of impact the new building has on the historic ones, but it is what it is. The finished product will be the judge on this one.

UTPlanner · #**6132** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 7:50 PM**

I come back from a long weekend and realize I've missed 4 pages of discussion. I noticed a post a few pages back about Mr. Mecham and his Sugar House Surprise. He is on the the next SLC Planning Commission Agenda seeking an approval for site design.

UTAZLoVer · #**6133** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

found this on the ksl.com website today....

anyone going to be home to watch it?

I would be guessing that they are just going to show the CCC fly-through video, but I could be wrong...

Hey if anybody watches could you please post a little synopsis for those of us who are living out of state or don't have the time to catch the special tonight at 6 on KSL??

Thanks!

NYC Rick · #**6134** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UTAZLoVer

Hey if anybody watches could you please post a little synopsis for those of us who are living out of state or don't have the time to catch the special tonight at 6 on KSL??

Thanks!

Is this the kind of thing that will be archived on KSL?

Comrade · #**6135** Posted **Jul 28, 2008, 9:12 PM**

I'm sure KSL.com will have it on their site.

Viperlord · #**6136** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

found this on the ksl.com website today....

anyone going to be home to watch it?

I would be guessing that they are just going to show the CCC fly-through video, but I could be wrong...

yep, its the CCC.... That Fly-through of the CCC has only been online for months now, since like what, April or longer if I am not mistaken. Come on KSL wake up. Frekn' A.

Stenar · #**6137** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

found this on the ksl.com website today....

anyone going to be home to watch it?

I would be guessing that they are just going to show the CCC fly-through video, but I could be wrong...

They just showed the CCC fly-through video and interviewed the city's economic development coordinator.

DMTower · #**6138** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 12:41 AM**

Local news is so hard up for a real story it's sad. I swear they already showed that story months ago.

Scraperdude801 · #**6139** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cololi

I was thinking of the old theater space. With those areas demoed out, there is approximately 30,000 square feet (including corridor, back of house areas, etc) and they could have easily expanded west to gain the additional square footage to match the +/- 50,000 square feet of floor space of the original site. This would not have altered the interior much at all. Plus it would revitalize that corner of the complex. The exterior on the southwest corner has already been altered from it's original condition by a 1980's addition, so expanding below the signature arch on the exterior would have been entirely appropriate and given the site a better presence on the corner.

.

I like the idea. ... Welcome to the forum! Can't wait to figure out who you work for.

Scraperdude801 · #**6140** Posted **Jul 29, 2008, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stenar

Also, the use of a similar color brick and sort of copying the arches of the old structures, but not quite will make for a somewhat tacky, cheap imitation.

I think they should have used timbers and rich colors that would complement the old bldgs, but not try and mimic them.

Exactly! I don't want to see a cheap imitation that will never par up, but I also would hate to see a big piece of glass with a metal roof. Why can't they just build something that compliments the structures? ... It seems like architects now a days never take into consideration the essence of the neighborhood anymore. I don't mind different, it just needs to be the right type of different.