Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Yea, yea, yea, everything has to be downtown. Even the tall buildings. We don't live in a world where EVERYONE wants to live or commute downtown.

If downtown IS everywhere then people really won't have a choice will they? If we're going to let people build tall buildings wherever they want then we're going to have to put a stop to sprawl or else we'll just keep creating more and more downtowns spreading ever outward. Let's keep downtown, downtown and the people that want to live and work there can do so.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by DMTower

If downtown IS everywhere then people really won't have a choice will they? If we're going to let people build tall buildings wherever they want then we're going to have to put a stop to sprawl or else we'll just keep creating more and more downtowns spreading ever outward. Let's keep downtown, downtown and the people that want to live and work there can do so.

Yeah, without proper zoning we would end up looking something like Sao Paulo Brazil...



gheeeetto...

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by DMTower

If downtown IS everywhere then people really won't have a choice will they? If we're going to let people build tall buildings wherever they want then we're going to have to put a stop to sprawl or else we'll just keep creating more and more downtowns spreading ever outward. Let's keep downtown, downtown and the people that want to live and work there can do so.

Just because a city wants to build a highrise doesn't mean it's a "Downtown" Besides if cities start to build up then that isn't really a sprawl. If anything that would help slow down the sprawl. Remember we do live in a VALLEY. We can only built out so far. The cities on the eastside (South Salt Lake, Murray, Sandy) are to the point when they will have to start building up. It doesn't mean it's going to replace downtown. Downtown SLC will always be "THE DOWNTOWN"

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Just because a city wants to build a highrise doesn't mean it's a "Downtown" Besides if cities start to build up then that isn't really a sprawl. If anything that would help slow down the sprawl. Remember we do live in a VALLEY. We can only built out so far. The cities on the eastside (South Salt Lake, Murray, Sandy) are to the point when they will have to start building up. It doesn't mean it's going to replace downtown. Downtown SLC will always be "THE DOWNTOWN"

When I look out my window or drive around town, I would prefer to see the skyscrapers that god built (the mountains) not the ones built by man. We don't need highrise sprawl. And the SL Valley is far from full. Have you ever looked at it on Google Maps? Only half of it is developed at all... and the half that is developed is far from being built out. The cities on the east side can responsibly go taller without building highrises. They should have 5-story limits... that'd quintuple capacity as most buildings (homes, retail, offices) in east side cities are now only 1 story.

[delts145]

^^^

Originally Posted by cololi

...responding to building heights: I also think that there is place for buildings over 150 feet, and they are pretty much in key nodes along the I-15 corridor.

I very much agree with what you are saying Stenar. I was driving around the Salt Lake Valley today and couldn't help but be awed by the beauty of the Wasatch. Like Cololi, I would much prefer to see dense nodes of towers in certain areas along say I-15, but not an indiscriminate sprawl. That said, I would like to see the Downtown skyline expand though.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Stenar

When I look out my window or drive around town, I would prefer to see the skyscrapers that god built (the mountains) not the ones built by man. We don't need highrise sprawl. And the SL Valley is far from full. Have you ever looked at it on Google Maps? Only half of it is developed at all... and the half that is developed is far from being built out.

The mountains are huge. Even with the SLC skyline we can see the mountains. We would have to build a wall of 80+ story towers all the way from North Temple to 13200 South before we couldn't see the mountains while driving.
So what are you saying we should sprawl out and fill up the valley first then built up?
I don't get some of you guys on here. Some of you guys say you hate "Sprawl" but yet you don't want cities to built up either.
Ummmmm we can only build up or out.

Having cities with a 1-5 story limit is just stupid. Having limits like that would just create even more Sprawl in the long run.

Originally Posted by Stenar

We don't need highrise sprawl. .

we don't need lowrise sprawl either.

[SLC Projects]

The Hyatt @ the Gateway

[delts145]

I think Projects that what many forumers are basically saying is that we can have dense cores of Towers in certain areas, but not sprawling so much that they block the incomparable views that are immediate to our metro. I for one, as I'm sure you and most of us think that a beautiful cluster of towers would both compliment and in turn would be complimented by the Wasatch Mtn.'s.

Perhaps some would disagree with me, but I have no problem with seeing the 106th south area develop an attractive skyline eventually, and I'm sure they will. Also like you, I am very pro "The Point at Traverse Ridge" becoming an iconic skyline symbol.

And by the way, great pics today! I especially like some of those artsy 222 pics you took.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by delts145

I think Projects that what many forumers are basically saying is that we can have dense cores of Towers in certain areas, but not sprawling so much that they block the incomparable views that are immediate to our metro.

Ok so what are these "certain areas" will it be ok to build highrise/tower other then downtown.

I always thought that 5300 S. and State would be one good place since there is already the IHC tower highrise there.
Also in Sandy from 90th to 106th would be another good area for a dense core. Somehow I think both those cities already have that in mind.

[Wasatch_One]

except for the fact that Sandy isn't dense from 90th - 106th and doesn't have the planning nor infrastructure in place to be dense.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by Stenar

When I look out my window or drive around town, I would prefer to see the skyscrapers that god built (the mountains) not the ones built by man. We don't need highrise sprawl. And the SL Valley is far from full. Have you ever looked at it on Google Maps? Only half of it is developed at all... and the half that is developed is far from being built out. The cities on the east side can responsibly go taller without building highrises. They should have 5-story limits... that'd quintuple capacity as most buildings (homes, retail, offices) in east side cities are now only 1 story.

I agree, keep downtown downtown.. and keep suburbia suburbia... downtown can certainly grow out but having it clustered in multiple centers is a mistake IMHO. One thing that downtown salt lake has that not many other cities have is WIDE streets.. where density can be in place and functionality can still remain.. that is an unbelievable strength for downtown and developement...

[TANGELD_SLC]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I hope that SLC ends up with a very limited but dense area of skyscrapers in the CBD and NO highrises and few office complexes outside the CBD.

I propose we keep towers that are 600-2,000 ft. tall in current SLC proper and then have a dense corridor like between 7th east and I-15 where the height limits are 200-700 ft. and then have a height cap of 400 ft. for anything built west of I-15. Works for me and my mind at least. I don't see why we don't just accept the fact that one day the Salt Lake Valley will most likely become SALT LAKE CITY, and then all of the wasatch front becomes our suburbs.
HEHE and then most of what is now Salt Lake City becomes DOWNTOWN. I think we should turn 33rd South into like a Japantown or some kind of multi-ethnic corridor, as well as California Avenue. 7th East/Van Winkle should become a residential tower corridor too.

[TANGELD_SLC]

BTW I am VERY excited about the possible Tokyo line and I hope that we get it because it will only help us to better become THE CROSSROADS OF THE WEST!

[RFPCME]

Man, you forumers are a prolific lot. I wax on about my prognogistications concerning the financial crisis and in less than 24 hours, you've posted 10 more ideas that interest me. Let me respond to a few of your recent posts:

Proposed Delta SLC to Tokyo route: Not so sure about this one. There are a lot more options for travelers to Asia than there were for travelers to Europe. I've flown the SLC to Europe route over 50 times. And it is always a pain because you either go through JFK, Atl, or Atanta, which adds another 3 or 4 hours to an already long day (One of the reasons I moved to Georgia). Flying out of LAC, SFO, or Sea-Tac to Asia isn't so bad. So I'm not sure if the demand will be as high. Also, I think the financial crisis makes Delta's future even more risky. I wish Skyguy would chime in here. He has a much better fix than on the commericial airline industry than I do.

Zions Bank Future: I'm not a finance person, but it seems to me that Zion's financial strength makes it a perfect takeover target. Plus, I still don't believe it can compete on the national level because of its size.

Clustering Tall Buildings Over the SLC-area: Like it or no, high rises will be clustered in the area. What I hope can be avoided is high-rise sprawl, like the LA Basin. The more the tall-boys can be focused in downtown, the better it will be. However, I realize a hallmark, iconic development like The Point in Lehi (I love the irony of the name, The Point, given the proposed design of the building, although I love the proposed design because there is nothing like it anywhere) could never be built downtown because land is too expensive, which is the primary reason high-rises tend to sprawl. It would be nice if, like the Atlanta Metro Area, significant high-rises are clustered.

Finally, at least one of my predictions from last night has proved correct. The Treasury Secretary did announce tonight that the Feds were buying stakes in under-capitalized banks tonight. The financial pundits seem to think this is a good idea because it will have a more direct and faster effect than other means. I hope they are right because things are getting grim fast.

[skyguy414]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Proposed Delta SLC to Tokyo route: Not so sure about this one. There are a lot more options for travelers to Asia than there were for travelers to Europe. I've flown the SLC to Europe route over 50 times. And it is always a pain because you either go through JFK, Atl, or Atanta, which adds another 3 or 4 hours to an already long day (One of the reasons I moved to Georgia). Flying out of LAC, SFO, or Sea-Tac to Asia isn't so bad. So I'm not sure if the demand will be as high. Also, I think the financial crisis makes Delta's future even more risky. I wish Skyguy would chime in here. He has a much better fix than on the commericial airline industry than I do.

Have you tried the SLC to Paris non-stop yet?


As for SLC to Tokyo, this route would not only be carrying folks just from Salt Lake to Tokyo but people from all over North America who connected in SLC then to Tokyo and then people who are connecting beyond Tokyo and vice versa.

I looked at the Origin and Destination survey released by the Dept. of Transportation, which is basically a list that shows the average number of passengers originating at a particular airport (not connecting) and disembarking at a particular airport. It is one of the many tools airlines use to determine if a new route would be practical or not. It also gives a total number of passengers who boarded all flights from a particular airport. Roughly 5.2 million of the 11.1 million passengers who boarded flights out of SLC in 2007 were originating in SLC (one could assume the rest connected in SLC).

When you look at the airports on the list, SLC is the 3rd highest/largest of U.S. airports west of the Mississippi without non-stop service to Asia (again this isn't considering the additional connecting passengers, just those starting or ending their trip in SLC). The only cities higher on the list without non-stops to Asia were Denver, Phoenix, and San Diego. SLC is the 7th highest airport on the list in the entire country where there is no nonstop service to Asia within its metropolitain area (I combined airports like Baltimore, Washington Dulles and National because they are all in the same metro area and one of the airports, Dulles, has nonstop to Asia). The advantage SLC has over those cities is the new Delta/Northwest (once merged) will have hubs in both Tokyo and Salt Lake and Delta naturally wants to connect them. All those other cities which are higher on the list all have enough demand for non-stop to Asia, but don't have any airlines currently expressing interest flying to those cities non-stop. There is enough demand for the flight from SLC to Tokyo and the number of connecting passengers in SLC only adds to it. Not only that, but the cargo revenue generated on this route will be quite high. If Tokyo weren't a hub city for the airline I don't think the route would be quite as certain.

And do keep in mind, this route isn't official yet but does look promising. It may take a few months before Delta actually makes an official announcement, just because the Delta/Northwest merger still isn't a for sure deal (but likely will be).

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

except for the fact that Sandy isn't dense from 90th - 106th and doesn't have the planning nor infrastructure in place to be dense.

Oh really, so what do you call all those new 5-10 story buildings popping up everywhere in that area?
Have you even been to sandy lately? I don't know about you but the area around the city hall is starting to get little dense with some of those new hotels and office buildings going up.

Buildings in the area (90th-10600th)
Lets see there's

East side of the freeway
1. Two 6 story office buildings
2. Four 5-story office buildings
3. One 5-story hotel
4. One 4-story hotel
5. One 10-story building

Plus there's that new stadium.

West side of the freeway
1. Two four story office buildings
2. Two or Three 5-story office buildings
3. One six story hotel.


That seems some what dense to me. And once Sandy gets those new highrise towers it will only add to the list.

[Wasatch_One]

I know exactly how Sandy is, I am there often. The road grid isn't set up for a dense faux downtown area like theyre trying to create. Another strike against Sandy is that all of these low rise buildings are suburban buildings, not downtown type development (i.e. theyre not maximizing land usage.)

A bunch of buildings doesnt make something dense...

[delts145]

In many ways Sandy's 106th south interchange area reminds me of so many class A, business setups along the 405 in Los Angeles. I agree that as it now appears, it is more of a suburban/Irvine type locale. However, I also noticed yesterday afternoon as I took a look with a very critical eye, there is allot of room for future flexibility and progressive change. There is no doubt in my mind that Sandy can, if it chooses, move toward much more urban density between 90th and 106th. Also there are many areas in Sandy that could evolve into a more 9th and 9th type village feel. It will all depend on the future without Tom Dolan. If Sandy were to elect a Becker-type as Mayor, or Dolan were to actually clue-in to other attractive, progressively planned communities, there is no question that it could not evolve into a more Pasadena-like community.

If the Wasatch Front really wants to learn the do's and don'ts of development surrounding it's I-15 corridor, then it need look no further than L.A.'s I-405 north/south corridor. That 405 area from Valencia to Irvine is the most perfect comparison of the Wasatch future in the nation. There are many positives to emulate, and more than enough negatives to learn from and avoid.
.

[SLC Projects]

This server is a joke.

[TANGELD_SLC]

Last night I dreamed Wasatch partners announced a 50-60 story office tower for 600 south. It was sweet-lookin' I tell ya! Let's all put it out to the universe and maybe they'll actually build it