Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[cololi]

My biggest problem with Gallivan is that they have not defined what it is supposed to be. "SLC living room" is a pretty vague term. It seem like they want it to be an outdoor event venue. I kind of like how the 200 south frontage is open. I think the buildings would be better off tucked back along the south edge of the plaza so it enclosed the space better. I think it is a missed opportunity from a design standpoint. The restrooms are a great idea, but policing them is going to be a nightmare.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by cololi

My biggest problem with Gallivan is that they have not defined what it is supposed to be. "SLC living room" is a pretty vague term. It seem like they want it to be an outdoor event venue. I kind of like how the 200 south frontage is open. I think the buildings would be better off tucked back along the south edge of the plaza so it enclosed the space better. I think it is a missed opportunity from a design standpoint. The restrooms are a great idea, but policing them is going to be a nightmare.

I agree. I think it would have been much better to tuck that behind the stage area on the south end of the plaza. They could have torn down the existing stage building, and placed the new building there including a stage.

[arkhitektor]

I like the idea behind the Gallivan Center, (having an open, public space in the city) but the current execution is a disjointed mess.

It seems like the current renovation proposal just re-arranges the mess. To be truly successful I think it will require them to start over entirely. They also need to decide what they want the space to be. The current skating rink-concert space-art installation-retail shops-public space-reception hall configuration is far too busy.

Also, I think that its dumb that it can be reserved for private parties and closed off to the public. If its a public space, then they shouldn't be able to close it to pedestrians for someone's wedding reception.

[Future Mayor]

I disagree, I think that is what Gallivan so great is that it's not defined or designed for one purpose. It can be anything from a place for free movies and concerts, Ice skating and corporate parties to the BBQ cook off and taste of Utah.

As for allowing it to be reserved I think that's a great idea, yes it's a public space but by allowing corporate parties it really is something for anyone or everyone in the city to enjoy and utilize. Plus it helps to offset a little bit of the cost.

If it wasn't allowed to be reserved and limited access to pedestrians then it could never host some of those things mentioned above like the BBQ challenge and Taste of Utah.

As for the new building, having the second level promenade will allow an even greater number of people to enjoy what is happening on the stage because they will actually be able to see the stage from that elevated point.

[Urban_logic]

I have generally approved of most of the plans for the CCC, but there is something that really bothers me - even irritates me - about a fundamental design of the project. Maybe it's just the Californian in me talking, but there is WAY too much parking being built for the project! I was looking around down town the other day and it struck me as very odd at how much parking there already is - there are 5-10 story parking structures everywhere you look! Then there are like 5 levels of underground parking on the Crossroads Block and much more to come with the other two blocks. Shouldn't a "green" project be a little more mass-tranist oriented? Especially in Salt Lake, where pollution is a very serious problem (can anyone say 'inversion'?).

I mean, in down town San Francisco, they have made it a city priority to make street life a living Hell for motorists. For one, parking is very hard to find. Then, when you do find some, it costs $20. Secondly, traffic flow for car traffic is made very difficult. Many streets prevent turns in certain directions, forcing cars to drive in circles to find their destination. Market street has cut out some traffic lanes to make way for bike lanes, dedicated bus lanes, track lanes for street cars, trolleies, etc. I hear rumor that Gavin Newsom wants to remove all but just one lane each direction for cars. I know that this sounds awful for car lovers, but what it does is force people to use better forms of transportation - trains, buses, bikes, or even just walk. It cuts down on local smog for one thing, then it helps to reduce "greenhouse" gases that contribute to climate change. I just feel like the CCC is encouraging people to fire up their fossil fuel car engines and drive down town, which will not help with Utah's smog problems or climate change issues at all.

Just a tought. Anyone out there who can 'talk me down' and convince me that all the parking at CCC is worth having?

Btw, Urbanboy, I think you took my comment out of context. It was completely a joke. I wasn't trying to say that the project was 'divinely inspired' in any way. Sorry if I offended you.

[Makid]

I have heard that part of the reason they need all of the parking is that when they start work on the block between 2nd and 3rd west and North and South Temple including the 1/2 block to the east, people will need a place to park. As the LDS Church owns the blocks they want people to be guaranteed a parking spot on one of their lots.

Another reason is parking for the residents and employees within CCC.

The last reason is the biggest I think. They need the parking for the road driving tourists and those potential customers that don't have quick access to other transit opportunities.

As the population grows within the Downtown area and as transit opportunites grow throughout the SL Metro, the need for vast parking structures will be lowered and we will start to see a shift away from having parking requirements.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I disagree, I think that is what Gallivan so great is that it's not defined or designed for one purpose. It can be anything from a place for free movies and concerts, Ice skating and corporate parties to the BBQ cook off and taste of Utah.

As for allowing it to be reserved I think that's a great idea, yes it's a public space but by allowing corporate parties it really is something for anyone or everyone in the city to enjoy and utilize. Plus it helps to offset a little bit of the cost.

If it wasn't allowed to be reserved and limited access to pedestrians then it could never host some of those things mentioned above like the BBQ challenge and Taste of Utah.

As for the new building, having the second level promenade will allow an even greater number of people to enjoy what is happening on the stage because they will actually be able to see the stage from that elevated point.

I don't mind that the space is capable of supporting all of these uses, I just don't like how broken up all of the spaces are and how poorly it all flows together:



It just seems as if it were designed rather haphazardly. There are lots of random little patches of grass, randomly placed seating areas, etc.
The current proposal will help make the space more cohesive and useful, but they could do a better job if they just started over from scratch and designed something that met the public's needs.

The fact that it already needs a renovation speaks to the fact that there was something wrong with it from the start.

Also, if we could please get rid of this boulder on a pole as part of the renovation:




Its the most irrelevant and bizzare looking installation of public "art" that I've ever seen.

[DMTower]

I have a problem with the parking at CCC too, but for a different reason. Each of those entire blocks is going to have 1 massive underground parking structure... this means that those blocks will never evolve. They are stuck as one giant development. You can't really go back in later and decide to build another tower on Richards Street, or open up the blocks completely and run a trolley through there. Only minimal modifications to the blocks will be possible once it is finished because the garage blocks any sort of excavation. If I could change one thing in the project, I would have designed the parking in segments so that you could change one without messing up the whole thing.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Anyone out there who can 'talk me down' and convince me that all the parking at CCC is worth having?

I do think that SLC is overparked, but that is often a market driven phenomenon and once the market demands the garages to be converted to something, they will go away. This has happend in a number of major cities, including LA, SF, Cleveland, NYC, etc. Right now, the percentage of trips into downtown SLC is still 8 to 1 in favor of cars. Until that goes down, you need to park them somewhere. Hopefully in the next 20-40 years the mass transit infrastructure and the number of people living in downtown will be such that a good chunk of the downtown parking will go away.



Gallivan: You can still design a space that can accomodate a number of activities and make them flow together. To me, the space is more of a collection of outdoor spaces than a large gathering place. That is fine, but when you try to fit large scale events into those spaces, it doesn't work. That is the problem with the summer concert series. It seems like the upgrades are simply so more people can fit onto the space, which seems to go against what the space is intended to do, and that is to be place where anyone can go and do a number of activities. the more large scale activities there are, the less opportunity there is for impromtu gatherings, which downtown lacks outside of the trains stops.

And the boulder on a pole is a sun dial. I think it is kind of cool to explain how people managed their time before clocks and watches, especially when placed in an urban setting.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

The fact that it already needs a renovation speaks to the fact that there was something wrong with it from the start.

I disagree with this statement. The fact that it was originally built in 1993 with a few additions and minor upgrades through 1998 tells me that they got it right in the first place. To last nearly 16 years with no major upgrades and it is still an immensely popular gathering spot says to me that it was designed correctly and that is has evolved and needs to have some slightly more major improvements and upgrades to meet those changing needs.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by cololi

The building is not an eyesore. With some upgrades (insanely costly), it could make a wonderful condo building.

I've thought the same thing about the JC Penny Building on Main!

[SLC Tortfeasor]

On the issue of whether downtown SLC has too much parking:

I agree and disagree. Yes, when you walk around downtown it seems like there are multistory parking garages everywhere, not to mention several surface lots, a few of which are truly enormous. They are ugly, don't contribute to vibrancy, and simply encourage greater car-dependency, with all the negative consequences that flow from that.

On the other hand, one of the typical complaints you hear from suburbanites about downtown is that there isn't enough parking. That, they say, is why they prefer to shop at megamalls in the 'burbs. Coming downtown is just too big a hassle. Much easier to go to dinner at the Mayan and take in a movie at Jordan Commons than come downtown.

I suspect cities like San Francisco, New York, and London are willing and able to make driving downtown a living hell for motorists because they can do so without destroying their downtown economies. Salt Lake City is not the same. We really need to start pulling more people in from the suburbs to shop, go to dinner, and see shows. Trax helps pull people in, but we also need a reasonable amount of parking.

I'm genuinely torn on the issue of how much parking to provide. Look at our Main Street. Years ago it was redone to make it more pedestrian-friendly. That goal is accomplished, and it's beautiful. But in the process we lost parking. If you're car-dependent, you're going to prefer to go someplace with a nice big parking lot, especially if that's closer to where you live.

It's a balancing act: We need a reasonable amount of parking, but not too much, and we should couple parking with an attractive public transit system. Buses are not that attractive; trains are. We need to continue Trax expansion and increase public awareness and incentives for using Trax to come downtown. Maybe downtown retailers and restaurants could offer some kinds of perks to people who show up with Trax tickets? Just a thought.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by SLC Tortfeasor

Maybe downtown retailers and restaurants could offer some kinds of perks to people who show up with Trax tickets? Just a thought.

That is a really good idea. I know that many retailers participate in the parking token program, maybe there needs to be some sort of trax incentive like that as well. Maybe something like 1 one way trax pass for every $50 spent at retailers or at a restaurant they could give a 5% discount with you valid trax pass.

I think you may be onto something here.

[urbanboy]

Yes, I like that idea as well.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by SLC Tortfeasor

On the issue of whether downtown SLC has too much parking:

I agree and disagree. Yes, when you walk around downtown it seems like there are multistory parking garages everywhere, not to mention several surface lots, a few of which are truly enormous. They are ugly, don't contribute to vibrancy, and simply encourage greater car-dependency, with all the negative consequences that flow from that.

On the other hand, one of the typical complaints you hear from suburbanites about downtown is that there isn't enough parking. That, they say, is why they prefer to shop at megamalls in the 'burbs. Coming downtown is just too big a hassle. Much easier to go to dinner at the Mayan and take in a movie at Jordan Commons than come downtown.

I suspect cities like San Francisco, New York, and London are willing and able to make driving downtown a living hell for motorists because they can do so without destroying their downtown economies. Salt Lake City is not the same. We really need to start pulling more people in from the suburbs to shop, go to dinner, and see shows. Trax helps pull people in, but we also need a reasonable amount of parking.

I'm genuinely torn on the issue of how much parking to provide. Look at our Main Street. Years ago it was redone to make it more pedestrian-friendly. That goal is accomplished, and it's beautiful. But in the process we lost parking. If you're car-dependent, you're going to prefer to go someplace with a nice big parking lot, especially if that's closer to where you live.

It's a balancing act: We need a reasonable amount of parking, but not too much, and we should couple parking with an attractive public transit system. Buses are not that attractive; trains are. We need to continue Trax expansion and increase public awareness and incentives for using Trax to come downtown. Maybe downtown retailers and restaurants could offer some kinds of perks to people who show up with Trax tickets? Just a thought.

Other cities are able to make driving a living hell and prosper because of zoning. Because Salt lake is small compared to its metro, smaller cities are able to throw up shopping centers to detract people from downtown..
Drawing people to drive and park downtown might work to some degree, but it only feeds on a cultural flaw that will eventually have to be addressed.
I don't think Salt Lake should be trying to get suburbanites to come downtown and spend the day... they need to be getting people LIVING downtown.. and that takes a lot of different focuses.. Its not something you can do with a shopping mall in the heart of the city....
Realistically... salt lake would not even have to be dependent on suburbanites venturing downtown if say 50,000 people were living in and around downtown in urban housing.. There would be a population base there to support CCC as well as the other projects.
I just think that too many times the city throws all their eggs in one basket in promoting a large scale attraction downtown in hopes of attracting crowds and vitality... which leaves the city waiting a decade before being able to support implementing something new... I don't care what anyone says... vibrancy in an urban setting does not happen with big box attractions and developements... Its promoting the city core as a neighborhood.. and treating it as such.

[Future Mayor]

Not a single person on here would disagree with you on that. We all realize that we need to increase the number of people living downtown and that number is gradually increasing. In the mean time since we haven't reached that critical mass of 15,000 + in the downtown core we need to provide some incentives to get people downtown, and maybe some of those people that come downtown will decide how awesome it is and move down there, thus helping to create that critical mass.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Not a single person on here would disagree with you on that. We all realize that we need to increase the number of people living downtown and that number is gradually increasing. In the mean time since we haven't reached that critical mass of 15,000 + in the downtown core we need to provide some incentives to get people downtown, and maybe some of those people that come downtown will decide how awesome it is and move down there, thus helping to create that critical mass.

oh, believe me, I agree that there has to be some sort of incentive for living downtown.. whether it be transportation access, shopping, night life, dining.. etc.. That is why residential developement should be THE MAIN focus downtown to complement CCC. That should include the high end highrise condo's as well as low/mid income housing.. I think largest hurdle is tapping into the masses of people that would like to live downtown, yet can't afford it... It is my belief that this is where government subsidies or intervention could prove to be a powerful force in driving economic vitality in our cities...
They are trying to do this in boise too, but in republican states that are all about the free market principles... its like trying to pull teeth.. and our cities continue to sprawl and we lose our cohesiveness...

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by cololi

The building is not an eyesore. With some upgrades (insanely costly), it could make a wonderful condo building.

I love the design of the old Public Safety Bldg.

[TANGELD_SLC]

HEHE check it out!

I love ABC's hyperbole! Salt Lake City is the fittest city on EARTH!

http://news.yahoo.com/video/2461

[Urban_logic]

Ok, you guys have talked me down. I think I've mentioned my laziness before, so I'm not going to go back through and sift through all the quotes and names, but I do see all your points. Salt Lake doesn't quite have the muscle to turn its down town into a motorist hell yet - like San Francisco can - so it depends on the flow of its car-dependant suburbs. Agreed, without relative ease of parking, suburbanites would stick to their Jordan Landing's and Union Park's. As a suburbanite myself - both here in Utah and California - I guess I've always looked at things differently. I do have a car, but I force myself to take mass transit if available (even if its more inconvenient). I guess I just feel personaly responsible for killing to pollar bears and drowning the coasts when I fire up my engine. Ok, so that was a joke, but I am very environmentaly concious.

I am very heartened by the increasing core of mass transit options developing in the Salt Lake region. The CCC will be serviced by the Ogden and Provo Front Runner lines and the Sandy and Mid-Jordan TRAX lines when it first opens. That will pull in a lot of people without the use of cars. Then, when the West Valley line and Draper extension (possibly a Foothill line as well) are in service a few years later, that will help additionally. Throw in the exsisting University TRAX and the near-future Airport TRAX, and you've got great rail access (2 long-distance commuter-rail lines and 5-6 local metro light-rail lines). Then you add the busses and people living within the development, and that's a lot of cars off the roads. I suppose that is a great start, despite all the cars that will be comming to the project.

There deffinately needs to be a happy medium with parking options. I just think that Salt Lake is on the higher end of this spectrum. I mean, I see $3 parking and cringe. You might as well let people park for free! Then, I believe it was Future Mayor who mentioned the surface parking eye-soars. Those have to go. Very first. Right now, we could stand to loose them. We could probably stick with the existing parking structures and the CCC ones for now - but NO MORE! Then, hopefully, we will be able to convert former parking structures into other types of buildings when less people use cars. My suggestion for the short term: Raise all fares to at LEAST $5 in private lots, get rid of the surface parking, and I deffinately like your mass transit incentive program! (Whoever it was who came up with that - sorry, but I'm too lazy to look up your name ;p)