Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I have two points to make.

1) I think this project is an excellent undertaking and I fully support it (Proscenium Sandy). I think that down town and SLC proper has enough going on as is. Sandy is turning into Utah's 2nd city and I think it should reflect that with a vibrant down town complete with a strong commercial market and cultural ammenities.

I do not agree and Sandy does not have the infrastructure nor planning in place to create a walkable, vibrant downtown. It will never be anything but a suburb. It is too late to change that because they would need to tear so much down and basically start over with a walkable grid.

Sandy is a cluster...

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

Sandy is a cluster...

A cluster what, Wasatch?

[Wasatch_One]

haha... this is a PG rated forum my friend

[Comrade]

Nuke Sandy.

F*ck them.

I hope they never get a tower.

Am I bitter? Sure. But I've always been bitter and I like it.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

Sandy's Broadway theater stalls in sluggish economy

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11539665

Suburbanites will have to wait a little longer to see Broadway shows in Sandy.

Mayor Tom Dolan said The Proscenium commercial project - and its 2,700 seat playhouse - is "on hold."

Orem-based developer Scott McQuarrie had planned to debut the first phase of his $600 million-plus mixed-use development, including the $55 million mega-theater, in fall 2011. Construction was scheduled to start this spring.

"I don't know if they can reach those target dates," Dolan said. "For now, there's no financing in the marketplace for anyone building anything."
McQuarrie, principal of BTS Investments and Proscenium Development Inc., did not return several calls seeking comment.

Nick Duerksen, Sandy's assistant community development director, confirmed the project, which features three 30- to 40-story towers, has stalled because of financing difficulties. But, he said, the scope of the 2.3 million-square-foot undertaking remains unchanged.

"They have not talked to us about any kind of scaling back," Duerksen said. "Our understanding is they still intend to move ahead with the design as presented."

That design includes two hotels, offices, upscale condos, restaurants and additional arts amenities, including a black-box theater and a performing-arts school. Dolan said McQuarrie could start with a six-story building that is part of a later phase instead of a 40-story skyscraper. From 40 to 6 stories. Now, that's more like it for Sandy. Leave the taller ones for downtown SLC!

Salt Lake City also plans to build a mega-theater,

an $81.5 million, 2,400-seat-plus performance hall expected to debut on Main Street in 2012. It's doubtful the Salt Lake area market could support two theaters of that size, which would be forced to compete for touring Broadway acts.

This is good news! But, really, c'mon, did anybody actually believe these guys and Dolan? They are all a little naieve or ignorant, or whatever. We don't need more competittion from the burbs to cause more blight in the heart of the capital city SLC. Let Sandy, have its due share, but not at the cost of the heart of the metropolitan SLC.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

I do not agree and Sandy does not have the infrastructure nor planning in place to create a walkable, vibrant downtown. It will never be anything but a suburb. It is too late to change that because they would need to tear so much down and basically start over with a walkable grid.

Sandy is a cluster...

I agree that Sandy definitely should not have something of this magnitude. But, it's never too late to improve its city planning for a more walkable, pedestrian- friendly 'downtown', but not at a 40 story scale. The suburbs of the largest cities in America don't even have anything that tall. It's just not right, and there is no demand for that without sucking away demand from downtown SLC

[delts145]

I'm not making a call as to whether Sandy will someday have 40 story towers or not. However, and this is definitely meant as a simple correction, but the list of cities outside of the initial downtown core, that now have many 40 story or taller towers are extensive.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by delts145

I'm not making a call as to whether Sandy will someday have 40 story towers or not. However, and this is definitely meant as a simple correction, but the list of cities outside of the initial downtown core, that now have many 40 story or taller towers are extensive.

And how many are in a metro of 1.1 million?

[skierforlife17]

Ive got some sad news regarding the university development. I spoke with some people on the committee today and they said as of right now the project is on hold. they are having some conflicts on the idea and the economy sucks. so i could be a few more years then we thought before the project starts to get going

[blazefirelight]

Alright, so this is completely irrelevant to whatever is being discussed currently. BUT, I went and saw High School Musical 3 with my parents because they still haven't seen it. I was an extra in it, so I wanted to show them where. Anyway, in the last scene, when they pull back during graduation, you can see a PERFECT SHOT of downtown Salt Lake City. Not hidden or anything. Just BAM--Salt Lake.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by blazefirelight

Alright, so this is completely irrelevant to whatever is being discussed currently. BUT, I went and saw High School Musical 3 with my parents because they still haven't seen it. I was an extra in it, so I wanted to show them where. Anyway, in the last scene, when they pull back during graduation, you can see a PERFECT SHOT of downtown Salt Lake City. Not hidden or anything. Just BAM--Salt Lake.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

I do not agree and Sandy does not have the infrastructure nor planning in place to create a walkable, vibrant downtown. It will never be anything but a suburb. It is too late to change that because they would need to tear so much down and basically start over with a walkable grid.

Sandy is a cluster...

Present limitations never impede a city's potential. What exactly do you mean by "infrastructure and planning"? They have a light rail line, access to a 10-lane freeway, and will soon have a commuter rail line. When complete, this rail network will connect people from South Jordan, West Jordan, West Valley, SLC, the airport, Davis County, Weber County, and Utah County. The current roads in Sandy are plenty wide and should be able to accomidate increased traffic flows. The down town is walkable - it just needs a 24-hour population base, which this project could provide. What do they need to tare down? They can leave it as is - maybe tear up some grass and parking lot space to make way for more infill and dense development. Other than that, I don't see how it would be necessary to remove any of the exsisting low-rises.

I do agree with you guys that a 40-story tower is quite a stretch for present-day sandy. I would support more mid-rises (10-20 stories) at the moment, then get in some high-rises of 20-40 stories in a decade or so. I support the project design over all, though I do think they should shave down the floor counts to something in the 15-25 story range.

As I said before, I think this is a great step forward for the Salt Lake Valley and a wonderful opportunity for it to move from a traditional, mid-western set-up of a single urban core with sprawling suburbs to a more contemprary and cosmopolitan multi-core set-up. The point I think many of you guys (like Wasatch) are missing is that Sandy is never going to be a full-scale down town like SLC. It will have a handfull of high-rises sorounded by mid-rises and low-rises. It will be about a thrid the size of down town SLC when everything is done. Cities across the valley and up and down the WF are urbanizing into small clusters. Sandy will be somewhere between a large urban cluster and a down town. I think fear is driving people's resistance against the project, though, if you read my previous post, I really don't think this will kill down town because of the reasons I previously posted. I would be willing to compromise the "mega theater" to SLC, but I would still push for the rest of the project to go forth. Due to the fact that this theater is the center piece of the project, it would most certainly be difficult to sacrifice.

[delts145]

Yeah, and then they're passing it off as Albuquerque, right?

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by blazefirelight

Alright, so this is completely irrelevant to whatever is being discussed currently. BUT, I went and saw High School Musical 3 with my parents because they still haven't seen it. I was an extra in it, so I wanted to show them where. Anyway, in the last scene, when they pull back during graduation, you can see a PERFECT SHOT of downtown Salt Lake City. Not hidden or anything. Just BAM--Salt Lake.

The PERFECT ENDING! unless there's going to be a High School Musical 4.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by delts145

Yeah, and then they're passing it off as Albuquerque, right?

I hate this movie! I stopped watching after the 1st one because of that fact alone. I refuse to watch the other two because I hate seeing SLC being presented as a..............less pristine and lower populated area (no offense to those from NM).

For those of us with personal convictions preventing us from watching the 3rd movie, is there some kind of clip somewhere of this ending shot? Like on youtube or something? I would look myself, but I would rather not sift through HSM junk to find it.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

What do they need to tare down? They can leave it as is - maybe tear up some grass and parking lot space to make way for more infill and dense development. Other than that, I don't see how it would be necessary to remove any of the exsisting low-rises.

I agree. 10-15 years ago Sandy City had started to learn from their past mistake when it came with developing projects that would take up alot of space and have a large ocean parking lots. Since then I've notice that the city and developers are trying to do a better job at planning ahead and developer buildings that don't take up as much space. They have done this by buildings taller buildings with parking garages. Some of the new Condos by the high school has underground parking. The new two-story mix use retail/office building just east of the city hall is right up to the side walk with parking hidden in the rear.
What the City needs to do is just like what Urban_logic said. If they need to tear up anything is needs to be the parking lots. One of the mistakes the city made was the expo center. Even I think that it looks more like a strip mall then a convention center. The parking should of been underground and have the expo building come right up to state street and not have it hidden behind a ocean of parking lots. Or at the very least build a parking garage. ( I think there has been talks or that)
Always I'm just saying that Sandy is on the right track when it comes with them wanting to try to be more urban. It will take time.

[urbanboy]

The problem with Sandy, is that there are not enough through streets. traffic from most streets drain out on to the few collector streets that exist, therefore, those streets are widened to take extra traffic created because of bad planning and a lack of through streets for drivers to chose from. However, the streets cannot be widened to the width necessary to accommodate the traffic. Imagine blocking off streets in a Salt Lake City neighborhood, and only allowing a through street every .5 miles imagine the grid-lock that would exist on those few arterial streets. Now imagine how wide the streets would need to be in order to accommodate this extra traffic that is concentrated rather than dispersed on a grid. Then imagine these extra wide streets separating neighborhood from neighborhood; It's starting to look a lot like Sandy. Also, the extra wide streets with no buffer separating the sidewalk from the street create a pedestrian nightmare, especially when trying to cross the street.

The wide streets in Downtown Salt Lake City are necessary because the blocks are so big in comparison to other cities. The more we cut up the blocks, the more we'll be able to narrow the streets, making them easier to cross and more pedestrian friendly, because these extra through streets will help take some of the traffic impact of the block. Our City blocks are about 8 times the size of blocks in Portland, which is why their streets don't need to be so wide because the traffic from the smaller blocks is dispersed onto the many smaller streets.

Therefore, considering all these factors, it is clear that Sandy does not have the infrastructure necessary to take the traffic impact of such a development and still be a walkable neighborhood.



On another note, here is a great article that I found on the Huffington Post:

Robert RedfordActor, Director, and Environmental Activist
Posted January 22, 2009 | 03:08 PM (EST)

Utah Lands Win a Reprieve at the Dawn of a Cleaner, Greener Future

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/utah-lands-win-a-reprieve_b_160104.html

[Comrade]

The problem with Sandy is it's Sandy and it thinks it's Salt Lake.

There is a reason Salt Lake has urban neighborhoods and it's because most of the city was built prior to the suburban boom and development catered more to the foot than it did the car. Sandy needs to realize its infrastructure can't support this type of development, not without being completely rebuilt from the ground up. That isn't to say the area can't take action toward becoming more urban, but it's going to have to start block by block, not commercial center by commercial center.

The leaders of this city seem to believe you can plop down a tower, a few residential mid-rises and a broadway theatre and everything is set, when it isn't. The fact is, you can still be suburban and have high-rises and apartment complexes. The make of the building is only half the issue, beyond that it's the sustainability of the neighborhood, how walkable the area is and whether or not there is easy accessibility in and out of the area. Right now, what Sandy has planned does not account for any of that and it will turn into a commercial/retail/entertainment center where people drive in, do what they need and then drive out. Which makes it no better than the 20th Century sprawl malls we saw pop up throughout the valley starting in the 60s.

[blazefirelight]

Well, the thing is that they always seemed to try hiding that it's being filmed in Salt Lake. On the roof of East High, they NEVER did a shot toward the city. Only toward the rest of the valley. I think that they didn't notice that you could see downtown Salt Lake in the background in the big shot that they did--it just wasn't the focus of the shot.

And no, they're making High School Musical 4. Hopefully I'll be with an agency by then and I'll land a speaking role. *fingers crossed*

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Present limitations never impede a city's potential. What exactly do you mean by "infrastructure and planning"?

I mean exactly what urbanboy just explained... there is no downtown road grid... no road system. It formed as a suburb and will always have suburb characteristics. There was no foresight and contrary to what SLCProjects said, it has only gotten worse during the past 10-15 years in my opinion. There are some TOD options for Sandy and I hope leaders there evaluate these carefully but it is just a pass through for mass transit like Midvale, or Murray or S. Salt Lake... it is not an ending destination where multiple lines end up like SLC.

Just look at a satellite map of Sandy on Google maps and you will see what I mean. Originally Sandy did have a small grid in it's old downtown area from 90th south to 85th South and from State St over to about 300 E...

If they would have continued that early grid and built up their city gov't presence and everything around that it would be a whole different story today, but it's not. It's too late. It's a suburb and will always remain just that.

SLC isn't even the best example of a walkable downtown because of the aforementioned wide streets but there is still a functional grid. Look at cities here in the west known for being walkable like Portland OR or San Francisco, or Seattle... what do they all have in common?

Even smaller cities like Logan have more vibrant downtown potential than Sandy in my opinion.