HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8441  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 2:34 AM
Boiseguy's Avatar
Boiseguy Boiseguy is offline
Always running Late
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: BOISE
Posts: 1,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Wow, Viperlord you just went to town. Thanks for your continued vigilance
too right... looking back on the last page of our banter... I confess.. participating in it turned out to be a waste of hair product....
     
     
  #8442  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 2:35 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,524
Quick Question. Have any of you guys had any problems with the virulant plague thats been hitting the internet lately? I understand that millions have been affected. My McAfee has been working overtime to keep ahead of the problem.
     
     
  #8443  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 3:22 AM
cololi cololi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 690
Well, here is something (word on the street is that a hotel is now under consideration for the granite block, not mecham's property, but the west half of the block):
AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 5:45 p.m.
Public Hearings
1. Petition PLNPCM2008-00211, Granite Furniture Block/Red Mountain Retail Group—Conditional Building and Site Design Review—a request for Conditional Building and Site Design Review for a new mixed-use development in the Sugar House Business District (CSHBD1 & CSHBD2 Zones) consisting of commercial and residential uses. The proposal involves the renovation of the Leisure Living building in the interior of the Granite Block, the renovation of the Granite Furniture warehouse building along McClelland Street, as well as the Granite Furniture Showroom Building on the southeast corner of 2100 South and McClelland Street. The proposal also includes the construction of three (3) new buildings on the Granite Block and along the west side of McClelland Street. This project is being reviewed by the Planning Commission because all new construction of principal buildings that exceed fifty feet (50’) in height in the CSHBD1 District or thirty feet (30’) in the CSHBD2 District or 20,000 square feet in size in either District are subject to the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process. The property is located in City Council District Seven, represented by Søren Simonsen (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at 535-6184 or [email protected]).
     
     
  #8444  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 5:27 AM
Viperlord's Avatar
Viperlord Viperlord is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,900


Red Mountain Retail Group Sugar House Development

Click on the link below for more renderings, and site plans...

its a lot denser than their original design

http://www.slcgov.com/boards/plancom/2009/January/sr_00211r.pdf
     
     
  #8445  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 5:46 AM
TANGELD_SLC's Avatar
TANGELD_SLC TANGELD_SLC is offline
The World Is Welcome Here
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 883
Wow that's going to look nice, I think
__________________
Espavo!

Plyg, Metrosexual, & AVENian
     
     
  #8446  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 6:13 AM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 3,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC View Post
Wow that's going to look nice, I think
This looks much nicer than their previous plans.
     
     
  #8447  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 6:16 AM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
I absolutely love how this developer is refurbishing the older buildings and tying in the new ones. I love how the shops are facing the street which really makes McClelland Street an amenity!

Tangled, I must comment on your avatar. You know the Library System is Socialist right?
     
     
  #8448  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 7:21 AM
blazefirelight's Avatar
blazefirelight blazefirelight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 104
Google Earth Crude Models

I don't know if any of you actually use any of the building's I've modeled ever-so-crudely for Google Earth, but I wanted to let you all know that I've modeled and re-modeled some 3D buildings which are located downtown.

I only do this to be able to have models to use to be able to see the density of downtown. My heights are approximate.

I've done crude models of the following buildings:



I've also made one for City Creek Center, it's all color-coded. ( http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=d8e1aaa4b295d7c9dfc6e286227a7fee&prevstart=0 ) If you care to look, please do!

...I've also been making different buildings for "My Version of Salt Lake City." They're all fake. If you want you can download and look at any of those, too.
     
     
  #8449  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 12:19 PM
bammbammz bammbammz is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: T-VILLE
Posts: 83
excellent work Blaze!!!!!!!!!.......I too love to look at the density of our city, and the posibilities of future development,along with our own versions of what we'ld like to see as well.....keep up the good work.I always look to see what you've done.Peace!!!.............saltlake4-life...
     
     
  #8450  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 1:23 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 20,524
Millcreek planners weigh new rules for McMansions - Dispute » Proposal has drawn fire from leading advocates on both sides.

By Jeremiah Stettler
The Salt Lake Tribune


Millcreek » The protracted battle over mega-homes in Millcreek is intensifying as township planners pitch their proposed rules for bridling big houses in this east-side suburb.

It's the latest attempt to strike a balance between property owners who want to replace their decades-old bungalows with multi-level McMansions and neighbors who fret that builders will reshape their skylines, snug too close to property lines and decrease their home values.

Gary Cornum stands in front of his Milcreek home Monday. Cornum is fighting a proposed ordinance to restrict McMansions in Millcreek, saying the restrictions are too rigid. (Jim Urquhart/The Salt Lake Tribune)




The proposed rules blend black-and-white restrictions on building height, lot coverage and property setbacks with a grayer (and perhaps more flexible) code that allows for larger homes, so long as they are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

A fair balance? Time will tell for this midvalley township of 65,000 people that stretches from the Jordan River to the eastern foothills. But the proposal already has drawn fire from leading advocates on both sides: one arguing that the rules don't go far enough, the other countering that they go too far.

"We need this infusion of investment -- this infusion of families and children -- to keep this community viable," insists Canyon Rim homeowner Gary Cornum. Make some minor tweaks to the building code, "but not sweeping changes like what has been proposed."

Cornum, who represents a community coalition known as Responsible Renewal that opposes stricter standards, built his home less than a decade ago. His house isn't extravagant -- about 2,000 square feet above ground -- but Cornum says the new rules probably would have frowned on it. It's too tall, for one thing, and too close to the edge of his property.

But homes like his boost the tax base, he says, and attract families that may not settle in a 900-square-foot brick bungalow. He worries that more restrictive (and more complicated) building codes will discourage developers and lead to neighborhoods with fewer long-term families and more rental units.

Trouble is, builders are dreaming too big. So argues the BuildWise coalition, which has lobbied the county for more rigid restrictions. The proposed rules are promising, they say, but may not be enough.

The Millcreek Planning Commission "has made a good start and worked hard on it," says BuildWise spokeswoman and homeowner Lucy Jordan. "But, as we have said all along, the devil is in the details."

She fears the new standards -- which would allow builders to increase the size of their homes based on average heights and setbacks already in a neighborhood -- could allow homes that obstruct views, block sunlight, reduce backyard privacy and lead to a decline in property values.

"We are still evaluating whether, and to what extent, the guidelines in the proposal would actually accomplish the goal of protecting privacy and ensuring that homes that are built or rebuilt in the neighborhood are proportional with other homes," Jordan says. But, at this point, "we are very concerned that it doesn't go far enough."

The Millcreek Planning Commission will meet Feb. 19 with representatives of the township's four community councils to determine whether the rules strike the proper balance between those competing property rights. A public hearing will follow sometime this spring. Ultimately, the Salt Lake County Council would have to approve any ordinance.

Planning Commission Chairman Gary Sackett hopes the community soon may resolve this longstanding debate. Does the criticism on both sides discourage him? Not really.

"If everybody goes away mad," he muses, "then maybe we are where we ought to be."

[email protected]

What's next
The Millcreek Planning Commission will meet Feb. 19 with the east-side township's four community councils about proposed rules for mega-homes.
     
     
  #8451  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 3:02 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
I admire developers like Red Mountain so much more than Mecham. The developers that can have a vision that includes historic elements and realizes that those elements are what made the neighborhood desirable for more development.

I really like the densities of this project and how all building interact with the street, like the balconies the face McCleland Street on the new building to the west. Like I said above I really like how the new product was been integrated in with the old. I especially like that they are keeping the old Granite Furniture sign.

Hey Mecham, while your proposed project is nice, in my opinion it pales in comparison to the Red Mtn project. Next time you are looking to redevelop and area that has some historical significance and character attempt to think outside the box in integrate the new with the old.

This project will be the project to keep Sugarhouse viable and retain a portion of it's character. I like that there is a hotel integrated into the design. This will actually help the office portion of mecham's once he gets his project going. Overall this entire area will be a very nice, walkable node or Urban Living within the city. Let hurry and get that trolley funded.
     
     
  #8452  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 3:22 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
I pulled this over from the 222 thread as it had wavered from discussion of 222 into parks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
The big dig and putting I-80 through Sugar House underground are drastically different projects. The Sugar House project would be a simple cap, yes I realize it's not "simple" but it is simple in comparison to the Big Dig. Placing a cap on the area near Sugar House park wouldn't require any wear near the engineering, time or money that even a similar length of the big dig cost. Even a simple half mile or several hundred yards of a cap would do a lot to connect the Highland Park neighborhood to Sugar House park. The cap below wouldn't require any additional depth, and a small amount of ventilation. It is only about 600 yards long.

You could put limited access to just the south side of the park and ad a ball field, and one small parking lot (possibly. I realize this is residential and that could be a hard sell), but either way you could add some paved paths from the Highland Park neighborhood that connect into the remainder of the park. Imagine how many more people they could accommodate for 4th of July fireworks.
     
     
  #8453  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 4:09 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,784
There is a similar park over I-10 north of DT Phoenix:



Maybe a Phoenix forumer can weigh in on how successful its been for them.
     
     
  #8454  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 5:53 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
I often times wish that I-15 through downtown was below grade to allow the addition of a cap for additional park space and better connections between different parts of the city.
     
     
  #8455  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 6:56 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,803
Regarding Sugar House I-80 Cap.

Ok, so it's not that long of a home run after all. Tell you what lets go ahead and flip the ball park to face NE instead of NW, that direction sucks with afternoon sun anyway.
     
     
  #8456  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 7:27 PM
Urban_logic's Avatar
Urban_logic Urban_logic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Very true Boiseguy. I suppose there will always be a competitive mindset among certain people. That's pretty much the metro norm no matter where you go. You could probably point to similar such situations in Boise also. Hopefully, there will be enough of a fiesty group in SLC proper to excel in the continued development of downtown. I think that Salt Lake has a Mayor now, who is better equipped to take the Capital forward.
I agree that we can stop discussion on this matter, I just wanted to make a closing note and will not post anymore regarding the issue. Competeing urban centers are the norm for any urban area and I support it. It drives the main urban center to become more unique and creative to maintain its status as the main regional focal point while the other urban cores that spring up help to strengthen the region as a whole. This is what happened in the Bay Area, the LA Area, the NYC Area, the Dallas-Ft Worth Area, the Minneapolis Area ("Twin Cities"). One thing to note is how close many urban centers are to each other. St Paul and Minneapolis are right across the river from each other. San Francisco and Oakland are less than half the distance from each other than Sandy and SLC are (7 miles vs 15 miles).

Oakland:



San Francisco:



This extremely close proximity hasn't hampered growth nor required San Francisco to monopolize on projects - both have sports areanas (even their own football teams), both have international airports, concert centers, etc. Granted, their combined populations are around 3 times the size of Sandy and SLC's combined population. What I am trying to point out is how two urban cores have been able to thrive so close to each other. They each have their own draws and San Francisco has aggresively fought to maintain the regional status quo.

The Dallas-Ft Worth Area is probably more comparable to SLC-Sandy.

Ft Worth:



Dallas:



The "Twin Cities"

St. Paul:



Minneapolis:



As the SL Valley populations grows, down town SLC will not be able to accomidate all regional cultural/tower projects. Other regions, like the ones above, are still known for their main city center, but also by their smaller sister city. Many people actually say "Dallas-Ft Worth" when refering to the region, though if one were to just say "Dallas", it would have the same recognition. I can see a day when people refer to the SL Valley as the Salt Lake-Sandy Area and the two urban centers still thrive.
     
     
  #8457  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 7:34 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
I often times wish that I-15 through downtown was below grade to allow the addition of a cap for additional park space and better connections between different parts of the city.
Well, since there seems to be no real news to share and future mayor brought it up, how's this for an economic stimulus:



I put this together for a class a while ago and dug it up to share here.
I've basically buried I-15 and the railroad tracks from 600 N. to 200 S., added a new baseball stadium and opened up 25 blocks of the city to re-develop and connect the east and west sides of the city.
It would likely cost billions and billions of dollars and even though it would be pretty cool, I doubt anything like this would ever be built.

For reference, this is what the area currently looks like, with the affected area outlined in green:

     
     
  #8458  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 7:42 PM
Urban_logic's Avatar
Urban_logic Urban_logic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 360
Oooo! I do like that idea! I don't know how feasible it is, but it looks like a great idea that could materialize if enough people got behind it and we had the money for it. I-90 does the same kind of thing in Seattle (goes underground with nieghborhoods and parks built on top).
     
     
  #8459  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 8:41 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,129
error of judgment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban_logic View Post
I agree that we can stop discussion on this matter, I just wanted to make a closing note and will not post anymore regarding the issue. Competeing urban centers are the norm for any urban area and I support it. It drives the main urban center to become more unique and creative to maintain its status as the main regional focal point while the other urban cores that spring up help to strengthen the region as a whole. This is what happened in the Bay Area, the LA Area, the NYC Area, the Dallas-Ft Worth Area, the Minneapolis Area ("Twin Cities"). One thing to note is how close many urban centers are to each other. St Paul and Minneapolis are right across the river from each other. San Francisco and Oakland are less than half the distance from each other than Sandy and SLC are (7 miles vs 15 miles).

Oakland:



San Francisco:



This extremely close proximity hasn't hampered growth nor required San Francisco to monopolize on projects - both have sports areanas (even their own football teams), both have international airports, concert centers, etc. Granted, their combined populations are around 3 times the size of Sandy and SLC's combined population. What I am trying to point out is how two urban cores have been able to thrive so close to each other. They each have their own draws and San Francisco has aggresively fought to maintain the regional status quo.

The Dallas-Ft Worth Area is probably more comparable to SLC-Sandy.

Ft Worth:



Dallas:



The "Twin Cities"

St. Paul:



Minneapolis:



As the SL Valley populations grows, down town SLC will not be able to accomidate all regional cultural/tower projects. Other regions, like the ones above, are still known for their main city center, but also by their smaller sister city. Many people actually say "Dallas-Ft Worth" when refering to the region, though if one were to just say "Dallas", it would have the same recognition. I can see a day when people refer to the SL Valley as the Salt Lake-Sandy Area and the two urban centers still thrive.



The key word in your argument is 'as the sl valley continues to grow'

But, right now, there are two errors in your argument above:

1) Salt Lake metro is not nearly even close to being as big as these metropolitans! SL metro is maybe 1/3 or less than the populations of these cities.

2) Those small twin cities are relatively smaller than their larger twin city. 2 40 story towers in Sandy will dwarf anything that SL downtown currently has! The absurdity of the 40 story proposal is its scale! It smells of pompous arrogance! In order for Sandy to truly develop a cohesive urban core, it needs to fill the blocks within an urban planned grid! They are going about it the wrong way! Chop those towers by 30 stories and now we're talking!
     
     
  #8460  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2009, 9:31 PM
NYC Rick NYC Rick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 387
What is this a duel over who has the biggest...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
The key word in your argument is 'as the sl valley continues to grow'

But, right now, there are two errors in your argument above:

1) Salt Lake metro is not nearly even close to being as big as these metropolitans! SL metro is maybe 1/3 or less than the populations of these cities.

2) Those small twin cities are relatively smaller than their larger twin city. 2 40 story towers in Sandy will dwarf anything that SL downtown currently has! The absurdity of the 40 story proposal is its scale! It smells of pompous arrogance! In order for Sandy to truly develop a cohesive urban core, it needs to fill the blocks within an urban planned grid! They are going about it the wrong way! Chop those towers by 30 stories and now we're talking!
It is all relative to where people want to place their investment.

Why should anyone care if Sandy wants and will build Two 40 story buildings.
Name one metro area that does not have diversified high rise construction than is not necessarily in the core.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:38 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.