Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[delts145]

I agree that SLC will not only support a larger downtown theatre, specific to major broadway touring productions, but will support it with great enthusiasm. There's always going to be the naysayer crowd. They were around saying the old Salt Palace would be a white elephant or TRAX would be empty.

[cololi]

Regarding the theater, I suppose it comes down to what would you rather pay for: a downtown street car, public safety facility, geothermal power plant, or a broadway style theater. I like all 4, but the funding is all going to come from the same place and there aint enough to do them all. The theater is number 3 or 4 on my list. I don't want to get into an argument of the pros/cons of the theater because I agree with all of the arguments for it. I just think at least two of the others are more important.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by delts145

Ooops, I changed my wording a little. Oh well... no matter.

Do you mean that if future Boise were to have a metro population of four million, that it's future downtown would be no more built up than the present Phoenix downtown?

Edit: I just can't see Boise moving forward with it's downtown in the same way that a Phoenix or L.A. developed in the 60's and 70's. Sure Boise will sprawl, but I think it's downtown will be much larger/denser in ratio to it's sprawl than say Phoenix is today.

Hopefully, Boiseguy will chime in soon.

Ok, I'll chime in...
I think it is totally possible for boise to sprawl like phoenix, as any city has the possibility of doing so. In most cases though, boise is learning from Salt lake, not pheonix.. because like salt lake, our downtown is on the far edge of the metro area. Our metro runs east-west while salt lake's runs north south.
Much emphasis is being put into downtown so that boise doesn't follow suit with salt lake in the 1960's-1980's. Boise has a much better skyline and density than salt lake did when it was 600K. There's many factors that come into play.. government zoning laws, geography of the land etc. Boise has invested in great parks, and civic attractions downtown. Also, the University is downtown. Our state legislature is a bunch of tight wads when it comes to urban investment, and I'm hoping that it works out for boise in the long run to create density. Unlike Salt Lake and Phoenix, boise has ONE major freeway, and a connector freeway that dumps traffic downtown. I do not see officials willing to build a big freeway network system in our valley, So as the city grows, I am hoping that it takes on the same growth path as Vancouver BC. Honestly though.. I could see it going both ways.. some people are advocating a bypass freeway, and a north/south freeway.. while others are pushing for commuter rail, light rail, and street cars.
Time will tell, but I think you are right in that boise will take on a northwest vibe to it's growth...Because boise already has a nasty traffic problem... a problem that shouldnt exist in a city this size.. And I'm not talking freeway traffic, but surface street traffic can be a total nightmare on some days.

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

Ok, I'll chime in...
I think it is totally possible for boise to sprawl like phoenix, as any city has the possibility of doing so. In most cases though, boise is learning from Salt lake, not pheonix.. because like salt lake, our downtown is on the far edge of the metro area. Our metro runs east-west while salt lake's runs north south.
Much emphasis is being put into downtown so that boise doesn't follow suit with salt lake in the 1960's-1980's. Boise has a much better skyline and density than salt lake did when it was 600K. There's many factors that come into play.. government zoning laws, geography of the land etc. Boise has invested in great parks, and civic attractions downtown. Also, the University is downtown. Our state legislature is a bunch of tight wads when it comes to urban investment, and I'm hoping that it works out for boise in the long run to create density. Unlike Salt Lake and Phoenix, boise has ONE major freeway, and a connector freeway that dumps traffic downtown. I do not see officials willing to build a big freeway network system in our valley, So as the city grows, I am hoping that it takes on the same growth path as Vancouver BC. Honestly though.. I could see it going both ways.. some people are advocating a bypass freeway, and a north/south freeway.. while others are pushing for commuter rail, light rail, and street cars.
Time will tell, but I think you are right in that boise will take on a northwest vibe to it's growth...Because boise already has a nasty traffic problem... a problem that shouldnt exist in a city this size.. And I'm not talking freeway traffic, but surface street traffic can be a total nightmare on some days.

I think that the west and its urban areas in general...have lived without significant downtown core regions. San Francisco and Seattle plus Vancouver have taken the Eastern way. Confined areas dictated high rise necessity.

Vegas has taken the plastic fantastic hotel route. Unattractive but with significant height. It pays of because it you are not in that strip core then what is the point of going there.

SLC, Phoenix, Portland (to a lesser extent) are still victims of far reaching available land. In SLC, you look at the downtown photos from the early 1900's to 1930 and you have a feeling that the urban core really meant something. I mean the late 60's and 70's were with real disregard of the urban core idea.

For the population of the areas around SLC and Phoenix the skylines are totally with out real meaning...HOWEVER they are heading there.

Salt Lake City has not been 600,000 people for a very long time. You may be right that Boise has a much more developed skyline but I am not totally sold on that either. The urban core is destined in every western city to reach for the sky to create the zenith point that every other aspect revolves around.

I do not think that the western populous ever really cared until now.

It just makes sense now. No one wants to see a belt of over 2 million (Ogden to Provo) without having an anchor point...especially when that 2 million will be 3 million in the blink of an eye.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by East2Westback

I think that the west and its urban areas in general...have lived without significant downtown core regions. San Francisco and Seattle plus Vancouver have taken the Eastern way. Confined areas dictated high rise necessity.

Vegas has taken the plastic fantastic hotel route. Unattractive but with significant height. It pays of because it you are not in that strip core then what is the point of going there.

SLC, Phoenix, Portland (to a lesser extent) are still victims of far reaching available land. In SLC, you look at the downtown photos from the early 1900's to 1930 and you have a feeling that the urban core really meant something. I mean the late 60's and 70's were with real disregard of the urban core idea.

For the population of the areas around SLC and Phoenix the skylines are totally with out real meaning...HOWEVER they are heading there.

Salt Lake City has not been 600,000 people for a very long time. You may be right that Boise has a much more developed skyline but I am not totally sold on that either. The urban core is destined in every western city to reach for the sky to create the zenith point that every other aspect revolves around.

I do not think that the western populous ever really cared until now.

It just makes sense now. No one wants to see a belt of over 2 million (Ogden to Provo) without having an anchor point...especially when that 2 million will be 3 million in the blink of an eye.

You're absolutely right.. Growth patterns are subjected to the era in which they happened. Comparing Salt lake's 1960 population to boise's 2009 population is irrelevent, because of the change in focus regarding growth. With that said, it is also why many smaller cities like boise have provided dense urban vitality that outperforms many cities larger than it.
West Coast cities have not necessarily taken on an east coast focus.. I think it has a lot to do with origional industries and proximity to the ocean. Seattle has an awful lot of sprawl and an awful lot of land available getting gobbled up that flies under the radar because of its large skyline...
It comes down to mobility... if jumping in your car and being able to get 20-50 miles down the road to work with ease and comfort is an option..people will do it and the result is sprawl.
Vancouver is MUCH more dense than seattle, and the only factor that has contributed to it is the lack of freeways... and earlier investment in public transportation corridors.
I do not see Boise getting the money or backing to build a freeway system like Salt lake, portland, denver, So I see growth patterns in this city being very different from the norm.. not because there's great planners and minds at work here in boise(because trust me there aren't)... but more about timing.. and being the right size.. at the right time.. to implement new strategies other larger cities are using AFTER becoming large urban centers.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

Ok, I'll chime in...
I think it is totally possible for boise to sprawl like phoenix, as any city has the possibility of doing so. In most cases though, boise is learning from Salt lake, not pheonix.. because like salt lake, our downtown is on the far edge of the metro area. Our metro runs east-west while salt lake's runs north south.
Much emphasis is being put into downtown so that boise doesn't follow suit with salt lake in the 1960's-1980's. Boise has a much better skyline and density than salt lake did when it was 600K.

I'd disagree with this.

When Salt Lake's metro was running at about 600,000, its skyline was far bigger than Boise's.

This is Salt Lake City in the 1980s, when Salt Lake County had a population just over 600,000 and the metro was even bigger than that.



This in the mid-80s, prior to Eagle Gate:



Even today, Boise's skyline can't compare to where Salt Lake was in the 1970s & 80s. I'd say their current skyline is far more similar to where Salt Lake was in the 60s:

As for density? Hard to say. Salt Lake was gutted in the 60s and 70s, but prior to that, when the metro was much smaller than Boise currently is (in the 50s), I think our density trumped yours.

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

I'd disagree with this.

When Salt Lake's metro was running at about 600,000, its skyline was far bigger than Boise's.

This is Salt Lake City in the 1980s, when Salt Lake County had a population just over 600,000 and the metro was even bigger than that.



This in the mid-80s, prior to Eagle Gate:



Even today, Boise's skyline can't compare to where Salt Lake was in the 1970s & 80s. I'd say their current skyline is far more similar to where Salt Lake was in the 60s:

As for density? Hard to say. Salt Lake was gutted in the 60s and 70s, but prior to that, when the metro was much smaller than Boise currently is (in the 50s), I think our density trumped yours.

actually your photo from the mid 80's is pretty similar to boise now.. minus the church office building...and temple square...
There are many office buildings in boise that are midrise that are not seen in photo's because of the dense trees...while salt lake is very concrete and paved over making comparison a bit misleading...
Also, the buildings in Salt lake durring the 80's were spread out.. while boise's is more compact and dense...
I'm not going to sit here and compare penis's with anyone.... I'm just chiming in with growth patterns regarding many cities in the mountain west region.
Even now, boise city proper is more populated than Salt lake.. and more dense.. I say that... only to further point out the difference in managing growth between different cities.. When Salt lake was 600K.. and being gutted in the 70's.. boise was tiny and not even 100K.. there was nothing here to gut..lol...

[WASDEN]

Personally I think freeways are a scourge- facilitating sprawl and perpetuating poor zoning/land use. I would be fine with the Greater Salt Lake area never building another freeway again, but plans are in the works for the "Mountainview" corridor (which I think will be a misnomer with all the smog from this sort of automotive dependent excuse for transportation planning). It will be interesting to see how Boise develops in the future without heavy investments in freeways like Boiseguy suggests.


Sweet aerials Comrade

[Boiseguy]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

Personally I think freeways are a scourge- facilitating sprawl and perpetuating poor zoning/land use. I would be fine with the Greater Salt Lake area never building another freeway again, but plans are in the works for the "Mountainview" corridor (which I think will be a misnomer with all the smog from this sort of automotive dependent excuse for transportation planning). It will be interesting to see how Boise develops in the future without heavy investments in freeways like Boiseguy suggests.


Sweet aerials Comrade

I agree, glad that you followed my point, rather than getting hung up on silly comparison banter...
I think freeways are the demise of an urban core...simply because they are designed to facilitate large volumes of CARS.. from surburban locations...and in many cases are designed as a bypass....and present convienient "exits" to specific areas you want to go.
Luckily the Salt Lake valley is narrow and there is only so much land, but with every freeway that gets built.. it takes that much more of a population base to sustain urban developement and planning...People don't want to consider urban design until its the last option and every freeway is jam packed with cars... Freeways prolong the inevitable..and in the process facilitate new urban centers to rival the city center...once quiet bedroom communities, they are then able to draw upon the entire metro population because there is a wonderful freeway system to facilitate it.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Boiseguy

actually your photo from the mid 80's is pretty similar to boise now.. minus the church office building...and temple square...
There are many office buildings in boise that are midrise that are not seen in photo's because of the dense trees...while salt lake is very concrete and paved over making comparison a bit misleading...
Also, the buildings in Salt lake durring the 80's were spread out.. while boise's is more compact and dense...
I'm not going to sit here and compare penis's with anyone.... I'm just chiming in with growth patterns regarding many cities in the mountain west region.
Even now, boise city proper is more populated than Salt lake.. and more dense.. I say that... only to further point out the difference in managing growth between different cities.. When Salt lake was 600K.. and being gutted in the 70's.. boise was tiny and not even 100K.. there was nothing here to gut..lol...

Not very similar at all, IMO.



Even if I don't count the LDS Church Office Building, there still isn't much comparison between the two.

When that first photo was taken (1986, probably), Salt Lake's tallest (not counting the COB), was the Key Bank Tower (old Beneficial Life Tower) at 335. That is taller than Boise's current tallest, which is 267 feet.

After that, SLC's second would have been the American Towers, both at 324 feet, taller than Boise's tallest.

Eagle Gate would be the fourth tallest, still taller than Boise's tallest (320 feet).

The fifth tallest (not counting the City-County Building & Capitol) would have been the old University Club Building (now 136 East South Temple), which is still taller than Boise's current tallest (274).

Their sixth tallest (Zions Bank Tower, the old Gateway East) is the exact height of Boise's current tallest.

Beyond that, there is an even bigger difference...

The Walker Center, which would be the seventh tallest, is 220 feet and taller than Boise's 2nd tallest.

The Hotel Monaco, at 214 feet, would be SLC's eight tallest, is still taller than Boise's 2nd tallest.

You have to hit Salt Lake's First Security Bank Building, built in 1919, to find a tower that Boise's 2nd tallest is taller than and that's by only 14 feet.

Now all these towers were built before that photo I showed was taken. Most were built pre-1980 (only the American Towers and Eagle Gate were built after 1980). There really is no comparison of the downtowns. Downtown Boise today might be more urban than downtown SLC was in the 80s, but not bigger.

But beyond that, I agree with some of what you're saying. Just don't want you short changing SLC here.

[Cottonwood]

Causing trouble Boiseguy

That aerial of Boise is outdated and missing such buildings as Banner Bank and the new BoDo buildings, the Aspen, etc.

Correct Comrade, there is really no comparisons between the two downtowns. What SLC has in terms of height and larger land area of downtown, Boise more than makes up for with a vibrant, eclectic pedestrian friendly smaller downtown with historic neighborhoods and parks fringing downtown. Downtown Boise almost feels larger than it is when you are hanging out downtown because of the street level activity and shops, sidewalk cafes, and wine and beer being served at those sidewalk cafes.

[Boiseguy]

comrad, forgive me if you thought I was short changing salt lake.. and cottonwood you are right in that that pic is very old.
That is why in my post I refered to boise not having anything really to gut in the 70's. Salt lake is much older and has many more historic buildings...
I guess in my posts I'm speaking more of vibrancy and density.. rather than height. I should not have even used the word "skyline" because it implies height being of importance.. rather than density...

[cololi]

I think the one thing about downtown SLC is that occupies so much physical space. It is defined very loosely, which contributes to the spread out feeling. If we could somehow take all of our building over 6 stories and place them between S Temple and 600 South and 200 W and 200 E, we could have a rather thriving area, despite our large impediments to a lively environment.

This is where the Gateway project really was a negative. While it definetely has some positives, the negative is that it really spread out downtown. I am glad it is there, but now we really need to focus on filling in all the gaps in our downtown. Not necessarily with 20+ story buildings, but having a dozen or so additional 6-7 story residential buildings in the area described in my first paragraph would do wonders.

[urbanboy]

Look at the amount of density around this intersection. The Hotel Newhouse really completed that intersection.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Cottonwood

Causing trouble Boiseguy

That aerial of Boise is outdated and missing such buildings as Banner Bank and the new BoDo buildings, the Aspen, etc.

Correct Comrade, there is really no comparisons between the two downtowns. What SLC has in terms of height and larger land area of downtown, Boise more than makes up for with a vibrant, eclectic pedestrian friendly smaller downtown with historic neighborhoods and parks fringing downtown. Downtown Boise almost feels larger than it is when you are hanging out downtown because of the street level activity and shops, sidewalk cafes, and wine and beer being served at those sidewalk cafes.

That's fine, I was just quoting when he said the skyline of Boise today was larger than Salt Lake's back then. It wasn't. There is no debate there. Downtown Salt Lake in the 70s and 80s, which was similar to Boise's population today, was much bigger than Boise currently.

Is downtown Boise more vibrant than SLC right now? It's very possible.

But as a whole, I think Salt Lake is a more urban city and the downtown looks to be similar in terms of urban development, except for the fact Boise's streets are far more narrow than Salt Lake's, which I believe is a huge advantage for you guys.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by cololi

I think the one thing about downtown SLC is that occupies so much physical space. It is defined very loosely, which contributes to the spread out feeling. If we could somehow take all of our building over 6 stories and place them between S Temple and 600 South and 200 W and 200 E, we could have a rather thriving area, despite our large impediments to a lively environment.

This is where the Gateway project really was a negative. While it definetely has some positives, the negative is that it really spread out downtown. I am glad it is there, but now we really need to focus on filling in all the gaps in our downtown. Not necessarily with 20+ story buildings, but having a dozen or so additional 6-7 story residential buildings in the area described in my first paragraph would do wonders.

Ditto to that Cololi, I even include Trolley Square when I think of downtown Salt Lake. While I'm anxious for the future announcement of 600 footers, I am equally anxious to see the continued infill between Main and 600 West.

[Comrade]

Zoning throughout the 70s and 80s was a mess.

There really was no rhyme or reason, unfortunately, and it did create a very spread out downtown. I mean, you had the main cluster of commercial towers on Main & State, but outside of that, it was a whole mix of nothing. A two story apartment complex next to a one-story car wash.

Blah.

I do think some ideas could have worked well had they been more developed. The hotel district, which is south-west of downtown, was a good idea that never really developed beyond the cheap hotels that were built in the 70s and 80s. Now I don't know if anything can be made from that, but we'll see down the road.

[Justnslcsugarhood.]

Is it just me or did salt lake seem to get less dense over time for a while there?

[Boiseguy]

I think a lot of salt lake's problem with density is due to the large city blocks which someone mentioned before. Developements need street access, and when looking at it all from above.. everything looks miles apart than it does in many other cities.. The large blocks also are not pedestrian friendly.. which makes for one or two (main street being one) where all the action is. One city block in salt lake city is equal to almost 4 city blocks in Portland or boise..
Salt Lake probably has one of the largest downtown's in the country in terms of land area....

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by Justnslcsugarhood.

Is it just me or did salt lake seem to get less dense over time for a while there?

Probably looks that way cuz a lot of small business were dozed for parking lots. Plus a lot of multiple smaller structures were replaced with a single mammoth structure.

ie: See all the structures on the block Southwest of the City/County building? The entire block is now occupied by The Grand America and the lone survivor The Flower Patch. And lets not forget the 10 acre parking lot on the block where the old Hotel Newhouse stood.