Quote:
Originally Posted by Justnslcsugarhood.
ah, sorry. I feel that Holladay or some city closer to downtown could use half of Sandy's buildings.
but since that's not the case and Sandy has a lot of development in it already I think they should stick to nothing taller then 200 feet and get at least eight buildings of that height in a centralized area before they begin to act like what Oakland is to SF.
|
Salt Lake City is THE city. It is nationally and internationally recognized. I would not worry about Sandy. It is what it is and if it draws the kind of business that can create a viable skyline then what are you going to do? Nothing. As far as acting like Oakland to San Francisco...you really can't be serious. There is nothing to worry about.
SLC has passed a few obstacles in how it is relatively viewed. Many people look to the World Almanac, which definitely publishes the most up to date urban specifications from the Census bureau. It used to see SLC as 189,000 people and people judged it as that. The true value of a consolidated statistical area was not the understood aspect. Not anymore...people see SLC as an aggregate populace area that is large and growing fast. Unless you live there, Sandy etc are not even considered.
The viability of SLC revamping its urban core downtown is HUGE. It is a core with history...deep history and finally the city itself sees the true need of its success.
I know that NYC is not a fair comparison but no matter what area you look at outside of the 5 borough area there are MANY high rise structures from Westchester county (White Plains north of the City) to the many cities in New Jersey i.e. Newark, , Jersey City and on and well out into Long Island.
The reason that I say this is because they may not be in NYC but their viability to have the buildings is needed. I think the same thing is true in any urban area.
I cannot see how you would want to but a height limit on Sandy. It is part of the urban experience that we see today. They are far from an SLC threat.
SLC never incorporated their outlying suburbs as many other cities did 10-30 years ago.
You brought up Oakland to SF as an example but it is basically the same as NYC to its neighbors or Seattle to its outlying areas. The DT core is full or almost full.
Oakland has its buildings because they have their own business and since they are a bridge away from SF, they can maintain a close business core that still has viable DT space.
I would not worry about Sandy...SLC is the straw that stirs the drink...the DT will evolve into an exciting place to be and the ability to understand the elements and value for this central core is no longer a sideline but a dedicated goal.
Prev
Linear Mode
