Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[Future Mayor]

It isn't only the SLC metro that this is occurring, it is happening in nearly every metro in the nation. I am however not defending it by any means. One issue is that, while yes there is a lot of sq footage out there, the need has come in waves and as that demand has occurred the need has been met. It is more affordable to build a 3-12 story office building and fill that space as opposed to building a 20+ story office building in downtown. Pre-leasing #'s have to be greater and the cost of land is greater. I agree that something needs to be done to attempt to curb it, however I think it will naturally take it's course. As transit increases in the metro, all leading to DT, and as housing continues to increase DT, there will be a greater desire and need for businesses to locate in the DT area, and that will increase the need for more office space. Businesses like to locate near their potential work base or as near to as possible. As transit increases and downtown residential numbers increase the amount of workers that can access downtown will increase. I honestly expect another 20+ story tower announcement in SLC within the next 2 years.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Have you guys seen the office park down by the Jordan River on about 106th south? There are some big 7-8 story new office buildings out there that have been built within the last 5 years.

I have since my wife works in one of those buildings. But none of them are as tall as 7-8 stories. The two newest ones are 6-stories while the others are 4-5 stories. There's about eight buildings over all. But I do see your point.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

It isn't only the SLC metro that this is occurring, it is happening in nearly every metro in the nation. I am however not defending it by any means. One issue is that, while yes there is a lot of sq footage out there, the need has come in waves and as that demand has occurred the need has been met. It is more affordable to build a 3-12 story office building and fill that space as opposed to building a 20+ story office building in downtown. Pre-leasing #'s have to be greater and the cost of land is greater. I agree that something needs to be done to attempt to curb it, however I think it will naturally take it's course. As transit increases in the metro, all leading to DT, and as housing continues to increase DT, there will be a greater desire and need for businesses to locate in the DT area, and that will increase the need for more office space. Businesses like to locate near their potential work base or as near to as possible. As transit increases and downtown residential numbers increase the amount of workers that can access downtown will increase. I honestly expect another 20+ story tower announcement in SLC within the next 2 years.

I think you are very accurate in your analysis. I am always interested in questions and issues that have to do with public policy. I understand Orlando's frustration with some of the development that happens in suburbs. At the same time I think that in order to "fix" some of these problems we would have to enact some policies that I think would be very bureaucratic and restrictive. As Future Mayor said, these office complexes are springing up because of much cheaper land prices and a desire to take the office closer to the employees and the executives.

I am a fan of changing this trend through making downtown a more appealing place to build, rather than for punitive actions against the suburbs to make them less appealing. There may be some areas that need to be changed in zoning, impact fees, and taxes to level the playing field, but anything beyond minor changes would be difficult because most voters and money exists in the suburbs. These developments aren't all bad, as Orlando noted, because they do accomplish purposes such as cutting emissions from cars and congestion. These cities already exist and it is better for them to have centers that allow for office, residential and commercial.

I would like to see (much is already being done) Salt Lake City and environs do more to be appealing as possible to developers.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by WeST

I think you are very accurate in your analysis. I am always interested in questions and issues that have to do with public policy. I understand Orlando's frustration with some of the development that happens in suburbs. At the same time I think that in order to "fix" some of these problems we would have to enact some policies that I think would be very bureaucratic and restrictive. As Future Mayor said, these office complexes are springing up because of much cheaper land prices and a desire to take the office closer to the employees and the executives.

I am a fan of changing this trend through making downtown a more appealing place to build, rather than for punitive actions against the suburbs to make them less appealing. There may be some areas that need to be changed in zoning, impact fees, and taxes to level the playing field, but anything beyond minor changes would be difficult because most voters and money exists in the suburbs. These developments aren't all bad, as Orlando noted, because they do accomplish purposes such as cutting emissions from cars and congestion. These cities already exist and it is better for them to have centers that allow for office, residential and commercial.

I would like to see (much is already being done) Salt Lake City and environs do more to be appealing as possible to developers.

I generally agree with what you and the Mayor are saying. I do think there is one, rather large omission from most suburban developments that seems to be repeated time and time again and that is conections. You generally have thousands of feet between intersections of local streets and arterials and neighborhoods seem to cul-de-sac at busy roads. There are rarely connections between commercial areas and residential uses. Commercial developments are rarely connected to one another with pedestrain ways. There are such simple solutions to this that it drives me nuts to see it repeated time and time again. Hell, even urban cores do this on a continual basis.

Inner cities need to continue to reinvent themselves in order to attract people to want to work, live, play, shop, etc. in downtowns.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by delts145

Holladay, Cottonwood Heights battle over office building


The tall building is a rendering added to the photo, looking southwest, to show how the Old Mill development could look with the building. Holladay is opposing a Cottonwood Heights ordinance change that would allow the 12-story building. Vcbo Architecture



.

Here is the view that they conveniently did not include! the one that blocks the view of the mountain!



Now imagine the 12 story building there. It blocks that view almost entirely. It is a poor placement and design. Look at the other building adjacent to it on the north. It steps down with the topography. It works with the site.

Here is are some additional photos showing how this office park has successfully blocked mountain views.

[TANGELD_SLC]

I don't see what the problem is.

So what if you can't see all of the mountains from the freeway.
You should be more focused on your driving than the scenery, IMO. Maybe that's why Utah drivers suck so bad sometimes

[John Martin]

That lower picture is not a view in which the tower would even be seen. It really will obstruct a huge view of Mt. Olympus from the freeway, a view which is rarely seen. I encourage you to drive north on I215 so you can see the view, in my opinion the jagged red rock of Mt. Olympus from side-on is one of the most gorgeous views of any mountain in the valley. Putting a building there just seems like a waste. I don't really think it would make a difference if it were 12 stories or 20 stories, you'll still be able to see it from practically every where (for what it's worth, there are at least two 25,000 sf houses within less than a mile of the proposed site, just to give you an idea of the neighborhood staring at it). What I'm still dumbfounded by is just the location where they actually want to put it. I didn't believe it when it was first proposed, and I drove through Old Mill on Friday just to get a better idea of how much space there actually was there. There isn't any. They just built a huge parking garage and there's a sliver between it and the freeway where they're intending to put the building. It seems to me like if it's anything close to the size of the other buildings, it'll be a very tight squeeze and will be literally right up next to the freeway. I don't see why you'd want an office there and I certainly don't see how it won't be a mammoth of an obstruction.

I don't see traffic as a huge concern, I'm just not one of those people who thinks a street full of cars is the result of evil planning. That's just where the exit is, there would be traffic regardless of whether the complexes were there or not. That's probably the main way to get to both Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon. If anything, the supposed army of new commuters would only increase demand for things like a trolley/trax line which could directly make the cottonwood project a reality. But I still don't really believe the tower alone would make that much of a difference. What does concern me is why they're doing this (Steve said in order for it to meet LEED certification it had to be that tall), there's still lots of vacancy at Millrock and Old Mill.

[ski_steve]

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

I don't see what the problem is.

So what if you can't see all of the mountains from the freeway.
You should be more focused on your driving than the scenery, IMO. Maybe that's why Utah drivers suck so bad sometimes

I dont get it either... Its just part of the freeway, maybe it will make drivers want to get off and get closer?

Besides its hard to see the mountains from say the Salt Palace, but we aren't complaining about that are we? We all want a 40 story tower there. I dont see the difference.

I would be cooler instead of there buildings there was a taller one downtown, but they are fine there anyway.

[wrendog]

Not seeing the mountains for 2.7 seconds while driving by on the freeway is really not disconcerting. You can see the mountains from all over the valley. No big deal.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Not seeing the mountains for 2.7 seconds while driving by on the freeway is really not disconcerting. You can see the mountains from all over the valley. No big deal.

Took the words out of my mouth. There's still tons of great views all over the valley.

[Orlando]

Believe me guys on this one. Go take a drive around knudsen's corner, and you will be able to see how dramatic the view is of lone peak, and you will also be able to sense how 'in your face' this proposed building will be. That is the worst possible location to place a 12 story tower. It wouldn't be so bad if it was placed back away from the freeway. Maybe the picture doesn't show you how dramatic the view is of the mountains there. I believe view corridors help make this place beautiful. If we were to close the view corridors to the state capitol, the city & county building, or the Salt Lake Temple, this city would be not as attractive.

[Future Mayor]

So let me get this straight, many of us say we should use land more responsibly and not have a 4-5 story building surrounded by a sea of grass and parking lots. But now that this building is proposed to fit into a remaining sliver of land in the Old Mill area, some of us are complaining.

No I don't love the idea, and mostly because of traffic concerns, for those that haven't driven down there during commute times, you have no idea what it's like. It is a mess and adding 12 more floors of office workers to that space will create a substantial amount of traffic. However there might be an opportunity to get better bus service. I don't see street car or light rail ever coming to that area (IMO).

They are maximizing the available land and create a critical mass for more bus routes (which does already serve the area), and possible more housing and restaurants. It's a similar dilemma to that of Sandy, many of us don't want Sandy to grow "up" yet we don't want to see new 3-4 story office buildings continue to rise in random locations. The biggest issue in my opinion is access, in this case it's even worse than access to "downtown" Sandy, there is simply one way in and out of the entire complex in which this building is located, and only one way in and out of the area to the south, with Blue Cross and Mrs. Fields. Traffic and access are major issues, other than that I don't have a problem with it.

[cololi]

Exactly. I sound like a broken record, but give me a C give me an O give me an N ,whatever, connections.

[John Martin]

I took a few pictures of the proposed Old Mill IV location today. This is the view looking south from about a mile away, the skyscraper will be right in front of the copper-roofed structure.

View directly from the other side of the freeway, about 6 stories would be visible from this particular spot:

View of Old Mill II from the south, the proposed tower would be directly behind this one (from this view) and twice as tall:

Newly completed parking structure and view of Mt. Olympus from the other side:

Tower would be directly in between these two buildings, where the pile of dirt and machinery are:

View from Wasatch Blvd. (just south of all the houses there) looking west:

^Notice the hospital, that's how big this building will look from there.
The only thing that bothers me about the tower is still just it's sheer size. It's not like having a completely obstructed view from that small portion of I215 is a big deal at all, it's just unfortunate because as you drive east on that freeway, the mountains slowly get bigger and bigger and closer and closer until it seems like you're practically gonna run into them when the freeway turns sharply north and the end view is completely ruined by a bunch of buildings. Just seems dumb, nothing more. That's not to mention the views that will be poked at for all the people who live to the east.

[shakman]

I find the mountains quite beautiful to see, but remember that you are in a vary large metropolitan area which is land locked by the surrounding terrain. There will be these types of developments that will exist. From the angles provided, the view may just briefly be blocked as one cruises along on I-215. Besides, by comparing it to the surrounding structures, it may not block the view by much.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but would it not be difficult to see the mountains from areas of Downtown? If so, then why are there no complaints?

[Future Mayor]

I was standing on Main Street and about 270 S last week and I looked east and couldn't see the mountains. Instead there was this big tall Wells Fargo building blocking my view, how dare it.

When I walked a few more feet down the street to 300 S and looked east again, I was relieved to know that the mountains were still there. whew

[cololi]

Views of natural features are a very big urban design consideration. The more you block them, the worse your urban design can become. I think along major corridors, including interstates, maintaining views of impressive natural features when they line up right should be a high priority. You can frame the view corridor with buildings, but blocking it often not very good. If you are going to block a view, the building needs to be as interesting or more interesting than the view you are blocking. The perfect example is the capitol at the top of State. Far more interesting and visually pleasing than the mountains behind it. Looking north on State is perhaps the greatest urban design achievement in the valley.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by cololi

Views of natural features are a very big urban design consideration. The more you block them, the worse your urban design can become. I think along major corridors, including interstates, maintaining views of impressive natural features when they line up right should be a high priority. You can frame the view corridor with buildings, but blocking it often not very good. If you are going to block a view, the building needs to be as interesting or more interesting than the view you are blocking. The perfect example is the capitol at the top of State. Far more interesting and visually pleasing than the mountains behind it. Looking north on State is perhaps the greatest urban design achievement in the valley.

Perhaps then there will be race to build taller buildings in order to out do one's neighbors to get "a view".

I do not see your connection between natural beauty and a worsening urban fabric. I am curious to know how you have established that connection.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by shakman

Perhaps then there will be race to build taller buildings in order to out do one's neighbors to get "a view".

I do not see your connection between natural beauty and a worsening urban fabric. I am curious to know how you have established that connection.

The race to build taller and taller places the private value of a view ahead of the public value. In this regard, by doing so, you are destroying the fabric of a community. Whether it is urban, suburban, exurban or rural is unimportant, all places have a public fabric, for better or for worse.

Urban design creates the urban fabric. The best urban design creates a sense of place and creates an identity for a place. It consists of both private and public buildings, spaces, streets, etc. Having the built environment respect the natural environment and producing a product that can celebrate the natural setting is one of the highest goals of urban design. By blocking out what creates your identity you are starting to diminish the urban design (or suburban, exurban or rural design, depending on where you are) and therefore, as you call it, the urban fabric.

A good example that is very relative to the idea of placing structures that blocks the view of the natural setting is St. George, where you have homes chiseled into the sides of rock cliffs. The natural setting of St. George is what sets it apart from other places. By reducing the impact of that setting, they are diminishing their sense of place because with each building that does that, they chip away at their natural setting. The flip side, (I can't recall the the name of the area) is the area a bit west of St. George where they have very detailed design guidelines that essentially requires the homes to fit within their natural setting.

There isn't a perfect formula for creating good urban design and I am not saying that this 12 story building is atrocious or a death knell to the fabric of Knudsens Corner, but it should be designed to at the very least create as interesting of a view as what is being replaced.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by cololi

The race to build taller and taller places the private value of a view ahead of the public value. In this regard, by doing so, you are destroying the fabric of a community. Whether it is urban, suburban, exurban or rural is unimportant, all places have a public fabric, for better or for worse.

Urban design creates the urban fabric. The best urban design creates a sense of place and creates an identity for a place. It consists of both private and public buildings, spaces, streets, etc. Having the built environment respect the natural environment and producing a product that can celebrate the natural setting is one of the highest goals of urban design. By blocking out what creates your identity you are starting to diminish the urban design (or suburban, exurban or rural design, depending on where you are) and therefore, as you call it, the urban fabric.

A good example that is very relative to the idea of placing structures that blocks the view of the natural setting is St. George, where you have homes chiseled into the sides of rock cliffs. The natural setting of St. George is what sets it apart from other places. By reducing the impact of that setting, they are diminishing their sense of place because with each building that does that, they chip away at their natural setting. The flip side, (I can't recall the the name of the area) is the area a bit west of St. George where they have very detailed design guidelines that essentially requires the homes to fit within their natural setting.

There isn't a perfect formula for creating good urban design and I am not saying that this 12 story building is atrocious or a death knell to the fabric of Knudsens Corner, but it should be designed to at the very least create as interesting of a view as what is being replaced.

I am concerned about this mentality. I believe in zoning regulations primarily to protect other peoples private property from devaluation and also to hopefully create a more cohesive environment that can be more efficient, beautiful, and less expensive to sustain. What I don't care for is taking that to the next level and seeking to control almost every aspect of development in the name of preserving the "urban fabric". If we go down this route, we would justify turning down a developers vision or design based on squishy ideas about whether it adds or subtracts from the community. Further, this places vast powers in the hands of a few elected officials and/or elites to decide what is appropriate. If we turned down a builder because the council or zoning officials found the design to not be worth what view it is blocking, then we place a lot of faith and power in a few hands.