Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[cololi]

Originally Posted by WeST

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.

welcome to a democratic republic!

The key is you establish the criteria up front, so the developer knows what the regulations are and they then can design a building with those in mind. Most developers I deal with will work with the regulations, provided they are given to them up front and they have some sort of assurance that they won't change throughout.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by 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?

You could say could say your view is being obstructed from anywhere, standing in front of your house, in your car, in your bathroom. There are no complaints because A) downtown is in the valley, built on bedrock where all the tall buildings are and should be, and B) the only "mountains" downtown is anywhere close to are really foothills, which are covered with houses and shrub that make them look as spotty as a dalmation. The vast majority of the Salt Lake Metro (and certainly everything as urban as this) is nowhere near as close to a mountain as this complex is, these types of developments don't need to happen and they probably shouldn't. They should be in the valley, on less valuable land, not out-of-place on a residential bench where they're upsetting everyone. This complex always had strong opposition, 10 years ago people would've laughed if you said they were going to build skyscrapers in that area, that's why Holladay took all the measures it did to prevent it. It was considered too much back then and it's only getting worse now. I still think it's a shame that you can see big glass buildings from the south end of Holladay Blvd. People pay $600,000 an acre for land in what is supposed to be a quaint quiet neighborhood just so they can, what, look at skyscrapers in their backyard?

Originally Posted by 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

That's a great idea! Let's just build the wells fargo building in the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon! Brilliant! It would only momentarily block peoples' view so that definitely means we should do it.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by cololi

welcome to a democratic republic!

The key is you establish the criteria up front, so the developer knows what the regulations are and they then can design a building with those in mind. Most developers I deal with will work with the regulations, provided they are given to them up front and they have some sort of assurance that they won't change throughout.

You didn't address my main criticism, which is many of these standards are fuzzy at best and highly relative. I would rather give builders and property owners more latitude to make these decisions rather than having them made more and more by a central planning committee. I consider that to be more "organic", than having a small group design almost every aspect of what I see. Many on this forum regularly lament their belief that mega developments that are planned, are not organic enough, but more like Disneyland because a small group of developers create this whole new community. It is a tough balancing act. If the government controls every aspect of your or mine life, does it really matter at that point if I elected them?

[cololi]

Originally Posted by WeST

You didn't address my main criticism, which is many of these standards are fuzzy at best and highly relative. I would rather give builders and property owners more latitude to make these decisions rather than having them made more and more by a central planning committee. I consider that to be more "organic", than having a small group design almost every aspect of what I see. Many on this forum regularly lament their belief that mega developments that are planned, are not organic enough, but more like Disneyland because a small group of developers create this whole new community. It is a tough balancing act. If the government controls every aspect of your or mine life, does it really matter at that point if I elected them?

That is why you need good standards. Things like requiring an entrance with direct connections to the sidewalk, requiring a certain amount of glass on the ground floor, requiring articulation of walls, etc. I am not saying put some regulations in place that say things like a building should be aesthetically pleasing. just some basic stuff. Lay the foundation and let the development team pick materials, dimensions, etc. that fit into those regulations. It works all over the world and produces variation.

In terms of putting decisions in a few, that happens more and more when less and less people participate in govt. If people participate at the onset, and help create the vision and the regulations, then communities can have a broad based vision and they can develop regulations to achieve that vision. The problem is that business groups and development groups are far more likely to particpate upfront and throughout the entire process. Most people however only care when a project is close to them. This is the root cause of NIMBism, govt. intrusion, etc.

Those projects that implement a portion of the vision should be easy to build (i.e. no planning commission review) simply by obtaining a building permit. The flip side is those projects that don't fit the vision are much more difficult to build. There are two sides, the regulations and the process. Developers generally care more about the process than the regulations.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by John Martin

You could say could say your view is being obstructed from anywhere, standing in front of your house, in your car, in your bathroom. There are no complaints because A) downtown is in the valley, built on bedrock where all the tall buildings are and should be, and B) the only "mountains" downtown is anywhere close to are really foothills, which are covered with houses and shrub that make them look as spotty as a dalmation. The vast majority of the Salt Lake Metro (and certainly everything as urban as this) is nowhere near as close to a mountain as this complex is, these types of developments don't need to happen and they probably shouldn't. They should be in the valley, on less valuable land, not out-of-place on a residential bench where they're upsetting everyone. This complex always had strong opposition, 10 years ago people would've laughed if you said they were going to build skyscrapers in that area, that's why Holladay took all the measures it did to prevent it. It was considered too much back then and it's only getting worse now. I still think it's a shame that you can see big glass buildings from the south end of Holladay Blvd. People pay $600,000 an acre for land in what is supposed to be a quaint quiet neighborhood just so they can, what, look at skyscrapers in their backyard?

I wonder if Holliday would complain about this if they were to received any economic benefit from this project. I am not familiar with Holliday's political operations, however I read about, countless number of times, of jurisdictions pulling everything out of their pants to stop a project adjacent to their jurisdiction. However, when the property is annexed, it suddenly does not become an issue. I am not saying that this is Holliday's intentions. This is just a thought from previous readings relative to similar topics.

Now I do have to agree with you relative to people buying expensive property in order to have an uninterrupted view of beautiful scenery. Views do add to cost whether it be natural or human-created and future obstructions can also lower property value. My questions to you would be what is on the master plan for this area? Was this master plan adopted prior to the housing in the vicinity?

[SLC Projects]

I was driving around Sandy and Draper around lunch time today and took some pic of a few projects going on in around the area.


Frontrunner line/station in Sandy







WCF Building
The framing is just about finish to this 6-story building.




While driving up state street around 10600 South the new 6-story WCF building is really starting to stick out.



Draper Water Park



Kings Peak Plaza?
Right next to the water park I notice this billboard rendering of a 5-story building that looks to go right next to the 2-story hotel. Never heard of this project. Does anybody know anything about it?

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by shakman

Now I do have to agree with you relative to people buying expensive property in order to have an uninterrupted view of beautiful scenery. Views do add to cost whether it be natural or human-created and future obstructions can also lower property value. My questions to you would be what is on the master plan for this area? Was this master plan adopted prior to the housing in the vicinity?

There is no master plan, that's a big part of why this is so disconcerting to the people in Holladay because no one has any idea when it's going to stop. Frankly, most of us thought they were done a long time ago. They just keep slowly adding more and more and more. To answer your question, most of the houses in the area were there a long time before this entire complex was ever conceived. Holladay is technically the oldest continuously-inhabited settlement in Utah and still contains hundreds of its first trees (no trees are natural in the SL valley), there are also still a number of pastures which just add to it's historicity. One of the main (and perhaps the most important) reasons it became a city ten years ago was so the people who actually live here could deal with all the new developments threatening the rare type of neighborhood that it is. All of the developments near Knudsen's corner are new, no older than say ten years. Like I mentioned, 6 stories was considered outrageous back then, and they've just doubled it now. One wonders if more would have been done back then if we had known they were just going to be more than originally proposed. If 12 is all now, what will they do in another ten years?

[Future Mayor]

I see the concern and it was important for Holladay to incorporate to protect their interests. Many of the buildings existed prior to the Holladay incorporation and if Holladay wanted to control that area of commercial growth they should have included that into their incorporation plan.

The petitioners of incorporation for some reason chose not to include the cottonwood corporate center, thus (unfortunate as it may be) they really have not say in what develops in that area.

[SLCdave]

Thought you guys might find this website interesting.

http://www.utahsright.com/salaries.php

[shakman]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I see the concern and it was important for Holladay to incorporate to protect their interests. Many of the buildings existed prior to the Holladay incorporation and if Holladay wanted to control that area of commercial growth they should have included that into their incorporation plan.

The petitioners of incorporation for some reason chose not to include the cottonwood corporate center, thus (unfortunate as it may be) they really have not say in what develops in that area.

John Martin - Thank you for providing the history. I did not know that Holladay was that old. I had the perception that Holladay was just another sprawling suburb created, due to the existence of Salt Lake City. I greatly appreciate the information.

However back to my original stance, this area is in a major metropolitan area which did not conceive on the notion of creating a master plan based on what has been stated. These types of developments are going to happen to some extent. IMO, without a master plan, Holladay has lessened their legal basis towards the objection of this proposed development.

My remark to this matter is "lesson learned". In order to prevent further issues relative to this matter, I could only suggest that a master plan be created and implemented. Therefore there are legal grounds that the effected jurisdiction(s) can stand upon. Also, if not already in existence, there should be a State Charter requirement that dictates in some form the master plans of adjoining jurisdictions be shared. Especially for areas adjacent to one another.

This leads me to another question, is there a zoning ordinance for the property in question?

[T-Mac]

Love the updates Projects. Thanks for all the photos from the other areas of the valley. I don't get out that way very often so it is good to see construction going on all over the place.

[Urban_logic]

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.

This is happening in almost every metro in the U.S. If you drive around Denver's beltways, you will see far more suburban mid-rise oasis-type developments than Salt Lake. In fact, they have one that has more combined office space than down town SLC as a whole - and it's 10-15 miles out from down town Denver!

I think this is inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. Agreed, it should be limited. I think that places like down town Sandy, the Cottonwood Hights development, the Murray IHC complex and surrounding office complexes, Ft Union, Sugar House, West Valley near the airport, Daybreak, and Jordan Landing should have both height and acre limitations to keep them from sprawling too much as well as good connections. I don't have a problem with such developments if they are contained into a confined area with height limit requirements and easily accessible.

Seeing as only two of the afore mentioned developments are/will be walkable (Sugar House and Daybreak), I think that is something that could be better integrated into such developments, though not all. Areas like Jordan Landing and West Valley near the airport, and along I-15 are supposed to be auto-centric and are ok so far as growth limits are set. I encourage SLC to provide incentives (as I am sure they are already doing quite well) to bring businesses down town. As I have said on here before, the whole metro model is designed to accomidate all types of developments and building styles to attract the most businesses. Not all businesses can aford, or even need a down town-style tower. Some are attracted to an area adjacent to an airport, a freeway, and/or in a cheaper suburban location. This model makes the SLC area as a whole more competetive to other metros, which benefits all parties within the metro in the macro.

As to the view concerns with the Cottonwood Hieghts development, I recognize them as valid concerns, but don't think that the "view" should dictate how developments are planned and built. IMO, it is something that should be factored in and be on the "it-would-be-nice-if" list, but not the sole reason a development is able to develop or not. Traffic and accessability concerns are deffinately a much more important issue than obstructing the view. As Tangled put it, you shouldn't be admiring the view while you drive anyway. Sandy gets some heat on here for traffic problems, which I won't deny exsist, but with commuter rail on its way, light rail, two freeway exits, and four 4-6-lane surface streets (State, 7th E, 106th S, and 90th S), it has much more access than this Cottonwood Heights development has. I would have to agree that the Cottonwood Heights development as a whole was poorly planned and that building this tower will only aggrivate existing problems. I think it can get by as it is currently, but building this tower will really complicate things. I guess we'll see what happens

[cololi]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

As to the view concerns with the Cottonwood Hieghts development, I recognize them as valid concerns, but don't think that the "view" should dictate how developments are planned and built. IMO, it is something that should be factored in and be on the "it-would-be-nice-if" list, but not the sole reason a development is able to develop or not. Traffic and accessability concerns are deffinately a much more important issue than obstructing the view. As Tangled put it, you shouldn't be admiring the view while you drive anyway.

the view is simply one aspect. I would argue that it is much more important than you make it out to be. If you think about the great cities in the world, they tend to have certain things in common: ease of movement, great public spaces, uniqueness, etc. part of that is created by making things look interesting. That is the view. It doesn't have to be a view of natural features, but maybe it is great architecture, or great skylines, or great streetscapes, or great public spaces, or great street life or any combination of the above. The same principles that created those places can be applied, on a smaller scale, to suburban communities. I look at State St around 10600 and think what a wasted opportunity to create a grand boulevard, with through lanes and local lanes separated by a tree median. Oh well, at least we can move 50,000+ cars per hour through there. It still took me ten minutes to get from the new Nordstrom Rack to the Interstate (maybe a mile?)

Ignoring the "view" creates anywhere USA.

[T-Mac]

Doing my part to keep the economy going. Construction has begun on our new addition.

[SLC Projects]

"The T-Mac Project"

Ground has just broken on a expansion project (1-story plus basement) housing devemlopment.


Do you have any renderings? LOL

[i-215]

Here you go!

[T-Mac]

Looks good. There is already a home here in Bountiful that has palm trees all throughout the front yard. Maybe I'll do the same.

[i-215]

Are they real? How do they make a palm tree survive this climate?

[T-Mac]

They are real. I believe that they have heaters for them in the winter and they also wrap them up during the winter.

Winter


Summer

[Orlando]