Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[jmonkey]

One missed point of discussion about the Library Square proposal for the Public Safety building, is the fact that a successful park doesn't often just spring up over night. Unlike a building, which is very static, a park grows more organically. Plantings need time to mature. Public preferences and use patterns often take time to make themselves felt. You can see this with a park like Gallivan Plaza. In its ten years, it has become quite successful, but quite a few of the plaza's early elements didn't make it--like the aviary--and others are painfully inadequate. Gallivan Plaza also has the benefit of very good programming, something that Library Square lacks. I agree that Library Square could be redesigned to be more functional and attractive. I don't think that because it isn't working too well as park space right now, that we should just go ahead and build a building there instead.

I also agree with you, Projects, that the current police facility needs replacing. As far as cops go, Salt Lake has a fairly good department, and I think they should have a nice facility to operate out of. I voted for the first bond, and I'll vote for this one, unless they build on Library Square. I like the idea of putting it on the east side of 300 East, and would support bonding for a bit more to make it happen there.

I think it's great that this discussion is happening. People care about our city, and want to make it a better place to live, as well as protecting what makes it great in the first place.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by blazefirelight

I was thinking about the Alpine Slide. I love it! But idk if my little car can make the drive up to Park City. It probably can, I just haven't tried. haha.

And the itinerary is already a little full. They get in at noon on the 25th, and I can't do anything the 26th because it's my sister's birthday. Then I have to work the 27th. Sunday is probably going to be a trip to Lagoon. And Monday will be Salt Lake City day. Tuesday was going to be South Valley day, and they leave Wednesday.

But thanks for the suggestions, and I'll see if I can work them in somewhere.

ooops, so okay, now I'm reading this post LOL. Well,... on South Valley day you ought to at least take them up to Snowbird for a ride on the tram, and or Solitude for a short jaunt and stop-over.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by jmonkey

One missed point of discussion about the Library Square proposal for the Public Safety building, is the fact that a successful park doesn't often just spring up over night. Unlike a building, which is very static, a park grows more organically. Plantings need time to mature. Public preferences and use patterns often take time to make themselves felt. You can see this with a park like Gallivan Plaza. In its ten years, it has become quite successful, but quite a few of the plaza's early elements didn't make it--like the aviary--and others are painfully inadequate. Gallivan Plaza also has the benefit of very good programming, something that Library Square lacks. I agree that Library Square could be redesigned to be more functional and attractive. I don't think that because it isn't working too well as park space right now, that we should just go ahead and build a building there instead.

I also agree with you, Projects, that the current police facility needs replacing. As far as cops go, Salt Lake has a fairly good department, and I think they should have a nice facility to operate out of. I voted for the first bond, and I'll vote for this one, unless they build on Library Square. I like the idea of putting it on the east side of 300 East, and would support bonding for a bit more to make it happen there.

I think it's great that this discussion is happening. People care about our city, and want to make it a better place to live, as well as protecting what makes it great in the first place.

Excellent points JMonkey, particularly about the gathering places needing time to evolve. I think we all can understand that the Library Plaza will continue to not only evolve, but will probably also have a dramatic impact on the development and attractiveness of that entire area.

I am pro cop, allot of my gym buddies are cops, and I almost became a reserve officer myself in L.A. a few years back. I want the force to have an outstanding facility. I don't think the Library Plaza itself is the best location. Wrong message, wrong location.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by blazefirelight

Hello everyone! I have some friends coming into town at the end of June. I want to take them some cool places around SLC and the Salt Lake Valley, but I can't think of Anywhere.

I've written down typical tourist traps: Gateway, Temple Square, Library Square, Trolly Square (all the squares, pretty much). But I can't think of anywhere else. I'm thinking the sporting venues, because they're into sports, but I'm still stuck. Can anyone please give me some good ideas?

The utah arts festival is that weekend. Th-Su. Hit that up for sure.

[Smuttynose1]

Originally Posted by stevena07

A Salt Lake City bar district? Maybe not.

Utah is easing its liquor laws to encourage tourism, but the state's most-visited city needs to prepare for a buzz kill.

A review of state records shows Utah is quickly running out of liquor licenses for bars and restaurants, creating the possibility that Salt Lake City won't be able to create for years to come the downtown entertainment district tourism leaders are craving.

State lawmakers, most of whom are Mormon and do not drink, limit the number of bars and restaurants that can serve liquor based on the state's population.

Currently, no more than 361 bars can open in Utah and no more than 546 restaurants can serve beer, wine and liquor.

http://www.sltrib.com/Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20Home%20Page/ci_12490383

I can't begin to understand the logic behind the government forbidding restaurants and pubs from opening for business. I would think, that particularly in difficult economic times, the state would be encouraging restaurants to open up shop. Surely, the legislature has got to be open to reexamining this.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Justnslcsugarhood.

I think you need to actually read and listen to what people have to say about the project before you begin to type.

I DID read and listen. Maybe you actually need to read my last post since it's clear you missed my point. It's all over the news that people are whining about where these buildings could go. And by doing so it's now turning into yet another controversy for our city. They are the ones making a big deal out of it. I don't really care what side of the street the buildings go on. The new buildings needs to be built already. But no, we are going to waste even more time on debating where to built these buildings that should of been built YEARS ago. Meanwhile the old building is falling apart. If this debate is going to continue then the city should at least move the Police office to another building for the time being.
Sometime I feel like people here in Salt Lake go off at making anything a controversy. ( And a few of them are on this forum. )

As for the over all plans we know that the new buildings if built on the same block will.....

1. Not block the view.
2. Will still have open green space.

So again I really don't see the big deal that many people are making over it. Other then the fact that they can.
[/QUOTE]

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Really? I've not heard people complaining about the other locations, just this one. C'mon, you're not really trying to suggest every project that gets built in downtown Salt Lake (or the city as a whole) is met with opposition, are you?

Yes I do. Since yeah there has been alot of opposition in the past.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

You might think it's no big deal, but I think it is. I think it's not the appropriate place for this building and it isn't solely based on open space. A project like this is not vibrant and never will be. It won't have retail or residential, it's not going to interact well with the area and that location, specifically that side of the square, should be as vibrant as possible.

location? retail or residential? Dude it's the SAME street. What differences does it make if the "none retail police building" ( I'm going to start calling it that. ) is built on one side of the street or the other? So you are saying that it's ok to have something retail on one side of the street, but it doesn't matter on the other side? That doesn't make much sense. Do you really think that 80 feet is going to make that much of a differences from one side to the other?
Maybe I would have a better understanding of people making such a big deal out of this if the two locations where say across town from each other. But we are talking about 80 feet between "Plan A" and "Plan B" Both plans will include open space.

Also even if say the Police building did have say retail space. Alot of people still don't want it on that same block since they think it will take away the green open space, even after the drawings have shown that alot of the open space will remain.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

That isn't a trivial complaint and stop acting like these people only complain for the sake of complaining.

Yes it is. It's trivial for alot of Salt Lakers to complain over something that is new that can be great for the city.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

These are valid reasons to oppose the placement of this project. I think most Salt Lakers feel there should be a new building, but that doesn't mean they can't question the placement.

They can question the place, but maybe we need to see some renderings or models of the project before everyone gets all worked up. I'm sure the Mayor, city and developer will do everything they can to make these new buildings blend in with everything around it no matter what side of the street it's on.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Yes I do. Since yeah there has been alot of opposition in the past.

Opposition was to spending, not the location. That's why it failed in the past and it forced the city to reevaluate costs. I don't ever recall people protesting the fact the building was being constructed, rather how much it would actually cost. And, as we've seen, the city was able to lower the costs without really undermining the project.

So, because citizens spoke up, we got a better deal. Well now we need to finish the job and build it in a place that will work best for the city. That is not Library Square.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

location? retail or residential? Dude it's the SAME street. What differences does it make if the "none retail police building" ( I'm going to start calling it that. ) is built on one side of the street or the other? So you are saying that it's ok to have something retail on one side of the street, but it doesn't matter on the other side? That doesn't make much sense. Do you really think that 80 feet is going to make that much of a differences from one side to the other?

It'll make a huge difference because you're putting this building on an area that, in the future, could be developed into something far more vibrant.

As stated by jmonkey above, the possibility of creating vibrancy around library square goes out the window if this building is constructed because it's going to be there for a good while -- hell, maybe the rest of our lives. That is a big risk, especially if in the next ten years we can develop Library Square to its full potential.

It doesn't matter if the police station is built on the same street or not, the location currently proposed by Mayor Becker puts it right on Library Square. Even if it were across the street, it would still be a better option than putting it on that block.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Maybe I would have a better understanding of people making such a big deal out of this if the two locations where say across town from each other. But we are talking about 80 feet between "Plan A" and "Plan B" Both plans will include open space.

Because we're not talking about the area, we're talking about a block. There is a big difference between putting this on the current library block and putting it across the street. That difference lies in the fact Library Square was built specifically for vibrancy in an area lacking it. Adding a police station to that block will make it that much less vibrant.

I've conceded the police need a new building and that it's a project that won't bring vibrancy to downtown. But you'd be surprised at just how much of a difference having the police station across the street or on another block would make down the line.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Also even if say the Police building did have say retail space. Alot of people still don't want it on that same block since they think it will take away the green open space, even after the drawings have shown that alot of the open space will remain.

That wasn't my point. I wasn't suggesting the space should be left there for future mixed-use development. I was only pointing out that, unlike those types of development, a police station is not going to bring vibrancy and people to the area. That's a fact. I'm not suggesting we build a mixed-use development there, but rather was just pointing out how reactionist this would be to that block. And I say that because building it on that area would make it very difficult to grow and cultivate a vibrant central square for the city -- something we really are lacking.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Yes it is. It's trivial for alot of Salt Lakers to complain over something that is new that can be great for the city.

I think you're confused. No one is complaining about the building itself, rather one location of many that were proposed. The city is going to get this complex regardless, but that doesn't mean we should just sit down, shut up and allow the city to put it wherever they want, even if most don't agree.

Honestly, I think you're having a hard time grasping this democracy thing.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

They can question the place, but maybe we need to see some renderings or models of the project before everyone gets all worked up. I'm sure the Mayor, city and developer will do everything they can to make these new buildings blend in with everything around it no matter what side of the street it's on.

It could be the most amazing design ever, but it doesn't change the fact the location is shit. I don't care what the renderings show, a five-story public safeties campus there just doesn't work.

And if Mayor Becker goes against the city's wishes, I hope he is defeated in his reelection hopes.

It sounds harsh, but Library Square is not the location for such a building.

[delts145]

I would be completely shocked if Mayor Becker pushes Library Square, inspite of the overwhelming opposition. This is simply a process, which I think he himself promised when he ran as Mayor. He promised a more open and transparent public process. I myself am celebrating this open debate and discussion. I have faith that a sound remedy will now move forward as quickly and prudently as possible. As previously stated, the voters turned down the former proposal because of enormous costs, and now we're simply getting a bigger bang for the buck. The Mayor knew that the Library block would be controversial. Opening this up to the public process like he has, is forcing the issue to reach a resolution expeditiously. I think without this current vetting, the facility would be tied up in knots for a much longer period.

Also, this current hyperbole of publicity is doing wonders for making the public, who are going to vote on this, pay attention and come to a resolution. I think it's pretty obvious that an alternative location for the facility will be chosen, and when the vote comes, it will be a resounding YES.

All the Mayor is doing is pushing the issue to a head. It may be a little noisy temporarily, but it accomplishes its goal as intended.

[delts145]

City Icon, 'Ruth's Diner' gets million-dollar makeover
Food » Fresh digs provide much-needed space for popular Emigration Canyon eatery

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_12486399?source=rv

Emigration Canyon » After decades of dishing up its trademark meatloaf burgers, Chinese chicken salad and Reuben sandwiches topped with Swiss cheese and Thousand Island dressing, Ruth's Diner has freshened up its image with a nearly $1 million makeover.

The historic cafe, two miles from the mouth of Emigration Canyon, fired up its grills anew in mid-May after months of renovation so extensive that, at one stage, only the diner's original trolley car remained.

Walls toppled. Foundations were repoured. And, by spring, the eatery rose again with a kitchen almost four times the size, restrooms with more than one toilet for crowds reaching 1,000 diners a day and freshly tiled wall space for black-and-white photos of Ruth Evans, the diner's founder...


Ruth's Diner recently received a $1 million face-lift that includes an expanded waiting area out front, fresh paint throughout and an expanded kitchen. (Francisco Kjolseth / The Salt Lake Tribune )


Jordan Christopher, left, and Katherine Leksander attend to Mike Brinton and Alisha Baskerville at the newly renovated Ruth's Diner in Emmigration Canyon. The popular eatery got a $1 million face lift that primarily included an expanded kitchen. (Francisco Kjolseth / The Salt Lake Tribune )

.

[WASDEN]

oh that is a relief! i was craving some Ruth's a few weeks ago and was astounded to find it all ripped up!

[Future Mayor]

Delts, I think you summed it up just right. Proposing the PSF on Library Square gets people talking and gets them to take ownership in the facility. By not having a location designated on the bond, not as many people will care, but like you said if it's been through a public process ownership will be taken and people will be much more likely to vote for the bond.

Projects, having this public input and public process regarding the location isn't delaying building the new building, it is doing just as my previous paragraph said, it's allowing the residents to take ownership of it. It's not as if they could build it today if there wasn't this discussion going on. The bond will go to the ballot in November, so there might as well be some good public discussion and involvement prior to that. As for "This city" always creating controversy on "every project" it's not just Salt Lake City, it's every city in every democratic nation. That is the beauty of our system, we have the right to express our opinion.

Had Mayor Becker proposed the PSF on 600 S, nobody would have paid any attention to it and it could very likely fail in November due to the harder economic times we are experiencing. He's simply playing the political game that he needs to play, and he's playing it for the overall good of the city, because as we all agree we do need a new Public Safety Facility.

Taubman and City Creek Reserve did a very similar thing, IMO, with the First Security Building. I honestly don't think they were fully committed to leveling that building, but by saying they wanted to bring it down, the focus shifted away from the Inn at Temple Square and onto the First Security Building. Had they not tagged that for demo everyone would have lobby to save the Inn, so instead we "saved" one while losing the other and we all feel good that we were part of the process of saving it.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

I bet most of those people whining have never even used the open space.

Most of these people probably have used the open space. Even if they've never walked on, sat on, rolled around the open space, if they've driven past and seen it, they've gotten enjoyment out of having the open space there, instead of the typical crush of buildings. It's nice to have what we call in graphic design "white space" where nothing is going on to give your eyes a rest.

[arkhitektor]

I find this argument bizarre. Even one of the U's Arch. professors was quoted in the Trib. that he was concerned that DT was becoming "too dense". If you ask me, Salt Lake City has far too much open space and densification should be the least of our worries.

[T-Mac]

Moved out of my house over the weekend so that the addition and remodel can go faster. Therefore, I didn't get any photos as the camera was packed up. I have since unpacked it and will try to get back downtown this week. Should be easier as my family is back living with my aunt on 500 S and 1500 W in Salt Lake City.

Went to dinner with some friends at Macaroni Grill on saturday evening and I saw the construction on across the street from it. It is on the southwest corner of 300 South and West Temple. Urbanboy mentioned it before. It looks like a fancy restaurant called Gracie's. Tom Stuart Construction is building it.

[Future Mayor]

The construction on the corner seems to be a renovation of the parking lot , but at least it will be serving the new restaurant. According the Gracie's Facebook it looked sounded like they were striving for an opening today. That area of town is developing as a nice restaurant area, from RedRock and Poplar St Pub down to the corner of 300 S and 200 W and along 300 S over to W. Temple.

I mentioned this on the Classic thread, but does anyone know what type of restaurant is going in on State and Exchange Place? One of those old "Magazine" stores is being converted to a restaurant. Nice to see a better use on that corner.

Also wondering when the two new places on Main or opening. I was downtown this weekend but didn't get a chance to walk over to Main. There is the new Bay Leaf Cafe (or some leaf name) as well as the place in the Daynes building, I know the name but not sure if it's public record yet.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I find this argument bizarre. Even one of the U's Arch. professors was quoted in the Trib. that he was concerned that DT was becoming "too dense". If you ask me, Salt Lake City has far too much open space and densification should be the least of our worries.

I don't think we have too much open space, but I agree that densification should be the least of our worries. Library Square may not be great right now and it seems to be terribly underutilized, but once open space is lost it is almost impossible to get it back. If we have too much open space, then I would happily take that problem rather than too little. 20-30 years from now we won't be lamenting too much, but hopefully just the right amount.

[arkhitektor]

The Bayleaf Cafe (link) still hasn't opened.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by WeST

once open space is lost it is almost impossible to get it back.

I'm just being sarcastic, so don't take this personally, but try telling that to the Salt Lake City of 1907:



The city has actually reclaimed most of its former density as "open space," generally in the form of parking lots.

[delts145]

You would post a pic like that Ark!!! Grrrr, look at all of those italianate facades we've lost. I'll just have to keep my goal of some day bringing back a few of those great facades as they once were, but with longer lasting guts.

Along the line of restaurants, could someone tell me if they've been to a Texas Roadhouse? I was just at the bank and noticed a big one opening soon at the Lehi/American Fork border on State.