Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[delts145]

I like the new design. It is very different from the Capitol, and IMO that's how it should be. The taller elevation is not only much needed extra space, but it is an important part of that difference. If it were the same height it would be too similar, and simply start to take on the appearance of an odd add-on. This new Hall must have a good dose of it's own idividual flavor, in order to not seem like a funky add-on. I think the design, elevation, and evening illumination accomplishes that very well.

I wish we still had that beautiful taller building to the east of the Capitol.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Does anybody else like the idea of reusing the steeple?

No, it'll probably break apart if they try to remove it anyway.

[ajiuO]

Moved to http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5854405&posted=1#post5854405

[chad.farnes]

I heard something interesting today that may be of interest of anyone that is looking forward to a BYU Salt Lake/LDSBC expansion. I went to the Church Educational System's school counselor meeting where they talked about what needed to be done to get into the 4 LDS schools (BYU, BYUI, BYUH, LDSBC). They stated that their two main goals are to make higher education accessible and affordable. Currently it is very affordable but accessibility may be a concern in the future. At the end of the meeting, a graph was shown which displayed they number of LDS seniors (12th graders) in the US and Canada. Over the past 10 years, the number has decreased by around 15,000. In the 20 or so years shown on the graph, the year 2011 had the lowest number of 12th graders (around 74,000 or something like that). From there, the number increases. In the next 6 years, the number of seniors graduating from high school will increase by 10,000, and the CES will hopefully have to expand something (in downtown Salt Lake hopefully) to try to accommodate a large portion of these students. If anyone is wondering, they did not address any campus expansion, but the increased number of presumptive applicants makes me think that some expansion has to be on the horizon. Also, another interesting fact that I learned: even though there were the fewest number of graduating LDS seniors in 2011, 2011 had more applicants to BYU than ever before, and around 2,000 more applicants than in 2010. That may also be another positive sign towards the need for a future expansion.

[StevenF]

Currently BYUI is growing by about 1000 students a year, which is about the same rate Rexburg can handle its growth. With BYU hitting 15,000 students and 30,000 seems to be the maximum the church likes to have there schools at. So at the current growth rate of BYUI it will be at max in 15 years or less. I have already heard of some expansion going on at BYUH in the past week or two. Think they are focusing on BYUI and BYUH right now and as they build out LDSBC will be next. No doubt, there still could be some minor expansions for LDSBC in the comming years adding a couple thousand students in the time BYUI fills up.

[delts145]

Thanks guys for that interesting and informative information. I hope the expansion of LDSBC occurs sooner than later, as I'm very anxious to see those massive parking lots filled as soon as possible. Timing can often be sped up by the donations of generous benefactors. I tend to think that LDSBC will expand at the same time as the other institutions, not after they're finished. Of course again, depending on the generous donations of benefactors.

Originally Posted by Stenar

No, it'll probably break apart if they try to remove it anyway.

Stenar's comment is probably right, and it brings up another interesting thought. All of the steeples these days are constructed using light weight, non-wood materials. Remember, they even replaced the steeples on the historic Assembly Hall not too many years ago. While I imagine the materials from the Chapel will be re-used and recycled as much as possible, they'll probably be calling for the steeple of the new center to be of the new modern, light weight materials. Even the restoration of the historic Provo Tabernacle/Temple, which calls for the restoration of a center coppola/steeple, will not be using wood.

[Future Mayor]

I like the idea of reusing the steeple.

As for the Capital addition, I think the fact that they used glass on the entire upper floor makes it less impossing as a taller structure than had it been a solid surface material.

I really think they have done a good job with the massing for the addition. As the front elevation shows the extension of the diamond pattern reflects the mass, and as I mentioned in my previous post, also mimics certain height features. The top floor with the glass and the lights shining downward seems to be designed to lesson the impact and bring the eye back down to the mass of the building and to Capital.

As for the blade sign, I would absolutely love if they brought that back, the already brought back the marque a few years ago so why not do the same with the blade sign.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Old&New

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54470280-78/west-design-ballet-capitol.html.csp

I definitely like this version better! Remember, you won't be able to see the entire building from this angle, as there is another building that is missing from the foreground which will block most of the side view. The architecture along the side will only be enjoyed by pedestrians who walk along the mid-block path.

Which of the two buildings stands out more in this rendering? The existing facade or the new facade?! The new one stands taller, brighter, jazzier, and, yes, "tackier". The problem is that it looks like it's trying to stand out a lot more than the other one. The addition should be secondary to the original facade. I wish I had more professional architects to voice their opinion on here. If the architecture community were to vote on the two, I'm sure they would voted for the more subdued version. Doesn't Salt Lake City have a design commission? Here in Portland, we have a rather rigorous design commission comprised of architects, designers, etc.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Which of the two buildings stands out more in this rendering? The existing facade or the new facade?! The new one stands taller, brighter, jazzier, and, yes, "tackier". The problem is that it looks like it's trying to stand out a lot more than the other one. The addition should be secondary to the original facade. I wish I had more professional architects to voice their opinion on here. If the architecture community were to vote on the two, I'm sure they would voted for the more subdued version. Doesn't Salt Lake City have a design commission? Here in Portland, we have a rather rigorous design commission comprised of architects, designers, etc.

No, Salt Lake doesn't have a design commission. *CRY*

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Which of the two buildings stands out more in this rendering? The existing facade or the new facade?! The new one stands taller, brighter, jazzier, and, yes, "tackier". The problem is that it looks like it's trying to stand out a lot more than the other one. The addition should be secondary to the original facade. I wish I had more professional architects to voice their opinion on here. If the architecture community were to vote on the two, I'm sure they would voted for the more subdued version. Doesn't Salt Lake City have a design commission? Here in Portland, we have a rather rigorous design commission comprised of architects, designers, etc.

I think the design is actually quite streamlined and simple and won't detract from the beautiful ornate capitol theater at all. Additionally, the new building will likely look quite plain during the day. Durring the night is when the entire complex will really pop.

[Stenar]

Ugh!! No!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by old&new

The addition wouldn't look so imposing if the capitol theater reinstalled a blade sign:



http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ushs_class/id/15066/rec/30

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by delts145

Thanks guys for that interesting and informative information. I hope the expansion of LDSBC occurs sooner than later, as I'm very anxious to see those massive parking lots filled as soon as possible. Timing can often be sped up by the donations of generous benefactors. I tend to think that LDSBC will expand at the same time as the other institutions, not after they're finished. Of course again, depending on the generous donations of benefactors.



Stenar's comment is probably right, and it brings up another interesting thought. All of the steeples these days are constructed using light weight, non-wood materials. Remember, they even replaced the steeples on the historic Assembly Hall not too many years ago. While I imagine the materials from the Chapel will be re-used and recycled as much as possible, they'll probably be calling for the steeple of the new center to be of the new modern, light weight materials. Even the restoration of the historic Provo Tabernacle/Temple, which calls for the restoration of a center coppola/steeple, will not be using wood.

And the steeple on the 4th E chapel is made of pre-cast "stone," not wood, making it even more likely to fall apart. They'd have to take it apart piece by piece.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Ugh!! No!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on, a new blade sign could look really nice if fashioned in the same manner as the new marquee.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

No, Salt Lake doesn't have a design commission. *CRY*

No but the city does have a "Historic Landmarks Commission"

The Historic Landmark Commission conducts design reviews of new construction or alterations to properties located on one of Salt Lake Cityís six historic districts and landmark sites. Any demolition within a historic district must be approved by this commission. The Commission is also charged with promoting, nominating, and monitoring the preservation of historically significant resources with the boundaries of the City.

Capital Theater is a Landmark site, and thus the alteration would have been reviewed by the commission.

If you honestly looks at the first rendering with the second rendering, there are only three differences. 1) The top floor was extended all the way to the front, and 2) Rather than some grey colored checker board pattern on the front they changed it to the crisscross design that actually better melds the two buildings and has a much better flow. 3) Rather than two interruptions in the front facade on the west side there is now only one.

The fact that the top floor now comes all the way to the front but has very minimal mass to it, only being glass. With the full top floor and the addition of the cornice lights at the top, which point down, this leads the eyes back to the facade then leads the eye back to the original structure. The interruption in the facade on the west end of the addition is also designed to send the eye back to the more pleasing portion, once again leading the eye back to the original Capital Theater.

The original rendering, without the full top floor, there was nothing on the top to stop the eye from simply continuing away from the theater.

I have to disagree with you Orlando, I think a lot of architects and urban designers would actually like the changes made, because it does much more to bring the eye back to the theater.

[Stenar]

Nope, the top floor is still stepped back.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

...

If you honestly looks at the first rendering with the second rendering, there are only three differences. 1) The top floor was extended all the way to the front, and 2) Rather than some grey colored checker board pattern on the front they changed it to the crisscross design that actually better melds the two buildings and has a much better flow. 3) Rather than two interruptions in the front facade on the west side there is now only one.

The fact that the top floor now comes all the way to the front but has very minimal mass to it, only being glass. With the full top floor and the addition of the cornice lights at the top, which point down, this leads the eyes back to the facade then leads the eye back to the original structure. The interruption in the facade on the west end of the addition is also designed to send the eye back to the more pleasing portion, once again leading the eye back to the original Capital Theater.

The original rendering, without the full top floor, there was nothing on the top to stop the eye from simply continuing away from the theater.

I have to disagree with you Orlando, I think a lot of architects and urban designers would actually like the changes made, because it does much more to bring the eye back to the theater.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Nope, the top floor is still stepped back.

You're correct, my mistake.

Clarification: They either added a floor or made the floors larger. My point was, the original facade ended below cornice of the Capital Theater, while the new one is taller.

[T-Mac]

I took a little walk down part of Main Street last night and grabbed some photos of some of the new stores. I was able to get some of them processed last night and the rest will be done tonight. Here you go.

[delts145]

Thanks so much for the fantastic updates T-Mac. Like so many forumers, I look forward with anticipation to your update pics. The Crandall additions are very tastefull and classy. I love the whole new Main Street vibe.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

...I have to disagree with you Orlando, I think a lot of architects and urban designers would actually like the changes made, because it does much more to bring the eye back to the theater.

Originally Posted by Old&New

I think the design is actually quite streamlined and simple and won't detract from the beautiful ornate capitol theater at all. Additionally, the new building will likely look quite plain during the day. Durring the night is when the entire complex will really pop.

Very much agree on both counts.

[DCRes]

Awesome pictures T-Mac!

I love the look of 222 S Main from Main Street but i don't love it from the other side, which unfortunatly is the side that most people see as part of the skyline. I wish the glass wrapped around the entire building.

I actually drove by the Crandall Building to check out the new Starbucks last night and snapped some bad pictures with my phone. I'm glad T-Mac posted these so i didn't have to put mine up.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by DCRes

Awesome pictures T-Mac!

I love the look of 222 S Main from Main Street but i don't love it from the other side, which unfortunatly is the side that most people see as part of the skyline. I wish the glass wrapped around the entire building.

Hopefully more buildings will rise on West Temple and 200 W (like the Convention Hotel) that will eventually block the full view of 222. The convention hotel if on the dinwoody site, would hinder the view a little from the north west.