Let's focus back on a couple of the original specific points.
I can't speak for others who perhaps want 500-600 footers instead of mid-rise density. However, I do want to make sure that my opinion is not confused with that 'tall or the highway' opinion.
First, I am talking about right now through the next five years. I'm saying that the UPAC Tower, and the new Convention Center Hotel should be new iconically designed tallests. I am not saying that the CBD should now change it's plans for added mid-rise density. Currently, mid-rise density is being added at what would seem to be a very impressive rate, whether it's hotel projects like the new Hyatt and Marriott, or apartment projects springing up everywhere. Salt Lake City's CBD streetscape development and density mentality amongst those who count, such as the Mayor, Council, etc. is spot on. It's just a matter of how fast it can become reality. We need both mid-rise density, and we must press for the Convention Hotel and UPAC to be new tallests. IMO, both are doable at the same time.
Concerning the height of the Convention Hotel. It seems that where the more recent major hotel convention developments are concerned, there are two trains of thought. One is two build a hotel that is very broad and somewhat stubby in it's visual perspective, such as Phoenix and Denver. Even when the hotel is fairly tall, Denver's is 489 feet and 38 floors, it still comes across as a stubby block. The other thought, and the one I think best suits Salt Lake City would be a combination of mid-rise on a large block, with outstanding street engagement, coupled with a stunning slender tower that rises to approximately 450.
I think the L.A. Convention Marriott/Ritz is a good standard. Salt Lake's central hotel tower doesn't need to be as tall as L.A.'s, and I think that Salt Lake can do a much more attractive streetscape engagement than L.A. accomplished.
We wouldn't want something like a Vegas Wynn #1, that is broad but wonderfully stylized. It is soo broad, that when I checked out it's dimensions at 600 ft and 60 floors, I was shocked that it was that tall. That size of a hotel in the West portion of Downtown, no matter how beautifully stylized would overwhelm and destroy the appearance of our skyline. Come to think of it, we don't want a Phoenix or Denver style Convention Hotel either, especially in a west side CBD setting. The Denver or Phoenix hotel's girth would also overwhelm the appeal of what we want our skyline to mature as. So, realizing the need to accomodate a certain amount of rooms, i.e., approximately 1000 to 1200, we need a combination of linear mid-rise base, attractively encompassing a blocks streetscape, combined with a slender tower. Actually, it would be the same style of massing as the Little and Grand America properties, except for much better street engagement, and a taller more slender central tower.
This is only my opinion on aesthetics, but if the hotel were approx. 450ft. and the UPAC were 500ft, we would be creating an immediately attractive, new tallest skyline, that doesn't demand an obsession to construct a counter balance to compensate for an awkward appearance.
So, since a dense, walkable, mid-rise CBD is the prevailing attitude on all political fronts that matter, let us advocate our positions on the aesthetics, i.e., not allowing a sea of stucco. Let's advocate as strongly for details of SLC's streetscape as does Park City. Of course, there is no need for Salt Lake to be as focused on the specific style as Park City, but we should be focusing on how those historic reproductions are produced, i.e., elemental garnishments and materials used. Whatever the style, comtemporary or historically based, what should be the basic rules of execution?
For example, I think we all agree with Orlando's position that the north building of LaPorte could use a rethink at the bottom level. A different material at it's bottom levels, along with a couple of moderate changes to the portico height design, would make for a more attractive product. Hey, they're already using an attractive, more expensive brick. Why not break it up more at the bottom, which would be historically correct and also much more attractive. Also, the top cornice as depicted in the rendering looks hurried and cheap. On the top cornice, give it some more detailing that is appropriate for the period, even if they are simply just pre-assembled, screwed on appliques. At the street, it doesn't necessarily need to be an expensive stone at the bottom. It could easily be precast, pre-dyed blocks of an acceptable thickness. I see countless apartment buildings here in Central Los Angeles that were constructed in the 20's and 30's. They are of that exact same design as the LaPorte mid-rise, and most used a precast material at the bottom. To this day they are all as charming and beloved by Angeleno's as ever. Infact, most Angeleno's wish for correctly updated versions, vs. cheap looking stucco wannabes.
Another example would be the Gateway Six. Here they used the right palette scheme, materials, and design perspective from top to bottom, but the execution was too flat and one-dimensional. While passably attractive, Gateway Six could have had much more potential as a future landmark for the CBD.
Other than for the joy of pure discussion, which is fine, I don't think we really need to quibble about tallests vs. density. IMO, right now there are only a couple of realistic points. One, that there is no reason to not have two new iconic tallests. Two, by all means continue the current pace of adding beautiful, streetscape attractive, mid-rise development, especially where the blanks exist.
1. First again, let's discuss how tall the two new tallests,(UPAC and the CCH) should be. I would advocate somewhere in the neigborhood of 450-500 feet. If someone disagrees that Salt Lake can't handle a 450ft. Convention Hotel, or UPAC tower on Main of over 350ft, then by all means let's discuss it. I would respectfully disagree that one 500 ft. UPAC tower would damage the CBD's ability to continue it's current development density.
2. Second, what should be our strong stance on project execution, particularly regarding streetscape engagement. Salt Lake seems to be getting the measurements from street to building right, and also the commercial mix seems to be on the right track. My biggest fear is that our aesthetic design codes are not quite adequate, when it comes to materials and their execution. We shouldn't just be leaving it up to the good will and good taste of the developer. There should be certain basic standards that Salt Lakers expect to be upheld, whether the designs are the latest in Contemporary or historically proven icons.
Prev
Linear Mode
