Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Stenar]

Grand America, 99 West and the Chase Bldg are ugly, poor imitations of other styles, etc. But not as ugly as some other buildings.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Yeah, like our 5 newest towers. UGLY MONSTROSITIES!

[Comrade]

I think Salt Lake benefited from a better style in the 90s and 00s. What was built in the 60s, 70s and 80s, though, has always left me uninspired. In fact, I'd wager most buildings from that era are exactly what stenar says.

But I don't think the most recent towers are ugly. I've always liked the Wells Fargo Center for its uniqueness and One Utah Center (err, Chase) at least doesn't give into the full-blocky look of so many of the earlier towers built in Salt Lake. The rest? They're nothing to write home about - but then again, I've always felt Gateway Tower West (or whatever the hell it's called today) would look far better if it was 40 or so stories tall. But because it's on the short(er) side, it does kind of look stubby.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

After some additional thought on the former Questar, Bar X block, I came up with some ideas. I think a does a great job of breaking up that block, the new N/S street will enhance the mid block pedestrian corridor from 150 S all the way to the City and County Building. The placement of the two new office buildings will also help fill in a few gaps due to most towers being on corners.

Aqua - new two way streets
Yellow - new one way street, alley or pedestrian access.
Deep Red - new office, including the proposed Boyer on the SE corner of 200 E and 100 S
Dark Blue - highrise residential
Green - open Space
Purple - 1-3 story retail, possibly residential above
Red - Bar X

I'd move the midblock street further north, cutting into both properties situated on the north half of the block, aligning the street with the center of the Orpheum facade. Then I would put a very tall signature tower just south of the new east-west midblock street on State Street.

[Just A Thought]

I couldn't help noticing the other day that 200 W (between 200 S and 400 S) is the odd one out in downtown. Starting at State st. We have a busy main artery, then Main St, a quiet, pedestrian friendly traffic calmed street, then West Temple, a busy street, followed by a busy 200 W (which should be a quiet street) followed by 300 W a major artery, followed lastly by 400 W a nice quiet street with traffic calming.

It seems that 200 W, despite being in close proximity to close to 350 residential units (Palladio 175 ish, Greek Church apartments 70 ish, Broadway Lofts 50 ish and Patrick Lofts - 50 ish) As well as the possibility of more residential in the development of the old Social Security building on corner of 200W/400S and a very popular restaurant area, it has no traffic calming measures. Its a shame as it probably hasn't seen a new development for close to 30 years, and really needs all the help it can get. It wouldn't cost very much to calm just two blocks from 200 S - 400 S. Do a similar thing as was done to 300 S, central meridian with parking and trees, and more cross walks.

I think this would really help the area especially as it's (dare I say it, the geographical center of downtown, meaning its equidistant from City Creek and Gateway.) It might even bring in some much needed investment as the empty lots on it are a blight.

I could imagine it becoming something of a cool 9th and 9th vibe, but downtown.

And if I should be so bold as to give it a name, perhaps Soco. (as in South of the Convention Center)

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Old&New

I'd move the midblock street further north, cutting into both properties situated on the north half of the block, aligning the street with the center of the Orpheum facade. Then I would put a very tall signature tower just south of the new east-west midblock street on State Street.

I can see your point, however the reason I placed it there is that I don't think the Federal building is going to allow another street in such close proximity to the building. If moved further north there wouldn't be space for any type of development on the north side of the Street, adjacent to the Federal Bldg. That's not a bad option though, to place it with a view of The Orpheum/Promised Valley Playhouse facade.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I can see your point, however the reason I placed it there is that I don't think the Federal building is going to allow another street in such close proximity to the building. If moved further north there wouldn't be space for any type of development on the north side of the Street, adjacent to the Federal Bldg. That's not a bad option though, to place it with a view of The Orpheum/Promised Valley Playhouse facade.

Rather than dividing up blocks to add streets, I'd like to see more pedestrian thoroughfares put in. Maybe something that can be used as a delivery street at night, but during the day access to some street level retail and food vendors or what not, but closed to traffic, just my two cents.

[Comrade]

Salt Lake City is making international news with its awful air quality.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-stay-indoors-pollution-goes-charts.html

[SLC Projects]

I'm so sick of the cold and this air that seems to never go away. I've lived here a long time but I don't think I ever remember a Jan. being this cold for this long. Hope it clears out sunday with the snow storm that's coming.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Salt Lake City is making international news with its awful air quality.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-stay-indoors-pollution-goes-charts.html

Some crazy pics in that article.

[jedikermit]

I like that I'm having trouble breathing, and people say, "oh, do you have asthma?" Nope. Just trying to breathe. Ah, winter inversions.

[Lilljemalm]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Salt Lake City is making international news with its awful air quality.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-stay-indoors-pollution-goes-charts.html

We had about 5 days like this in Phx this month, too, but our cloud got very brown. It's gone now.

[Orlando]

Here's the other missing tower in the list from 1990 to today. Gateway Tower West built in 1998.

[StevenF]

I just wanted to get this said before any major news is covered for th UPAC. I think we should continue to keep all conversations about it here in the salt lake thread and not start a new one. You have to admit we here have a lot of threads compared to most regions on this forum. We tend to get super excited and start a new thread for anything we deem cool happening in the city. I think it's great we have such enthusiasm but I do think for this project we should keep the discussion here.

Though, if the tower attached to the UPAC ends up being a new tallest by more than 25 feet, I say bring on a new thread.

[ajiuO]

I've always wanted salt lake to make its mark on the map... But not as the most polluted city in America :-(

It got pretty bad tonight.. I can't even see the Radison building one block directly in front of me..

[Orlando]

All this inversion stuff has got to be a boon for all the anti-sprawl sentimentalists. This is the evidence that needs to be brought to the republican dominated Utah government to start putting more controls on bad development policy in the wasatch metro!! They need start looking at using urban growth boundaries, more new urbanist developments like Daybreak, and placing harsher penalties for people living out in Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, etc. When I say penalties, I mean that their needs to be a higher rate to be paid for for public utilities. So, instead of saying you can't live out there, you just stick them with the just cost that it takes to build further and further out. Where are the smart growth and the Invision Utah advocate lobbyists now?!

I've been reading a book by Peter Calthorpe(the very renowned New Urbanist who designed Daybreak) called, "Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change". So far, from what I've read, he is saying that the smartest way to be use less energy and pollute less is not by using more technology(solar panels, fuel efficient cars, etc.), but by developing smarter, by developing closer together. He likens the early suburbs of the 19th century (ie. 9th and 9th, etc. as a model for today's suburban development) because it creates a place where people don't have to drive everywhere, they can walk to the corner store, restaurant, etc. Smarter development combined with smarter technology = less energy used per capita, and less pollution, etc.

This inversion thing is only going to get worse as the populations increases and they continue to be so non-restrictive about development. It's time to act now! Let's contact Governer Herbert, the Salt Lake County government, and Utah legislators!

[Orlando]

By the way, here are some excellent resources regarding Envision Utah, etc.

http://www.calthorpe.com/envision-utah

http://www.envisionutah.org/

[ajiuO]

I kind of agree but think it should be done via property taxes. There could be different zones that have higher rates the further out you go.. There could also be deductions for people who use fule efficient cars and utilities.

I think all of the extra money generated should go to subsidizing transit rates. If you could get public transit rates lower i think a lot more people would ride... I for one love taking trax but there is no way in hell I would pay $80 a month for a pass.. And there are a lot of people with that mind set.

I also think uta should sale bus only and trax only monthly passes for cheaper.

[VelvetElvis]

Originally Posted by Orlando

All this inversion stuff has got to be a boon for all the anti-sprawl sentimentalists. This is the evidence that needs to be brought to the republican dominated Utah government to start putting more controls on bad development policy in the wasatch metro!! They need start looking at using urban growth boundaries, more new urbanist developments like Daybreak, and placing harsher penalties for people living out in Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, etc. When I say penalties, I mean that their needs to be a higher rate to be paid for for public utilities. So, instead of saying you can't live out there, you just stick them with the just cost that it takes to build further and further out. Where are the smart growth and the Invision Utah advocate lobbyists now?!

I've been reading a book by Peter Calthorpe(the very renowned New Urbanist who designed Daybreak) called, "Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change". So far, from what I've read, he is saying that the smartest way to be use less energy and pollute less is not by using more technology(solar panels, fuel efficient cars, etc.), but by developing smarter, by developing closer together. He likens the early suburbs of the 19th century (ie. 9th and 9th, etc. as a model for today's suburban development) because it creates a place where people don't have to drive everywhere, they can walk to the corner store, restaurant, etc. Smarter development combined with smarter technology = less energy used per capita, and less pollution, etc.

This inversion thing is only going to get worse as the populations increases and they continue to be so non-restrictive about development. It's time to act now! Let's contact Governer Herbert, the Salt Lake County government, and Utah legislators!

I haven't read the book, but surely Mr. Calthorpe doesn't present his recommendation as a choice between clean energy technology or smart developing. I would be very skeptical of any proposal so void of nuance. Harnessing the power of the sun is undoubtedly one of humanity's top, longterm projects!

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by VelvetElvis

I haven't read the book, but surely Mr. Calthorpe doesn't present his recommendation as a choice between clean energy technology or smart developing. I would be very skeptical of any proposal so void of nuance. Harnessing the power of the sun is undoubtedly one of humanity's top, longterm projects!

You are right. He doesn't just simply exclude technology. Sorry if I mistated that. He is saying that a wiser and more sustainable approach is to develop more urbanistically. For example, compare a person living way out in sprawl land may have solar panels, and a fuel efficient car, to a person living in a smartly planned, more urban development, where there is less auto usage, etc. Calthorpe is saying that the latter is better. Combining the latter with technology(ie. solar panels, and fuel-efficient cars) is even better than that, says Calthorpe.

Here's a comparison to architecture:

a traditional suburban stucco looking home with no regard to solar orientation, etc. but has solar panels on it

versus

a home that was built to utilize natural passive cooling and heating.

[sawrecoil]

Some developments on the convention center hotel topic.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/55678562-79/million-convention-hotel-salt.html.csp

"...Properly done, and if the timing is right, Sachs predicted the hotel could be a boon to Salt Lake City’s relatively flat convention industry...."

As soon as I get some time, I'll post an analysis I did of the project as well as a few others. (spanish quarter, high speed rail, mountain rail, ski-link) Gotta love college