Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[stayinginformed]

I don't think the Eastside apartments look that bad.

The finish is not stucco, it is a prefabricated board of some type--the same that were used on the 644 City Station apartments.

Remember the south side is the not the face of the apartment. The face is on 600 East, and it looks very nice. It has different treatments and is stepped pack as it gets taller. Once 400 south is redeveloped in front of the Eastside apartments, you won't even be able to see that side of the building. If you look at a lot of apartment buildings in the city the non-face sides of the building are normally not as nice of a treatment as the face of the building.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by stayinginformed

I don't think the Eastside apartments look that bad.

The finish is not stucco, it is a prefabricated board of some type--the same that were used on the 644 City Station apartments.

Remember the south side is the not the face of the apartment. The face is on 600 East, and it looks very nice. It has different treatments and is stepped pack as it gets taller. Once 400 south is redeveloped in front of the Eastside apartments, you won't even be able to see that side of the building. If you look at a lot of apartment buildings in the city the non-face sides of the building are normally not as nice of a treatment as the face of the building.

Yeah.. But the thing is... The 400s side is the side that is going to be seen the most... And is made even more obvious by the fact that it rises above everything on 400 south.

It sure looks like stucco.. Its ugly all the same... I guess its all a matter of opinion.. But I honestly can't think of an uglier building in salt lake. I would rather have a view of the shilo inn out my window (witch I do in fact) then that thing... Sorry.. Im glad most people like it.. But ill be there roasting hotdogs and celebrating in 20 years as I'm watching them rip that thing down

[Comrade]

LOL...it's already got graffiti on 'em!

Yes. I agree with whomever said they look bad. They do. They won't hold up well. In ten years, they'll look like one of those 70s era housing projects from Chicago or New York.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

LOL...it's already got graffiti on 'em!

Yes. I agree with whomever said they look bad. They do. They won't hold up well. In ten years, they'll look like one of those 70s era housing projects from Chicago or New York.

The problem is.. They already look like a 70's era housing projects from Chicago... and it feels like one to.. I stood under that building when I stopped at KFC.. I seriously felt the negative vibes of projects despair... Don't let the fresh paint fool you.

the 4th south PJ's

[delts145]

Originally Posted by stayinginformed

I don't think the Eastside apartments look that bad.

The finish is not stucco, it is a prefabricated board of some type--the same that were used on the 644 City Station apartments.

Remember the south side is the not the face of the apartment. The face is on 600 East, and it looks very nice. It has different treatments and is stepped pack as it gets taller. Once 400 south is redeveloped in front of the Eastside apartments, you won't even be able to see that side of the building. If you look at a lot of apartment buildings in the city the non-face sides of the building are normally not as nice of a treatment as the face of the building.

I liked the massing a lot, and also the way it engaged it's North-South (600 E.) corridor on a smaller scale. I must admit that seeing the finish on the side, my first inclination was to exclaim, "Hey, wait a few weeks, they can't be finished yet." What are the finishes actually like on 600 E? What are the finishes like to make them different and nicer, or are we simply talking about different element details? Could someone get a close-up pic?

However, regarding the sides. Like you pointed out, that is and has always been typical everywhere for the past few thousand years. I can live with the bland sides, if there are plans for another mid-rise complex in that parking lot along 400 south pictured below. Also, isn't there a substantial mid-rise to the West of this parking lot?

Pic By SLC801

[ajiuO]

There isnt plans for anything along 400 south. The property is occupied by KFC and burger king... They both have a lot of buisness and no plans to move.. In fact burger king recently remodled.. They arnt going anywher.. I bet burger king and kfc will be there longer then that apartment building.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by delts145

...HAPPY DAYS...UNBELIEVABLY GOOD NEWS

Back on the topic of ZIMS. I missed the face-on photo that somone posted of the original look..

It looks like the stone /brick has definitily been removed from around all of the windows.. It would be really awsom to see it fully restored to its original look.. But probably expensive.. I have a feeling that at the verry best they might leave the windows exposed and stucco around them.. I hope they go the full restore rout though... Im going to keep a close eye on this one.

I dont even understand why they butcherd that building in the first place :-/

[scottharding]

I don't mind the look of the East Side apartments at all. Up close, I think they look fine. And I'm very happy with the massing.

[Comrade]

They butchered a lot of buildings in that era trying to make 'em look more modern. Salt Lake was hit hard in that regard, and many of the remnants still remain today.

The most famous was probably the Deseret News Building:



To...



Today, of course, the site is home to the Zions Bank Tower - so, the loss isn't felt anymore (and that building remained until '97 when it was demolished to make way for the new tower), but it's still ghastly.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Here are The Eastside Apartments.. I'm sorry but this building goes well beyond ugly stucco apartment. This thing is just ghetto looking.. and when I say "ghetto" I mean that literally. It looks like something out of the projects from the 1960's.. HAHA.. it even has gang tagging on it already. The photo actually does it a lot of justice... It looks much worse in person. I think a lot of the newer apartment building look kind of fugly.. but I would rather have them there then nothing... This thing gives me such a bad ghetto projects vibe.. That I would rather have nothing there... Sorry :-(

I have to agree, it's pretty nasty looking. You know something is wrong when they're too cheap for stucco.

And I also hate the projects-looking housing that's been common in recent years. The one I hate the most has to be the Artspace Commons on 8th south and 4th west. It's HIDEOUS. I would say it looks like a housing project, but the government never was that cruel or tasteless. This looks like it was designed by someone who slaughters puppies for fun.

Another one is "Angelina's Corner" on 2nd west and 7th south. These two were designed by Soren Simonsen if I'm not mistaken. I have to see these every day on TRAX, which is unfortunate because it looks like Soren said, "I want this to look as cheap as freakin possible." The one on the corner isn't as atrocious as the taller one behind, but nothing screams class quite like tan stucco, corrugated metal siding, unpainted metal stairwells + balconies, and puny rectangular sliding windows.

Not a huge fan of Prescott Muir's building on 2nd south and 5th west, but at least it's not as dreary, and actually looks current.

[Comrade]

I was going to mention Artspace Commons in my original post, but didn't want to look like I was piling on most of SLC's recent developments.

Artspace has a European public housing flair - maybe even from the Soviet Era.

[H4vok]

Does anybody know what's going in on the Southwest corner of 900 East and 1700 South? They've got foundations in. Maybe looks like condos?

Edit:
Just found my own question.
Lotus Bluekoi Townhomes

Credit: https://www.facebook.com/LotusBluekoi

[T-Mac]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but here is the link to the planned North 600 Apartments that would be located at 24 North 600 West.

http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2013/97.pdf

[UTPlanner]

With regard to the Zims Building on State Street. They have a building permit to remove all of the metal shutters on the front side of the building. There is any detail about repair work. Often on projects like this the initial permit is more of a partial demolition because they're not quite sure what exactly is behind the 1960's era facade. Once it is open it is a lot easier to determine what type of remodel work is needed.

I have to say on a different subject that there are some pretty harsh criticisms of the Eastside Apartments. I'm not a huge fan of the exterior materials but I certainly wouldn't say it's "ghetto". I don't think you can compare it to failed public housing projects from inner city Chicago. It actually really bothers me to hear people use that term. My nieces and nephews that live out in the suburbs think nearly everything in SLC is "ghetto". These certainly aren't "ghetto". You may not like the design but people will soon be paying $1200.00 or more a month to live in a 1 bedroom apartment there. That doesn't meet my definition of "ghetto". I don't mind the metal panels; I personally just don't like the chosen color palette. I should mention though to be prepared to see more of those metal panels. I know of at least 2 projects coming online this summer that utilize the same material. Lots of architects in the area are actually really big fans.

[DMTower]

Snapped some pictures on my lunchbreak of the progress at Liberty Gateway. The whole southern half is all framed up. I'm really hoping there's going to be some retail in the base of this.

[Orlando]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86557...nts-may-not-be-in-Utahs-future.html?pg=2

A study commissioned by Visit Salt Lake and shared with the Deseret News found Salt Lake City lost 27 citywide conventions in the last year. Beck indicated that convention planners for 23 of those lost conventions specifically pointed to the lack of a convention hotel. That translates to tens of millions of lost dollars to the Utah economy.
Salt Lake County has also commissioned studies to understand the economic impact of a convention hotel. Most recently, a report from Strategic Advisory Group, also shared with the Deseret News, found that such infrastructure would deliver $170 million in annual economic impact, 2,060 jobs and an estimated $600 million in new state and local tax revenue over a 30-year period.

“I'm a free market guy," Herbert told reporters in March. "I'm a little concerned about subsidizing one entity against the private sector and others who are not getting help from government. It doesn't seem fair."

The problem with building a convention center hotel and the accompanying infrastructure is the price tag. While local developers desire to build the hotel itself, they have looked to the state to acquire the land and construct a parking structure, which alone would cost the state approximately $100 million up front. The cost of the entire project is apparently too much for private developers to handle by themselves.

Rock and a hard place

In the end, decision-makers face a tough road. Utah residents want to see tourism growth and economic development, but they also want to see fiscally responsible government.

For a majority in the Utah House, those two considerations are diametrically opposed for now. Regardless, the reality is Utah isn’t likely to see growth in big events — sports or otherwise — until lawmakers and developers get something figured out.

I understand the dilemma that the legislative body has, and I think Gov. Herbert has a good point. The state would be favoring one developer over another if they did this. But, maybe they could have an open competition or lottery for developers so that there was a fair and public process of selecting a developer/hotel owner.

Regarding the dilemma about spending, it states that the money to finance the $100 million for land and parking is not in the state's budget and would have to come out of funding from other sources, such as State employees retirement benefits, etc. But, the studies show that they payoff of building the hotel offset any monies going towards it. It would be recouped. So, I don't see that as a legitimate argument.

Either way, the studies show that the state and the city are losing out on more events, and therefore, more incoming tourist money. There's got to be a solution, and I hope someone finds it soon. I think the lottery or an open publice process of choosing a developer and hotel owner, is the best solution.

[Orlando]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86556...-hotel-for-convention-center.html?pg=all

He also cited a 2011 University of Denver study that he said indicated, “Every market with a convention center hotel over the last 10 years has outperformed the national average.”

He estimated that the local market loses $90 million to $100 million of convention delegate spending annually due to the lack of a convention center hotel.

“A $300 million convention center hotel would require a room rate of around $300 a night to make that project (financially viable),” Ensign said. The hotel would have to charge a room rate of $200 or less to be competitive in the market, he added.

“It’s that public subsidization that (would) make up the difference,” Ensign said. “If that subsidization is far more than what has been done for existing hotels, you create a tremendous competitive inequity downtown.”

In a June opinion letter on the issue, Lane Beattie, president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber, along with Downtown Alliance executive director Jason Mathis said a new hotel would enhance Utah's tourism industry.

“Many of our competing cities have one — Denver, Phoenix, San Antonio — and Salt Lake City should consider one as well,” they wrote. “A large, 1,000-room hotel adjacent to the Salt Palace will generate more local and state taxes from out-of-town delegates and bring more business to Utah restaurants, entertainment venues, transportation companies and retail stores. More citywide conventions filling the Salt Palace will ultimately also mean more guests spilling over to other hotels.”

[SLC Projects]

Yet another pointless article talking only about how there's a study and that Utah is losing tens of millions due to shows going else where. Yes media, we get it.
Each time I see a new article about the CC Hotel I get a bit excited thinking that we will finally learn more about it, only to read that it's just more talk and studies of how we really need one.
Really, how much longer is this somewhat pointless study going to take before we finally see something in the works? Are we any closer now in getting this development then we were in 2010? Years and years and years of BS. Just pick a developer! Pick a site! Pick a date! And break ground already

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Yet another pointless article talking only about how there's a study and that Utah is losing tens of millions due to shows going else where. Yes media, we get it. Really, how much longer is this somewhat pointless study going to take before we finally see something in the works? Are we any closer now in getting this development then we were in 2010? Years and years and years of BS. Just pick a developer! Pick a site! Pick a date! And break ground already.

Projects the article points out much more than just those studies. It articulates the controversial issue of funding the hotel. It would be too expensive for a private developer to take it all on by theirselves. But, if the government were to offer some sort of assistance, then they are accused of favoring a private company over another. That's the dilemma. The legislation is having a hard time rationalizing using taxpayer money to help a private company.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

With regard to the Zims Building on State Street. They have a building permit to remove all of the metal shutters on the front side of the building. There is any detail about repair work. Often on projects like this the initial permit is more of a partial demolition because they're not quite sure what exactly is behind the 1960's era facade. Once it is open it is a lot easier to determine what type of remodel work is needed.

I have to say on a different subject that there are some pretty harsh criticisms of the Eastside Apartments. I'm not a huge fan of the exterior materials but I certainly wouldn't say it's "ghetto". I don't think you can compare it to failed public housing projects from inner city Chicago. It actually really bothers me to hear people use that term. My nieces and nephews that live out in the suburbs think nearly everything in SLC is "ghetto". These certainly aren't "ghetto". You may not like the design but people will soon be paying $1200.00 or more a month to live in a 1 bedroom apartment there. That doesn't meet my definition of "ghetto". I don't mind the metal panels; I personally just don't like the chosen color palette. I should mention though to be prepared to see more of those metal panels. I know of at least 2 projects coming online this summer that utilize the same material. Lots of architects in the area are actually really big fans.

They're not 'ghetto' ... they look 'ghetto' and, unfortunately, probably won't hold up well the next ten or twenty years. That's what makes things look ghetto - even if, at the end of the day, they're not located in ghetto neighborhoods.