Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Just A Thought

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't architects rendering's don't take into consideration the OTHER buildings around it. that last picture (in my opinion actually looks like the most interesting perspective) doesn't exist because of that huge ugly building on the corner.

Makes me wonder if architects even think about a buildings surroundings..

I know the guy who designed this, Brian Junge of HKS or HOK. He's a nice guy, and good graphics person, but I agree with you with this design. It's too loud, and I wonder if they even had a Design Review Board for this. Maybe UtPlanner can answer that.

[UTPlanner]

The design of the addition met the standards for the D-1 zone so there was no need for further approvals from any appointed or elected body in SLC.

Personally, I really like the design. I'm glad that it's loud and colorful especially on the east side. I also wondered to myself if people thought that the Capitol Theater was too loud or modern when it was built, just a thought.

I really like that will really enliven the alleyway that leads back to the
Blue Iguana and the Rocky Mountain Power "park". That "park" will be improved significantly with this project with all new landscaping.

[Orlando]

Thanks for the info UtPlanner. But, wow. Really? It was approved just because it met the zoning criteria?! That's awful. There should be a Design Review Board made up of architects, planners, etc. There should be some sort of process where professionals and non-professionals get to weigh in on the buildings that get built in the downtown areas. Otherwise you get whatever is design by whoever just because it met the zoning criteria, which determines heights, setbacks, percentage of glass at street level, etc. That's it!

[livedowntown]

Didn't we just discuss this. THERE IS NO DESIGN REVIEW in Salt Lake City. Developers must meet Zoning and Building Code requirements. Beyond that people have the freedom to build what they want (property rights). The market, to some extent, regulates what gets built. No one is going to build a windowless warehouse downtown when they pay $2 mil for a 1/4 acre (at least they won't do that anymore - we've certainly seen junk in the past). The rest is up to the developer. I really like the Ballet West building. Here the developer has a civic interest in doing more than the minimum.

BTW, there are material requirements in zoning as well.

Originally Posted by Orlando

Thanks for the info UtPlanner. But, wow. Really? It was approved just because it met the zoning criteria?! That's awful. There should be a Design Review Board made up of architects, planners, etc. There should be some sort of process where professionals and non-professionals get to weigh in on the buildings that get built in the downtown areas. Otherwise you get whatever is design by whoever just because it met the zoning criteria, which determines heights, setbacks, percentage of glass at street level, etc. That's it!

[Orlando]

Yes, someone mentioned that there is no Design Review earlier, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one. IMO, the public, or at least a design review committee, should have the opportunity to weigh in on proposed projects like this to ensure good design, or at least an opportunity for others besides the developer or owner to approve or disapprove. Does the City Council weigh in on projects like this?

[scottharding]

I like the design as well. I think they've done a good job integrating it with the Capitol, but still letting it have its own modern style. I think it will look good, and be a great boon to downtown and the arts community. I'm glad their finally able to start on it.

[SLC Projects]

I like it as well. Not sure why so many don't.

[livedowntown]

No one weighs in on most projects. Because this project does receive some money from the city it does seem that if they wanted to the city council could affect the design some what.

I am not sure I want a design review. Sometimes you end up with people who are afraid of bold design and get bland but safe designs. Often sudo historical stuff. A design committee that has real power to affect design may end up with too much power to fulfill the member's personal taste.

Originally Posted by Orlando

Yes, someone mentioned that there is no Design Review earlier, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one. IMO, the public, or at least a design review committee, should have the opportunity to weigh in on proposed projects like this to ensure good design, or at least an opportunity for others besides the developer or owner to approve or disapprove. Does the City Council weigh in on projects like this?

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by livedowntown

No one weighs in on most projects. Because this project does receive some money from the city it does seem that if they wanted to the city council could affect the design some what.

I am not sure I want a design review. Sometimes you end up with people who are afraid of bold design and get bland but safe designs. Often sudo historical stuff. A design committee that has real power to affect design may end up with too much power to fulfill the member's personal taste.

Agreed and to add to your comment how much longer would it take to get a project to break ground if there's another step developers have to deal with? We already take YEARS to get a final approval and/or funding in place.
Few examples, City Creek Center took about 9 years from announcement to grand opening. 222 South Main took about 9 years as well from announcement to grand opening. The Boardway Theater from announcing their site back in 2007 will come up to about 9 years when the Theater will finally open in 2016. Same goes with 111 South Main. CCC Hotel, going on six or seven years and no where near of having it develop. Seems just about all our developments take forever to take off.
In short our developments take long enough as is. Having a design committee will just delay projects even more then they're already are.

[Comrade]

There has to be a middle ground because much of what is developed in SLC is not bold - it's essentially just a rehash of other minor developments. I mean, the last real skyscraper that was proposed that could be considered 'bold' was the Zion Social Hall Center and that never came to fruition.

Even today, much of what is developed is rather average - and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but without a review board, it isn't like we've been inundated with an abundance of bold development. Even the smaller development, which generally can be more open to that type of boldness, rarely reaches beyond the typical architectural tropes that define Salt Lake's low-and-mid-rise buildings - you know, earth-toney, stucco and often extremely bland.

The projects that seem to really stand out, sadly, never seem to develop - or are toned down quite a bit in their final stage.

So, I agree you don't want too conservative - but it seems development here is already conservative on its own.

[livedowntown]

I agree with you that what we get is already too conservative. That said, a review committee can't realistically make a development be more bold. It is all so subjective. What to one person seems bold and beautiful may seem banal and conservative to another.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

There has to be a middle ground because much of what is developed in SLC is not bold - it's essentially just a rehash of other minor developments. I mean, the last real skyscraper that was proposed that could be considered 'bold' was the Zion Social Hall Center and that never came to fruition.

Even today, much of what is developed is rather average - and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but without a review board, it isn't like we've been inundated with an abundance of bold development. Even the smaller development, which generally can be more open to that type of boldness, rarely reaches beyond the typical architectural tropes that define Salt Lake's low-and-mid-rise buildings - you know, earth-toney, stucco and often extremely bland.

The projects that seem to really stand out, sadly, never seem to develop - or are toned down quite a bit in their final stage.

So, I agree you don't want too conservative - but it seems development here is already conservative on its own.

[Comrade]

I agree...but that doesn't really change the fact the current situation hasn't led to a good amount of creative development. So, whatever the hell we're doing isn't working at expanding the architectural patterns of SLC. I'd even be okay if they just said no to stucco, or limited its use in certain developments. I'm not even suggesting they should come down hard on every development, but we continue to allow the crap Cowboy Partners considers good development slide and I can't agree with you that a review committee would be worse than what they've developed.

If we had good, consistent development popping up all over the city, it wouldn't be a problem. But this being too liberal in what is allowed (essentially okaying development for the sake of development) is not making us a better city and I think something can be done to curb that type of development - whether it's cheap hospitality structures that litter a great deal of downtown or the cheap Cowboy Partners properties that seem to be consuming the city like the f#@$ing plague.

[UTPlanner]

If you would like to see some change, become involved and contact city leaders: http://www.slcgov.com/

[livedowntown]

UTPlanner do you know when Form Based Zoning will take effect and how wide spread does the city intend to be with this new zoning type?

[Comrade]

I've contacted everyone from my city councilman (over the years - so, men) to community council and it does no good. I really don't think the city cares what development looks like just as long as it's being developed inside the city. In that regard, they're not much different than the suburbs - build whatever comes across their desk because, you know, any development has to be good development.

[Future Mayor]

So let me see if I've got this right. Many of you are saying we need a design review committee to allow more bold developments to happen in SLC, and to eliminate bland design and the over use of stucco. Then on the flip side, when something a little more bold in design and color, that has ZERO stucco "Eastside Apartments" gets built many are then complaining about that.

I for one absolutely love the Capital Theater addition. I would like to hear why several of you don't like it. It seems as if some think it is too bold.

As UT Planner pointed out a couple of pages back, when we last talked about having a Design Review Committee, it really will delay the timeline for many developments, because it wouldn't always simply take one visit to the DRC, it would often times take at least two visits. One to show the designs, and if not approved at that meeting, at least one more to come back with revisions. Those two meeting alone could take at least another two months, depending on how often the DRC meets.

I think the best way to accomplish the best design is to improve on the process we have now, if it meets zoning requirements then it can be approved. As has been mentioned, many design guidelines are in place in the zoning regulations, and the elimination of stucco, or a % of certain materials can be stated in those regulations.

Many people might not like the new Transit oriented development approval process. It is designed to allow for much faster approval, if certain scores are met with certain added features. Depending on the score, all but one approval can be eliminated. This is to encourage more sustainable, forward thinking and getting to construction sooner. There are however many design principals as part of the overall zoning, so it's not like someone can build a metal warehouse on N. Temple near Trax, just because it is LEED certified, etc.

[sock puppet]

Where can I find out who purchased the corner lot near me? I was told that a business bought the house and has plans to tear it down and build...but I don't know the details.
I'd also love to know the purchase price. There must be some way of finding out but me too stupid.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by sock puppet

Where can I find out who purchased the corner lot near me? I was told that a business bought the house and has plans to tear it down and build...but I don't know the details.
I'd also love to know the purchase price. There must be some way of finding out but me too stupid.

You can call the county assessors office and they can give you details on property ownership and recent purchases. It's all public record. You can also check the zoning to see what uses are allowed for that corner.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

So let me see if I've got this right. Many of you are saying we need a design review committee to allow more bold developments to happen in SLC, and to eliminate bland design and the over use of stucco. Then on the flip side, when something a little more bold in design and color, that has ZERO stucco "Eastside Apartments" gets built many are then complaining about that.

I for one absolutely love the Capital Theater addition. I would like to hear why several of you don't like it. It seems as if some think it is too bold.

As UT Planner pointed out a couple of pages back, when we last talked about having a Design Review Committee, it really will delay the timeline for many developments, because it wouldn't always simply take one visit to the DRC, it would often times take at least two visits. One to show the designs, and if not approved at that meeting, at least one more to come back with revisions. Those two meeting alone could take at least another two months, depending on how often the DRC meets.

I think the best way to accomplish the best design is to improve on the process we have now, if it meets zoning requirements then it can be approved. As has been mentioned, many design guidelines are in place in the zoning regulations, and the elimination of stucco, or a % of certain materials can be stated in those regulations.

Many people might not like the new Transit oriented development approval process. It is designed to allow for much faster approval, if certain scores are met with certain added features. Depending on the score, all but one approval can be eliminated. This is to encourage more sustainable, forward thinking and getting to construction sooner. There are however many design principals as part of the overall zoning, so it's not like someone can build a metal warehouse on N. Temple near Trax, just because it is LEED certified, etc.

No. I'm not complaining about that development at all. I quite like it.

As for a review board, as I said, I don't think we need a dominant city force that showers hell on bold development - rather guidelines that limit the use of stucco and advance more walkable development with better street engagement - which I think they've done a better job over the years. Moreover, I do think certain areas of the city should be regulated a tad more than the city as a whole - you know, a hospitality building like this:



Should never be approved by the city in its downtown core - at least in that state. Would anyone have had problems with the city enforcing a more urban design on a project like that even if it meant it would be delayed a few months? I certainly wouldn't. But the laissez-faire approach the city government has toward development, IMO, is not working.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

...Personally, I really like the design. I'm glad that it's loud and colorful especially on the east side. I also wondered to myself if people thought that the Capitol Theater was too loud or modern when it was built, just a thought.

I really like that will really enliven the alleyway that leads back to the
Blue Iguana and the Rocky Mountain Power "park". That "park" will be improved significantly with this project with all new landscaping.

Originally Posted by scottharding

I like the design as well. I think they've done a good job integrating it with the Capitol, but still letting it have its own modern style. I think it will look good, and be a great boon to downtown and the arts community. I'm glad their finally able to start on it.

I couldn't agree more for exactly the many reasons you guys cited. My interpretation of the rendering tells me that this new structure will not be at all too loud. Thank goodness they gave the new hall a very individualized character and massing. Not only does the building having it's own entity make it more attractive at the front, but it was necessary in order to fully meet the many programs of the company itself.