Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It seems with every update I become more meh to this building.

So...

meh

Amen.

I fear that in thirty years people will look at this building like we look at 1980s skyscrapers today. And then sixty years afterward they'll tear it down for something else. Great.

[gusam26]

I Dont like that building as much anymore.

[EPdesign]

I really hope they didn't scrap the accordion look. Don't get me wrong. I am glad we are getting a tall building. It just would have been unique if they kept the look

[delts145]

This is the exact same style of rendering as was released for 222. It's way to early to rush to judgement. Right now, I'm going to appreciate the excellent adjustments so eloquently described by SLC2GeorgetownU. Remember, especially those of you who endured the buildup to the actual placement of the glass curtain on 222. The renderings of 222 were very understated to the point of being painful. Hamilton has a tendancy to do that. I don't know if it's intentional, so as to not raise expectations too high, or just the artist's questionable style. Remember how many were ringing their hands over how bland the Main Street engagement of 222 was going to be, after viewing the renderings. A few forumers cautioned that we should not rush to judgement, and they were right. Renderings can be oh so flattering, but also can be ridiculously understated and bland. Hamilton tends to fall toward the very bland category. Particularly regarding the color, don't even pay attention to it. Someone should talk with Hamilton and get a better understanding of what their actual intentions are with the directional details of the glass curtain. I'm guessing, based on our past experience with Hamilton, that they won't let us down. 222's Main Street glass engagement, and also the restoration work they've accomplished throughout Main has all been outstanding.

[goldcntry]

I'm willing to concede the color issue on the new rendering. Unfortunately, it looks like the accordion look is gone. Dare we hope that is another rendering oversight and will be there in real life or are we just stuck with "meh"?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by delts145

This is the exact same style of rendering as was released for 222. It's way to early to rush to judgement. Right now, I'm going to appreciate the excellent adjustments so eloquently described by SLC2GeorgetownU. Remember, especially those of you who endured the buildup to the actual placement of the glass curtain on 222. The renderings of 222 were very understated to the point of being painful. Hamilton has a tendancy to do that. I don't know if it's intentional, so as to not raise expectations too high, or just the artist's questionable style. Remember how many were ringing their hands over how bland the Main Street engagement of 222 was going to be, after viewing the renderings. A few forumers cautioned that we should not rush to judgement, and they were right. Renderings can be oh so flattering, but also can be ridiculously understated and bland. Hamilton tends to fall toward the very bland category. Particularly regarding the color, don't even pay attention to it. Someone should talk with Hamilton and get a better understanding of what their actual intentions are with the directional details of the glass curtain. I'm guessing, based on our past experience with Hamilton, that they won't let us down. 222's Main Street glass engagement, and also the restoration work they've accomplished throughout Main has all been outstanding.

You're making it seem like 222 is some masterful piece of architecture here. It really isn't - it's a decent looking skyscraper and nothing more.

I think the complaints from people here is that, again, we're getting a significant tower that's look won't distinguish it from the thousands of other towers going up throughout America right now.

Our skyline is pretty uninspiring for this very reason.

It is disappointing because A) it's a box and B) it's not even a very original box. One of its saving graces was the accordion feel and now that doesn't exist anymore. So, yeah, as someone who defended this tower back when initial renderings were released, I stand by my meh.

[ajiuO]

I don't think its hideous.. Although I wouldn't call it anything special either. Its just kind of a cookie cutter sky scraper.. That is just there..

We have some "nice" looking skyscrapers in down town Salt Lake.. But nothing amazing or inspiring.. Its all pretty cookie cutter.. Hopefully one day we will get that "iconic" skyscraper that we all want... I wouldn't count on it any time soon though... I just try to be happy with the height and density... As long as it doesn't look like the Borg cube.. Ill be ok with it.

At least we have some nice architecture in the capital and the temple.. And some of our smaller building.. If only we could work a bit of imagination in to a skyscraper

[ToysNoiz]

[Future Mayor]

Contrary to many of the opinions that have been expressed regarding our skyline, I think we have one of the most amazing skylines in the world. Show me another city with a skyline like this.


image from wikipedia.

[Stenar]

This very boring lobby level doesn't not look as cool or as sophisticated and urbane as the previous lobby level we saw.

The lobby level was the only part I was excited about before. I wasn't a huge fan of the accordion at first, but now I wish they had stuck with it, compared to what it's become. It's way more bland and less sophisticated.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Contrary to many of the opinions that have been expressed regarding our skyline, I think we have one of the most amazing skylines in the world. Show me another city with a skyline like this.


image from wikipedia.

Agree 200% Future Mayor. There's no duplicating Salt Lake City's backdrop, at least as far as major cities in No. America go.

[Comrade]

It's a great backdrop - it's not our skyline, however.

I say that with great respect because, really, those mountains are visible from only one view. Every other view is different, and less impressive. The actual skyline, though, remains - whether it's viewed from the north, east, south or west.

Salt Lake's actual skyline, the collection of buildings that make it up, is underwhelming - especially for a city our size. I'm optimistic it'll get better over the next few years, but I just wish we had an influx of impressive towers that stood out. 222 and 111 are not bad towers - but they're nothing to write home about, either.

I just hope the convention hotel is much more dramatic, less boxy and more impressive.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It's a great backdrop - it's not our skyline, however.

I say that with great respect because, really, those mountains are visible from only one view. Every other view is different, and less impressive. The actual skyline, though, remains - whether it's viewed from the north, east, south or west.

Salt Lake's actual skyline, the collection of buildings that make it up, is underwhelming - especially for a city our size. I'm optimistic it'll get better over the next few years, but I just wish we had an influx of impressive towers that stood out. 222 and 111 are not bad towers - but they're nothing to write home about, either.

I just hope the convention hotel is much more dramatic, less boxy and more impressive.

I agree with you.

Our skyline is underwhelming for a metro our size. Every time I go to the Austin compilation threads, I get hugely jealous. 10 years ago, Austin's skyline was boring and very unimpressive. Today it is becoming one of the better skylines out there with multiple new towers under construction/proposed. I wish we could have an Austin boom soon.

[SLC Projects]

Well since Salt Lake City and Austin seem to always be the top two cities with job growth or what not It only seems like Austin's getting all the towers. While, yes, I know Salt Lake has gotten a few new towers with 99 west, 222 South Main and such, we are no where near the skyscraper boom that Austin is having right now. But yet, I feel like our's is coming. We are getting a ton of new 4-10 story housing developments all over town as well as a few new office buildings and hotels around 6-7 stories. But we truly need more Skysrcapers.

[Future Mayor]

There are ways to improve our skyline, however it requires things that many people don't like. Here are a few examples of those things;

Curbing Sprawl - If we continue to allow the sprawling pattern of home construction into the exurbs, without any true associated costs, the jobs are going to follow, reducing the number of buildings needed in our three downtowns, (I'm including Ogden and Provo into this discussion.) The true cost of suburban sprawl is not being shouldered by those that choose to live in those areas. I don't feel that incentives need to be offered to more compact and urban living, but the true cost of sprawl definitely needs to be shouldered by those choosing sprawl.


Economic incentives to businesses expanding or moving into the state - Yes economic incentives help our growth and overall economic vitality, but allowing them to move into green fields and suburban office parks is hurting our downtowns. I think the Governors office of economic development needs to adjusts the incentives it provides depending on where those companies choose to locate, don't simply give them the same incentive if they move to a Lehi office park as they would receive if they located in downtown.


Gas tax - The gas tax needs to be raised and all or at least the majority of the gas tax needs to go to transit. The increase needs to be focused on two areas of transit, most importantly is reducing the cost of transit travel and secondly, to improve access to more residents.


It all comes back to true costs and what is truly more green. Cities already have the infrastructure to accommodate more growth and have the transit systems to allow more people to enter and exit the city without the need for more roads. What is ironic is that the more the city grows in height and density, and the more the suburbs grow in density around transit, the taller and more impressive our downtown skyline(s) become, and the greener less polluted we become.

[Future Mayor]

Another issue facing SLC's skyline is the fact that it seems that the majority of the development over the past 100 years has simply occurred in the same spot time after time, mostly on Main St. The city hasn't expanded beyond that a whole lot, and that leaves plenty of available spots for the shorter buildings (as Projects pointed out) to be built on under or undeveloped land just out side the traditional core. While I too would love to see several new skyscrapers built, more of the undeveloped land needs to be developed even if it is with 6-7 story buildings. The less land that is available the greater the need for vertical development. So while Boyer 101, Air7, and the new Courthouse aren't all that tall, they are taking up available land. Leaving less land for future office development.

[Comrade]

Yes. Austin is a city I'm absolutely jealous over. When I first started posting on this forum, the difference between our skyline and theirs was minimal - in fact, they were very similar.

Here is Austin's skyline ten years ago:



This is their skyline today:



It's unrecognizable.

Our skyline is different than what it was in 2003 - but not by much.

Granted, Austin is the capital of Texas, a much larger state than Utah, but it doesn't change the fact we're still lagging behind a great deal of cities roughly our size. I would LOVE to see the type of growth Austin has the last ten years. If SLC can experience a similar boom, our skyline in 2023 will be completely different than today. Unfortunately, right now, our skyline compared to 2003 isn't much different...

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Granted, Austin is the capital of Texas, a much larger state than Utah, but it doesn't change the fact we're still lagging behind a great deal of cities roughly our size. I would LOVE to see the type of growth Austin has the last ten years. If SLC can experience a similar boom, our skyline in 2023 will be completely different than today. Unfortunately, right now, our skyline compared to 2003 isn't much different...

Agreed. And I feel we are only just falling further and further behind.

Austin 2003-2013
Frost Bank Tower 33-stories 2004
360 Condominiums 44-stories 2008
The Monarch 29-stories 2008
Windsor on the Lake 31-stories 2008
The Ashton 36-stories 2009
Spring 43-stories 2009
W Austin Hotel & Residences 37-stories 2010
Four Seasons Residences 32-stories 2010
The Austonian 56-stories 2010

With plenty more planned between now and 2020.


Salt Lake City 2003-2013
222 South Main 21-stories 2009
99 West 30-stories 2011
The Regent 20-stories 2011

And.........I guess the federal courthouse 10-stories 2013 ( should I even count that? )

Still waiting on......

The Cascade 19-30 stories
111 South Main 24-stories
Tower 8
CHH

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Curbing Sprawl - If we continue to allow the sprawling pattern of home construction into the exurbs, without any true associated costs, the jobs are going to follow, reducing the number of buildings needed in our three downtowns, (I'm including Ogden and Provo into this discussion.) The true cost of suburban sprawl is not being shouldered by those that choose to live in those areas. I don't feel that incentives need to be offered to more compact and urban living, but the true cost of sprawl definitely needs to be shouldered by those choosing sprawl.
.

But doesn't most cities, if not all have a Sprawl issue? All the metros I've seen have a downtown that is surrounded by suburbans. Only most metros don't have a big lake on one end with mountains on both sides to limit the land to develop on, but yet our skyline is much smaller then most, even metros our size who have unlimited amount of flat land to develop on.
I know a lot of it has to do with Population. But about 80% of our state's Population is within 100 miles up and down the Wasatch Front in a limit amount of space between our mountains and lakes ( 2,855,287 state total with about at least 2 million between Ogden and Provo ) but yet Salt Lake City's population is still under 200,000, while there's now over a million in the Salt Lake Valley.
Think the biggest issue we've had for the longest time is lack of mass transit which hopefully now will be a thing of the past after having all those new lines opening up during these past five years. And that.....hopefully comes more dense development.

[DMTower]

Part of the problem is cultural. There is a misconception that you can only raise a family out in the suburbs, and a large part of the local population considers family building their 1st priority... so as long as that attitude prevails, dense urban living will suffer.