Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I really wish we'd see at least a decent 10-plus story residential building. While these five-story buildings are nice, and add density, I just don't get why we have such an aversion nowadays to taller residential buildings - especially since, throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, a smattering were built throughout the eastern & downtown areas.

Agreed. We need more height. At least we got the regent and 99 West, which are both great.

[farmerboy]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I really wish we'd see at least a decent 10-plus story residential building. While these five-story buildings are nice, and add density, I just don't get why we have such an aversion nowadays to taller residential buildings - especially since, throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, a smattering were built throughout the eastern & downtown areas.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think it's that exact era of Corbusian high rise residential that gave many people a natural aversion to these types of development.

My personal opinion is that the tower developments as residence don't add a lot to the vibrancy of a city. I am rather fond of the 5-7 story residential, it seems well proportioned for our blocks.

[SLC Projects]

It's cheaper for developers the build 4-5 story wooden building then to have to use steel once they get above 7-stories. That's why we see a lot of apartments 7-stories or less.

[Plaid Shirts]

I also think that one of the basic things is that apartments between 4-7 floors are more popular right now compared to high-rise apartment complexes.

[Comrade]

It may be cheaper, but in terms of really changing the dynamics of the city, I still feel we're missing out. I don't expect a ton of proposals, but if you go beyond what the LDS Church has developed, there have literally been zero substantial residential mid-to-high-rise developments in Salt Lake City in a long, long, long time.

[Comrade]

I mean, look at the development seen in Portland recently:

Park Avenue West Tower (2015):



Mirabella Portland (2010):



Indigo 12 West (2009):



Ladd Tower (2009):




The Ardea (2008):



Atwater Place (2008):



The John Ross Tower (2007):



Benson Tower (2007):



There is definitely more, but I'll just stick to that. I'd take just two of those right now. The best hope for growing Salt Lake's skyline isn't necessarily through commercial towers - but rather these types of residential high-rises. They would dramatically change the skyline. Alas...

[Future Mayor]

I think we'll get there. We have to take into consideration that Portlands urban growth started to happen several years before ours. So they probably had a smattering of 4-7 story apartment buildings going up on the outskirts of their CBD several years before they started to get the highrises shown above.

While it's nothing compared to Portland, the fact that we recently saw a 19 story and a 32 story residential tower completed that doubled our highrise residential in one development is nothing to scoff at, not to mention the additional 19 story tower that is planned.

With that said though, I don't think we'll see nearly as many for several more years, because our blocks are so much larger that developers don't need to go upward to take advantage of the available land. Case in point, The Metro Condos, that takes up over half a block face, because it could. If the block was shorter or the city required them to create an E/W midblock access it very well may have been a few stories taller.

Two things will drive our residential higher; 1) Available land in the CBD and around the edge will start to become more scarce and demand for housing will require it to be built taller. (this is the exact same principal that is resulting in taller commercial buildings) 2) The city will either start carving the blocks into smaller pieces themselves (I don't see this happening) or they will start to require/encourage more mid-block access created by developers, through offering density bonuses, or some other type of incentives to break up the blocks.

Trust me I want to see both our residential and our commercial buildings reach higher, and I see that happening along 4th S, closer to the Trax stops, but I don't see 4th S, going much taller than about 10 stories except for maybe near the Library stop.


As for for salvaging the pieces from the bank as part of the PAC project, the ornate ceiling is in the building that is currently still standing, the one with the arched front. I guess if we see that building standing a bit longer than it seems like it would require to simply tear it down, then maybe we can assume that they are saving the ceiling for use somewhere in the PAC. Hopefully there is a reason they demolished only as far as they did.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

As for for salvaging the pieces from the bank as part of the PAC project, the ornate ceiling is in the building that is currently still standing, the one with the arched front. I guess if we see that building standing a bit longer than it seems like it would require to simply tear it down, then maybe we can assume that they are saving the ceiling for use somewhere in the PAC.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[StevenF]

I would like to say that yes Portland has added in a lot of high-rise housing in the South Waterfront area but it has stalled considerably. Just like Salt Lake they are now mainly getting the 3-7 floor housing developments. I have only noticed 1 or 2 developments going into the Pearl District that are taller than that.

The thing is the rich in Salt Lake tend to gather along our mountains with the views or up in the Park City area. It is a different demographic here. We are seeing a slow growth towards city living but you can't really compare Portland a port city to Salt Lake which is in a mountain area. Portland's 2 million plus metro is gathered around the city, while Salt Lakes CSA's 2 million plus is spread out along the whole stretch of the Wasatch Front. People pay for the views from the mountain benches here and people pay for the river side views you get from the South Waterfront.

[Comrade]

I wouldn't say it's stalled too terribly. But ours hasn't even started.

The thing is, beyond the LDS Church, is there any developer willing to build a residential tower? I'm not so sure. I maintain that is the quickest way to expand the Salt Lake skyline because, for most cities, those developments are more common than a commercial tower.

Our skyline has expanded - but it could be so much more if we went vertical with our residential living. So far, we're not really doing that beyond what the LDS Church is ready to invest in our community. But even they are limited in their stretch and it would be nice for an independent developer to come in and bring true urban living to the city.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I wouldn't say it's stalled too terribly. But ours hasn't even started.

The thing is, beyond the LDS Church, is there any developer willing to build a residential tower? I'm not so sure. I maintain that is the quickest way to expand the Salt Lake skyline because, for most cities, those developments are more common than a commercial tower.

Our skyline has expanded - but it could be so much more if we went vertical with our residential living. So far, we're not really doing that beyond what the LDS Church is ready to invest in our community. But even they are limited in their stretch and it would be nice for an independent developer to come in and bring true urban living to the city.

What about the residential state street plaza development? It's not 20-stories, but it's nice to see some kind of residential development over 7-stories at ten stories. It's a start.......right?

[SLC Projects]

Also the Boyer Company develop "the Parc" condos back in 2004 ( wow, has it been ten years ) that is 12-stories and is the tallest building on the west side I believe.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I maintain that is the quickest way to expand the Salt Lake skyline because, for most cities, those developments are more common than a commercial tower.

It would also bring more residents into the downtown core, increasing the vibrancy of the community there. I love the Regent and 99 West, but (particularly in 99 West), I'm guessing many of the units are being purchased by wealthy people (necessarily) who are using it as a second home, or even as a home they only use a few weeks out of the year. It's anecdotal, but that's what my wife's aunt and uncle do; they actually live in Phoenix, but have enough family up here that they like to keep some kind of residence here. It used to be a condo in the Gateway; when 99 West opened, they "moved" over.

Point is, even though those towers have been built, those residents may not be doing as much dining/shopping/going out at night as I'd like. I hate seeing empty streets in downtown SLC at night. And on weekends. And...a lot of the time. Comrade's right; we need some more residential height. But it will take someone with vision to make it happen.

[delts145]

I agree with Comrade and Jedi. But, Future Mayor is probably right in that it is an evolving process. That future evolving process could also be pretty rapid for Salt Lake City. We're already starting to see an increase in frequency of mid and high rise announcements. I would like to see whatever means possible used to encourage high rise apartment rental development between State and W. Temple.

However, we have to address the issue of what pencils out for the developer when a project rises above the typical stick construction. Are the current rental rates at this time for an apartment downtown sufficient to attract development over a certain height? Is there enough of a singles, dinks, empty nesters market that will pay the higher rents for their preferred urbanista location? What more can leaders do to encourage an increase of that demographic, which gravitates toward a Downtown setting? Salt Lake City is still one of the nations prevalent family leaning metros, and that demographic will always prefer more shoulder room.

Regarding periods of empty streets in the evening. I think that UPAC and it's future extended theatrical runs will help to increase the periods of vibrancy along Main and the surrounding area. Also, I think we're in for a lot of construction along W. Temple this next ten years. The CCH, Courthouse, and even Air 7 will be major motivators in the right direction.

CCC, the coming of the CCH and UPAC are all going to create a synergy that will be irresistible. I think that minus a major financial calamity, SLC's CBD will only see a major acceleration of vertical development. The CCH, along with pushing the increased size and frequency of downtown conventions can't be stressed enough.

I also hope that Salt lake City is taking a hard core, fact based look at it's homeless situation. By whatever means necessary, it is paramount to keep those who are truly deserving separated from those who would simply benefit from enablers like many of us. Every major CBD is grappling with the problem. Los Angeles has gone waay overboard with it's enabling, and it's downtown suffers exhaustingly because of it. Hopefully, the new Mayor's impetus will translate to verifiable action. With Downtown Los Angeles, no matter the progress it tries valiantly to make, too many of it's evening streets are more like "The Walking Dead" zone than you can imagine. For those of you who are fans of the TV series you'll know what I'm talking about.

[jimmycdii]

As someone who loves tall buildings, I wish we had more. But I would seriously question the idea that they're going to add much vibrancy to downtown — which I think is a more important issue for Salt Lake.

As jedikermit points out, high rise housing tends to be more expensive, meaning it can get snatched up by wealthy people who may not even use it. When I decided to move downtown, I couldn't afford 99 West so I moved into BPL. Now I have a view of 99 West and the Regent, both of which are almost entirely dark at night.

My point is that low rise apartments, because they're cheaper, may actually add vibrancy to the streets.

Also, consider that most European cities — especially those with a reputation for being vibrant (Paris, Barcelona, Rome, Florence, Berlin, London, etc.) — are mostly low rise cities. These cities also tend to have much higher densities than American cities, even dense ones.

Also, look at Manhattan: the areas with the tallest buildings tend to be less vibrant than those with low rise housing (tourist zones excepted). In my limited experience in Portland I noticed the same thing (though I've spent a lot less time there.)

Like I said, I wish we had more towers. But between getting a fancier skyline and streets that aren't so empty they feel post-apocalypic, I'd take the latter. And I think low rise buildings may be at least or more important for getting there.

[Plaid Shirts]

When it comes to density, SLC will never feel dense. When you look at dense cities (Rome, Seattle, Paris, Washington DC, London, etc.) they do not have a grid system when it comes to their streets. Not having a grid system allows views from street levels to feel more dense. Obviously with a grid you can see all the way down a street. But with a non-grid system you can maybe look down a street and see a building front and center a couple blocks down. Also SLC's wide streets and large blocks will never allow it to have an overall dense feel.

[RosePark]

I agree with jimmy. I want to see a downtown SLC with a more active and vibrant street life. The only way that occurs is with affordable housing. It has to be affordable for the kind of demographic that is likely to frequent bars and restaurants and make a difference to the vibrancy. The more full-time residents there are, the more the demand for goods and services in the downtown area. As land becomes occupied to accommodate these residents, it will push development up and onto the vacant parking lots. Land will not be so cheap and easy.

[Comrade]

It seems some of you are under the impression it's an either-or proposition. There can be, and should be, a healthy mix of these developments. That's the difference between a true urban city and a small town who decided to revitalize its city center with the smaller residential developments.

[RosePark]

Delete

[RosePark]

SLC is featured in the following poll to determine the US's ten best convention cities:

http://www.10best.com/awards/travel/best-convention-city/

Currently Indianapolis leads the way