Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[jedikermit]

I think part of it is that it will be illuminated, part of it is that it's a treatment sample all condensed together, part of it is the lighting/lack of lighting that day....it'll be better than that sample. Maybe still not great, but better than that. Thanks for the find though Future Mayor.

[JMK]

Here is one of the pieces illuminated. The idea is to have the ability to change the color of the exterior depending on the theme colors of the show (i.e. Dracula=Red, Wicked=Green). The city is trying to decide if they want a black filter or clear filter which you can see affects the amount of light to come through the fixture and changes the appearance in the daytime (see last picture)


http://imgur.com/NH1GJ4M


http://imgur.com/IqyQFbe


http://imgur.com/wIDJKrV


http://imgur.com/ttzz8IO

[brankrom]

Originally Posted by Zionide

It would be awesome to have a site dedicated to SLC infill... but before that can happen, we'll need city leaders who believe in infill. Right now, we prefer to tear down existing buildings to make way for great new ones, instead of placing them on the 30% of downtown that's parking lot.

I would place the number at a lot higher than 30%. I've never been to another urban core that has as much parking as downtown SLC. Add in the structures and underground and there's a place for every car in the county. And the city wonders why meter revenue is down?

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by brankrom

I would place the number at a lot higher than 30%. I've never been to another urban core that has as much parking as downtown SLC. Add in the structures and underground and there's a place for every car in the county. And the city wonders why meter revenue is down?

Here's a couple I found with just a quick google maps view. Houston (a lot more surface lots than SLC), Cleveland, St Louis.

Revenue from street parking isn't down because of all the surface lots, revenue is down because less citations were issued. Less citations were issued for two reasons, 1) more people kept up on their meter payments because of the new system 2) more people parked in garages, this actually was part of the cities goal. The city wanted to create more turnover of the street spaces and encourage people to park in garages. Freeing up the street spaces for more of the day allows for more people to access street parking creating more foot traffic later into the evening.

[brankrom]

Well as long as Cleveland is doing it... then its okay. I didn't know that dying rust belt cities was something for SLC to aspire to.

I've never been to any of those cities but I did just look them up on Google Earth. Maybe I should have specified west coast cities. I didn't see much in Cleveland and was surprised to see that St. Louis has largely been leveled in the same way Detroit has with vast swaths of land being cleared right next to the downtown core.

I think the sentiment expressed about lack of infill is right on. There is way too much parking in SLC. You can park cars in garages or you can park people in residential, I prefer the latter. There's still a lot of work to do in downtown SLC.

[jedikermit]

^^^

I agree that there's too much surface parking in SLC, of course, and that there prime locations for infill (even beyond the cursed Carls Jr and Zions Bank parking lots). But I also agree that it's an apt comparison to St Louis (whose downtown core really has been gutted) and Cleveland (I think Future Mayor has worked there in planning in some capacity).

Bottom line, we need more infill. I'm fine with where the UPAC is going, and most of the buildings being removed were neither historic nor very usable; but when there are acres of parking lots right across the street, it's a bitter pill to swallow.

[Future Mayor]

Don't get me wrong I wasn't saying that I'm fine with all of our parking lots, I was simply pointing out that such a broad statement of the most anywhere is a bit of a stretch. Yes we have to many parking lots, but many other cities, rust belt and non rust belt have the same issues, and yes you're right if we compare to just Western cities we do have a few more than some of them. I would bet though that many city residents feel the same way about their city, that is has to many surface lots. I think that as residents we notice those things more, as opposed to when we are visiting a city and we don't necessarily notice it as much because we are only there a short time.

I do think the fabric of the city needs to be built from the established areas, Main, 2nd S, 3rd S and that it will grow outward from those streets. Eventually as demand for residential, commercial and retail in the core continues to increase those lots will begin to fill up. Someone is bound to make the argument that how can we expand when we continue to rebuild on the same places over and over. I would agree with this partially but when those areas that are being built on again were not really maximizing their potential sometimes they need to be redeveloped. CCC, 111, UPAC.

One positive is that we are slowly losing surface lots. 101 and it's attached garage was entirely surface lot. Parts of the Courthouse parcel was surface lots, a portion of Air was surface lot and there is a good chance that all or part of the CCH, will be on a current surface lot.

[SLC Projects]

Downtown is starting to see less and less surface parking lots slowly but surely. 101 office building replaced a parking lot, the new Questar building replaced a parking lot, The Metro Condos replaced a parking lot, 222 South Main replaced a parking lot, Gateway 6 replaced a parking lot, ect. Just to name a few.

[jimmycdii]

I've heard that the amount of downtown land devoted to parking is closer to 70%. I briefly tried to find the source of that figure but couldn't, so it may be wrong. But either way I think it's much, much higher than 30%.

And of course, I agree: more infill is needed.

[Comrade]

Salt Lake City very much operates as a rust belt city living in the west. I've always felt the city looks and acts like a rust belt city as opposed to a thriving, and growing, larger western city (compared to Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle and even Boise).

Those cities have parking lots, to be sure (especially Phoenix), but most those cities have already started developing those parking lots. Salt Lake doesn't. What stood as parking 20 years ago is pretty much parking today.

Hopefully the city will begin developing its parking - especially since Salt Lake blocks are huge and there are a handful of blocks nearly, or entirely, parking.

[Zionide]

Originally Posted by jimmycdii

I've heard that the amount of downtown land devoted to parking is closer to 70%. I briefly tried to find the source of that figure but couldn't, so it may be wrong. But either way I think it's much, much higher than 30%.

And of course, I agree: more infill is needed.

Sorry for not being more clear: the 30% figure is surface lots only, and references the CBD only. The figure came from a U of U planning student analysis, and---to be fair---I did not checked the analysis's accuracy or methodology.

[brankrom]

It's not just the surface (thought that's what was pointed to) but there's a whole lot of absentee landlords and dilapidated structures, Arrowpress, DV8, Zephyr, Broadway between State and Main, Eat a Burger, and even the buildings on 100 South with Mikado (or naked fish whatever its called) need some serious maintenance. It seems the owners (either the land bankers or the RDA) are asking too much for the land. I would think with the obvious over supply of land in the form of parking lots or worthless shells, land prices should be declining not rising. It would be very possible for lower cost and more affordable housing to be built if land bankers and the RDA weren't artificially inflating prices. Sure everyone wants value of their land to go up, but why is it better for lots to sit vacant and deteriorating for decades? Does anyone doubt that the land bankers that have been holding on to this land since the 70s won't make a nice profit even with a lower asking price?

More people would move downtown if there were more affordable options. Why do people move to the suburbs and exurbs? It largely price point. I'm not saying everything needs to be bargain basement slum box, but the places could be nice and attractive if only land prices in the downtown core retreated and were in line with the ample supply. Residential towers, even some row houses, live work lofts are holes in the market for downtown residential IMO. We have the high end residential market covered for now the form of CCC, but middle class and young professionals (and even gasp! poor people) need options too, including something more than a two bedroom. Why are we not seeing comparable price point to suburbia there's no reason with the glut of land that it couldn't be done.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by brankrom

It's not just the surface (thought that's what was pointed to) but there's a whole lot of absentee landlords and dilapidated structures, Arrowpress, DV8, Zephyr, Broadway between State and Main, Eat a Burger, even the buildings on 100 South with Mikado (or naked fish whatever its called). Seems the owners (either the land bankers or the RDA) are asking too much for the land. I would think with the obvious over supply of land in the form of parking lots or worthless shells, land prices should be declining not rising. It would be very possible for lower cost and more affordable housing to be built if land bankers and the RDA weren't artificially inflating prices. Sure everyone wants value of their land to go up, but why is it better for lots to sit vacant and deteriorating for decades? Does anyone doubt that the land bankers that have been holding on to this land since the 70s won't make a nice profit even with a lower asking price?

More people would move downtown if there were more affordable options mean why do people move to the suburbs and exurbs it largely price point? I'm not saying everything needs to be bargain basement slum box, but the places could be nice and attractive if only land prices in the downtown core retreated and were in line with the ample supply. Residential towers, even some row houses, live work lofts are holes in the market for downtown residential. We have the high end residential market covered for now the form of CCC, but middle class and young professionals (and even gasp! poor people) need options, too including something more than a two bedroom, with comparable price point to suburbia there's no reason with the glut of land that it couldn't be done.

Agreed. All the new apartments tent for $1350+ for 2 beds, and the new condos are worse. Then their is a bunch of income restricted places like Providence Place, etc, but to qualify you've got to make less than 35k for a married couple. My wife and I are both college graduates (Westminster) who have about 50k in combined student loans, but since we make more than a combined 35 k we can't live downtown. The land bankers/developers have created a playground for the rich, and poor, while the lower middle class has to look to the suburbs. Such a shame when you consider how many couples in their mid-late twenties there are like us. It's people like us who could brung downtown its vibrancy.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by brankrom

It's not just the surface (thought that's what was pointed to) but there's a whole lot of absentee landlords and dilapidated structures, Arrowpress, DV8, Zephyr, Broadway between State and Main, Eat a Burger, even the buildings on 100 South with Mikado (or naked fish whatever its called). Seems the owners (either the land bankers or the RDA) are asking too much for the land. I would think with the obvious over supply of land in the form of parking lots or worthless shells, land prices should be declining not rising. It would be very possible for lower cost and more affordable housing to be built if land bankers and the RDA weren't artificially inflating prices.

Agreed--that seems to be as much of a problem, especially along certain streets, as the surface lot situation.

[Future Mayor]

I agree with what you said. I do have to defend the RDA though. The RDA looks to buy properties that are run down or being land banked and they then offer those properties to developers at below market rate value. The RDA does this because they feel like we do, that the property needs to be developed. For instance the State St Project being built by LaPorte was property owned by the RDA. The RDA then asked for RFP's on the property and then awarded the bid, which included purchasing the property at a much lower than market value price to LaPorte. In these RDA deals, if the developer doesn't fulfill their contract with the RDA, then the property and it's improvements reverts back to the RDA.

The city and state need to make it more harsh for land banker to allow their properties to deteriorate. Whether that's through fines or other means I'm not sure, but they need to be forcefully encouraged to update or sale. It's not as if they haven't been offered. I had my realtor talk the Broadway owners several years ago, before the recession hit and they had ZERO interest in selling, he also talked to Arrow Press Sqaure a few years ago and at that point they were holding out hope that it would be purchased as the spot for the CCH. We all know that spot won't work, but they obviously don't. My hope is that once it doesn't happen on their property that they will be much more willing to consider offers.

As for the discrepancy in housing options, I too am frustrated that there aren't more options for a wider range of income individuals. Housing assistance, as has been stated only helps those that make below a certain amount. One cost that needs to be figured into both renters/buyers minds and lenders minds is taking into account the reduction of a car payment with Urban living. Pre recession, Seattle had a few banks that had more lenient lending criteria for purchases within 1/4 mile of transit.

[gusam26]

This is off topic the air center was scheduled to open in January, but obviously that didn't happen and there hasn't been any movement at all on that site. Has anyone heard anything on this project?

[jimmycdii]

Phoenix (mentioned above) is an interesting case. I've been visiting a lot lately and I was surprised that the overall feel of downtown was in some ways more "even" or consistent feeling than SLC's. For example, all sides of their convention center still felt like a city, whereas the parking lots near ours tend to reduce that effect beyond west temple. I thought the best parts of downtown SLC (Main Street) were a lot better than the best parts of downtown Phoenix, but the overall effect there might have been a little better (at least in the spring, when the weather is nice).

I'm guessing that was the result of smaller blocks producing generally smaller parking lots. And by "downtown" Phoenix I'm thinking of a very small area bounded by, and inside of, the parking lots near the University, the stadium, etc.

(That said, it seems like Phoenix, one of the top 10 cities in the US, should be embarrassed that it would only have a downtown comparable to SLC. But I digress...)

[Future Mayor]

Newhouse Apartments are back up to level 2.

[UTPlanner]

The Air Center on West Temple and 400 South is working on finalizing their building permits. They have been slow to respond to city comments but they have been in the office recently which is a good sign.

Also, downtown SLC is nowhere near 30% surface parking lots. Preliminary information done along with the update to the Downtown Master Plan indicate that it is closer to 10%. There are definitely too many and I don't defend city leaders tearing down buildings rather than building on surface parking lots but I thought I would share the percentage. This percentage was determined utilizing our GIS software.

[Future Mayor]

How dare you use facts when it comes to surface parking UT Planner. How are we suppose to 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and moan that 95% of downtown is one giant parking lot if you go throwing facts around?