Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

I also really like that strip where Canellas, Les Madelines, e, the lofts, etc. Those are to the west of the Utah State Office of Education. The bail bonds building is to the East, and isn't anything to write home about. It's a dingy one story building that doesn't generate foot traffic.

My mistake. I was thinking Dewey's Bail Bonds, which is in the the Cannella's strip. I'm all for putting something better on the Education building and Beehive Bail Bonds sites, with a pedestrian connection and development all the way through to 600 S.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I'm sorry but that is not true. Big cities created big parks as a reaction to density. The parks followed density. Central Park involved evictions and demolitions. This idea that more green space equals density is from Sim City and not real life. I'm sorry. I feel like a messenger from the future telling you all this and this future message is from the 1970s.

And that message is this. Parks don't act on their surrounding neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhood acts on the park. Which means your theory is grabage. If a park is put in a low pedestrian area it will not only do nothing, it will further bring down the vibrancy of the area and create higher crime.

Everyone should read chapter 5 of The Death and Life of Great American Cities. It's where this whole idea comes from. neighborhoods act on parks and these other points of place making.

Parks:

1. Cannot be too common within a neighborhood

2. Need “intricacy,” or variety in landscaping, topography and use

3. A Center — for small parks that may be nearly the entire area — which should be the climax of the park experience

4. Sun

5. Diverse types of surrounding buildings

Urban planning should be more about place making than creating green loops.




I may disagree with future mayor, but at least he gets that the way you fix this liability that is a park is by improving the urban life surrounding it.

1. You can't change Utahns attitudes by beating your chest.

2. SLC is a post automobile city you can't compare it to pre automobile cities.

3. We have a shit load of land and it's still quite cheap. When the price of land goes up and the commute becomes too long then people will stop buying single family homes an a 1/4 acre. Developing our open space will only exacerbate Salt Lake's sprawl.

4. Let's develop parking lots not parks.


Of course you fix the urban life around it but the park isn't the core of the problem which you seem to think it is.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by airhero

I think most of us get that. What we don't get is putting a building on every corner of Washington Square. It's a weird idea.

Then why am I the only one bringing up the absurdity of adding more green space or the possibility that we have more than we can take care of? We hear about more proposed strips of lawn with the green loop in the master plan and I hear nothing from you. But I bring up the fact that our blocks are massive and we have a need to supplement Washington Square with some buildings with services and everyone loses their minds.

I think we're pretty far behind "getting it" when it comes to place making in Salt Lake City.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

2. SLC is a post automobile city you can't compare it to pre automobile cities.

I'm sorry, I can't. This post literally gave me cancer. I have to go to the IHC and start my treatments.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Then why am I the only one bringing up the absurdity of adding more green space or the possibility that we have more than we can take care of? We hear about more proposed strips of lawn with the green loop in the master plan and I hear nothing from you. But I bring up the fact that our blocks are massive and we have a need to supplement Washington Square with some buildings with services and everyone loses their minds.

I think we're pretty far behind "getting it" when it comes to place making in Salt Lake City.

Because there is a car dealership across the street. The 5th and 6th south massive one way bullshit is the real problem. Shuffle all the commuters back to their suburbs. We should be trying to get as many of the 200,000 daily commuters as possible to move into the city. Instead we design our city around their commute. It's infuriating.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Then why am I the only one bringing up the absurdity of adding more green space or the possibility that we have more than we can take care of? We hear about more proposed strips of lawn with the green loop in the master plan and I hear nothing from you. But I bring up the fact that our blocks are massive and we have a need to supplement Washington Square with some buildings with services and everyone loses their minds.

I think we're pretty far behind "getting it" when it comes to place making in Salt Lake City.

Count me out of the group of people losing their minds. I'm interested in what you're saying. But as far as the conversation up until now has been concerned, we're all thinking specifically about the civic center in our responses, particularly Washington Square, not the green loop.

I believe Washington Square could benefit from having some adjacent development to add some vibrancy to the area. Developing outside the square, meaning across the street in any direction, could help bring that vibrancy. The effect those developments have, though, could be limited since 400 S, State Street, and 500 S are all very wide, very busy streets, and anything built across these streets may not have the effect we're hoping for, since there would be a disconnect. I suppose that is one argument for developing on the square. It's a weird idea. Maybe not a bad idea, but weird. Sorry for the jumbled thoughts.

[ThePusherMan]

I will say that our cities real vibrancy problems start as soon as you get south of 400 s. I recently had family in town and we walked from my house (3rd and 3rd) to the State Room. That should be an easy 15 minute walk but good lorde it felt like a death march. I was at the receiving end of questions like, "Oh, Isn't this place was downtown?" Huey P. Newton!!! 6TH AND STATE SHOULD NOT FEEL LIKE A LONG WAY FROM DOWNTOWN. Hell, it should be perceived as downtown!

I agree that some more activity surrounding Washington Square should be a high priority for the city. I like to day dream of returning the Plandome Hotel back to it's former glory. A (real) boutique hotel there with a bad ass bar and restaurant on the ground floor.

There are really two main offenders separating "downtown" from what is perceived as not being downtown to the south (SoDo). First is the car dealerships. Duh. And her comes an unpopular opinion, please spare me, The Grand America and Little America Hotels. Two entire city blocks that offer the foot traveling pedestrian NOTHING! I'm all for having high end places for rich people to throw their money away but these buildings although nice to look at the first couple of times you walk by them simply take up too much downtown prime real estate. It's a shame too because the Grand has a really cool toy shop and bar if only they engaged the street a little.

RIP The Flower Patch.

[Future Mayor]

I actually don't think that's an unpopular opinion at all on this site. While those hotels are nice hotels, you are right they offer ZERO(GA), and nearly ZERO (LA) in the form of pedestrian engagement. The only reason Little gets a nearly is that at least the restaurant faces Main St. Grand America missed the boat when they first built, and their clash with Flower Patch. They should have taken that opportunity to engage the street, give Flower Patch that corner location, and have an entrance on each street to draw people in to that is in the hotel, or at the very minimum, have an entrance on each corner so that each street is engaged a little bit.

[s.p.hansen]

^^

Yeah, none of those are unpopular opinions unless you're 80 and my grandparents.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

^^

Yeah, none of those are unpopular opinions unless you're 80 and my grandparents.

Good. I know there is a lot of fondness for GA in particular but seriously the block between 5th and 6th are such a dead zone. I don't know what they were thinking.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Because there is a car dealership across the street. The 5th and 6th south massive one way bullshit is the real problem. Shuffle all the commuters back to their suburbs. We should be trying to get as many of the 200,000 daily commuters as possible to move into the city. Instead we design our city around their commute. It's infuriating.

Again though, according to your logic, that car dealership shouldn't even be there because of the park existing. Because you know, you drag the bulldozer icon over the area where the park is going to be and build the park and now taller more urban buildings are supposed to start popping up.

If we don't stop acting like a suburb with our planning priorities, we really don't have a lot of reasons to believe we're special and by that I mean not a suburb.

[Future Mayor]

I have never been into the Grand America, so I'm not aware of the layout, but I am assuming that there are at least a few opportunities that they could extend their buildings to the street, to allow for connection into the restaurants or retail areas of the complex. If nothing else at least place some display windows on Main St, showing what is available inside. Obviously there currently isn't a lot of pedestrian traffic in that part of town, but some Main St engagement would be nice.


In regards to making that part of State a bit more downtownish(urban), the addition of two room towers, one on each State St corner would help substantially. Even if each tower was only at 150' (State St right of way is roughly 140') would visually narrow the street, at least a little bit from that side, and it would help to visually narrow 5th S as well. With a new south tower and the new apartments going in on the SW corner of 6th S and State that combination would help that corner tremendously.

Little America has so much potential as well. All those low-rise 1960's era motel rooms on the block, some of those could definitely be torn down and redeveloped into something of much more height, density and pedestrian engagement. Keep some of the mid-block face rooms, but add some taller buildings on the corners. Maybe add some mid-block walkways through the block as both N/S and E/W.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by airhero

Count me out of the group of people losing their minds. I'm interested in what you're saying. But as far as the conversation up until now has been concerned, we're all thinking specifically about the civic center in our responses, particularly Washington Square, not the green loop.

I believe Washington Square could benefit from having some adjacent development to add some vibrancy to the area. Developing outside the square, meaning across the street in any direction, could help bring that vibrancy. The effect those developments have, though, could be limited since 400 S, State Street, and 500 S are all very wide, very busy streets, and anything built across these streets may not have the effect we're hoping for, since there would be a disconnect. I suppose that is one argument for developing on the square. It's a weird idea. Maybe not a bad idea, but weird. Sorry for the jumbled thoughts.

I will just list out what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of of Washington Square.

Pluses:

1. The Center is interesting, the park is massive but the pathways leading to the City and County Building and the City and County Building itself is a great climatic center

2. It has meaning and history tied into the old trees, fountains, and the city building.

3. Washington Square has programming (Utah Art Festival, Pride, etc.) brought to it external to its neighborhood that helps give it life.


Negatives:

1. The park is too big for the demand of the neighborhood bordering it, for their every day needs, and it never has many people outside of planned events (which are less than once a month).

2. There isn't enough sun. The side facing 400 S. is so dense with shade and has a strong creeper factor. I love old trees and I hate seeing them cut down. But there are too many in spots. No one wanted to thin out the trees in Memory Grove Park. It became a park for creepers and people buying drugs until the tornado came and demolished all the trees. Sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant.

3. There is too much grass. The front entry to the building is the most interesting part of the park because it has paved paths with flowers and interesting things to look at. Then there are some other paths with nothing and the some fountains with flowers. It's mostly lawn and the corners are all lawn. It's such a massive space with so little drawing people in on the edges. If we really want to give it enough power in landscaping alone we may need to hire the landscapers at Versailles.

The argument that we need space without programming is the problem; that we need to have space just to have space. Even parking lots have programming. And a lot of parking lots are more vibrant than Washington Square.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Again though, according to your logic, that car dealership shouldn't even be there because of the park existing. Because you know, you drag the bulldozer icon over the area where the park is going to be and build the park and now taller more urban buildings are supposed to start popping up.

If we don't stop acting like a suburb with our planning priorities, we really don't have a lot of reasons to believe we're special and by that I mean not a suburb.

You make it sound as simplistic as you are making fun of other thinking it is so simplistic. Just because the zoning changes doesn't automatically make it change uses. Even if an area is rezoned to require taller height minimums, more design review is implemented to assure pedestrian engagement, or allowed uses changed it won't magically change overnight, just as it won't automatically develop overnight if you bulldoze it.

Are there areas in zoning code and allowable uses that need updating? Yes, but it's not as simple as saying, ok lets not longer allow that use in this zone. Public hearing have to be scheduled, staff has day to day issues that need their attention, City Council and Planning Commission meetings are jam packed most of the time, land owner ie Ken Garff, have loud voices and provide millions of dollars in tax revenues to the city.

Yes the city has issues, that need to be addressed, but it's a process. The city has much more progressive in it's planing an zoning since the 80's, when it was happy to have anything develop in and around downtown. The auto deal ships on the block east of Grand America, will go away when the demand for the property is much greater than the current use.

The magnitude of the change of Main Street since the mid 90's is night and day. Main St is active, and becoming more vibrant all the time. Mistakes from the past take time to fix, and density happens over time.

You make it sound like the powers that be in Salt Lake City love the nature of 400 S, 500 S, 600 S and State St. That they planned it like that are love and embrace it. Some things are a reality and can be changed over time, other things while owned by the city are ultimately dictated by other connecting entities entities.

Planning is a process that requires massaging and manipulating over time, including massaging egos of business owners tax payers and citizens, planning time differs from political time. Orientation of a candidate or who knocked on someones door and who didn't has nothing to do with their vision for the city. Even if staff had all the time in the world to update zoning code and allowable uses, if those individuals that the citizens elected don't share that vision it is time spent on frivolous work.

While we as participants on this forum think we can solve all the cities problems it's not as simple as here's what should be done. Even as those educated in planning realize once they actually work in planning, is that while many of the concepts are cut and dry/black and white, it isn't as easy to put into practice in the real world.

To some up my above ramblings. Salt Lake City is progressing in it's philosophies and vision. While there are many areas that are in dire need of help there are many positive things happening in the city that are making it an even better place to live than it already is. It's far from perfect but it's getting better.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

To sum up my above ramblings. Salt Lake City is progressing in it's philosophies and vision. While there are many areas that are in dire need of help there are many positive things happening in the city that are making it an even better place to live than it already is. It's far from perfect but it's getting better.

I love this city. I always will. And I'm the first person to spout off all the cool stuff we are doing here to anyone who will listen. I think when we focus in on something we get it. The actual thought out plan for the bike lane system in the City and the priority paths for the protected bike lanes is one of the best in North America. It's outstanding.

I think we need to go back to school with green space and parks. The city needs to stop promising a giant loop with fun stuff to do and actually focus in on making one great outdoor public space. I want the city in its plan to zoom in and make an iconic spot that everyone will want to take a selfie. It can't be larger than a Portland block, preferably smaller.

[s.p.hansen]

Just to build on what I'm talking about above. Chicago has the mirror bean. We have the Joseph Smith Sphinx. Gilgal Sculpture Garden is probably the only park we have that hits all the check marks on what a new urbanist park should look like minus the lack of seating and horrible entrance.

Think about it, when you have friends from out of state and you want them to see something weird/cool in Salt Lake City to take a pic in front of, what comes to mind? I think of the Joseph Smith Sphinx.

We need something bigger like a mirror bean on the corner of Washington Square. Or maybe just a massive Joseph Smith Sphinx ;P

Something like this but larger:

[ThePusherMan]

The temple is the salt lake city selfie spot. And the powers that be would like to keep it that way.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

We need something bigger like a mirror bean on the corner of Washington Square. Or maybe just a massive Joseph Smith Sphinx ;P

Something like this but larger:

Hopefully with the huuuuuge budget for art on Regent street we will get something big and bold and iconic. Looks like Janet Echelman will be doing something big on Regent.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Hopefully with the huuuuuge budget for art on Regent street we will get something big and bold and iconic. Looks like Janet Echelman will be doing something big on Regent.

That public space will be a true test for our city to see if we can grow up beyond Delta Center Plaza building. Abravanel Hall plaza wasn't a good outcome.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Think about it, when you have friends from out of state and you want them to see something weird/cool in Salt Lake City to take a pic in front of, what comes to mind?

Certainly weird, but I'm not sure I'd want my picture in front of it.
What the heck is it?