Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[millhouse]

Sorry if it has been posted. But does anyone know what is happening at the old aquarium site (400 S and 500 W)?

[Liberty Wellsian]

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.

There would be taller buildings there if not for the commuter highways. No one wants to live on or near that. The first condo development of this boom(IIRC) was the Metro on 350 S 2nd E. The Library and Washington square was a draw. As soon as 500 S got put on a slight diet and a decent bike lane was added we got a MF structure on 500 S(stucco it may be but it's better than nothin).

Salt Lake City should be a good place to live not just work, a place where you don't need to waste so much of your income on a car. That won't happen so long as our infrastructure is so heavily focused on vehicle commuters.

SLC's suburban mentality problem isn't that we have parks it's that we seem to focus on being the best damn office park we can be. Honestly I wouldn't care if we didn't get another office building for 50 years so long as we started getting highrise condos.

Our city can be energetic and have a real vitality if we start focusing on the needs of its residents rather than the needs of Sandy City residents.

Our focus should be on mitigation of the commuter. Trax is a good start but much more can be done.

[asies1981]

Proposed 6-story apartment building just south of Central Ninth

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

There would be taller buildings there if not for the commuter highways. No one wants to live on or near that. The first condo development of this boom(IIRC) was the Metro on 350 S 2nd E. The Library and Washington square was a draw. As soon as 500 S got put on a slight diet and a decent bike lane was added we got a MF structure on 500 S(stucco it may be but it's better than nothin).

Salt Lake City should be a good place to live not just work, a place where you don't need to waste so much of your income on a car. That won't happen so long as our infrastructure is so heavily focused on vehicle commuters.

SLC's suburban mentality problem isn't that we have parks it's that we seem to focus on being the best damn office park we can be. Honestly I wouldn't care if we didn't get another office building for 50 years so long as we started getting highrise condos.

Our city can be energetic and have a real vitality if we start focusing on the needs of its residents rather than the needs of Sandy City residents.

Our focus should be on mitigation of the commuter. Trax is a good start but much more can be done.

I don't disagree with these sentiments. I just disagree that parks lead to density based on what I've learned in urban planning classes and what Ive read. And from what I've seen visiting other great cities.

I think our City needs to take their foot off the pedal with greenspace.

And in response to your concern, there is a giant parking lot behind the State Office of Education Building that could be made into a much more efficient parking garage with much more housing on that location. We could have even built that failed DA's office there. Instead we tore down some shops on State next to the Court House. That's probably your path of least resistance getting some people living closer to Washington Square.

[Future Mayor]

I really like this development for the most part. I think it's in that area that is sort of flex space, can be considered Central 9th, but in some ways, due to the huge barrier that is the 9th S off ramp, I also consider it as part of the BallPark neighborhood and technically the front entrance on Goltz and 2nd West is actually much closer to the Ball Park Trax Station than the Central 9th. 1,000' vs 1,500' I think in the next few years that entire area between the two will look drastically different anyway.

The thing I don't like about the development is the number of parking spaces. It's within a 1/4 mile of the Ball Park Station, and just over a 1/4 mile to Central 9th Station. That is the prime sphere for TOD. 151 parking stalls for 105 units is ridiculous. The article stated that the majority of the units would be 1 bedroom , with a few studios and a few two bedrooms. Even if 75% were 1 bedroom and studios and they provided 1 car per bedroom, that only ads up to 131 parking units. The parking number is absolutely asinine.

I'm going to look up the parking requirements for this zone, to see if that many are required or if it's just the developer seeing a demand in Central 9th but not understanding why. TOD.

Here are the parking requirements for the R-MU Zone.
"R-MU, R-MU-35, R-MU-45 And MU Districts: For single- and two-family residential uses in the R-MU, R-MU-35, R-MU-45 and MU districts, one parking space shall be required for each unit. For multiple-family residential uses, one-half (1/2) parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit.
This development is required to provide 52.5 (53) parking space, nearly a 1/3 or what is proposed.

There is a maximum parking for all zones.
"All Zoning Districts: For all uses in districts other than the downtown districts, the G-MU district, and the TSA district, the maximum allowable number of parking spaces shall be one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the required minimum as specified in subsection G of this section."

If I'm interpreting the code correctly the minimum number required is 53, and the maximum would be 66.25 (67) If I were on Planning Commission, I would reject the proposal based on the fact that it does not meet the parking requirements of the zone, laid out in City Ordinance.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Hatman

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

It's from this sculpture park in Norway. I don't really understand it. I assume either the man is overwhelmed with fatherhood or maybe it just shows what we've always assumed about Europeans; they're bothered by small children. It seems rich in potential interpretations.

[urban.cyclist]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

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.

Washington Square needs a major redesign. The trees are great, but I'm not convinced they will last much longer for a variety of reasons. I would love to see the park redesigned with less grass and lots more drought tolerant plants. I work across the street and have to go there to meet with zoning frequently. Last summer events like the Pride festival destroyed the grass. They spent weeks trying to get it to grow back. They might have even re-sodded parts of it. I would love to see it designed to have places for tents and such to be put up that doesn't require so much maintenance after. I'm totally against any idea of development, especially anything large and tall. That doesn't bring vibrancy (just look to the older developments to the north). If it were to have anything I would propose 2-3 story narrow buildings along the outside of the north and south faces, with mid block access. But even that might be too much. The east side of Library plaza is another story. That should be developed. It's a total waste of space. It looks nice but that's where the benefits end.

[DMTower]

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.

I get irritated every time I hear a developer or politician mention needing more green space downtown. We have plenty already, and the enormous lawn-moats around so many of our buildings completely kills the charm and engagement we could have. If they want to add green space, put it in the street—we have plenty of room there.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by millhouse

Sorry if it has been posted. But does anyone know what is happening at the old aquarium site (400 S and 500 W)?

They are lost in a debate. it will be a min before others answer.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I don't disagree with these sentiments. I just disagree that parks lead to density based on what I've learned in urban planning classes and what Ive read. And from what I've seen visiting other great cities.

I think our City needs to take their foot off the pedal with greenspace.

And in response to your concern, there is a giant parking lot behind the State Office of Education Building that could be made into a much more efficient parking garage with much more housing on that location. We could have even built that failed DA's office there. Instead we tore down some shops on State next to the Court House. That's probably your path of least resistance getting some people living closer to Washington Square.

The thing that bugs me about green space is the park strips. I can totally agree with you on the greenbelt thing. I'd much rather see extra wide bike lanes and sidewalks than that. I really liked the median development they were proposing for central ninth. I do think Washington square could use a redesign, I just don't think that green space is always bad.

The federal courthouse really pissed me off. We had an engaging corner across the street from a parking lot. They left the lot and tore down a popular club to put in the least engaging building(on a pedestal with a massive set back) that they possibly could. Shameful

[urban.cyclist]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

The thing that bugs me about green space is the park strips. I can totally agree with you on the greenbelt thing. I'd much rather see extra wide bike lanes and sidewalks than that. I really liked the median development they were proposing for central ninth. I do think Washington square could use a redesign, I just don't think that green space is always bad.

The federal courthouse really pissed me off. We had an engaging corner across the street from a parking lot. They left the lot and tore down a popular club to put in the least engaging building(on a pedestal with a massive set back) that they possibly could. Shameful

The courthouse had to merry federal design requirements, including a 50' setback. That kills engagement, but at least it's downtown instead of the suburbs.

[Future Mayor]

I believe the former proposed Aquarium site is included in the Station Center redevelopment proposal. Still not a huge fan of that name but oh well. So with that it will be one of the parcels that is sold to one of several developers that the RDA will use for that area.


UTPlanner, are you able to shed any light on the parking situation of the new proposal on Goltz Ave? Is my interpretation of the zoning code correct, and they have way more parking than is allowed, or is there another section of code that allows them to build above the maximums?

[SL,UT]

As much as I do enjoy the meaningless, moronic squabbles about what people think Salt Lake should turn into, just remember for every building that gets built in the city, 5 suburban office parks get developed...!!!! Merry Christmas from the suburbs!!!!!!!!

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

As much as I do enjoy the meaningless, moronic squabbles about what people think Salt Lake should turn into, just remember for every building that gets built in the city, 5 suburban office parks get developed...!!!! Merry Christmas from the suburbs!!!!!!!!

Merry Christmas. I hope you're not as sensitive to discussion and disagreements at the dinner table with your family. I heard homes aren't a safe place yet against micro aggressions.

[Makid]

I was thinking this morning on the way to work about something that I think may have been sidelined a bit.

West Temple. If things work out as currently planned there will be the following (announced) developments under construction within the next 12-18 months:

1. CCH - 850-1,200 rooms
2. VCC - 150 rooms? Sorry Ken, I can't remember the total.
3. APS - 500+ rooms
4. Holiday Inn Express expansion hotel(s). - 300+ rooms

With these projects alone, SLC would be adding around 2,000+ hotel rooms. 1,850 will be within 200' of the Convention Center. The VCC being a boutique hotel services a different clientele.

These projects don't take into account the AC hotel that will be coming soon as well.

If we also add the Regent Hotel into the mix, plus the AC and the West Temple rooms, we could be looking at the addition of close to 3,000 hotel rooms all planned to be completed before 2020.

To put that into a bit of perspective, the SLC convention district has around 7,000 hotel rooms currently. This is just behind Denver at 7,800 hotel rooms I think within their convention district.

Around 2020, if all projects are completed as planned, SLC will have approximately 10,000 hotel rooms within the district. This will bump SLC up a couple of levels for convention offerings. It will also put heavy pressure on expanding the convention center. Additionally, it would provide additional leverage for SLC hosting the 2026 Winter Olympics.

Additionally, these rooms, while attracting additional conventions and visitors to the area, they will increase foot traffic along West Temple which will lead to additional redevelopment pressure on undeveloped/underdeveloped properties in the area.

Lastly, these projects will continue the move of towers away from primarily a Main Street focus that we have been experiencing.

So, imagine West Temple in 2020 with the planned projects listed above and all of them excluding the Holiday Inn Express expansions currently planned to be around or greater than 300'. This may very well be the next road to experience a tower canyon starting to take shape.

I should say, that with tourism increasing dramatically and the number of larger conventions increasing, the additional hotels may not significantly lower the overall occupancy within the convention district. It may take it from around 80% down to 68% which is still around the area that another hotel would be in the planning/development stages.

[Future Mayor]

As we are well aware, there is a shortage of affordable housing units in Salt Lake City. Could mircro-apartments part of the solution?

As the NYC example in the article points out, 33 of the 55 units are designated as Market Rate, and 8 of the 22 affordable are designated to super low income.

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/12/in-defense-of-micro-apartments/420645/?utm_source=SFFB

I think it's something that Salt Lake City needs to explore, but I'm not sure any of our current zoning would allow densities that high. And the parking would have to be addressed as obviously that is broken as was shown on the Goltz Ave proposal.

[Future Mayor]

You make some very valid and exciting points Makid. I think you're right that the skyline is going to grow towards West Temple, the nice thing is is that it's going to continue to grow towards State as well.

Combine the West Temple buildings that you mentioned, with the the proposed and possible locations on State; 151, Harmons, Carl's Jr, Civic Center (that's what I'm calling the parcel south of Questar)

Those additions, even if only W Temple and 151 are built in the next few years and we've got a much wider skyline as viewed from the south, and a much more dense downtown in general.


Because I felt like wasting some time, here's a map of potential high-rises(for this discussion I'm using anything 20+ stories), on corners or next to corners not taking advantage of the corner heights.

Red - high-rise, proposed, mentioned or ready for redevelopment (20+)
Yellow - mid-block high rise potential.

Green - mid-rise(5+ stories) proposed or potential.

Purple - multiple stories already under construction or recently completed.



There are a tremendous amount of sites that I could easily see developed in the next 10 years. Even if all those green mid-rises are only 5 stories, and even if all the red and yellow are only 20 stories, that is a MASSIVE amount of density in our downtown, in Residential, Office and Hotel.

This doesn't even take into account the growth that is going to occur on 4th S, North Temple, Central Ninth, Ball Park, and Granary. I think Sugarhouse is about maxed out, but the S-line has a massive amount of potential as well.

Another area I could see redeveloping is what I like to refer to as Mid-town. The shitty area between 13th S - 17th S & State - Main. It's a natural direction for growth from the Ball Park neighborhood to occur.

[delts145]

Have any of you watched the new Sci Fy series "Expanse"? They have some great shots of the futuristic New York skyline. I keep punching the pause everytime they show it. There are a number of towers that I would love to see someone use as inspiration for Salt Lakes future towers.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

I know I'm not alone. If you recall, the PSB was once proposed for the east side of Library Square and that created a nightmare for Mayor Becker when the public went nuts. No local politician wants to be the man or woman who sold a city park.

From what I heard from people at the time, people didn't want the police presence surrounding the library, not that they were specifically against development on that block.

[Stenar]

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.

When Central Park was built, that land was very low density, single family homes that were demolished. Later, midrise and highrise residential followed the building of the park.

Here's a drawing of Central Park when it was being constructed. Most of the land around it is empty.




The houses that were demolished to make way for Central Park were mostly little shacks.


Source: NY History


This photo is from 33 years after the park opened and the land around it still isn't very dense.