Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[ctobsl]

Do we really want the public's opinion on the CCH? Especially the Utah Public who are against everything and anything progressive in this state. The first opinion will be... It's too tall.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by ctobsl

Do we really want the public's opinion on the CCH? Especially the Utah Public who are against everything and anything progressive in this state. The first opinion will be... It's too tall.

Sure, if you put it on the Trib for comment. But, I think you'll find that there is a very informed and educated professional body out there that would want to weigh in on something like this. Fortunately, CCR listened to Mayor Andersen and had a public forum session. They then changed the direction of CCC, and kept the First Security Building, placed all parking below ground, and opened up the development to the sky.

[ctobsl]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Sure, if you put it on the Trib for comment. But, I think you'll find that there is a very informed and educated professional body out there that would want to weigh in on something like this. Fortunately, CCR listened to Mayor Andersen and had a public forum session. They then changed the direction of CCC, and kept the First Security Building, placed all parking below ground, and opened up the development to the sky.

I get what you are saying, I'll have to wait and see and hopefully we get some great opinions. I can't wait to see where this is going to be built and see what type of the designs they come up with.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Construction has started on the Kingfisher mixed-use development at on 1100 East near 1300 South.

Very Cool Isaac. Glad to see this one moving forward. I remember how much I liked the look and finish of this project. Great scale and addition for that area.


Rendering of Kingfisher Planned Development. Image by SugarHouse Architects.

[Future Mayor]

While a public process is good, sometimes it can be to open, and people that think they know a lot, but really have no clue, get involved and muddy up the waters, we don't need the C.A.V.E. people chiming in, as ctobsl pointed out.

We also have to remember exactly how the public tax credit works. It's not actual tax dollars that are being handed over to the developer, it's Tax Increment Financing T.I.F. T.I.F. means that the City, State and County will collect less in property taxes over a certain number of years as the property value on the CCH increases over that period of time. I don't know the exact details on the TIF, but it works like this example:

Say the property is currently worth $100 and the property tax rate is 5%, with $5 currently being collected in property tax. As the property value increases, past that $100, the entities have agreed to take a portion of that increase, above the current $5. Let's say that they agree to a 50% tax credit, so when the property value is at $200, they will collect 2.5% on the $100 increase, essentially collecting $7.50 rather than $10. That $2.50 that wasn't collected is kept by the developer, assisting them recoup their upfront costs. Most T.I.F.'s have a yearly set limit as to how much the developer can save in taxes and then of course it has a cap on the total over a specified number of years.

The purpose of T.I.F. is that it essentially allows for new development to occur sooner that it may have, increases property values and the city, county and state still get in increase in overall tax revenue, than they would have if the property didn't develop.

[UTPlanner]

In general, a project like the convention center hotel will select a winning group/project by committee. Because there are multiple levels of government involved with this project there will probably be representatives selected by each group to sit on a committee. I would think that committee members will be from private and public organizations. The public would only get involved if the project has to go through a specific process such as design review or a conditional use.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Palladio

Just because I can, here is a quick massing study of what that block might look like if fully built out, and subdivided into nine blocks. Also assuming that it follows roughly the density patterns we are seeing in the rest of downtown.

Personally, I think it would be such a missed opportunity if that block was not developed to its fullest. In my quick nine block rendering, I think it would be totally cool to have the center block as some sort of open space, but there definitely needs to be some intense development to take full advantage of the TRAX station.

I love this!

[SLC Projects]

Welcome to that time of year when our air —.
As of today our air is already in the "Air Quality Forecast: RED
Unhealthy" with at the very least SIX MORE DAYS of this forecast with no storms in sight. I have lived here most of my life, ( since '88 ) and I can tell you that our air is getting worst with each passing year.
The smog builds up, blocks out the sun, traps in the cold air and leaves us in a permanent refrigerated state all winter which just means more cars idling as people try to warm up. I work at the airport this time of year I see a big cloud of smog over the car rental lots, as I see a 100 cars idling. I ask them why? and the workers tell me, renters — if there's ANY snow on their cars/SUVs.
Sure I have to drive, but I limit it as much as I can and I DON'T idle my car anymore. I just deal with it being very cold inside as I get in.
The other day I saw a pick-up driving by with black, ( yes, black ) smoke coming out of it's exhaust every time he puts his foot on the gas. How is that legal? I really wanted to report him.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

...I have lived here most of my life, ( since '88 ) and I can tell you that our air is getting worst with each passing year. ...

Actually, our air quality has gotten progressively better since the 1980s. The reason why we have red air days is because the requirements to declare a day a red air day have gotten much more strict. In the '80s, the sky would literally look black or dark grey for a month. I haven't seen a dark grey sky (from air pollution) in decades.

[wrendog]

This is a pretty cool interactive graph of air quality from 1980 to today. It's definitely better today...

http://slcair.communication.utah.edu/

[SaltCityScrapers]

I grew up in Utah in the 1960's and 70's. Air quality is FAR better nowadays. There used to be four big smokestacks along the Great Salt Lake pumping tons of pollution into the valley. They built the big Kennecott stack to get the pollution up higher. They don't even need to use it anymore with new technology. There is never any of the greenish grey gunk pouring into the valley from Magna. Geneva Steel is gone in Utah County along with the reddish haze over Utah Lake. We rarely saw the sunshine in the winter in those days unless a storm came through. I should dig up some old photos and post them.

Cars are the biggest polluters nowadays, and they don't pollute one tenth as much as they did back in the 60's. They use half as much gas too.

My parents said it was even worse in the 1940's, when everyone was burning coal to heat their houses. They said there was black soot everywhere.

Trust me, it's nothing like it used to be. We live in an area that gets inversions, so particulates and pollution get trapped. It goes with the territory.

[Hatman]

We can pat ourselves on the back as much as we like and tell ourselves (correctly) that the amount of pollution in the air is less than before. But that's no excuse for red air days now. pollution is still pollution, and it kills people every year and makes our city a worse place to live.

An argument could be made that proportional to people caring about air pollution, our air quality has gotten worse. This means that even though the actual air quality now is not as bad as before, more people (especially outsiders) notice it and are disgusted by it than ever before. Or in other words, people's tolerance of pollution has dropped faster than the degree to which we allow our air to be polluted.

I'm with Projects on this one. Our air pollution severly annoys me, and people who idle their cars are the worst offenders. I accept the argument that many - even most - people need to drive a car, at least for certain tasks. I also accept that our society has not yet reached a technological level of advancement that allows us to maintain our standard of living without spewing toxic goop into our oxygen supply. (I do believe that we will attain such a level in my lifetime, and it will be glorious!) What I cannot accept are people who do not seem to care, who idle, drive massively innefficient cars/trucks for no good reason, or even 'roll coal' (make your exhaust black and worse on purpose). People like that will one day be seen like those people who wore fur coats - totally tastelss and net-negative on society.

Until the tech exists to live without polluting, we really do need to change the incentive structure away from polluting. There are many simple things we can do to make the air better than it is now. Sure the air may be technically cleaner than in the past, but that's no reason not to do more.

[ToysNoiz]

Hopefully I can live to see the day when the Kennecott Smoke Stack is seen as a relic of the past.

....Maybe it'll be considered a relic less because of technological advancements/time, and more because Salt Lake will be destroyed and covered in Yellowstone ash.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

Hopefully I can live to see the day when the Kennecott Smoke Stack is seen as a relic of the past.

....Maybe it'll be considered a relic less because of technological advancements/time, and more because Salt Lake will be destroyed and covered in Yellowstone ash.

That smoke stack is really great at its job; it takes 99% of the sulfur that would be emitted into the air and turns it into commercial sulfuric acid.

What people should focus on is the coal power plant from the days of FDR (one of the oldest coal plants in the USA) that powers the entirety of that smelter. That plant is a bargaining chip between the state of Utah and Rio Tinto in the negotiations over whether or not the mine gets expanded. If we can get Rio Tinto to convert that plant over to natural gas it will be the equivalent of taking every car in Salt Lake Valley off the roads each day in generation of pollution particles. Converting it to natural gas will cut the CO2 by at least half.

Copper will always be a necessity, unlike oil or coal. I'm glad we mine it and refine it here responsibly instead of just sending it to a developing nation with far fewer environmental and safety standards and legal systems easily manipulated by large corporations.



http://utahrails.net/bingham/central-power-station.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...a-f00a-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

[Future Mayor]

I think all of us on here would agree that this is becoming an issue in SLC too.

Charlotte Grows Weary of the Bland Cookie-Cutter Apartment Buildings
http://www.planetizen.com/node/82932/charlotte-grows-weary-bland-cookie-cutter-apartment-buildings

Some of the arguments from the apartment association are dumb. Yes amenities cost more, but a difference in design or in finishing material doesn't have to cost more. As for the retail and restaurant argument that's stupid too. that cost should be born by the retailers that occupy the space.


As for the mandating retail I can see that it could cause a problem and could result in higher apartment rents. You need so many roof tops/residents for certain types of retail establishments to thrive. Requiring retail if the new development doesn't increase the population enough to support it can lead to empty store fronts. I do think that SLC needs to strike some sort of balance with new apartments and some retail. I'm not sure what that balance is though. Is it based on total number of units, total number of bedrooms, could a density bonus be given if retail is included? I do think that we will see taller apartments in the next year, due to the moratorium on impact fees, and I would estimate some of those may have some retail as they are increasing the density to a greater extent.

While the zoning code along 400 S and N. Temple has been updated recently I think the city needs to encourage greater heights and greater densities along both those corridors.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I think all of us on here would agree that this is becoming an issue in SLC too.

Charlotte Grows Weary of the Bland Cookie-Cutter Apartment Buildings
http://www.planetizen.com/node/82932/charlotte-grows-weary-bland-cookie-cutter-apartment-buildings

Some of the arguments from the apartment association are dumb. Yes amenities cost more, but a difference in design or in finishing material doesn't have to cost more. As for the retail and restaurant argument that's stupid too. that cost should be born by the retailers that occupy the space.


As for the mandating retail I can see that it could cause a problem and could result in higher apartment rents. You need so many roof tops/residents for certain types of retail establishments to thrive. Requiring retail if the new development doesn't increase the population enough to support it can lead to empty store fronts. I do think that SLC needs to strike some sort of balance with new apartments and some retail. I'm not sure what that balance is though. Is it based on total number of units, total number of bedrooms, could a density bonus be given if retail is included? I do think that we will see taller apartments in the next year, due to the moratorium on impact fees, and I would estimate some of those may have some retail as they are increasing the density to a greater extent.

While the zoning code along 400 S and N. Temple has been updated recently I think the city needs to encourage greater heights and greater densities along both those corridors.

I agree that having too much retail in an area/project can lead to empty store fronts. I think it should be based on units rather then bedrooms though for requiring retail.

I do like the idea of giving density/height bonuses for retail options in the development.

I do think that if retail doesn't pen out, there should be ground level units with entry from the street. This helps to engage the street better than a blank wall or a wall with just a few windows here and there and a door for entry into a building.

This would allow someone to possibly remodel the ground floor unit into a possible home business/law office or similar. It allows retail to grow within a project as opposed to be required up front. It also can increase profits for the developer as they can market the additional space as residential with commercial conversions.

Outside of that, I would like to see a few 10 and 12 story projects pop up around downtown and definitely along 4th South and North Temple near the Trax stations.

The land is still relatively cheap along North Temple so they could build higher and get more money out of the project than if they wait for the land values to increase.

If a developer needs to build to a certain height once land values hit a given level, building that height when land is cheaper should mean more money for the developer. -Open message to anyone here or via google search looking for locations to develop lots of units without spending much on land-

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Hatman

We can pat ourselves on the back as much as we like and tell ourselves (correctly) that the amount of pollution in the air is less than before. But that's no excuse for red air days now. pollution is still pollution, and it kills people every year and makes our city a worse place to live.

If we were following the 1990s standards for red air days, we'd have less than ¼ as many as we had in the '90s. They made the standards more strict, though, to discourage people from doing activities that lead to pollution: burning wood, driving cars, etc. We also have a lot more yellow days to encourage people to stay home and not create red air days, etc.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be continually striving to improve our air quality, but it's not as bad as many people make it out to be.

[Future Mayor]

I understand what you're saying and you're right the air isn't as bad, but it's still bad and unhealthy for many people to breathe.

The state just hit 3 million and that's expected to nearly double by 2050. That means even if cars get twice as efficient as they are now, the resulting pollution will become worse because more cars on the roads will mean more traffic and more congestion than we already have.

The biggest issue the state needs to address is responsible development patterns. Each city needs to enact a transportation impact fee, including Transit on all new homes and businesses. Reduce parking requirements and increase transit requirements, (transit passes) The impact fees can be used to not only dedicate more money towards mass transit infrastruture but to biking infrasructure as well. Cities, yes even here in cold Utah, need to realize that a small amount of investment in bike infrastructure can go a long way in reducing the number of cars on the roads.

Every City needs to plan where they are going to efficiently put twice as many people as they have now, and plan that in relation to future transit centers.

True impact fees on all development need to be addressed. For instance if a developer in Payson or Santiquin builds a huge new development that results in interstate interchanges failing, then that developer needs to be responsible to provide those upgrades.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

That smoke stack is really great at its job; it takes 99% of the sulfur that would be emitted into the air and turns it into commercial sulfuric acid.

What people should focus on is the coal power plant from the days of FDR (one of the oldest coal plants in the USA) that powers the entirety of that smelter. That plant is a bargaining chip between the state of Utah and Rio Tinto in the negotiations over whether or not the mine gets expanded. If we can get Rio Tinto to convert that plant over to natural gas it will be the equivalent of taking every car in Salt Lake Valley off the roads each day in generation of pollution particles. Converting it to natural gas will cut the CO2 by at least half.

Copper will always be a necessity, unlike oil or coal. I'm glad we mine it and refine it here responsibly instead of just sending it to a developing nation with far fewer environmental and safety standards and legal systems easily manipulated by large corporations.



http://utahrails.net/bingham/central-power-station.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...a-f00a-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

I believe they have converted that power plant

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=13671352

and from the link you posted

As of 2010, there were four units at the Central Power Station, with the following capacity:

Unit 1, completed in 1944, 50 megawatts
Unit 2, completed in 1947, 25 meagwatts
Unit 3, completed in 1947, 25 megawatts
Unit 4, completed in 1960, 75 megawatts

(Read the original December 2010 Kennecott news release)

The new natural gas-fired turbine will generate 175 megawatts of power, matching the current output of all four units of the current power plant. Unit 4, with its current capacity of 75 megawatts, fired by either coal or natural gas, will remain in service.

The exhaust from the turbine will be hotter than the current boilers, allowing its waste energy to be captured and used to produce additional steam that will in-turn be passed to the generators currently used by Units 1, 2, and 3, generating an additional 100 megawatts of power. The upgrade project will give the power plant a total capacity of 350 megawatts, doubling its current capacity.

"Kennecott's existing power plant does not operate during four winter months to help reduce air pollution in the Salt Lake Valley during inversions, but it is permitted to operate year-round on natural gas. Historically, it has been more cost-effective to buy power from the grid during winter months. The new natural gas plant will also be permitted to operate year-round with the ability to produce up to 275 megawatts (MW) of electrical power, up from 175MW today. The existing Unit 4 will continue producing up to 75MW of power using coal or natural gas."

Also to add what Steiner has been hitting on, the Salt Lake inversions are not that bad. Every few years we get a really bad one, like 2 years ago but for the most part it's nothing like it used to be.

I grew up in the Cache Valley and they get inversions that are way worse then Salt Lakes and that's mostly because of the methane from the cows. They sure do have a lot of there.

Also, if you really want a crappy inversion, live in the Unita Basin, those last for months every year.

Just to remind you of one thing

Red Day in Beijing



Not a Red Day in Beijing

[SL,UT]

Maybe people should stop burning wood.....


Source: www.theenergycollective.com