Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't support anything over 30 stories in SLC.

Also, I strongly dislike that the color of glass on 111 appears mostly black during the daytime.

[QUOTE=Future Mayor;7344902]I disagree with this, because it doesn't matter how tall any building in downtown is, they will all pale in size compared to the mountains. 30 stories or 50 stories won't really make all that much of a visual difference with the mountains as a backdrop. It's not as if a skinny 50 story tower would block any views of the mountains from anywhere, except a building directly adjacent to the 50 story tower.

Just my opinion.
This is a sky scraper forum! Of course we want to see a 40 or 50 story building! Unless the CCH is one big long wall, the taller the better. We all appreciate the mountains, give me a skyscraper! Getting a skyscraper here is Salt Lake City is similar to being a Jazz Fan. All we can do is hope and be happy with what we have. Don't bet against us please. Hope that doesn't come across angry . Lol

[UrbanDesign]

Originally Posted by Comrade

The original design was unique and bold - but not overwhelmingly bold that it might look out of place in a conservative city like SLC.

Meh.

I too wish it would have happened! I don't think it would have been out of place, but would have set a precedents for buildings of similar size. If only they could have increased the budget for the job or value engineered a few things out to meet the budget without compromising the design.

It's nice to dream...

[delts145]

I spent the better part of the day working around this building on Monday. Also, work quite often in this specific quadrant of the city, and I live Downtown. The rendering of this building is far more attractive than the building itself. It is a very simple glass box, and somehow the accordion effect did not translate into a classy feel. Instead, the building has a very cheap, quickly slapped together feel. Frankly, the general feel of the entire street engagement of this quarter of Downtown is very discouraging. There are some beautiful buildings, if taken individually, but this Courthouse is not one of them. This area of L.A. makes up a large chunk of the Downtown, but it is a worthy case study in what not to do. Again, while there are some very attractive buildings as taken individually, such as Disney Hall, City Hall, and a number of contemporary icons, their presence is utterly ruined by horrendous street engagement. The lack of engagement and unattractiveness of the streetscape is so widespread, that even a non urban proponent cannot help but feel repulsed.

There are areas of Downtown L.A. that are definitely more attractive than this area, and that I would recommend for study to Urban Planners in Salt Lake City. However, generally speaking, Downtown Salt Lake's nicer areas stand head and shoulders above the nicer areas of Downtown L.A., if we're just talking about a prettiness factor. Also, not only are Downtown Salt Lakes emerging street trends much prettier, they're also a lot more calming. Strangely, even New York's general street vibe is far more calming and attractive than much of Downtown L.A.

After walking this area extensively on Monday I left feeling assaulted and discouraged. It epitomized everything that is negative about an auto culture, and I'm generally a big proponent of the automobile option.

Originally Posted by JMK

Can't forget about LA's federal courthouse

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Listen, you guys and the county fucked up already with the DA's office before so don't even pretend I've got a stick up my 🞵🞵🞵 about this. Not to mention what at least 1/3 of this forum and most urban planning profs at the UofU see as a massive overuse of green space on the library property. And we're all getting sick of the "workforce" housing that's overpriced and over stuccoed.

Regarding my issues losing SLC Roasting. The shop was awesome and the history and use was great. The cost of doing business there will most likely be lower than any new mixed use project. If you celebrate some 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 salon replacing a SLC original coffee shop in that spot, then you're doing it wrong. SLC buys distressed and historical property with the RDA, this doesn't feel like that. You guys at your civic campus are horrible neighbors.

I must be getting old or something because I can't for the life of me recall how exactly myself and the other forumers in conjunction with the county, f'd up on the DA's office?

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

The city should treat their urban campus less like an LDS temple and more like a member of a neighborhood.

That's what they are trying to do. They aren't creating more Civic Campus they are offering the property for development of housing and retail opportunities. With right on the Civic Campus, it sure seems to me that they are attempting to incorporate the campus into the neighborhood. Yes I would love to see the building stay, and there could still be a chance to incorporate it into the development, but once again you seem to be stuck on the notion that the City is going to use that space to expand the Civic Campus, that is incorrect. It is being used to it's highest and best use potential, higher density housing that will be affordable housing targeted to those that truly qualify for affordable.

You also seem to be mixing up the term market rate for workforce housing. Workforce qualifies as affordable and has rent limitations and is designated for those making below the median area income. Bitching about how the workforce housing is so expensive is off the mark, because that is the entire purpose of affordable/workforce housing is to provide housing below market rates. Encore, Seasons, etc, those are market rate. A portion of NW Pipeline, Providence Place those are workforce/affordable.

[UTAZLoVer]

Originally Posted by bflatflat9

Rialto is Ogden.

Ok, I know I'm from Ogden so I might be a little sensitive to this. I'd never heard of Rialto, but I just looked it up and I don't see it aside from the fact that they are roughly the same size and they both have a railroad history (though Ogden's is much more significant) Other than that...

Ogden is the chief city of it's MSA, as well as a cultural center whereas it appears Rialto is much less urban and is a fringe city in its MSA. Ogden has a University and a growing airport -Rialto has just a closed airport.

They both are home to large distribution centers - Ogden has Mayfair, Hershey's, Lofthouse, Associate Foods and Rialto has Under Armour, Staples and Target. While these types of facilities seem to make up the bulk of Rialto's employment opportunities, Ogden is additionally served by the IRS, WSU, Hill AFB, the outdoor industry's growing presence in the city and certainly much more tourism than Rialto.

I also don't see much of a downtown for Rialto compared as well.

Demographically, Ogden is 31% Latino while Rialto is 72% Latino - so that can't be it.

Rialto's crime rate is lower than Ogden's, but once again it isn't the principal city in it's area and principal cities always have higher crime rates than their suburbs. A more fair comparison would be Ogden --> San Bernardino. Ogden's crime rate is 33% higher than the national average while San Bernardino's is 88% higher. To give more perspective, some Utah cities people generally think Ogden is "scarier" than: Salt Lake City is 77% higher, South Salt Lake 96% higher, Murray 47% higher, Midvale 55% higher. Ogden's murder rate is actually lower than the national average and has been since 2006. In fact, it was half the national average in 2013. That same year, Rialto's murder rate was on par with the national average despite it's lower overall crime rate.

Granted, Ogden has had to work hard to lower it's crime rate from the 90's and early-to-mid-2000's to where it is now. Ogden has 1.5 police officers for each 1,000 residents to Rialto's 0.9 per 1,000.

Anyhow, I also looked at pictures of the town and I guess I just don't see it. It looks very blah. Ogden has its issues, but it has a ton of character, charm and is ever improving its circumstances. Rialto looks complacent with what it is and where it is at.

End rant! Carry on! Sorry all! Sometimes I just have to defend my town.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by slc801

I think that this is disappointing. Once again, I hate the destruction of old properties for a new building. I think that true character is achieved with the interaction of the old and new, not demolition of the old for the sake of the new. I like the Salt Lake Roasting Company Building and it is a shame for it to get demolished. Yes, those properties should be developed, but that development should compliment the historic buildings, not demolish them. Who can I contact about this?

I agree. I love the SL Roasting Co. building. Last time I was there, I was thinking how glad I was that it was still there and not torn down.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by UTAZLoVer

Ogden has its issues, but it has a ton of character, charm and is ever improving its circumstances. Rialto looks complacent with what it is and where it is at.

End rant! Carry on! Sorry all! Sometimes I just have to defend my town.

^^^I think a lot of us probably see Ogden in a positive light. Lots of nostalgic memories of Ogden. It's got so much grit, I love it.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I must be getting old or something because I can't for the life of me recall how exactly myself and the other forumers in conjunction with the county, f'd up on the DA's office?

City Leadership is the tail that wags the dog of the County when it comes to placing county buildings. This isn't the state shoving a prison down the city's throat. Nice try. I'm not sure how you included yourself in this accusation, but if you want to make apathy part of the conversation then feel free to include yourself. I love this forum but half of the people here who just want to expand parks like some insatiable 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 drive with no emotional connection tend to make me sad.

That's what they are trying to do. They aren't creating more Civic Campus they are offering the property for development of housing and retail opportunities. With right on the Civic Campus, it sure seems to me that they are attempting to incorporate the campus into the neighborhood. Yes I would love to see the building stay, and there could still be a chance to incorporate it into the development, but once again you seem to be stuck on the notion that the City is going to use that space to expand the Civic Campus, that is incorrect.

That isn't what urbanism is. Mainstreet was gutted of urban life after the 60s. The organic neighborhood that built up there for over 100 years was pretty well decimated by the two malls. Giant projects built at the same time can have principles of urbanism like mixed use and smaller volumes in squarefootage (multiple storefronts vs a big box store), but giant developments will never be urban in the sense of enhancing a neighborhood; they can only be parasitic off its success and often times too many will destroy it. Sugar House is having this problem.

The biggest problem is debt and time. The great new companies, shops and restaurants aren't going to start in a new development where there is a 20 year loan that the owners have to pay off. They all start in places with lower rent where they can either buy the property or the renter doesn't HAVE to charge as much. Our mixed use buildings are a let down right now because most of them haven't matured enough to even be affordable yet by businesses that actually interest people. Look at 25th street in Ogden. All the older buildings have the places you WANT to go to and all these new mixed use buildings have the 🞵🞵🞵🞵. Salt Lake City has all these iconic little foodie places now. Do you know why they aren't in new buildings with apartments and condos on top? Because it's not viable until years from now!

SLC Roasting Company was doing fine and it was artificially moved because it got paid above its market value. They started there because it was affordable and a good building. And this means there is now one less of these buildings and one more massive new building getting built there instead. It means we lose an iconic member of a neighborhood and we get more blah. Imagine if Furure Mayor moved into a neighborhood that you lived in with iconic neighbors that you loved and bought out all the houses around you and tore them down and only moved in the people that could afford the more expensive ones he built. And now all your cool family members and friends who used to visit have no reason to visit anymore. And all the cool block parties and street fairs that used to be held there, they're gone now because the new neighbors are too busy with their longer commutes and career oriented lives. That isn't what building a neighborhood or creating urban life means.

Paid off, well built buildings are like old growth forests and it's sad to see a giant tree like SLC Roasting get ripped down and replaced with a sapling.

[Future Mayor]

Because you stated in your comment, "You guys and the county f'd up already....." If you meant the city then say the City.

A few of your comments continue to be incorrect.

First; Yes Main street died in the 60's, because of Suburban Sprawl. The 100 years of neighborhood life where long gone before the malls came to Main St, if the neighborhood was still thriving after the exodus to the burbs the Malls would have never happen. The malls of the 80's were an attempt to recapture some retail presence back to the city away from the burbs, bring people back downtown, and capturing tax revenues that the city had lost to the burbs. While the malls dealt an additional major blow to Main St, the malls didn't create the problem that was Main St. Yes Richards St and Commercial St, and the buildings on those streets were a huge loss, but they had lost their life long before the malls destroyed the streets.

Second; Salt Lake Roasting company did not start in that location, they started at 249 E 400 S, and moved to the current building later.

Yes it's a great building, and a great business, but the reality of the situation is that the building and business in it's current location are not ideal for the area. Yes things could have been done differently in the past, but that is the past, and The Roasting Company building isn't going to save that stretch of 400 S or provide engagement of the Civic Campus.

You are so upset about the Civic Campus and how it's destroying the neighborhood and that it needs to develop be more integrated into the neighborhood, and be used more efficiently rather than just more open space. Well guess what, that's what's happening. The Civic Campus isn't expanding it's allowing for development right at it's edge, right on the same damn block, within the 400 S boarder. Development of residential and other uses, creating engagement of the campus, creating more daily neighborhood users to occupy the massive acres that are the SLC Civic Campus.


Ideally I'd love to see the building used in the redevelopment, but unfortunately I don't see that happening as so many developers don't care about the preservation aspect. Maybe a developer will prove us all wrong and we'll get the best of both worlds, keep the building and increase the use of that land that abuts the civic campus

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

First; Yes Main street died in the 60's, but not because of the two malls, but because of Suburban Sprawl. The malls of the 80's were an attempt to recapture some retail presence back to the city away from the burbs, bring people back downtown, and while the malls dealt a major blow to Main St, the malls didn't create the problem that was Main St.

They were killed because they were torn down, plain and simple. Every other city dealt with the same issues of sprawl and many had the patience to let their Main Street buildings stand and now they're extremely valuable. The city, the church, and its private partners screwed the pooch not the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Yes it's a great building, and a great business, but the reality of the situation is that the building and business in it's current location are not ideal for the area. Yes things could have been done differently in the past, but that is the past, and The Roasting Company building isn't going to save that stretch of 400 S or provide engagement of the Civic Campus.

For Christ sake it's a coffee shop next to a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 library; how much more ideal is that! It was a fluke and a gift to the Civic Campus neighborhood. We're not talking about a mattress store. And the SIZE, the building itself is like the flower patch to the Grand America Hotel, it's so small as to be inconsequential to any draftsman able to create outside of cube shapes.

Does anyone here actually believe that a local coffee shop in a storefront style building adjacent to a sidewalk is ever a minus to an "urban" neighborhood?

[Future Mayor]

Nevermind.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Nevermind.

I feel the same way. Like there's a tension and I think if we just had a chance to have really passionate angry 🞵🞵🞵 we could understand eachother better.


GIFSoup

[ryerop]

So in some other development news, the new Marmalde Branch library is about to open. I know some people on here have been keeping updates on that, and other development projects in that area of town. Hopefully this will be a great push for the area over there. I would love to check it out some time.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3567729-155/new-library-to-light-up-salt

[jedikermit]

I just like to watch.

Angry 🞵🞵🞵 AND Marmalade Libraries.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I feel the same way. Like there's a tension and I think if we just had a chance to have really passionate angry 🞵🞵🞵 we could understand eachother better.


GIFSoup

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

I just like to watch.

Angry 🞵🞵🞵 AND Marmalade Libraries.

You say this and I see your avatar and I just have to laugh.

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

I just like to watch.

Angry 🞵🞵🞵 AND Marmalade Libraries.

Lucy in the sky with.........

[Future Mayor]

I am excited to see the Marmalade branch open. I think it will be a great piece in the overall character in improving on what is already a good neighborhood. 300 West needs a serious Road diet though, at the very least a landscaped median to provide a visual narrowing, and a physical barrier. Doing that can reduce speeds and can also make crossing the street much more comfortable.

I would be interested to see the traffic counts on 300 W, and highly doubt that the counts justify a road of that size.

But overall a great addition to the neighborhood. I can't wait to see the residential component start construction.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

300 West needs a serious Road diet though, at the very least a landscaped median to provide a visual narrowing, and a physical barrier. Doing that can reduce speeds and can also make crossing the street much more comfortable.

How about a street car line? Connect Marmalade with Granary and the Ball Park area.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by StevenF

You say this and I see your avatar and I just have to laugh.

It's all I've got, baby.