Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[delts145]

Originally Posted by UrbanDesign

I talked to someone today close to the project and they said they are actually working on Construction Docs for the VOID tower. Doesn't sound at all like it's dead, it's just a large project that takes time to design. These types of projects can take yrs from initial ideas to when ground is broken.

Have a little faith and remember that stuff like this takes time

Very much agree UrbanDesign. Whatever the final incarnation, I think there is definitely a good chance of it happening. So much is happening right now in the way of new developments. The CBD landscape in Salt Lake City seems to advance weekly. It takes time for any serious developer of a project of that scope to really get an accurate feel for the best property mix in moving forward. The VOID in it's current form has a wide range of mixed-use. Would it be that unreasonable that Ken would scale down or simply rearrange the number of uses. Or perhaps Salt Lake's current boom will justify leaving the project in it's current form. I still believe that the details of the upcoming CCH Complex must emerge in order to better pin down the final version of Ken's project. Whatever that project mix will end up being, Ken will eventually start it up.

[EPdesign]

I agree with Delts. And Urban Design. How long did we wait for 222, and after many years it finally was built

[Comrade]

And for every 222 there are dozens, if not more, of mothballed developments that never materialized beyond the drawing board. 222 also had the backing of Hamilton Partners, which, at the time, was much established than Ken Bretschneider. There really is no comparison.

The VOID became sketchy in my eyes when it went from a mid-rise to potentially SLC's tallest to a smaller high-rise. I'd be very surprised if it happened.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I could've told you VOID was dead long before its second or third incarnation. No disrespect to the man whose idea this was, but ambitious developments like that, with literally no backing from any substantial developer/name/corporation, was never going to get off the ground.

It will get built. That parcel is worth $4-5M as is. Too good a piece of dirt. If it was not where it is, I'd agree with you. It may not take the form that they have put out there, but it will get built. Every day, my broker buddies are picking up hotel big wigs at the airport. My guess is they are trying to land W. Pure speculation there. My guess is that the delay is he's learning that he needs a both a development and management partner for the project. Any financing will require it.

[Makid]

For the Void (VCC) they already have a hotel partner. I can't remember the name but it is listed in this thread though.

With the hotels that are planned (VCC, Regent Street, CCH and AC) and the unknown (APS) it is possible that the big wigs are also looking at joining with some of the previously mentioned planned or for future hotels (APS and the like).

As Salt Lake is seeing a very large growth in hotel rooms, they could also be coming in to look for possible acquisitions.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

I'd consider a "real skyscraper" being over 700' in height. So I guess most cites don't have cojones for such buildings.

Toys R us. Nope a real skyscraper according to consensus is essentially 500 feet. Thanks for playing.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Toys R us. Nope a real skyscraper according to consensus is essentially 500 feet. Thanks for playing.

Was there a vote on the definition of a skyscraper that I missed?

[Future Mayor]

I'm guessing he might be referring to this.

A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building of over 40 floors, mostly designed for office, commercial and residential uses. A skyscraper can also be called a high-rise, but the term skyscraper is often used for buildings higher than 150 m (492 ft). For buildings above a height of 300 m (984 ft), the term Supertall can be used, while skyscrapers reaching beyond 600 m (1,969 ft) are classified as Megatall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper

A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building. Usually, a building is called a skyscraper if it clearly stands out above the surrounding built environment and significantly changes the city's overall skyline. The structure is expected to be at least 20 stories tall (although the term "skyscraper" was applied to early, 10-storied structures). Apart from that, there is no universally accepted minimum height for a skyscraper. In the United States today, a loose convention draws the lower limit for a skyscraper at 150 meters. Elsewhere, a building that is 80 meters (about 262 feet) tall may be considered a skyscraper, based on its relative impact on the city's skyline. In addition, habitability distinguishes skyscrapers from towers and masts.

The Emporis Standards Committee defines a high-rise building as "a multi-story structure with at least 12 floors or 35 meters (115 feet) in height."[1] Comparing this definition with the somewhat loose definition of skyscraper noted above, one can say that all skyscrapers are high-rises, but not all high-rises are skyscrapers. An extremely tall skyscraper, particularly one that is taller than 300 meters (1,000 ft), is sometimes colloquially referred to as a supertall.

Some structural engineers define a high-rise as any vertical construction for which wind is a more significant load factor than weight is. This criterion fits not only habitable high-rises but also other tall structures, such as towers.

I'm not sure I'd say there is a consensus.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Skyscraper

So in Salt Lake City, I would say a 500'+ tower, depending on it's location, would have a significant impact to the skyline, thus defining it, in Salt Lake City's terms as a skyscraper. A building at 200' in downtown Provo would have a significant impact on the skyline vs the 130' Nuskin building and could thus be considered a skyscraper. On the flip side a 600' building in NYC wouldn't be considered one, because it would have a very minimal impact on the skyline.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Toys R us. Nope a real skyscraper according to consensus is essentially 500 feet. Thanks for playing.

This is silly. Your Mean Girls Logic doesn't work here.

The term skyscraper was born in Chicago, the birthplace of the skyscraper. The first skyscraper was also the first steel building in Chicago in 1884. It was called the Home Insurance Building and it stood at an impressive 138 ft.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Insurance_Building




Utah had the tallest skyscraper between Chicago and San Francsico in 1912:

Walker Center (formerly Walker Bank Building) is a skyscraper in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. It was opened on December 9, 1912; taking a little over a year to be built. At the time of its completion, it stood as the tallest building between Chicago and San Francisco at 16 stories ~219 ft (67 m).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Center

[Stenar]

Ken said in this post that the hotel partner is Thompson Hotels:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7185402&postcount=3672

I still don't think the Void is happening. If Thompson does in fact partner with them, they're not going to let Ken put their name on that p.o.s. design he has already. If it does happen, I think it should be ⅓ to ½ office space because it's a no-brainer with the Federal courthouse across the street. The office space would be packed with law firms.

Originally Posted by Makid

For the Void (VCC) they already have a hotel partner. I can't remember the name but it is listed in this thread though.

With the hotels that are planned (VCC, Regent Street, CCH and AC) and the unknown (APS) it is possible that the big wigs are also looking at joining with some of the previously mentioned planned or for future hotels (APS and the like).

As Salt Lake is seeing a very large growth in hotel rooms, they could also be coming in to look for possible acquisitions.

[Ironweed]

Mr. S.P. I think your argument was viable back in the day. With the research I've done (It is not a thesis by any means...) in today's environment a 500 foot tower would qualify.

I stick with my postulation that SLC does not have the guts to get to 500 feet. I'll bet a lunch on it. If the CCH is 500 feet or more, I owe ya'll lunch.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Mr. S.P. I think your argument was viable back in the day. With the research I've done (It is not a thesis by any means...) in today's environment a 500 foot tower would qualify.

I stick with my postulation that SLC does not have the guts to get to 500 feet. I'll bet a lunch on it. If the CCH is 500 feet or more, I owe ya'll lunch.

History is everything. Your argument is analogous to saying that nothing before 1970 is modern, even though the modern era was historically born and named well before WWII.

[Future Mayor]

Height in SLC isn't about guts or stones or berries. It's plain and simple about economics. If they can achieve a 1,200 room hotel in 450' they will, because each additional floor in height costs more money than going slightly wider. Our large blocks combined with economics is a major reason why our current tallest is just over 420'.

As land becomes more scarce, and entire 1/4 blocks aren't available as a footprint buildings will start to rise higher than they are now. That is why I anticipate that Carl's Jr site could very well end up being our new tallest in the next 5-10 years. The footprint available is much smaller than the Wells Fargo(American Stores) footprint.

[Comrade]

If it happens I'll rightfully apologize. But it's not happening. This forum gets suckered in by unattainable development far too often. If it's too good to be true...it's too good to be true.

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Mr. S.P. I think your argument was viable back in the day. With the research I've done (It is not a thesis by any means...) in today's environment a 500 foot tower would qualify.

I stick with my postulation that SLC does not have the guts to get to 500 feet. I'll bet a lunch on it. If the CCH is 500 feet or more, I owe ya'll lunch.

Forum meet up and Ironweed is paying.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by StevenF

Forum meet up and Ironweed is paying.

Yessir!!! Knowing you guys, you'll milk it for everything you can.

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Height in SLC isn't about guts or stones or berries. It's plain and simple about economics. If they can achieve a 1,200 room hotel in 450' they will, because each additional floor in height costs more money than going slightly wider. Our large blocks combined with economics is a major reason why our current tallest is just over 420'.

As land becomes more scarce, and entire 1/4 blocks aren't available as a footprint buildings will start to rise higher than they are now. That is why I anticipate that Carl's Jr site could very well end up being our new tallest in the next 5-10 years. The footprint available is much smaller than the Wells Fargo(American Stores) footprint.

Agreed on all fronts here.
The argument(s) made previously sound as if SLC is a singular entity, or person, or corporation.
Okay, it is a corporation, but
Taller buildings have already been approved, just to have things go south on the developer, no fault of "SLC"....el hombre sin huevos.

[asies1981]

The Trolley Square proposal cleared the planning commission last night.

[millhouse]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Building permits are submitted for the Hardware Village development. No permits for the other project yet, but I was told they want to break ground in May. I have their contact info and will follow up with them.

They are actually looking to break ground this month. Let's just say I have first hand information on this one. They have given the earthwork contractor and pier contractor thirty days to be complete on the western apartment building (west village). This also includes the brownstones. Footings are scheduled to begin in April. The timeline on this building is crazy fast. Also another tidbit, not sure if it has been discussed, the developer is the same one for the 4th west project. Yes literally the huge project across the street to the north.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Height in SLC isn't about guts or stones or berries. It's plain and simple about economics. If they can achieve a 1,200 room hotel in 450' they will, because each additional floor in height costs more money than going slightly wider. Our large blocks combined with economics is a major reason why our current tallest is just over 420'.

As land becomes more scarce, and entire 1/4 blocks aren't available as a footprint buildings will start to rise higher than they are now. That is why I anticipate that Carl's Jr site could very well end up being our new tallest in the next 5-10 years. The footprint available is much smaller than the Wells Fargo(American Stores) footprint.

Excellent point but I think that's only the half, or 2/3rds of it. If the height of a building was mostly determined by economics, I thinks it's safe to say about half the skyscrapers around the world would not exist. I believe most skyscrapers height and design are trying to project an image or make a statement about a company, a region, a culture, and many other reasons besides economics. Your absolutely right economics plays a major role. In Salt Lake City it seems that economics is the sole determining factor in a buildings height. We have yet to see a developer or a company want to make a statement in our city.

Sad, but I'm optimistic