Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I'm changing my height, I'm going with 456. Yup I'm that guy on the Price Is Right.

457 Bob, or Drew, sorry Drew.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The Commission that was set up to evaluate the needs of the homeless and how to best address the issue, recommended that the services be spread out, and separated by category, Men, Women, Families. They didn't say exactly where, so I'm guessing, just like any other non tax generating facility, it will probably get put in SLC somewhere. The good news is that they will be spread out. Services will also be provided at each location. Midvale already has an overflow shelter, so expanding the shelter there would also be a good idea. I think WVC should also have one, as should Sandy, but good luck getting Sandy to take one. As for locations in SLC, I think that somewhere up along Beck St would be a good location, it's still in the City, and has bus access. Or possibly somewhere over in the Redwood west side industrial park areas, along Redwood, or California Ave (both with bus service)

I also think that Ogden and Provo should each have shelters as well, one for each categories as well. That way Provo and Ogden and Utah and Weber counties will be able to utilize the work force as well.


I don't have any issue with them keeping the Road Home (family shelter) in it's current location, it's the other shelter that needs to be relocated. I think that as part of the new Homeless Outreach program the city, state and county should provide a daily van that picks up the homeless takes them to a job site, and pays them for their labor, even if it's minimum wage. They then get priority at the shelter, that night. So they don't have to wait in line to get a bed instead of working.

I really think they should put the men in Draper. I hear the state has a bunch of land down there.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Because we are bored, let's have a gentlemans bet on how tall the new Convention center hotel will be without going over. Best guess without going over wins! My guess is 455ft tall. For the record I prefer 525-550. But I'm a little pessimistic.

I'm in for 474 feet.

[Utah_Dave]

Ok, now that we got our bets in on the height of the tower, let's add to the wish list. Regardless of economics and needs, do you want to see a building with a flat top, an angled top, or a spire? My hope is a future tall building will incorporate a spire that is lighted at night. A building that is nicely lite would be a nice touch to our night time skyline.

Any other requests?

Thanks fellas

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Ok, now that we got our bets in on the height of the tower, let's add to the wish list. Regardless of economics and needs, do you want to see a building with a flat top, an angled top, or a spire? My hope is a future tall building will incorporate a spire that is lighted at night. A building that is nicely lite would be a nice touch to our night time skyline.

Any other requests?

Thanks fellas

I wouldn't hope for a spire from the CCH. Spires only work for buildings that won't be surpassed in height for a while. Think Trump tower in Chicago, or The Empire state and WTC in New York. However, that's only from a skyline perspective.

Either a flat top with a curved side(s) or a something with all kinds of angles would be cool. I think an angled top is likely. Even if just a portion of the roof.

[EPdesign]

How about a crown! Like the Library tower/us bank tower in LA. there was also one in Germany but I cant remember the name

[Liberty Wellsian]

Rather than a spire I hope they put the worlds largest inflatable man on top.

[Highrise_Mike]

I'm going to more optimistic and guess 510' with some kind of an angled roof or cool crown!

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by SLCLvr

The Family service center (shelter) is going to Midvale. The homeless commission is looking for two locations in SLC, one for a women's service center, one for a men's service center. The current Road Home could be one of the locations chosen.

Why do they separate the genders?

[delts145]

Not sure exactly what type of top can accommodate a helipad, but I think a top notch hotel such as this, which will need to accommodate a number of high rollers, will also need to have that luxury helipad convenience.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by delts145

Not sure exactly what type of top can accommodate a helipad, but I think a top notch hotel such as this, which will need to accommodate a number of high rollers, will also need to have that luxury helipad convenience.

lol

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by delts145

Not sure exactly what type of top can accommodate a helipad, but I think a top notch hotel such as this, which will need to accommodate a number of high rollers, will also need to have that luxury helipad convenience.

Most conventon center hotels don't have a helipad.
I'm wondering what type of high rollers do you see needing/wanting/using one in SLC?
The Outdoor people don't seem the type, and this ain't Vegas or L.A., so I'm just askin.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Why do they separate the genders?

They need to separate the facilities to spread the populations out. They are already separating the families from the non-families so I'm sure it is the simplest way to separate them.

[Deek1978]

Okay, here's my prognostication:

I'm thinking it's going to be a Trump Hotel, and the Donald is going to make sure it's seen from everywhere in the valley, just to piss us all off. It's going to be shaped like a giant —, because he isn't compensating for anything, just ask him... It'll be 666' tall. Heaven help us.

[Makid]

Also, spreading out the population does help to provide more resources to the homeless as well as to help get them back on their feet.

For others, this will help to diminish the amount of homeless in a given location. This will provide a sense of security for those that have been scared away from the Gateway due to the homeless population.

I do hope that there are some developers that will access grants to provide very low income housing as part of their projects (3 to 5 percent) across the valley and metro area to further help those that are in need to get some footing to be able to continue on their path of a secure and meaningful life off the streets.

I do think that the Salt Lake area has made great strides in chronic homelessness and I do hope that they can continue this with helping those that don't qualify as chronic but are homeless none the less.

I feel the shelters should be a stop gap solution and if the person is in the shelter for a few days with an outlook of being homeless for a few months, they should be provided provisional housing. They can do some work to help support it (If they aren't currently employed). This can be from beautification projects to assisting other homeless people.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Why do they separate the genders?

There has been plenty of discussion of having facilities that are more targeted toward certain subgroups of homeless. The shelter in Midvale will act as a family shelter and of course there's a new facility for homeless youth. The remaining subgroups are single men, single women, the mentally ill, and those with addiction issues. As I understand it there will be two more shelter locations (one of them could be the current Rio Grande location, or there could be two new locations) and these remaining subgroups will be divided up between them, but as of the last committee meeting (on April 18 with the next meeting in June) no decision had been reached about how it will be done. It seems likely that women and men will be separate but I don't believe that is set in stone. Also, please anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

I suppose if higher incidents of violence against women, —, unintended pregnancies, or stds are a problem in mixed gender facilities, that could be a reason to separate them. Also the women's shelter could be more geared to guiding them to services that men don't need, like abortions and birth control pills. This is purely speculation though. And I also agree that since we want smaller facilities, this is a relatively simple way to break them up.

[EPdesign]

Found it! Look up the Westend Strasse 1 in Germany. I like that building!! The cch would look cool like that

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by airhero

There has been plenty of discussion of having facilities that are more targeted toward certain subgroups of homeless. The shelter in Midvale will act as a family shelter and of course there's a new facility for homeless youth. The remaining subgroups are single men, single women, the mentally ill, and those with addiction issues. As I understand it there will be two more shelter locations (one of them could be the current Rio Grande location, or there could be two new locations) and these remaining subgroups will be divided up between them, but as of the last committee meeting (on April 18 with the next meeting in June) no decision had been reached about how it will be done. It seems likely that women and men will be separate but I don't believe that is set in stone. Also, please anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

I suppose if higher incidents of violence against women, —, unintended pregnancies, or stds are a problem in mixed gender facilities, that could be a reason to separate them. Also the women's shelter could be more geared to guiding them to services that men don't need, like abortions and birth control pills. This is purely speculation though. And I also agree that since we want smaller facilities, this is a relatively simple way to break them up.

Yes, they did come up with those subgroups about a year ago but those subgroups really don't make sense for emergency shelters if you think about it for 5 mins. For instance mentally ill people are usually either a man or a woman, they can be the head of a family, and they can be addicted to drugs.

Based on the news of what is actually happening it appears that they are going to focus on emergency shelters grouped by age(families with children, young adults, adults) and then gender for the adult population. Midvale is already being used for families, the VOA is constructing a youth shelter, and the first installment of state money is going to be used for new mens and womens shelters.

I would think that from there the goal would be to move people out of the shelters and into appropriate treatment facilities, housing, and support programs.

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by airhero

There has been plenty of discussion of having facilities that are more targeted toward certain subgroups of homeless. The shelter in Midvale will act as a family shelter and of course there's a new facility for homeless youth. The remaining subgroups are single men, single women, the mentally ill, and those with addiction issues. As I understand it there will be two more shelter locations (one of them could be the current Rio Grande location, or there could be two new locations) and these remaining subgroups will be divided up between them, but as of the last committee meeting (on April 18 with the next meeting in June) no decision had been reached about how it will be done. It seems likely that women and men will be separate but I don't believe that is set in stone. Also, please anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

I suppose if higher incidents of violence against women, —, unintended pregnancies, or stds are a problem in mixed gender facilities, that could be a reason to separate them. Also the women's shelter could be more geared to guiding them to services that men don't need, like abortions and birth control pills. This is purely speculation though. And I also agree that since we want smaller facilities, this is a relatively simple way to break them up.

I'm close to the homeless situation and I can confirm this is correct. A decision has not been made yet on how to break up the subgroups. But you're right that while it could make sense to have a facility for the mentally ill and those with addictions, it is far more likely that there will be one exclusively for women. I would also like to add that women attract much less criminal activity than men and separating them could get at least the women away from that sort of activity.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

I'm close to the homeless situation and I can confirm this is correct. A decision has not been made yet on how to break up the subgroups. But you're right that while it could make sense to have a facility for the mentally ill and those with addictions, it is far more likely that there will be one exclusively for women. I would also like to add that women attract much less criminal activity than men and separating them could get at least the women away from that sort of activity.

I just wanna say, Mr. President, that I'm a big fan. I'm gonna really miss you.