Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Makid]

Originally Posted by SLCdude

I work in the Sweet Candy Building (224 S 200 W). This is all news to me. La Fountain (the little Mexican Restaurant at 2nd and 2nd) closed a week ago. This makes sense now.

Like what others have said, this is great infill but a missed opportunity to bridge the Pierpont gap. I can't tell from the B/W site plan... will pedestrians be able to walk through the block at least if they really want to?

I drive passed there every morning on the way to park myself. I have been waiting for this project for a while if only to help get rid of the parking on the corner.

I can't wait for demolition and construction to happen. This project will help to enliven the area. The downside that I see is that the wait times for the restaurants along 2nd West is going to increase. I already avoid them as well as the few on 2nd South across from the convention center during larger conventions but this will help increase foot traffic to them as well.

So, while it does mean that myself and those in my office that would frequent them will need to change when we do lunch, this will be very beneficial to the restaurants as the residents will help to keep them busy longer. I hope that this translates into longer hours and weekend hours as well (outside of convention times).

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

My one complaint about this is that I had hoped that Pierpont Ave would eventually completely bisect that block. The Apartment building extends a hair too far south and the surface parking south of the Sugar building should be removed. The bigger deal is the apt bldg. Go ahead and keep the parking but don't kill future Pierpont ext for 5 feet of footprint.

While the Pierpont connection would have been nice, I'm not sure that even if the apartment building were a bit more shallow on the block if it would have ever happened. The Greek Orthodox Church on 300 W has always major expansion plans on the parcels between the church building and 200 S. The area where the host the Greek Festival. I'm not sure exactly what those plans are, I believe I saw something years and years ago. Maybe they could have been tweaked to accommodate Pierpont, but maybe they have no interest.

Originally Posted by SLCdude

Like what others have said, this is great infill but a missed opportunity to bridge the Pierpont gap. I can't tell from the B/W site plan... will pedestrians be able to walk through the block at least if they really want to?

I don't think the pedestrians will be able to walk through the block, unless the Greek Orthodox Church allows a gate in the fence.

I do like that there will be a North South corridor along Poplar St connecting 200 S with 300 S, and essentially 200 W connecting to that as well.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

My one complaint about this is that I had hoped that Pierpont Ave would eventually completely bisect that block. The Apartment building extends a hair too far south and the surface parking south of the Sugar building should be removed. The bigger deal is the apt bldg. Go ahead and keep the parking but don't kill future Pierpont ext for 5 feet of footprint.

One of the things I've noticed about Salt Lake is the general lack of interstitial streets. It almost seems like every street in the city is a big wide boulevard (except for the heavily traffic-calmed stretch of Main Street for the first three blocks or so south of South Temple). Smaller streets help increase routes around and through those gigantic blocks, as well as provide more intimate urban spaces.

Unfortunately, developers today don't really grok that anywhere in the US, though.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

It looks like they are allowing public input on May 24th at 7:00 pm

Sweet Jesus. How much longer until we receive an actual announcement. If they are holding public input on the 24th, it sounds like they aren't planning on making any designs official any time soon. Weren't they supposed to make an announcement two months ago?

So much for an "expedited process" and an estimated 2017 opening.

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

Sweet Jesus. How much longer until we receive an actual announcement. If they are holding public input on the 24th, it sounds like they aren't planning on making any designs official any time soon. Weren't they supposed to make an announcement two months ago?

So much for an "expedited process" and an estimated 2017 opening.

So when the Legislature finally gave the thumbs up for the CCH funding about a year and something ago, I guessed that the thing would be done in late 2018, much later than most were guessing.
Now I'm sayin late 2019 at the earliest.
These things drag on every time, regardless of anyone's "expedited process" proclamation.
I mean, checks and balances are good, as are laws that protect fair bidding processes, but, you know....damn. It's not like there's major geological concerns, like a Salesforce, or a deep depression in the economy right now, or Mamie O'Rourk hasn't stopped ........

[HandsomeJohn]

Originally Posted by Makid

I am not sure on the timeline but I did notice this:

http://www.utah.gov/pmn/sitemap/notice/326269.html





This would be an update on the previous limits for the area. Didn't they already to an update with a limit to 300' or 350'?

Thinking about it, I am a bit torn on which way this should go. If this does happen and unlimited height is allowed, any design, even a large wall could go up. With a height restriction and allowing for a variance with a design review, this allows more input on the design. The downside is that the process can take longer.

The city planing commission proposed/recommended the update in December, but the city council needs to approve it. We went to the city planning commission to get them to recommend the height increase for the salt palace plots back in December (we were the only CCH developers there). We told them that we wanted to build in excess of 600' and the response was positive from them. There were several 99 West naysayers though. The "update" would give the plots the same restrictions as the D1 Zoning 375' w/o design and review board and unlimited with design and review. And yes, it sounds like everyone is dragging their feet with all of this.

[Utah_Dave]

To hear Handsome John describe what he wanted to build, I will be mighty disappointed if we end up with a short, fat wall.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

To hear Handsome John describe what he wanted to build, I will be mighty disappointed if we end up with a short, fat wall.

Ditto

It wold be enough to swing my vote away from the incumbent mayor and council members.

If you want to lose my vote Ben McAdams, Arlyn Bradshaw, Jenny Wilson, Richard Snelgrove, and Jim Bradley go ahead and accept a bid for a stubby wall.

Suggestion 3344 Peachtree in Atlanta https://www.google.com/search?q=3344+pea...hVIr4MKHYgnAL4Q_AUICCgC&biw=1280&bih=677

[ctobsl]

^^^^^^
That 3344 would look great in the skyline. I would like to see a tower like that for our CCH.

[Sight-Seer]

Uh-uh. Icky.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Sight-Seer

Uh-uh. Icky.

Yep, it's a mess.

[Utah_Dave]

Hah, can't believe I forgot that I would like a public observation deck on top if it's a nice tall tower. A restaurant near the top would be a nice touch too, but whatever. If they put some nice high-end condos on top, I would advise the Miller family to purchase a few for new Jazz members to stay in until they can get settled. Kinda like a marketing tool to get top level free agents to look our way. Now I'm really dreaming! And that's another story. Lol, I really need to tone it down or I'm setting myself up for disappointment!

[delts145]

Originally Posted by ctobsl

^^^^^^
That 3344 would look great in the skyline. I would like to see a tower like that for our CCH.

50 story - 635 ft.

From certain angles I think it's a pretty cool looking tower, but it wouldn't work well at the lower levels for that north plot at the convention center. I imagine though your thinking more of the tower portion itself. While I wouldn't want this particular design at the designated CCH location, I think it could be a good addition to the south, somewhere along State. Ha, at this point I'm anxious to see any substantial tower go up around any of the southern portion of the CBD.


Peachtree 3344

I like the look of the tower from this angle the most. The street levels are a bit of a hot mess though. I would want to rethink the bottom four or so levels.

Peachtree 3344
.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by delts145

50 story - 635 ft.

From certain angles I think it's a pretty cool looking tower, but it wouldn't work well at the lower levels for that north plot at the convention center. I imagine though your thinking more of the tower portion itself. While I wouldn't want this particular design at the designated CCH location, I think it could be a good addition to the south, somewhere along State. Ha, at this point I'm anxious to see any substantial tower go up around any of the southern portion of the CBD.


I like the look of the tower from this angle the most. The street levels are a bit of a hot mess though. I would want to rethink the bottom four or so levels.

Peachtree 3344
.

I see something like this as the best we can hope for but in all likelihood we'll get something much worse. I don't like that the short part is too bulky in relation to the tower but I think we are going to get that anyway. Hopefully they tuck that in toward the convention side of the lot. The bottom levels I didn't even consider, different use, different lot, so yeah they would be different.

This marks off a few check boxes for me.
Materials-Not an oversized mud hut
Not bland-I'd much rather have a hot mess than another bland meh in our skyline
Height-It's time for SLC to crack 200m
Changing views-I like that it would look different depending on where it was viewed from. I think that's a plus for a new tallest on the edge of our cbd.
Residential-A building this size would leave room for residential. Something our downtown needs more of.

[HandsomeJohn]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Hah, can't believe I forgot that I would like a public observation deck on top if it's a nice tall tower. A restaurant near the top would be a nice touch too, but whatever. If they put some nice high-end condos on top, I would advise the Miller family to purchase a few for new Jazz members to stay in until they can get settled. Kinda like a marketing tool to get top level free agents to look our way. Now I'm really dreaming! And that's another story. Lol, I really need to tone it down or I'm setting myself up for disappointment!

We were planning on an observation deck at the top (which could be booked as a venue and had full catering facilities), and a restaurant at about 350'-375' up as well. I like to still be optimistic...

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by HandsomeJohn

We were planning on an observation deck at the top (which could be booked as a venue and had full catering facilities), and a restaurant at about 350'-375' up as well. I like to still be optimistic...

That settles it John. You need to build a project downtown my friend!

[ctobsl]

Originally Posted by delts145

50 story - 635 ft.

From certain angles I think it's a pretty cool looking tower, but it wouldn't work well at the lower levels for that north plot at the convention center. I imagine though your thinking more of the tower portion itself. While I wouldn't want this particular design at the designated CCH location, I think it could be a good addition to the south, somewhere along State. Ha, at this point I'm anxious to see any substantial tower go up around any of the southern portion of the CBD.


I like the look of the tower from this angle the most. The street levels are a bit of a hot mess though. I would want to rethink the bottom four or so levels.

Peachtree 3344
.

Yeah I pretty much like the tower section of it. The base part is too bulky. I do like the curves, glass and angles.

[Comrade]

Real skyscrapers have curves.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by HandsomeJohn

We were planning on an observation deck at the top (which could be booked as a venue and had full catering facilities), and a restaurant at about 350'-375' up as well. I like to still be optimistic...

So John, I can't remember that you've said, but are you planning on some sort of project in the downtown area? Not necessarily as complicated as the CCH, but some sort of infill? The reason I ask is because I like the way you think, as many on this forum do.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Ditto

It wold be enough to swing my vote away from the incumbent mayor and council members.

If you want to lose my vote Ben McAdams, Arlyn Bradshaw, Jenny Wilson, Richard Snelgrove, and Jim Bradley go ahead and accept a bid for a stubby wall.

Suggestion 3344 Peachtree in Atlanta https://www.google.com/search?q=3344+pea...hVIr4MKHYgnAL4Q_AUICCgC&biw=1280&bih=677

It's the City Council, not the County Council, that has to approve the design for an increase in height.