Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Future Mayor]

I'm split on the unlimited height debate. I understand the desire for a really tall building, but I also understand the city wanting to have some control over what gets built there.

I like the idea, just as it currently is in the D-1, of height restrictions, but unlimited height with a conditional use, which is based on design of the building. I say apply the 375' limit on the block with over 375' as a conditional use based on design, and specify what some of those design requirements are, step backs etc, While it will be an additional step to go through conditional use approval, it will be laid out what needs to be included. Spelling those things out can make the process much easier to go through and a developer may be more willing to go through it if they know they will get approval.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by nushiof

Man this height restriction talk is bumming me out. Now, this article says Mayor McAdams envisions a CCH of only 25-30 stories. I am underwhelmed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/24/salt-lake-county-wants-height-limit-scrapped-for-t/

Makid, you need to have a good heart to heart talk with your buddy, Mayor McAdams.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by nushiof

Man this height restriction talk is bumming me out. Now, this article says Mayor McAdams envisions a CCH of only 25-30 stories. I am underwhelmed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/24/salt-lake-county-wants-height-limit-scrapped-for-t/

I've always worried that a 50+ story tower would ruin our skyline and make the city "look" smaller than it is, as it will look like we basically only have one skyscraper.

I'd rather see 3 new 20-story towers than 1 new 60 story. It fills in the skyline and makes the city appear "beefier" than it actually is.

[Utah_Dave]

I now understand Comrade a little better now after listening to the public comments and the city council members at the hearing. I think the city deserves a block long, 30 story hotel that will ruin the skyline and ironically, the view for many residence. Then we will make this mistake one time and learn from it. Such a disappointing turn. I hope to be surprised but reality just hit like a ton of bricks.

Comrade... I will doubt you no more my friend. You have your finger on the weak pulse surrounding our city. Cheer me up with some good news!

[Future Mayor]

Please clarify, the council said no to unlimited height, understandable, but did they say no to heights above 375' all together, or is it above 375' is a conditional use, exactly like it is in the D-1 Zone?

Like I said previously, I'm not opposed to some regulations. Simply allowing unlimited height with no city control could easily result in a 40 story straight up, wide boring box.

[Liberty Wellsian]

My concern is the ratio of the width of the buildings frontage to its height. I'm afraid that we are going to get something where that ratio is basically 1:1. We focus so much on height that our zoning ends up delivering exactly what we want to avoid. I think we should define an area of the block as frontage. Anything proposed within that area that exceeded 75' in height would need to have a slenderness ratio of at least 1:3 or be subject to design review.

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

[NoTrippin]

Hey guys, I'm from Utah and I've followed several forums for quite a few years but today I decided to make a profile and reply.
Just a reply to the above comment regarding having only one large skyscraper making the rest of the city look small. I currently live in Oklahoma City for dental school, and Devon Energy built a 50 story beautiful headquarters in downtown OKC that has transformed the entire downtown here. It stands like a beacon, it is a huge symbol for the city, and every Okie loves it. It adds so much to the city and the skyline, even though nothing else compares to its height. It was completed in 2013 right before I came to Oklahoma, and it sparked the development of three other towers, although not near as high. So I disagree that having one large tower will ruin the skyline of SLC.

[NoTrippin]

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/5-oklahoma-city-skyline-at-dusk-bill-cobb.html
Bill Cobb photography

I'm not sure how to add pictures... so here is a link, and Devon tower is 844'.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by nushiof

Man this height restriction talk is bumming me out. Now, this article says Mayor McAdams envisions a CCH of only 25-30 stories. I am underwhelmed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/24/salt-lake-county-wants-height-limit-scrapped-for-t/

Sounds like the zion curtain thing applies to building height as well...

[slc801]

Originally Posted by NoTrippin

Hey guys, I'm from Utah and I've followed several forums for quite a few years but today I decided to make a profile and reply.
Just a reply to the above comment regarding having only one large skyscraper making the rest of the city look small. I currently live in Oklahoma City for dental school, and Devon Energy built a 50 story beautiful headquarters in downtown OKC that has transformed the entire downtown here. It stands like a beacon, it is a huge symbol for the city, and every Okie loves it. It adds so much to the city and the skyline, even though nothing else compares to its height. It was completed in 2013 right before I came to Oklahoma, and it sparked the development of three other towers, although not near as high. So I disagree that having one large tower will ruin the skyline of SLC.

If I had a least favorite skyline in the US, it would be Oklahoma City, mostly because of the Devon Energy building. I don't want one in SLC. I think the unlimited height was premature and I'm cool with it getting shot down until there is at least a plan on the drawing table.

[Ro-Longo]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Sounds like the zion curtain thing applies to building height as well...

it would be funny if it wasn't true.

I can recall a number of times where plans were announced in the past for buildings taller the Church office Tower only to be mysteriously cancelled for some reason. Lets face it folks. The COT will continue to "look down" on all other buildings.

and yes I know the Wells Fargo building in technically taller, but because its location, the COT looks taller.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by slc801

If I had a least favorite skyline in the US, it would be Oklahoma City, mostly because of the Devon Energy building. I don't want one in SLC. I think the unlimited height was premature and I'm cool with it getting shot down until there is at least a plan on the drawing table.

Nobody is talking about a 844 foot monster. A 550 footer would be great, I think.

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Ro-Longo

it would be funny if it wasn't true.

I can recall a number of times where plans were announced in the past for buildings taller the Church office Tower only to be mysteriously cancelled for some reason. Lets face it folks. The COT will continue to "look down" on all other buildings.

and yes I know the Wells Fargo building in technically taller, but because its location, the COT looks taller.

Don't believe the conspiracy hype. If the church really wanted to retain "tallest observable building" status, they would and could.
And the most notable building(s) to be announced, but not built, taller than the COB, was Khashoggi's own Triad Center. 43 stories of city approved commercial.
Ground broken, steel on site, etc.
Sure, there have been a handful of others that never came to fruition, but nothing that the church nixed underhand, (to my knowledge).
Does the Legislature run things around here? YES. They make the rules,
but that imaginary ceiling is just that, imaginary.
Most Legislators are pro-business suit types, and wouldn't mind a large SUITS enclosure(building), as long as it didn't compete in any way with their own personal agenda.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by slc801

If I had a least favorite skyline in the US, it would be Oklahoma City, mostly because of the Devon Energy building. I don't want one in SLC. I think the unlimited height was premature and I'm cool with it getting shot down until there is at least a plan on the drawing table.

100% disagree

It isn't premature it's late. The D-1 should have expanded decades ago. Let's grow the downtown we have instead of repeatedly tearing it down.

[Future Mayor]

It seems that many on here aren't understanding what the City Council truly did. They are looking out for the best interest of the city and the ascetics of how the city will look.

They aren't against height on the Salt Palace block, they are simply saying, we're not willing to simply give the go ahead to a building of any height without some sort of control over how that building will look. No step back requirements, no design guidelines. The City currently has the 375' limit in the D-1 zone with conditional use above that, that has step back requirements and other design guidelines in order for approval over that 375' height.

So why are several forumers bitching about the denial of unlimited height, when it's not even allowed in the D-1. Allowing unlimited height with no design control could result in some really ugly tall buildings.

We all agree that we don't want a Phoenix, and yes the current height of the Phoenix is below the 375' D-1 limit. Now just imagine, if the City Council were to allow unlimited height we could get a 400'+ Phoenix and the city would have ZERO control over it.

They should simply rezone the eastern Salt Palace block to D-1, then the existing height and design controls are already in place. I've wondered the entire time why the aren't just doing that.


So some of you think that "The LDS Church is behind it", controlling a city in which the City Council has one active LDS member, and a Lesbian as Mayor, is a more viable reason than the City Council wanting some sort of control over the design, just as they do in the rest of the city, ?

[EPdesign]

Sounds like Future mayor is in on it as well! Time to stand up and allow wreckless and unregulated designs! Long live the Grand Lisboa Casino!!!!!!!! Long live the Grand Lisboa Casino!!!!!!


!!is

:-) future mayor, your point makes sense.

[linguisize]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

They aren't against height on the Salt Palace block, they are simply saying, we're not willing to simply give the go ahead to a building of any height without some sort of control over how that building will look.

This is absolutely true, at least with the council people that I have heard from. Some of them want a new tallest too! With 4th an 4th being the umteenth stucco disaster being built in our city I personally wouldn't trust any developer without some kind of initial design first.

[Utah_Dave]

This process is new to me but it seems backwards and not well thought out. Who proposed the unlimited height on that block? Why would they propose unlimited height and no controls if everyone is against this to one degree or another. Come up with reasonable proposal about height limits and then have a meeting about it. Then the developer has an idea of what his possibilities are to build. Seems like this should have been figured out during the last bid for a hotel and the zoning would already be known or at least zoned higher then 75ft. Maybe the current process seems well thought out to some, but to say unlimited height and no restrictions and put that out for a public discussion is asking for all sorts of ridiculous claims like the guy who said the hotel could be built to the moon. The whole thing just seemed like a waste of time and amateur. Sorry if I come acrossed a little pissed but this could be dragged out for a long time. I do think they will get a better handle on the next proposal but the nay Sayers came out loud and seemed to have left an impression on the city council which is not a good thing.

[Salty Laker]

Maybe we could brand 400 S as stucco row. That's where developers can build all the stucco 🞵🞵🞵🞵 they want. But nowhere else in the city. Then when the buildings get a little older, they could start being repainted in bright colors. It could be like an auto-centric/highway version of Caminito in Buenos Aires.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

This process is new to me but it seems backwards and not well thought out. Who proposed the unlimited height on that block? Why would they propose unlimited height and no controls if everyone is against this to one degree or another. Come up with reasonable proposal about height limits and then have a meeting about it. Then the developer has an idea of what his possibilities are to build. Seems like this should have been figured out during the last bid for a hotel and the zoning would already be known or at least zoned higher then 75ft. Maybe the current process seems well thought out to some, but to say unlimited height and no restrictions and put that out for a public discussion is asking for all sorts of ridiculous claims like the guy who said the hotel could be built to the moon. The whole thing just seemed like a waste of time and ameature.

The Salt Palace block parcels weren't in consideration during the first bid process that Omni Hotels won, there was no indication of where the hotel might be in that proposal. That proposal consisted of the winning bidder acquiring property on their own, and at that point the would have had to come in with a zone change.

I'm not sure if it was Mayor Becker that proposed the unlimited height or if that is what the County, as the land owner, proposed.

The solution is simple, re-zone the block D-1, it already has corner and mid-block height restrictions and conditional use height exemptions.