Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Mixed-use development planned for 500 East/2100 South.

yimby

[delts145]

Good to see the some projects going up that are getting creative with their use of exterior materials.

Originally Posted by asies1981

Mixed-use development planned for 500 East/2100 South.

Isaac Riddle Reports: Concept rendering of the Sugar House Mixed Used Development as RMU-45.
A final design would include three-stories instead of four-stories in the above rendering. Rendering by Think Architecture.



.

[delts145]

Photo Bump

Originally Posted by airhero

I took a long walk through town today and snapped some pics of a few projects going up.

400 West Apartments:







Looks like the foundation is about ready to be poured for West Village at Hardware Station:





Alta Gateway:





Garbett Pioneer Park, not much to see here until the exterior is revealed:



Paragon Lofts:





Liberty Crest. I'm a little confused about the finishes on parts of this building, or rather, whether they are the finishes or prefinishes:







Bonneville Apartments:



Already rebar up on the Hostess property. Only on the north end though. This thing is going to be huge and it's hard to capture that:



900 East Lofts, first from the west (with a special appearance from a Winnebago), then from the east:





111 lobby:







And finally a shot of downtown from my favorite location, although it isn't a great pic. Also just realized 900 East Lofts will partially block this view when finished:

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Mixed-use development planned for 500 East/2100 South.

Seriously I love the NIMBY's. In this case I'm going to say more of a CAVE person though. "Several residents expressed concerns that the new development would damage their historic homes on East Redondo Ave. Residents also testified that new development would negatively impact the neighborhood with increased traffic and less privacy."

HUH? Seriously do these people even think anything through logically before opening their mouths? Because the Crossfit gym blends into the historic character of the neighborhood so well, and why exactly are people going to be driving on Redondo Ave, that live in this new proposal? As for the privacy issue, that too is ridiculous. The current zone allows for a building roughly the same height, with a much shorter rear set back, yet they are complaining about this proposal. They need to listen and actually understand the changes, what is currently allowed (not currently there) vs the proposal.

As for my opinion on it, I think it's a great idea, but I would have love to have seen it at 4 stories instead of 3, but it will be a great addition. The city is going to continue to grow and development like this, on under utilized parcels on arterial roads, close to transit are the best places for the city to accomplish growth within it's neighborhoods. Obviously downtown and the area surrounding downtown will grow with much more density, but developments like this will actually result in creating better neighborhoods in general. While this project may only have 1 or 2 retailers in it, that is 1 or 2 more retailers available to the neighborhood, within walking distance, and the development is pedestrian oriented, unlike the massive car centric developments on 7th E.

Infill will continue to make neighborhoods thrive, particularly mixed use infill. Look at what a difference something as simply as Park Cafe makes in that neighborhood, yet most residents in the area would throw a CAVE fit if someone wanted to open a restaurant in a similar location.

[s.p.hansen]

[Future Mayor]

So because I'm really unmotivated at work today and I needed a development fix I was perusing Boise and Denver threads and as I scrolled past the image below it really stuck in my head even more than it previous had why if the APS tower is ever built that it CANNOT demolish the existing buildings on 100 S. I realize the corner one is lame, but the rest are nice buildings that provide a historical context to the city, rather than just something shiny and new.

The mix of historic and new is what makes a city unique, IMO. Obviously the setting isn't exactly the same, as West Temple is a 97 lane expressway, but the overall concept of the 100 S side and the mix of old and new is what my point is. However since it is Vasillos that is doing the development.


1401 Lawrence-01 by Ryan Dravitz on Flickr.

[asies1981]

Movement on the city's plans to redevelop the parcels just north of the Public Safety Complex.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Movement on the city's plans to redevelop the parcels just north of the Public Safety Complex.

Oh good. I was worried the city would push for something of at least decent height. Glad we're getting some more small-rises. SLC is lacking in those.

[ajiuO]

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Oh good. I was worried the city would push for something of at least decent height. Glad we're getting some more small-rises. SLC is lacking in those.

I think they should tear down the Wells Fargo and Chase buildings and do some small-rise development there... Perhaps a few 6-8 story beige stucco apartment buildings with absolutely no commercial space in the bottom.... If we are lucky, we might even get some natural stone and/or metal accents.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Oh good. I was worried the city would push for something of at least decent height. Glad we're getting some more small-rises. SLC is lacking in those.

I'm less concerned about the height than I am the load of boring that it's sure to be. The city should push to keep SL Roasting. The building isn't super special but the lowrise would be more interesting having to incorporate it. I agree with FM that the mix of new and old is super important.

[Liberty Wellsian]

The blind justice of Salt Lake City's courthouse

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

The blind justice of Salt Lake City's courthouse

To suggest that Utahns don't like the design of the courthouse because Mormons have a deep rooted distrust of the government is a tad ridiculous.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I'm less concerned about the height than I am the load of boring that it's sure to be. The city should push to keep SL Roasting. The building isn't super special but the lowrise would be more interesting having to incorporate it. I agree with FM that the mix of new and old is super important.

That certainly is an issue but I just wish there was more push for taller, more urban residential development in the city's core. I mentioned quite a bit ago, and it remains today, that downtown SLC, for the most part, is seeing residential development that other large cities experience beyond the borders of their downtown in our actual downtown.

It's just striking how quickly, even now, downtown regresses the further you get from Main and State. Our downtown becomes disturbingly suburban once you move east/west from the main two streets. That shouldn't be for a region SLC's size.

[Future Mayor]

I agree, anything along 4th South that is under 10 stories is a waste of space, I'd even cut them some slack if it was 8 stories. This 5-7 story crap with no pedestrian engagement is getting REALLY OLD, and is seriously wasting a great opportunity to engage with transit.

So this new 7 story will be short and will eliminate the SL Roasting Company building, the Sizzler proposal will be 7 stories and will eliminate the Scientology building. Keep the SL Roasting company and build to 8-10 stories surrounding it. Keep the Scientology building, make the foot print smaller and build to 8-10 stories.

The Historic Landmarks commission is deeming things to tall for South Temple, City Council is reducing heights at 21st and 7th, yet no board is bringing up the fact that all these new developments on 4th S are to short. At least Councilman Kitchen brought up the fact that things need to be re-evaluated along 4th S and N. Temple corridors in order to create a better built environment. The TSA zones need to have minimum height requirements. A minimum height requirement would lead to more density along the corridor which results in more people utilizing the much argued green space along the municipal corridor. There is no reason that buildings along 4th S, adjacent to Trax should essentially be the same height as the "Seasons at ugly crap" on 5th S. Then again there is no reason that Seasons on 5th should be that short either.

This is our downtown corridor, DEMAND greater. As Comrade pointed out these belong further out, not along 4th S. 5-7 stories would be great additions to the Ballpark neighborhood, Central 9th, Granary, Mid-town, and even along N. Temple (although 8 minimum would be better) but not on 4th S.

Two positives I can take from the Public Safety block proposal is that parking is at .75 per unit, and there will be some Micro Units as well. The parking should be less considering the location next to Trax, I think there should be a .75 or even .5 spaces per unit maximum in all TSA zones. With the Micro units though, I think having them all in one building isn't ideal, why not mix them in, in both buildings.

[delts145]

How much higher per unit is the cost to build each floor over 5. And have Wasatch residents proven at this juncture that they are willing to pay the additional rent for an apartment along 400 S., with that additional height and higher rent?

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by delts145

How much higher per unit is the cost to build each floor over 5. And have Wasatch residents proven at this juncture that they are willing to pay the additional rent for an apartment along 400 S., with that additional height and higher rent?

They would have to go one more level of concrete podium for each floor over 7. 2/5 3/5 etc. I assume podium/stick construction can continue to go higher as long as the wood is a max of 5 floors. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

With retail on the first floor that off sets the costs to the residents somewhat. Residents in Salt Lake City haven't been given the chance to justify higher costs. If developers had the stones to reduce parking that would allow them to build more units rather than waste those costs on parking spaces.

[Makid]

With Rents already approaching 1800 for 2 bedrooms and occupancy at around 3%, developers could build higher as there is demand and the revenue from the apartments is enough to justify going higher.

The problem is the amount of space available. While other cities are building higher in their downtown and nearby districts, SLC has so much land available that there isn't the desire for developers to build higher yet. Their ROI is much better right now in the 6-7 story range.

For example:

150 Units in an average project
$1,500 average rent per month
$20 Million total project cost average
6-7 Story Building

Using this, a developer would make roughly $2.7 Million per year. This gives a 7.4 year ROI.

Some cities are seeing projects around and within their downtown core with the below averages:

350 - 400 Units
$1,500 average monthly Rent
$50 Million total project cost
30-40 Story Building

Using this a Developer would get between $6.3 Million and $7.2 Million a year. This would put the ROI between 7.9 and 6.9 years.

This means that for a developer, rather than build 2 6-7 story projects, they could build 1 30-35 story project and have a similar to faster ROI.

Land costs can't be more in SLC than it is in other cities that are seeing the taller construction. We know that people are moving to SLC and occupancy rates are staying at or below 5% between project completion.

What these numbers do tell me is that there aren't any self funded or primarily self funded developers in Salt Lake and that the developers we do have are using 90% or higher loan to project values to get the projects built. This is because banks are still not lending for larger projects without a higher amount of money from the developers.

What we need is just 1 developer and 1 bank to bankroll 1 project in the 30 story area. Once this project is built and begins to fill up, we will see additional projects of similar size start to be built.

Outside of the above, The one thing that would further help this and lower the project costs would be to cut the parking requirements. By this I mean down to .5 per unit or lower as the requirements. Maybe even remove the parking requirements completely and let developers build what the parking they think would be required based on the project location.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Movement on the city's plans to redevelop the parcels just north of the Public Safety Complex.

They better put some good retail and good architecture at the base of that podium building replacing SL Roasting Company. That building was one of the few cool places to hangout near downtown. I'm really disappointed at the no retail beige stucco crap that's replaced existing restaurants and retail.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

They would have to go one more level of concrete podium for each floor over 7. 2/5 3/5 etc. I assume podium/stick construction can continue to go higher as long as the wood is a max of 5 floors. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

With retail on the first floor that off sets the costs to the residents somewhat. Residents in Salt Lake City haven't been given the chance to justify higher costs. If developers had the stones to reduce parking that would allow them to build more units rather than waste those costs on parking spaces.

I've heard from several city council members that they are frustrated that developers only build up to maximum allowed for wood framed construction, even in areas that allow for taller buildings. Even when they do go taller many will just go taller with the podium for the extra height instead of switching to steel. The state street project mess might have scared some developers away from steel. But if we want tall slender buildings we are going to have to move away from wood.