Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Future Mayor]

If I had a project or two under my belt or had the time to line up a group of investors, this is what I would propose.

Adaptive reuse of both the Barnes Bank Building and the SL Roasting Company building. Directly adjacent to the SL Roasting company building on the west side I would step up to 4 stories, half way to the corner, then from that point I would step it up to 8 or 10 stories for the rest. The 8 or 10 stories would be adjacent to the Barnes Bank Building, (already at 5). The four story section would wrap around the back of the SL Roasting Co building, and on the east side I would either step it down to 3 stories and 2 stories. Giving the frontage on 400 S some variety. All the upper floors would be residential.

I would push for the parcel east of Blair St to be 6 to 8 stories, with a mix of office retail and residential, instead of the proposed 3 stories.

For the parcel south on Blair St I would push for 6 to 7 stories instead of the suggested 4.

The reason I have the mix of 3 and four story front west of Blair is to better mix in the existing 2 story SL Roast Co building. The reason I feel there needs to be much more density there is that the entire purpose of the Transit Station Center zoning is to maximize the density around certain Trax stations, and it needs to be maximized. There is also so much open space on the Library and City Hall blocks that more people living in the area will provide more usage of those highly underutilized open spaces.

Yellow - 3 stories
Orange - 4 stories
Blue - 5-7 stories
Purple - 6-8 stories
Green - 8-10 stories
Bright Green I wouldn't build on to allow for the potential of a future mid-block connection, whenever 400 East gets redeveloped.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

If I had a project or two under my belt or had the time to line up a group of investors, this is what I would propose.

Adaptive reuse of both the Barnes Bank Building and the SL Roasting Company building. Directly adjacent to the SL Roasting company building on the west side I would step up to 4 stories, half way to the corner, then from that point I would step it up to 8 or 10 stories for the rest. The 8 or 10 stories would be adjacent to the Barnes Bank Building, (already at 5). The four story section would wrap around the back of the SL Roasting Co building, and on the east side I would either step it down to 3 stories and 2 stories. Giving the frontage on 400 S some variety. All the upper floors would be residential.

I would push for the parcel east of Blair St to be 6 to 8 stories, with a mix of office retail and residential, instead of the proposed 3 stories.

For the parcel south on Blair St I would push for 6 to 7 stories instead of the suggested 4. Also also the NE section of orange would be isolated requiring its own elevator and stair well. That's probably not worth it for a single floor that size.

The reason I have the mix of 3 and four story front west of Blair is to better mix in the existing 2 story SL Roast Co building. The reason I feel there needs to be much more density there is that the entire purpose of the Transit Station Center zoning is to maximize the density around certain Trax stations, and it needs to be maximized. There is also so much open space on the Library and City Hall blocks that more people living in the area will provide more usage of those highly underutilized open spaces.

Yellow - 3 stories
Orange - 4 stories
Blue - 5-7 stories
Purple - 6-8 stories
Green - 8-10 stories
Bright Green I wouldn't build on to allow for the potential of a future mid-block connection, whenever 400 East gets redeveloped.

Why did you leave the little building west of Blair? Also isn't that dirt lot to the south going to be part of this?

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Why did you leave the little building west of Blair? Also isn't that dirt lot to the south going to be part of this?

The little building west of Blair is an underground parking entrance for the PSB. Yes I believe the dirt may be, I just missed it. I would have that be 4-6 stories as well. (corrected)

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The little building west of Blair is an underground parking entrance for the PSB. Yes I believe the dirt may be, I just missed it. I would have that be 4-6 stories as well. (corrected)

I didn't know that.

The NE section of orange would be isolated from the rest of the building requiring its own elevator/stairwell. It doesn't seem worth it for a single floor that size.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I didn't know that.

The NE section of orange would be isolated from the rest of the building requiring its own elevator/stairwell. It doesn't seem worth it for a single floor that size.

That's a good point. I hadn't fully thought it out, just a quick brain storm.

[asies1981]

Demolition work has started for the Granary Place Apartments. Nice to see this project move forward after years of being stagnant.

[nushiof]

Tiny nugget on CCH.

It was at least talked about at a Utah Tourism meeting yesterday. Doesn't sound like its dead anyway.

http://www.utahbusiness.com/tourism-leaders-talk-utahs-branding-challenges-recreation-draw/

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by nushiof

Tiny nugget on CCH.

It was at least talked about at a Utah Tourism meeting yesterday. Doesn't sound like its dead anyway.

http://www.utahbusiness.com/tourism-leaders-talk-utahs-branding-challenges-recreation-draw/

Mr Metcalf isn't helping matters. 6 national parks and 12 national forests in our state equates to an anti recreation attitude apparently. I haven't heard a single politician that is anti recreation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we promote recreation quite strongly in this state.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Mr Metcalf isn't helping matters. 6 national parks and 12 national forests in our state equates to an anti recreation attitude apparently. I haven't heard a single politician that is anti recreation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we promote recreation quite strongly in this state.

Utah has 5 national parks. Not 6. Arches, Canyons, Capitol, Bryce, and Zion.

And only 8 national forests. Not 12. Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch.

[TheWire]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Mr Metcalf isn't helping matters. 6 national parks and 12 national forests in our state equates to an anti recreation attitude apparently. I haven't heard a single politician that is anti recreation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we promote recreation quite strongly in this state.

It goes beyond that (is anyone actually anti recreation?). The biggest brands that have invested in Utah take public land conservation very seriously. It is part of their branding and its a huge deal for their consumers. When we become the standard bearer for privatizing public land and stripping out the antiquity act, its not a good look for these companies to have their headquarters here or hosting their largest show. Especially when our logistical problems are reason enough to get them looking elsewhere. Peter Metcalf is making a real point. He's holding our elected leaders accountable.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

Utah has 5 national parks. Not 6. Arches, Canyons, Capitol, Bryce, and Zion.

And only 8 national forests. Not 12. Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch.

Thank you for the correction on the number of national forrests in Utah. Bears Ears National park makes 6... if it's not official yet then it would be 5 but I basically count it as 6 now.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by TheWire

It goes beyond that (is anyone actually anti recreation?). The biggest brands that have invested in Utah take public land conservation very seriously. It is part of their branding and its a huge deal for their consumers. When we become the standard bearer for privatizing public land and stripping out the antiquity act, its not a good look for these companies to have their headquarters here or hosting their largest show. Especially when our logistical problems are reason enough to get them looking elsewhere. Peter Metcalf is making a real point. He's holding our elected leaders accountable.

I really believe it's the process in which these national parks are created that have some Utahns upset. I'm fine with with the national parks but there creation is very definitive and it certainly limits what the State can do. It's all about the process to me. Look at the huge swath of oceans that are now off limits to drilling. It's steps like these that really look like over reach to me regardless of your opinion on the out come. Imagine what a spiteful Donald Trump could do on his way out the door to any number of states with the same power. It's just too much power in the political world we live in and I think there is a better way.

I do agree with your points however. I just don't like Mr Metcalfs tactics and threats, there's a better way.

Sorry, off topic

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Thank you for the correction on the number of national forrests in Utah. Bears Ears National park makes 6... if it's not official yet then it would be 5 but I basically count it as 6 now.

Bears Ears will be a National Monument, not a National Park (so is Grand Staircase-Escalante, which may have been what you were counting as another NP earlier) ...I wouldn't correct, except that NPs generally get more visitors and generate more income and tax dollars than NMs do.

Where the national parks are huge tourism and revenue generators for the state, I don't understand the shortsightedness of our congressional delegation in fighting against Bears Ears (and before that, Grand Staircase-Escalante) so hard. Except that it takes that land away from oil and gas developers, so they won't profit directly from it. Basically the National Park/National Monument designation is good for the people/government of Utah vis a vis tax dollars, but not as good for the wallets of our congressmen. Especially Rob Bishop, the so-and-so.

I think their rage against the method in which they're created is partially legitimate, but they're more pissed that they won't be able to personally profit off that land. There's no way they would have passed any legislation protecting Bears Ears. They've had decades to do that, and they haven't. Screeching about federal overreach is just a way to cloak their greed. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and looking at how much of western state land is owned by the federal government compared to eastern states (virtually nothing) is an eye-opener...but Bishop et al would sell off that parcel to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.

Four of the five national parks we have faced similar outcry when they were created (Zion was the first, and the only one seemingly publicly welcomed) and the foresight and profits of each have been realized over time. They're a cornerstone of out state economy now. Figuring out a way to parlay the new national monuments into a similar revenue generator would benefit the local and state economy more than any other use of that land.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

Bears Ears will be a National Monument, not a National Park (so is Grand Staircase-Escalante, which may have been what you were counting as another NP earlier) ...I wouldn't correct, except that NPs generally get more visitors and generate more income and tax dollars than NMs do.

Where the national parks are huge tourism and revenue generators for the state, I don't understand the shortsightedness of our congressional delegation in fighting against Bears Ears (and before that, Grand Staircase-Escalante) so hard. Except that it takes that land away from oil and gas developers, so they won't profit directly from it. Basically the National Park/National Monument designation is good for the people/government of Utah vis a vis tax dollars, but not as good for the wallets of our congressmen. Especially Rob Bishop, the so-and-so.

I think their rage against the method in which they're created is partially legitimate, but they're more pissed that they won't be able to personally profit off that land. There's no way they would have passed any legislation protecting Bears Ears. They've had decades to do that, and they haven't. Screeching about federal overreach is just a way to cloak their greed. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and looking at how much of western state land is owned by the federal government compared to eastern states (virtually nothing) is an eye-opener...but Bishop et al would sell off that parcel to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.

Four of the five national parks we have faced similar outcry when they were created (Zion was the first, and the only one seemingly publicly welcomed) and the foresight and profits of each have been realized over time. They're a cornerstone of out state economy now. Figuring out a way to parlay the new national monuments into a similar revenue generator would benefit the local and state economy more than any other use of that land.

Thanks for the Clarification again. It's hard to make an argument when I don't have the facts straight! Lol.

[Stenar]

Also, National Parks are created by acts of Congress, so a lot of people have to vote on them, not just by presidential fiat, as National Monuments can be legally created according to the Antiquities Act.

National Monuments can only be created on Federal lands. The president can't just go and seize someone's land and proclaim it a monument.

If people are opposed to the creation of national monuments by presidents, they should be urging Congress to change the Antiquities Act and not harass a president for doing what is entirely legal.

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I really believe it's the process in which these national parks are created that have some Utahns upset. I'm fine with with the national parks but there creation is very definitive and it certainly limits what the State can do. It's all about the process to me. Look at the huge swath of oceans that are now off limits to drilling. It's steps like these that really look like over reach to me regardless of your opinion on the out come. Imagine what a spiteful Donald Trump could do on his way out the door to any number of states with the same power. It's just too much power in the political world we live in and I think there is a better way.

I do agree with your points however. I just don't like Mr Metcalfs tactics and threats, there's a better way.

Sorry, off topic

[asies1981]

Artspace officially opened the Macaroni Flats in the depot district today. I would love to see more adaptive reuse like this.

[delts145]

When I looked at this latest update pic recently by Airhero I thought that Liberty Crest was going to be finished in a lot of beige stucco. Good to see with this updated rendering on their site that isn't the case.

Downtown Update - Liberty Crest


Pic By Airhero

Updated rendering of the finished product

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com[/CENTER]

[tygr]

Originally Posted by Stenar

National Monuments can only be created on Federal lands. The president can't just go and seize someone's land and proclaim it a monument.

How does this work when monuments like Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears lock up non-federal SITLA land?

Does creating the monument(s) create islands within the monument, or is the government basically claiming eminent domain?

If it creates islands, that also means they can block access to the SITLA land making it essentially useless and killing any financial value.

[UTPlanner]

SITLA lands in the past were replaced with far more lucrative federal properties and cash. Here's a story detailing the process: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4772732-155/editorial-monument-benefits-children-if-utah

[millhouse]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

Bears Ears will be a National Monument, not a National Park (so is Grand Staircase-Escalante, which may have been what you were counting as another NP earlier) ...I wouldn't correct, except that NPs generally get more visitors and generate more income and tax dollars than NMs do.

Where the national parks are huge tourism and revenue generators for the state, I don't understand the shortsightedness of our congressional delegation in fighting against Bears Ears (and before that, Grand Staircase-Escalante) so hard. Except that it takes that land away from oil and gas developers, so they won't profit directly from it. Basically the National Park/National Monument designation is good for the people/government of Utah vis a vis tax dollars, but not as good for the wallets of our congressmen. Especially Rob Bishop, the so-and-so.

I think their rage against the method in which they're created is partially legitimate, but they're more pissed that they won't be able to personally profit off that land. There's no way they would have passed any legislation protecting Bears Ears. They've had decades to do that, and they haven't. Screeching about federal overreach is just a way to cloak their greed. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and looking at how much of western state land is owned by the federal government compared to eastern states (virtually nothing) is an eye-opener...but Bishop et al would sell off that parcel to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.

Four of the five national parks we have faced similar outcry when they were created (Zion was the first, and the only one seemingly publicly welcomed) and the foresight and profits of each have been realized over time. They're a cornerstone of out state economy now. Figuring out a way to parlay the new national monuments into a similar revenue generator would benefit the local and state economy more than any other use of that land.

The reason the Utah delegation is crying foul on Bears Ears is that it is severely impacting the local towns in that area. Primarily in the recreational sports arena. Long term making Bears Ears a monument is the right thing to do, but short term, it is hurting a lot of people. It is the same with the Grand Staircase. That was one of the largest coal deposit in the state. The taxes that were generated from that specific deposit funded most of the Utah educational system. Going back to my original point, long term, its the right thing to do. Short term, a lot of people got hurt. Overall I think it forced Utah to fund their schools differently and by in large we are better off now by being a little more diversified. I think the other reason the Utah delegates are outraged is that the Federal government already owns 80% of the land in Utah. There isn't another state in the union that the government has that much ownership.