Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[(Eco)nomy_404]

On the skyline discussion, I personally prefer the 900 N bridge. It's also much quieter since there are no ramps onto the freeway there. Pic 1 is from the bridge, the second is from the freeway in the same area:





My favorite view would have to be from the West driving in on I-80. The first is from my Nov 2016 flight coming in for touchdown, the second is from the Redwood Rd over pass on I-80 (Google).





As far as the mountainscape goes, I think my favorite angles are from the southwestern part of the valley:







I'll be heading back that way later this month, so prepare yourselves for some new pics around town. I like exploring new angles that aren't typically photographed such as this one:

[(Eco)nomy_404]

What frustrates me about the lack of high rise development in SLC is that it has a skyline that looks more like Columbia when it has a CSA the size of Charlotte.

Columbia: CSA 0.94 million, tallest tower 350 ft.













Charlotte: CSA 2.63 million, tallest tower 870 ft















To be fair, SLC is not quite as small as Columbia development wise. I'd say it's somewhere between the two. It is closer to Columbia, though, when it should be closer to Charlotte. For reference, the SLC CSA has a population of 2.51 million and its tallest tower is 420 ft. SLC's highest tower would be Charlotte's 15th if located there. Charlotte already has 6 towers over 500 ft. For me, it's not so much impatience as it is a desire for SLC to at least get on the same level as some of its peers' skylines.

I agree that SLC has made many strides in developing its skyline (and core) over the years. I certainly appreciate where it's come. But you can at least understand why some of us get disappointed when a more Charlotte-esque project gets cancelled or significantly pared down. In a game of catch-up, it hurts to see the potential to get closer to where SLC ought to be wash away time and time again. Yes, it most certainly could be worse. At least we are moving in the right direction. #BabySteps

[scottharding]

Charlotte may be tall, but there's nothing at the street level that I envy.

[Comrade]

I like that view.

Salt Lake's skyline is lacking. I think there's a good amount of towers - there's just not a good amount of taller towers.

And the major towers that have been constructed since 1991, when architecture is, in my view, more aesthetically pleasing, are not tall enough to completely stand out in the skyline.

Take the Wells Fargo Center It's the supposed tallest tower in Salt Lake City. I actually like it. I think it's a unique skyscraper. It's massive in length but not really height. Despite being the tallest in the city, it'd be...

...the 5th tallest in Portland.
...the 10th tallest in Columbus.
...the 15th tallest in Charlotte.
...the 3rd tallest in Des Moines.
...the 4th tallest in Nashville.
...the 7th tallest in Oklahoma City.
...the 5th tallest in Tulsa.
...the 3rd tallest in Omaha.

I mentioned in another post that Salt Lake is definitely a biggish city. But it doesn't really feel big. I know that's the attraction to some, but I don't walk anywhere in Salt Lake, outside maybe the intersection of 200 South and Main Street, and feel like I'm in a sizable city. The neighborhoods really don't have that vibe. Downtown, for the most part, doesn't have that vibe. It feels like a mid-sized city closer to say, Boise or Toledo, than Columbus or Charlotte or Portland. Some of that is the wide streets, which gives the illusion of desolation. Some of it is also the lack of semi-tall buildings. Toledo's two tallest are 411 and 400 feet - around the same as Salt Lake's.

Hopefully that changes soon. A good way to make Salt Lake feel bigger is to expand downtown west and east of Main Street. As it is, right now, downtown Salt Lake is mostly just two streets - State and Main and it's not even the cross streets, either. It's literally | |. Some of that is just the design of downtown, that everything is centered around there. Part of that is the fact that western downtown is undeveloped and until it is developed, I think that feeling will only continue. It's why I've pushed for the idea that the convention center hotel be built west of Main on 200 South.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by airportvids

This is funny considering that you care soooooo much about a city that is 18 miles south of you. Why such hate?
You know I haven't been to Tooele in YEARS, but maybe I too should get all butt hurt every time the city builds a new building.
I know development is slow right now in downtown, but how about you worry more about your neck of the woods.

leave

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

leave

He has left before when he was SLC Projects and couldn't take it anymore, but didn't have the courage to come back with his old username.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

We should Rob a bank together. Specifically, I want to rob the Zions on 13th and Foothill. Don't tell anyone, especially the police.

Good point. We don't want to get arrested for sharing some minor details and rumors.

[Ver2go]

I think one of the reasons for a lack of taller buildings in SLC is due to the HUGE city block sizes. I don't of a city in the US with blocks as large as SLC. This creates larger parcels for developers to build on. In many cities, projects such as the one at Main and 600 S would be one tower. In some cases with a smaller floorplate and the parking garage incorporated directly into the tower, pushing the height even farther. Instead, it's two shorter and longer buildings with a parking garage filling a large space between. In fact, the parking garage occupies more land than the buildings. When you have that much space to work with, there's no reason to go up.

That being said, SLC still has more downtown office space than many might think. It actually has more space than downtown Phoenix. When Central Avenue is added into the Phoenix numbers the city obviously has more...but it illustrates how a city can become somewhat decentralized due to competition from nearby areas.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Salt Lake's skyline is lacking. I think there's a good amount of towers - there's just not a good amount of taller towers.

And the major towers that have been constructed since 1991, when architecture is, in my view, more aesthetically pleasing, are not tall enough to completely stand out in the skyline.

Take the Wells Fargo Center It's the supposed tallest tower in Salt Lake City. I actually like it. I think it's a unique skyscraper. It's massive in length but not really height. Despite being the tallest in the city, it'd be...

There is definitely a great shelf. SLC has mostly filled in its holes with the recent towers, which I'm very pleased with!

I agree that the newer additions, with the exception of 99 So. Temple and Wells, have largely blended in and dont really make the skyline pop. Then, the towers that would really stand out as signature icons (like the afore mentioned and maybe Utah One and Eagle Gate), are too short to be fully appreciated in the skyline.

I don't think it needs much to get there, maybe just one tower above 500 ft and a couple above 450 would be a great start. Then we get one proposed, like the Con. Center Hotel at 480 ft and the city steps in and says it may not exceed 375. Which doesn't make a lot of sense when they're worried about it "blocking views," but shortening it by a hundred feet while still expecting 1,000+ rooms just means it will have to be much fatter, casting a larger shadow and block more "view". I digress...

Haha this whole "only talk about the city you live in" nonsense is quite humorous. I think this requirement would bar the vast majority of the forumers on this thread from discussion

[(Eco)nomy_404]

I am very happy with where SLC is as far as development of its core. While it's high time it gets some iconic high-rises, I would much prefer getting them after building up a great core than the other way around. Bringing Charlotte back to the discussion, it looked absolutely hideous back in the 70's with its mega towers sorounded by a sea of parking lots and desolation. Compare that to SLC at the time, which I would much prefer with its core and relatively vibrant urban scene compared to 70's Charlotte.

Charlotte 1975:



SLC 1975:



I don't necessarily believe that iconic towers are not the most defining component of a city, but a city reaches a certain point where it looks naked without them. SLC is at that point, but thank heavens that is our problem. Developing a vibrant core is much more difficult than putting up a few towers. At least we've already got that part going!

[EPdesign]

Comrade. I like that view as well.

I want to see a new tallest is Salt Lake as well. But I want it to be a signature tower than another 400" footer. I've never been to the cities stated above, but I have been to Phoenix which is million of people larger than Salt Lake. I remember how disappointed I was by how lacking in height their expansive downtown was. It surprised me that such a large city had towers out size. Granted. This was when I was younger. So yes, I do hope we get a bad ass signature tower.

With that said....I want the west and south west portions of Salt Lake City to become saturated with density. And I'm happy to see that in fact that is what's starting to happen.

quick image upload

[EPdesign]

With regards to the rules people expect developments to occur by, this isn't SimCity. Sometimes projects that should have happened don't and Sometimes projects that make no logical sense happen. I remember reading about the Williams tower in some Architecture magazine. For being in a satellite business center close to Houston and being of the scale it is compared to it's neighboring structures, getting 10story buildings in Sandy is kinda tame in comparison


quick image upload

[Comrade]

Charlotte, like many southern cities, was hit hard by urban renewal. Miles of neighborhoods, it seems, were decimated for parking and greenery. Which, as you can see from that aerial, left places like Charlotte positively ugly.

Look at Houston from that time period:



Salt Lake was lucky. While we did lose a lot of older buildings over the years, Salt Lake kept its core.

Other cities weren't so lucky.

The difference is that those cities grew into those parking lots and built more street engagement because of it. Someone mentioned they don't envy Charlotte at the street level and I don't know if I agree with that.



This, to me, isn't that much different than Main Street - except taller with more modern towers.

Where I think Salt Lake has a leg up is neighborhoods just outside downtown. Downtown Charlotte is completely isolated from the rest of the city - built within a freeway loop. There are a few residential streets within the downtown area, but for the most part, they don't exist inside that loop.

It's similar to western downtown, to I-15, but in all directions. At least Salt Lake has sizable neighborhoods right next to downtown (namely the east and north-east by South Temple). I think that certainly adds character and creates a connection to downtown that doesn't exist in Charlotte - or Houston, really, for that matter.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

leave

Originally Posted by stayinginformed

He has left before when he was SLC Projects and couldn't take it anymore, but didn't have the courage to come back with his old username.

Come on guys. Do we need to make this personal? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Also, airportvids, I'm sure most of us have a problem with Sandy not because stuff is getting built there and leaders seem to want to make it more urban and walkable, but rather that they've in practice shown that they do a hack job building anything even resembling that.

There is nothing urban about Sandy. They can build a nice looking building (which they really haven't yet, imo), but if it's surrounded by a sea of parking and it doesn't engage at the street level where people are, it really serves no purpose other than to house office space and have people think "hey look at all these buildings" as they drive by on the freeway. The infrastructure, street layout, etc... is horrible as well. Traffic congestion actually is way worse on the streets there than it is anywhere in downtown during rush hour.

I wouldn't have a problem with an urban node elsewhere in the valley. I think in the future Daybreak could do it, since it's adhered pretty closely to its master plan and shown some sort of discipline that Sandy, Draper, Lehi, and Orem have not. But that had more to do with Kennecott having a sort of vision rather than the city leaders in South Jordan, though I'm hesitant to not give them any credit.

On the other side, I can see why it would be difficult for city leaders to push for something better.

What's happened in these other cities is that a bunch of people in the end just want to make as much money as they can in the least amount of time possible. Developers don't want to adhere to strict requirements that will make it more difficult and more expensive to build unless they have some kind of incentive. It's difficult for city leaders to offer sufficient incentives without drawing the ire of residents, especially when a neighboring city can swoop in with similar incentives but looser requirements. So in the end the city is giving developers whatever they want to make a quick buck, rather than having the vision and foresight and patience to slowly build something better. And I get that. If I were part of city leadership, I'd probably be a pushover too. There are lots of cities competing to build office space and you don't want your own city to lose out.

So in the end, yeah we can rail on Sandy, and it's true that their developments are crap (they're certainly not alone), but what can city leaders do about it? Not a whole lot.

Full disclosure, I'm actually not too familiar with the process these projects go through but this is some of what I perceive is happening, though probably not entirely accurate.

The other thing that bothers some of us is that these usually mediocre and sometimes crappy buildings go up and are surrounded by seas of parking and people on the forum praise them. It's hard to read that when you abhor sterile, spread out suburban office parks. I worked in a huge office building in the Philadelphia suburbs and it really was a beautiful building, much like Adobe's, and I was in love with the building and my office space, but once I left the building I got depressed. The only reason anyone ever went outside was to walk between the building and their cars. It made me sad and felt like such a waste of space. I could feel the sterility of it and watched people as they got fatter and fatter (including myself, and I was only working there a few months) and honestly, it was horrible. On the other hand, when I moved downtown, people left for their lunch breaks, walked around town, sat out on patios to eat their food, commuted by transit. In my mind it was a much better, more lively experience and it provided me with a much wider social experience. I felt the same thing working in downtown Salt Lake years ago. And that was before City Creek.

Anyway, I'm just rambling now. Sorry to bring up the Sandy thing again, but I had things to say.

[wrendog]

Just for fun:

SLC vs Columbia SC

Buildings > 300 feet: Columbia = 3, SLC = 12
Buildings > 200 feet: Columbia = 15, SLC = 27

They really aren't that close just based on those numbers, but yeah, compared to others the same size as SLC CSA, we are severely lacking.

I live in San Antonio now, and SLC and SA have similar CSA numbers. San Antonio is another city that is severely lacking when it comes to towers and height. Pretty similar numbers (>300 feet and >200 feet) as SLC. However, the 3 tallest in SA are all taller than SLC tallest.

But, I agree with Comrade. While downtown SA doesn't have a lot of tall towers, downtown can feel big city. Lots of older infill, lots of people walking around, lots of cool landmarks. SLC really doesn't have that feel.

[airportvids]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

leave

Fine by me,
Ban me, I don't give a shit anymore about this forum filled with assholes who have done nothing but treat me like shit all these years.

[Liberty Wellsian]

2 cities of 500k+ and Alta

Salt Lake City -SLC, WVC, Magna, SSL, Kearns, Taylorsville, Murray, Holiday, Millcreek, Emigration canyon

Jordan-West Jordan, South Jordan, Copperton, Midvale, Cottonwood Heights, Sandy, Herriman, Riverton, Bluffdale, Draper

Alta

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

2 cities of 500k+ and Alta

Salt Lake City -SLC, WVC, Magna, SSL, Kearns, Taylorsville, Murray, Holiday, Millcreek, Emigration canyon

Jordan-West Jordan, South Jordan, Copperton, Midvale, Cottonwood Heights, Sandy, Herriman, Riverton, Bluffdale, Draper

Alta

I would include only parts of WVC + West Jordan in SLC and no Magna or Kearns but include Midvale, Cottonwood Heights, and maybe Sandy in with SLC - I think that the old growth part of SLC has a stronger connection to SLC than elsewhere, especially politically.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I would include only parts of WVC + West Jordan in SLC and no Magna or Kearns but include Midvale, Cottonwood Heights, and maybe Sandy in with SLC - I think that the old growth part of SLC has a stronger connection to SLC than elsewhere, especially politically.

Here's a map
https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+lak...60&bih=559&dpr=1.5#imgrc=LInqxEm3tGc6nM:

What I was suggesting would have a shared border around I-15. Kearns, Taylorsville, Murray, Holiday would become the southern border of SLC. Everything south would be part of a second consolidated city. I think you have to include those 4 towns as part of SLC if you were to include any south of them.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Here's a map
https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+lak...60&bih=559&dpr=1.5#imgrc=LInqxEm3tGc6nM:

What I was suggesting would have a shared border around I-15. Kearns, Taylorsville, Murray, Holiday would become the southern border of SLC. Everything south would be part of a second consolidated city. I think you have to include those 4 towns as part of SLC if you were to include any south of them.

I know that Sandy has weird boundaries, but does anyone know why?