Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Not ground breaking news... but it looks like they are building an El Pollo Loco on 300w in front of Target... so much better then Popeyes!!!

I’m sure there will be a Popeyes next door before to long... seems like el pollo loco and Popeyes like to build right next to each other.

You won’t hear any complaints from me! Mexican is one of the few foods for me that is hard to get wrong. Whether authentic or fast food, it’s always good!

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

You won’t hear any complaints from me! Mexican is one of the few foods for me that is hard to get wrong. Whether authentic or fast food, it’s always good!

I'm going to have to pass that, lol... I would consider an iceberg and cheddar cheese hardshell taco an "abomination". Great mexican is great and shitty mexican is shitty.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I'm going to have to pass that, lol... I would consider an iceberg and cheddar cheese hardshell taco an "abomination". Great mexican is great and shitty mexican is shitty.

I guess it’s a Mexican food place... but I put more in the same category as Popeyes and KFC... Popeyes does deep-fried chicken while El Pollo Loco does grilled chicken which is actually really good.

[ajiuO]

Merry Xmas to all y’all forumers!

[wrendog]

Merry Christmas to all ya'll!

[UTAZLoVer]

Merry Christmas everyone!

[asies1981]

I'm also super excited for the Pollo Loco to open. As I do every year, here are 2017's top development stories.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by asies1981

I'm also super excited for the Pollo Loco to open. As I do every year, here are 2017's top development stories.

Is the the Pollo Loco opening the #1 development story for 2017? Honestly? I can't think of another...2017 was kind of a crap year for development.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Is the the Pollo Loco opening the #1 development story for 2017? Honestly? I can't think of another...2017 was kind of a crap year for development.

There wasn’t anything real flashy to look at, but I thought it was a solid year with a lot of the more mundane development that is the foundation of a urban city.

[DCRes]

I just saw that there is a Chipotle going into the ground floor retail portion of the under-construction apartment building between 400-500 S and 700-800 E (I forget the name, Liberty something, right?). I find this notable as it is one of the few apartment developments that actually has ground floor retail.

Also, an IHOP is going into the shopping center on 400 S between 600-700 S, the one with the Natural Grocers. It's going into an existing part of the building between the road and Zao Café. It's not their typical stand alone concept, so I also found that noteworthy.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

... The rail system is estimated to remove 120,000 vehicles from the roads per day, and has allowed the University of Utah to bulldoze 1/3 of its parking lots to make room for new buildings.

Looking at Google Maps, I don't see many parking lots missing from the U. Mainly just the parking lot in front of the old dorms, but they built new parking lots where the actual old dorms were demolished.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

There wasn’t anything real flashy to look at, but I thought it was a solid year with a lot of the more mundane development that is the foundation of a urban city.

It's nice but let's not kid ourselves - much of what is going up downtown and throughout the central neighborhoods is also going up in many suburban cities across the country. What's missing is any true density. We don't have vertical development. At all.

[twig]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

There wasn’t anything real flashy to look at, but I thought it was a solid year with a lot of the more mundane development that is the foundation of a urban city.

Isn’t that loser mentality speak? Everyone else in the nation is getting big dense awesome skyscrapers, but what’s happening here is much more “important” of mundane development to our urban core... sounds awesome every other city is adding both, not just one or the other

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Comrade

It's nice but let's not kid ourselves - much of what is going up downtown and throughout the central neighborhoods is also going up in many suburban cities across the country. What's missing is any true density. We don't have vertical development. At all.

What is your definition of “true density”? I am certainly not claiming that I am satisfied with all the aspects of the development going on downtown, especially the lack of retail at the base, but it is adding important density. As for it being the same as what is being built in suburbia, I would agree if you are referring to materials. That is disappointing but is something that can be upgrade and changed hopefully in the future. I am not overly concerned about the height of the developments because I prefer urban areas scaled more akin to Europe than to Asian metros.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by twig

Isn’t that loser mentality speak? Everyone else in the nation is getting big dense awesome skyscrapers, but what’s happening here is much more “important” of mundane development to our urban core... sounds awesome every other city is adding both, not just one or the other

I will take your word that EVERY city is getting “big dense awesome skyscrapers”, but I stand by my belief that SLC needs to have a more urban base to build from before some of those taller structures are the norm. There are still so many parking lots and underutilized space within the greater downtown area, that slack is decades from being largely developed. As far as highrises with corresponding high rents I am not surprised that nothing is under construction because it seems that the existing condos built within the CCC development haven’t exactly flown off the shelf. For various reasons that demand is still not there. Despite this I am still very positive about SLC’s direction.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

What is your definition of “true density”? I am certainly not claiming that I am satisfied with all the aspects of the development going on downtown, especially the lack of retail at the base, but it is adding important density. As for it being the same as what is being built in suburbia, I would agree if you are referring to materials. That is disappointing but is something that can be upgrade and changed hopefully in the future. I am not overly concerned about the height of the developments because I prefer urban areas scaled more akin to Europe than to Asian metros.

What other cities relative to Salt Lake's size are seeing built in their core - namely residential that's more than four stories tall. There's nothing distinguishing what Salt Lake is building in its core and what is popping up in many suburban communities across this country.

[bob rulz]

More density downtown = more restaurants, more bars (well, in theory, if the legislature would get the f out of the way that would help), more street life, more pedestrian/bicycle traffic, etc. Not to mention more people living close to their work, cutting down on car travel and perhaps even encouraging people to give up their cars completely.

More density in the suburbs mostly just means more cars and more shopping centers. Location matters.

Seriously I'm tired of the negativity. Have you been downtown in the last few years? There is a noticeable improvement in the vibrancy downtown and it's only getting better.

BIG MARQUEE PROJECTS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR URBAN VIBRANCY.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

More density downtown = more restaurants, more bars (well, in theory, if the legislature would get the f out of the way that would help), more street life, more pedestrian/bicycle traffic, etc. Not to mention more people living close to their work, cutting down on car travel and perhaps even encouraging people to give up their cars completely.

More density in the suburbs mostly just means more cars and more shopping centers. Location matters.

Seriously I'm tired of the negativity. Have you been downtown in the last few years? There is a noticeable improvement in the vibrancy downtown and it's only getting better.

BIG MARQUEE PROJECTS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR URBAN VIBRANCY.

I agree

I agree

I agree

And Downtown Salt Lake is really a cool place. It’s coming along.

[FullCircle]

I made a post several months ago stating that I went downtown and it was dead. Apparently that was an anomaly, because I've been back a handful of times since then and there have been lots of people out and about. Two weeks ago I spent a night at Hotel Monacco, which was funny, spending a night in a hotel in one's own town, but it was a pretty cool view looking north from the 15th floor. We went to two different bars and both were crowded, and even the next morning there were folk around on the streets. I have to agree that aspect of the city is improving.
I also agree that skyscrapers don't make a city. To echo Always Sunny in SLC, my favorite cities, particularly in Europe, don't have many skyscrapers, at least not in the downtown areas, and they are beautiful, interesting and crowded with pedestrians. Skyscrapers are cool (this is Skyscraperpage after all), but they definitely don't make a city great. These residential infill projects going up will help SLC more than skyscrapers, and are a stepping stone that will facilitate more towers in the future.
In a way SLC is the tortoise to some other cities hare. Slow and steady growth, not as much of the boom bust cycle (yes, there was definitely urban flight to the suburbs and stagnation here, but less so than many other cities). The highs aren't as high, but the lows aren't as low either.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Comrade

What other cities relative to Salt Lake's size are seeing built in their core - namely residential that's more than four stories tall. There's nothing distinguishing what Salt Lake is building in its core and what is popping up in many suburban communities across this country.

Architecturally and materially speaking I mostly agree with you. Where I disagree is how they are built to better interface with the roads; have hidden parking; reduced parking requirements and in a few cases retail at the base. As Bob mentioned just the mere fact that a higher density project is built downtown, even if it looks suburban, is adding riders to transit and mouths at restaurants/bars.

I get pissed just like others when I see recently completed or under construction apartment complexes with 100 foot walls of no retail along 4th South and realize what could have been if at least some retail was at that base. Where I am positive is knowing that density is being added; city zoning is being updated and buildings can be remodeled.