Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[delts145]

Originally Posted by airhero

Thanks Isaac!

Looks like there is a rendering of Tower 8 in the report:

Not sure if it's just preliminary or what. Looks like 111 but wider and some curvature.

Report pdf:

https://www.downtownslc.org/images/Salt_Lake_City_2018_State_of_Downtown_EMAIL_1.pdf

I've always admired the curvature of 222. Hopefully T8 will have that same kind of final result.

.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That was confusing. I was looking at the building listed as No. 8 on there and was like, "what the fuck you smokin' bro?"

I really did LOL when I realized what you meant. Yes, tower 8 is listed as project number 7.

[Makid]

I think they should have put it in the #8 position to help reduce possible confusion, it would have made things a lot easier for those that know the name as Tower 8. With the name on the list as it is shown, it comes across almost like a Terminator designation, the T8.

It will be nicer when it gets a name, even if it is just something like 99S State or something.

One thing with Tower 8 though, it is around the 400' range already, why not just do a little more and add a spire to it, put the height at 430' and market it as a new tallest to help draw even more interest. I expect it to be mostly full by the time it opens anyway but maybe it can pull more tech companies that want some prestige. It also helps get past the flat roof syndrome that seems to be happening with all buildings in SLC lately.

It wouldn't be a true tallest by occupied floor or roof height but it could help spur another developer down the line, maybe the RDA property at 255 wants to go higher, or maybe it will help the Ritchie Group phase 2 be able to go taller. While it is wishful thinking, at least the building isn't a box, it does have some rounding to it.

[DCRes]

This, from the Downtown report, I think is a big reason that we aren't getting larger office towers downtown. This graphic shows average office rents in SLC and other major western cities. It will be hard to make the returns pencil as long as rents stay low.

[IMG] by , on Flickr[/IMG]

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Makid

I think they should have put it in the #8 position to help reduce possible confusion, it would have made things a lot easier for those that know the name as Tower 8. With the name on the list as it is shown, it comes across almost like a Terminator designation, the T8.

It will be nicer when it gets a name, even if it is just something like 99S State or something.

One thing with Tower 8 though, it is around the 400' range already, why not just do a little more and add a spire to it, put the height at 430' and market it as a new tallest to help draw even more interest. I expect it to be mostly full by the time it opens anyway but maybe it can pull more tech companies that want some prestige. It also helps get past the flat roof syndrome that seems to be happening with all buildings in SLC lately.

It wouldn't be a true tallest by occupied floor or roof height but it could help spur another developer down the line, maybe the RDA property at 255 wants to go higher, or maybe it will help the Ritchie Group phase 2 be able to go taller. While it is wishful thinking, at least the building isn't a box, it does have some rounding to it.

Maybe if they just lopped some floor area off to add a few more floors to give a new tallest at 450'. I would love to have something tall.

The image on the left is the current design. The one on the right is a taller alternative.

This one appears to be about 385'...........................3 more floor and we get about 425' ...............One more floor and we get about 438'.................and another and we get about 451'.

[asies1981]

La Barba is opening a bar at The Gateway.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Maybe if they just lopped some floor area off to add a few more floors to give a new tallest at 450'. I would love to have something tall.

The image on the left is the current design. The one on the right is a taller alternative.

I've been told that the T8 rendering is a preliminary one and doesn't fully represent the Church's final plans. They will most likely start going through the conditional building and site design review.

[Utah_Dave]

Typical a city of our size or somewhat bigger, in my opinion, has a developer or company that wants to make a statement with their building or headquarters and creates the tallest building in that city. It’s usually not as simple as supply and demand that generates height in mid sized cities. Recognition and status can be just as important as making the numbers work just right for return. I think our best bet for a new tallest was the CCH and now it will probably have to be Zion’s bank. A tech company could be another option but we see what Lehi and Draper will do to that idea. Our Unicorns are too far south it seems. We seem to lack certain fundamentals at a number of levels to really pull off something really nice. We are getting close and I’m pleased with what was recently posted about these likely developments but we still face some headwinds for the big stuff.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by asies1981

La Barba is opening a bar at The Gateway.

How is the Gateway doing anyway? I haven’t been by in a long time. I hope it can really pull off a good turn around. I hope the Richie Developement can add to that side of town and help out. Maybe one day the CCH can join the Richie block and help out. It seems like the Gateway is turning into the alternative to the temple square area. That would be a nice turn of events for the city and kinda give the city distinguished cultural areas... sort of.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by DCRes

This, from the Downtown report, I think is a big reason that we aren't getting larger office towers downtown. This graphic shows average office rents in SLC and other major western cities. It will be hard to make the returns pencil as long as rents stay low.

[IMG] by , on Flickr[/IMG]

Interesting. Yet the so called downtown alliance says there is high and significant unmet demand for office space. Ben Kolandar the SLC economic development chief says that developers are to blame. He admits that businesses that wanted to locate downtown were not able to do so for lack of adequate space. This may be true to a degree, but the failure is a complete effort by all parties. The "cheap till you squeak" scarcity mindset is a disaster, which will lead to more failure.

SLC needs to court out of state builders if they want to be the premier urban center in Utah. The local, slow, subnormal builders won't make it happen. Period.

[Utah_Dave]

I’m with you Makid, I’m tired of all the flat top buildings and I would appreciate the extra height and design feature of a roof line other then flat

[Makid]

Originally Posted by asies1981

I've been told that the T8 rendering is a preliminary one and doesn't fully represent the Church's final plans. They will most likely start going through the conditional building and site design review.

At least this means that it will be over 375'. I am just hoping for more that 5' more. For the time and effort that goes into going through the CBDR process, I hope for something more substantial.

I do know that they will talk about the roof line and how flat it is. Height will help get that waived as well as additional architectural features but the crown is too similar to 111 so I wouldn't expect too much there.

While the rendering is preliminary, it does give us a baseline to critique from. So I am hoping that going through the CBDR process we will be able to see additional renderings and get more information about the features/height and building materials in the coming weeks.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Makid

At least this means that it will be over 375'. I am just hoping for more that 5' more. For the time and effort that goes into going through the CBDR process, I hope for something more substantial.

I do know that they will talk about the roof line and how flat it is. Height will help get that waived as well as additional architectural features but the crown is too similar to 111 so I wouldn't expect too much there.

While the rendering is preliminary, it does give us a baseline to critique from. So I am hoping that going through the CBDR process we will be able to see additional renderings and get more information about the features/height and building materials in the coming weeks.

I agree that planning will give them a hard time about the roofline which hopefully means we get an even taller building as they try to create something different visually from 111.

[delts145]

Cultural offerings the key to downtown economic development, analyst says -

Jason Lee - Deseret News, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/9000...n-economic-development-analyst-says.html

Aerial view of Salt Lake City on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. The Beehive State's largest downtown business district has become one of the most sought-after destinations for people in the region to live, work and play, a new report shows.

.

[Makid]

I had a little free time the other day and was looking at the https://aca.slcgov.com/Citizen/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Planning&TabName=PLANNING site and came across this: PLNPCM2018-00378. This is the record for the Birdie. The 6 story apartment building on 2nd East 2nd South in that is going through the CBDR process to have the 100' minimum height lowered.

What I found interesting is that going through the attachments, in the workflow history, there is a comment from the Zoning Review on 6/8/2018:

As per DRT Notes: It is not clear why the conditional building and site design review process is being used to reduce the minimum height requirement of one hundred feet (100') for corner buildings in the D-1 zoning district. 21A.30.020 E.6 regulates minimum and maximum height of corner buildings, and 21A.30.020 E.6.c offers a modification of height regulations of a building which exceeds three hundred seventy five foot (375'). There is no provision in this section to reduce the building height to less than one hundred feet (100'). Clarification may need to be provided from the planning division.

There is also a note in the email correspondence between the developer and Molly on the commission where she states that the D1 corner lots are zoned for 100' to 375' due to the street width and to help make the intersections not feel so vast. She even provided an excerpt from a book as an attachment on why the zoning has a minimum height for the corners.

I do think that based on the questions that Molly asked in the last email to the developer and the lack of a provision that allows a waiver in the zoning code for a reduction in height on D1 corners, I have a feeling that the project is dead at least in its current form and height.

[Orlando]

/\/\/\ Which project is this?

[Orlando]

I am bumping this because I added a couple more height variations on the previous post.

Originally Posted by Orlando

Maybe if they just lopped some floor area off to add a few more floors to give a new tallest at 450'. I would love to have something tall.

The image on the left is the current design. The one on the right is a taller alternative.

This one appears to be about 385'...........................3 more floor and we get about 425' ...............One more floor and we get about 438'.................and another and we get about 451'.

[twig]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I am bumping this because I added a couple more height variations on the previous post.

Although we all know exactly what its going to look like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/parismadri...r2hfc-8uyMfN-37o6E9-dbyUHh-PMxJR-bbDSZr/

Maybe pushing 20 feet tall, give or take... But at least it will be skyline altering

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Orlando

/\/\/\ Which project is this?

It is this one:

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/apartments-set-to-replace-downtown-surface-parking-lot/


Pic hosted on buildingsaltlake. If needed Isaac, I can remove, just let me know.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I am bumping this because I added a couple more height variations on the previous post.

I do like the additional updates. I would love something above 450'. At that location, It think it might even or slightly taller than the COB depending on the angle you are viewing it from.

We should hopefully be hearing about the 4 proposals for the 255 State Street RDA in the next few weeks. The City narrowed it down to 4 developers, 2 Local and 2 out of state. They should be submitting their finalized proposals for the property to the RDA shortly.

The City will be paying for demolition and removal of the existing "engineering and artwork" at the location. Hopefully the proposals are backed by some good financing as well as good engineering.