Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Comrade]

I am not sure if this was posted but it's an interesting take on skylines in the west:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...es/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9e66809eee51

Nothing about Salt Lake, as they seem to focus on cities who will be building new tallests.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I am not sure if this was posted but it's an interesting take on skylines in the west:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...es/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9e66809eee51

Nothing about Salt Lake, as they seem to focus on cities who will be building new tallests.

Interesting article Comrade.

This is another indictment against Squat Lake. So what's the problem? Earthquake fears? Building above the COB? Or the capitol? Could it simply be incompetence and ineptitude? Maybe it is a little of all the above.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Interesting article Comrade.

This is another indictment against Squat Lake. So what's the problem? Earthquake fears? Building above the COB? Or the capitol? Could it simply be incompetence and ineptitude? Maybe it is a little of all the above.

What a relentless weed. Alright, who's got some Roundup?

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Old&New

What a relentless weed. Alright, who's got some Roundup?

Roundup doesn't work on Iron.

What is your point exactly Old/New? Are you denying the realty of the Squat situation?

[Orlando]

I saw nothing wrong with Ironweed's post.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Roundup doesn't work on Iron.

What is your point exactly Old/New? Are you denying the realty of the Squat situation?

Oh, sorry, read your post wrong

[Comrade]

I mean, the point is true - Salt Lake City has a very squat skyline.

If you go by primary statistical areas (PSA) areas, Salt Lake City is 26th largest in the US. How many cities around their ranking, or even substantially below it, do you think have a taller building than Salt Lake? Well...

I'll be generous and only focus on cities outside the top19 (so, we'll include the 20th). Reminder: Salt Lake City's tallest is the Wells Fargo Center at 422 feet (supposedly).

20. Portland (546 feet - four towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
21. Tampa (579 feet - seven towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
22. St. Louis (593 feet - four towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
23. Charlotte (871 feet - fifteen towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
24. Pittsburgh (841 feet - fifteen towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
25. Sacramento (430 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
26. Salt Lake City
27. Columbus (624 feet - nine towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
28. San Antonio (546 feet - three towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
29. Kansas City (624 feet - seven towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
30. Las Vegas (735 feet - thirty-five towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
31. Indianapolis (811 feet - three towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
32. Cincinnati (665 feet - five towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
33. Raleigh (538 feet - two towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
34. Austin (683 feet - nine towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
35. Milwaukee (601 feet - five towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
36. Nashville (617 feet - five towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
37a. Norfolk (341 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
37b. Virginia Beach (508 feet - three towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
38a. Greensboro (375 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
38b. Winston-Salem (460 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
39. Jacksonville (617 feet - five towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
40. Louisville (549 feet - two towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
41. New Orleans (697 feet - ten towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
42. Hartford (535 feet - four towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
43. Greenville (305 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
44. Grand Rapids (406 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
45. Oklahoma City (844 feet - six towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
46. Memphis (430 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
47. Birmingham (454 feet - two towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
48. Richmond (449 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
49. Harrisburg (349 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
50. Buffalo (529 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
51. Albany (610 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
52. Albuquerque (351 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
53. Rochester (443 feet - one tower taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
54. Tulsa (667 feet - four towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
55. Fresno (225 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
56. Knoxville (327 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
57. Cape Coral (220 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
58. Dayton (405 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
59. Tucson (330 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)
60. El Paso (302 feet - zero towers taller than Salt Lake's tallest)

We'll stop there. This does not include Omaha (63rd) or Des Moines (72) who have taller buildings than Salt Lake.

Out of 40 cities listed, only 12 have a smaller tallest and many of these cities are well below Salt Lake's stature (like Fresno, Tucson, Albuquerque, Knoxville, you get the point). A couple, like Norfolk, share a metro with a city (Virginia Beach) that bests Salt Lake by a mile.

Face it - for the main hub of a large, and growing region, Salt Lake's pitiful in regards to height. And that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon as almost universally, every development down the pike, has been scaled down in some way or another. It says something that every city in and around Salt Lake's overall size has at least one tower larger than Salt Lake's - and, in many instances, multiple towers.

I'd like for this to change.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Interesting article Comrade.

This is another indictment against Squat Lake. So what's the problem? Earthquake fears? Building above the COB? Or the capitol? Could it simply be incompetence and ineptitude? Maybe it is a little of all the above.

Personally, I don’t want any buildings taller than those existing. I think it’ll block views of our mountains. So, I’m fine with it being squat. I’d rather see several 25-30 story buildings than a few 500+ foot buildings.
But, I’m also annoyed with the city council/planners limiting heights outside of the existing corridor. We need to expand downtown, not just confine it to two streets.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Personally, I don’t want any buildings taller than those existing. I think it’ll block views of our mountains. So, I’m fine with it being squat. I’d rather see several 25-30 story buildings than a few 500+ foot buildings.
But, I’m also annoyed with the city council/planners limiting heights outside of the existing corridor. We need to expand downtown, not just confine it to two streets.

Not a popular opinion, especially on this forum, but I agree with this point of view. I care more about multiple squat towers than one really tall tower. I care way more about the architectural quality and aesthetics and the overall urban feel than the height. I would gladly give up ever getting a new tallest if I could guarantee getting architecturally unique or exciting towers going forward.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Interesting article Comrade.

This is another indictment against Squat Lake. So what's the problem? Earthquake fears? Building above the COB? Or the capitol? Could it simply be incompetence and ineptitude? Maybe it is a little of all the above.

I don't think earthquake fears or building above COB are factors. I think the two largest factors are lack of Fortune 500 companies especially banking or energy. For example, Utah has a tower about half of Oklahoma City even though we are similar in size, but OKC has Devon Energy. The other factor is block size. This should not be underestimated on its impact. You build really high if land prices are extreme or amount of land is very limited. Right now SLC has big lots with plenty of space for the tower to sprawl.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I don't think earthquake fears or building above COB are factors. I think the two largest factors are lack of Fortune 500 companies especially banking or energy. For example, Utah has a tower about half of Oklahoma City even though we are similar in size, but OKC has Devon Energy. The other factor is block size. This should not be underestimated on its impact. You build really high if land prices are extreme or amount of land is very limited. Right now SLC has big lots with plenty of space for the tower to sprawl.

I think it has a lot to do with the types of companies headquartered in a city. Even in San Francisco, they aren't building many new tall commercial buildings, Salesforce tower is the exception. Most of the high-rises are residential, due to lack of space.

But even in the Bay Area, tech companies want a "campus", not a tower. You see that here in SLC, the tech companies are building the sprawling campuses with open space, etc.

In San Diego, most of the new high rises are also residential, again because downtown SD is not the center of commerce in SD... It's biggest companies aren't located in downtown. Qualcomm is scattered around the county with huge buildings but I think all are under 10 stories.

In OKC and the midwest, energy companies dominate those skyscrapers. It's old business, and probably a lot has to do with egos and comparing sizes of body parts. That's why Devon Energy decided to build an enormous skyscraper that sticks out from the rest of the OKC skyline. It's to impress others, not because of lack of space requiring a tall building. Tech companies don't care about that, they care about quality of life for their employees and providing the amenities to make them happy Monday - Friday.

I honestly think the growth in high-rises in SLC will probably be fueled by residential and hospitality (hotels) more than commercial.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

I think it has a lot to do with the types of companies headquartered in a city. Even in San Francisco, they aren't building many new tall commercial buildings, Salesforce tower is the exception. Most of the high-rises are residential, due to lack of space.

But even in the Bay Area, tech companies want a "campus", not a tower. You see that here in SLC, the tech companies are building the sprawling campuses with open space, etc.

In San Diego, most of the new high rises are also residential, again because downtown SD is not the center of commerce in SD... It's biggest companies aren't located in downtown. Qualcomm is scattered around the county with huge buildings but I think all are under 10 stories.

In OKC and the midwest, energy companies dominate those skyscrapers. It's old business, and probably a lot has to do with egos and comparing sizes of body parts. That's why Devon Energy decided to build an enormous skyscraper that sticks out from the rest of the OKC skyline. It's to impress others, not because of lack of space requiring a tall building. Tech companies don't care about that, they care about quality of life for their employees and providing the amenities to make them happy Monday - Friday.

I honestly think the growth in high-rises in SLC will probably be fueled by residential and hospitality (hotels) more than commercial.

I think that is a very subjective statement. These horizontal campuses exacerbate sprawl. They require lots of land and are therefore not in dense locations where people can walk to work or take a short trip on transit. We're seeing a more recent trend of tech employees are preferring to live in more vibrant urban environments, like San Francisco or Seattle. Amazon has integrated itself into more urban environments because it is a more sustainable development model. The Silicon Valley campus model started from sprawl happy decades of the 80's, and unfortunately Google and Facebook have followed this outdated and car-centric model of development. Just remember that word again, car-centric. Also, those campuses are isolated and not part of an urban pedestrian environment.

[Utah_Dave]

Does anyone have any figures to compare the last decade of office space sqft completed in Lehi compared with SLC?

[Utah_Dave]

I would like the city to partner up with the church, the U of U and some tech companies to develop a vertical downtown tech campus complete with a world class gym/recreational facility that the city really needs. SLC needs to really give a helping hand to develop some amenities that large companies come to expect In a big city that we frankly lack. We already lack a certain downtown culture and “night life” so the city needs to think outside the box a little more.

There are many cities in the valley with fantastic recreational facilities. Couple this new facility with some outdoor sport specific green space and you benefit the city and the residents just as much as the companies downtown who might locate there. It’s kinda like public and corporate welfare spending mix into one.

Thoughts?

[Utah_Dave]

Perhaps the old Sears block would be a good location to center a development like this.

[jubguy3]

I would rather focus on density and continuous development than specifically high-rises, but both are nice to have. My dream for salt lake includes things like 5-10 story towers from 9th and 9th all the way into the city. Most of america’s great cities are great because they have an actual urban character and personality to them. Nobody likes Las Vegas.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Nobody likes Las Vegas.

To live that is.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I would rather focus on density and continuous development than specifically high-rises, but both are nice to have. My dream for salt lake includes things like 5-10 story towers from 9th and 9th all the way into the city. Most of america’s great cities are great because they have an actual urban character and personality to them. Nobody likes Las Vegas.

Either way I think we need to take advantage of our deep blocks. They allow buildings to pencil out while having a thin face. I'm down for a bunch of low rises but I don't want that if that means it will take me 2 minutes to walk past a building. I would like to see a minimum slenderness ratio applied the frontage of any new building in the city.

There are a lot of good examples in this city of apartment buildings(built when walking was important) that are just as long as some of the buildings built now but maintain attractive faces that aren't overbearing to the pedestrian.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Does anyone know the status of these projects?

Embassy Suites on 600 south and 300 West.


Marmalade

Them power lines really should be moved underground.

[Orlando]

Here's a massing update of block 67 in Google Earth.