Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Comrade]

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.

This point is pretty confusing to me. When you say blocking mountains you mean where exactly? From the main streets downtown? Pretty sure the mountains are blocked even by marginally tall structures - unless you're looking through the gaps of the main east/west streets (or going north toward the hills behind the Capitol). Or are you suggesting the mountains from the skyline? Because that's just as confusing. How is a building literally only 80 feet taller than Salt Lake's tallest going to block the mountains?

It'd take more than a few 500 foot towers to block the mountains lol

[bob rulz]

Yeah I have to agree with Comrade. I don't think blocking part of the mountains from specific angles is really a good argument against a tallest. When you're walking around downtown, the mountain views are already obstructed if you're in the middle of a block.

I'm still holding out hope for the Carl's Jr. corner for a new tallest.

[Orlando]

I think 450' is the right height for our tallest tower. Tower 8 could have been that if it weren't for the height restriction there. A 450' tall tower at Carl's Junior would be awesome. Though, I'd take a 10-story building there, just to fill in that gap and add some street level vibrancy to that corner.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

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.

I think any tower over 550 or so feet is a big mistake. We, along with Honolulu IMHO, have the most spectacular natural backdrop in the country and it absolutely needs to be preserved. We are one of the few cases where we actually have a backdrop to lose. I love the scale of cities with lots of good tower density under 500 feet. Honolulu (tallest is 429 feet), San Diego (no towers above 500 feet), DC (no talls) and Vancouver (some tall but mostly under 500 feet) are some of the most interesting cites on the continent. There is literally nothing more sterile than a shadow-laden street ringed by 50 story towers. The vast majority of cultural districts - food, arts, drink - are outside of the tower districts. Bring me density and aggressive design.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Marvland

I think any tower over 550 or so feet is a big mistake. We, along with Honolulu IMHO, have the most spectacular natural backdrop in the country and it absolutely needs to be preserved. We are one of the few cases where we actually have a backdrop to lose. I love the scale of cities with lots of good tower density under 500 feet. Honolulu (tallest is 429 feet), San Diego (no towers above 500 feet), DC (no talls) and Vancouver (some tall but mostly under 500 feet) are some of the most interesting cites on the continent. There is literally nothing more sterile than a shadow-laden street ringed by 50 story towers. The vast majority of cultural districts - food, arts, drink - are outside of the tower districts. Bring me density and aggressive design.

I guess I'm just baffled by this mindset. How is one tower at 550 feet going to alter the backdrop that significantly? It's like you guys don't understand perspective.

Hell, if you really are that concerned about conserving the mountain backdrop, we should absolutely stop any and all development of buildings taller than ten feet because if Salt Lake were to extend out its skyline like Honolulu, or Vancouver, it would absolutely impact the mountain backdrop in some way.

Even without a great deal of height, the skyline does a significant job of blocking its backdrop:



And that's why I think this point is silly. Unless Salt Lake proposes ten 800 foot towers, it's extremely unlikely the mountains will ever be fully blocked from one angle of the skyline ... and to be honest, I'd wager 10+ 350-450 tall towers spread out over the skyline would impact that view far more than one or two 550 footers. So, if you're really that worried about keeping the mountain view from a specific angle, I don't see how you can support more additional towers.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

This point is pretty confusing to me. When you say blocking mountains you mean where exactly? From the main streets downtown? Pretty sure the mountains are blocked even by marginally tall structures - unless you're looking through the gaps of the main east/west streets (or going north toward the hills behind the Capitol). Or are you suggesting the mountains from the skyline? Because that's just as confusing. How is a building literally only 80 feet taller than Salt Lake's tallest going to block the mountains?

It'd take more than a few 500 foot towers to block the mountains lol

Hah my favorite view of CBD from the 10th North overpass. I think you're being sort of obtuse about that. From that angle, Promontory blocks the view up to approx 7000 feet on Olympus and Broads Fork Twins. Only gets more pronounced as you get closer. View corridors are not some mystery, in fact the Temple and Cathedral of the Madeleine view corridors are codified in our zoning ordinance. But I agree that 500 feet doesn't bother me too much.

[Deek1978]

If 400 people in Rose Park lose their views of the mountains because of a new tallest, I can live with that.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Deek1978

If 400 people in Rose Park lose their views of the mountains because of a new tallest, I can live with that.

RP lives matter too.

[Liberty Wellsian]

I'm with comrade

1 we are mobile we can get around the building
2 the Wasatch front is a couple hundred miles in length
3 the difference between the peaks and the valley floor is nearly 7k feet! Way higher than any building on earth
4 buildings create views mare than they obstruct. The view from the top floor of an 800 foot building on the WF would be awesome! A completely novel experience.

[taboubak]

Originally Posted by Marvland

I think any tower over 550 or so feet is a big mistake. We, along with Honolulu IMHO, have the most spectacular natural backdrop in the country and it absolutely needs to be preserved. We are one of the few cases where we actually have a backdrop to lose. I love the scale of cities with lots of good tower density under 500 feet. Honolulu (tallest is 429 feet), San Diego (no towers above 500 feet), DC (no talls) and Vancouver (some tall but mostly under 500 feet) are some of the most interesting cites on the continent. There is literally nothing more sterile than a shadow-laden street ringed by 50 story towers. The vast majority of cultural districts - food, arts, drink - are outside of the tower districts. Bring me density and aggressive design.

As someone who actually moved to Salt Lake City from Honolulu I know quite a bit about the Honolulu skyline. The buildings in Honolulu, particularly those in Waikiki are maxed out around 400 to prevent obstructing views of Diamond Head which is only 761 ft and right next to the skyline. HNL does however have a proposal for a 650 foot tower closer to downtown but it is looking less and less likely to happen. In SLC we don't really have that problem it seems, our skyline is fairly removed from the peaks and ours tower much higher above the city. It would take quite alot to block them especially from the view from the 600N bridge (the best one). The two cities are just a lot different in general though, Honolulu has hundreds of buildings in the 300+ range they just don't ever seem to want to go any higher, as many locals oppose there beautiful island turning into a massive city with massive towers. I hope the mindset in SLC isn't similar to the one in Hawaii though, as our skyline grows it would be awesome to look at the Wastach Mountains with beautiful 600+ ft towers in front of them!

[bob rulz]

The views you guys are talking about being "blocked" are already views that we appreciate BECAUSE of the skyline. It would take a significant massing of towers that will simply never happen here to ruin that backdrop.

Amazing and beautiful views of the Wasatch Mountains are available all over the valley, all over the Wasatch Front, from just about any angle imaginable.

[Old&New]

Just a reminder of what the Pantages looked like in it's prime, and what it could look like again with enough public support:




















https://collections.lib.utah.edu/search?page=1&q=pantages+theater

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

The views you guys are talking about being "blocked" are already views that we appreciate BECAUSE of the skyline. It would take a significant massing of towers that will simply never happen here to ruin that backdrop.

Amazing and beautiful views of the Wasatch Mountains are available all over the valley, all over the Wasatch Front, from just about any angle imaginable.

Good point. We'd have to have a skyline the size of Manhattan to even approach the level of blocking the mountain views to an extent we'd lose 'em. It's not going to happen. I think people are only saying they don't want a new tallest because they know we're not going to get a new tallest anytime soon, anyway, so it's easy to rationalize haha

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Hah my favorite view of CBD from the 10th North overpass. I think you're being sort of obtuse about that. From that angle, Promontory blocks the view up to approx 7000 feet on Olympus and Broads Fork Twins. Only gets more pronounced as you get closer. View corridors are not some mystery, in fact the Temple and Cathedral of the Madeleine view corridors are codified in our zoning ordinance. But I agree that 500 feet doesn't bother me too much.

Not being obtuse just pointing out how it'd take a significant amount of towers, and height, to kill off most view corridors.

[i-215]

Maybe I'm contrarian here, but I sort of like having 300' as a ceiling of sorts. It makes the skyline look a bit more full (and the city more substantial), rather than being dominated by a single tower (which would diminish the others by comparison).

I'd take 2 thirty story buildings over 1 sixty, any day!

[Marvland]

Sort of expected that kind of response from people on a page devoted to skyscrapers. View corridors aside, I think tall tower density can really street engagement and more often than not, provides a sterile user interface. Look at this picture from the article Comrade posted from, ahem, a western city (don't worry I won't say the word). Doesn't this scene just whisper "Come hither my wandering urban friend, into my breast. Enjoy the soft and wondrous culture within". Like a big, warm hug:

[twig]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Sort of expected that kind of response from people on a page devoted to skyscrapers. View corridors aside, I think tall tower density can really street engagement and more often than not, provides a sterile user interface. Look at this picture from the article Comrade posted from, ahem, a western city (don't worry I won't say the word). Doesn't this scene just whisper "Come hither my wandering urban friend, into my breast. Enjoy the soft and wondrous culture within". Like a big, warm hug:

ahem, short office buildings do that also after work hours. Its not just tall buildings. So your point is kinda, well... dumb. I can think of MANY examples of that here in Salt Lake. I can think of great examples in San Diego too. If you are so worried about losing a view to a building, well honestly I don't think downtown, or any downtown is for you. Its a pretty pathetic thing to be worrying about. Its like people who complain that there are lights in big cities... if you don't like it, well maybe the city is just not for you. A few buildings may block the view of what? A quarter of a mile? If even that. And even then, just step back a block and wallah, you got your precious view back! Amazing how that happens!

Besides, we are trying to grow up as a city, I love short buildings just as much as I love tall buildings, but come on... lets have some ambition and reach for the sky! Why not? What can we not enjoy tall buildings and short buildings? I would love to build both.

[Denvergotback]

He has a point, office buildings tall or small will always be soulless to a point. In any city. So why not go full out?

So with that in mind, isn’t it better to build 1 or 2 tall (soulless) office buildings that creates 1 lifeless block, rather than split them into 3 or 4 or maybe even 5 (soulless) office buildings that create 2-4 lifeless blocks?

In my opinion, if your going to build soulless office buildings, let’s keep them more contained that way you have more space for recreational space and larger sections of the city full of activity where apartments and hotels and nightlife could be held

[Meliorem]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Sort of expected that kind of response from people on a page devoted to skyscrapers. View corridors aside, I think tall tower density can really street engagement and more often than not, provides a sterile user interface. Look at this picture from the article Comrade posted from, ahem, a western city (don't worry I won't say the word). Doesn't this scene just whisper "Come hither my wandering urban friend, into my breast. Enjoy the soft and wondrous culture within". Like a big, warm hug:

A photograph captures a moment and can be edited in numerous ways to help establish and support the direction of the photographer. In this case, I think it does a good job of supporting the article in question. Often, a photographer will want to keep interfering elements out of the frame so that the focus is on what's being portrayed. Vice versa.

Same frame captured by Google Earth



Found at another website



Chicago



New York




Remember, the photographer decides what's being portrayed.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by airhero

I see that today there was a building permit application submitted for The Magnolia, one of the buildings planned for the Violin School Commons development at 300 E 200 S (Northwest Pipeline project). This is the first building permit application there has been for this development, so it appears to still be moving forward, however slowly.

Just another update on this. Another building permit has been submitted for this project, this time for the Liberty Uptown building. Looks like this project may finally be happening. Thought it might have died.