Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
I do remember that from the City Creek Center plans back in late 2006, it was proposed to be a mixed-use tower of about 35 stories.
However, the main reason why they kept it under 400 feet, from my understanding, is that they wanted to keep it within the city's zoning height and design limits. The City wants to have the taller towers on the blocks between Main and State and then taper down to the east from State and to the west from Main. The city listened to R/UDAT back in the late 80's who recommended to curtail highrise expansion to the east of the CBD. There were a number of commercial office highrises that popped up to the east of the CBD, and they were advocating for more mid-rise and low-rise residential as you get further away from the CBD.
|
This pyramid (scheme) is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, the fact that the city is still following it is ridiculous. I made a twitter comment about it to the Planning Director, we have a respectful relationship, and his reply was that it isn't meant to be permanent and would slowing flow outward as the core developed. I didn't reply but my thought was, "Well that's ridiculous, because if the majority of the parcels to the west get developed within this horrible pyramid, at 75' and 125' then there won't be many parcels available for taller buildings.
As for the east side, I am not a huge proponent of highrise development much further east than 300 E. East Downtown(EaDo), for the most part is a fantastic neighborhood with the 3-4 story walkups, single family homes (even if split into multiple units) and some nice small neighborhood commercial spattered about. There are definitely some opportunities for redevelopment in EaDo but I think anything over about 6 floors should be focused on the 400 - 600 S corridor. Trust me, I'm not against height.
While I'm on the subject of height on the east side of Main/State, the fact that The Birdie got approved for a height reduction is an absolute disgrace for a D-1 corner. The Planning staff argument for approval was that the area plan designates that area as a transitional area from the downtown core to the residential areas of East Downtown. I call B.S. on that one because there are 3 mid-rises on 200 S within just over a block east. CW Urbans argument that they couldn't make their project pencil out if they had to make it taller is also a B.S. argument. They knew it was Zoned D-1 when the bought it.
As far as the West and South side goes, I say have at it in regards to height, but obviously with some guidelines to promote attractive architecture, some width restrictions and corner minimum heights rather than corner maximums. One key component of place making and walkability within cities is to visually narrow streets, obviously actually narrowing streets is the preferred method of making streets safer and more inviting, but there is a way to visually narrow a street that can't be physically narrowed. When the height of a building is equal to or greater than the width of the adjacent street the street visually looks narrower. Perfect example if you want to see it for yourself. Cross State St at 350 S, stop on the median and look south, then look north. State St is the same width in both directions but look narrower when looking to the north, because the street isn't the biggest thing within immediate site.
My point is this. On the West side of downtown and south of downtown height minimums on corners need to be implemented, particularly on 300 W, State, W. Temple, 400, 500, 600 S, and don't give a developer a damn height reduction on those corners.
Prev
Nice, I am excited for the RMP project and SPARK! looks like a great addition. The "Powerstation" project is somewhat unimaginative for being TOD, with no commercial space and 1-1 parking/unit ratio, but I expect it to get some pushback from the community and planning commission on those points.
Linear Mode
