Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

What is your solution for the housing crisis that we currently have?

There are a huge number of empty lots and ugly newer buildings around town that we could build on before demolishing historic structures.

[EPdesign]

Building buildings isn’t like a game of SimCity. It’s not. It’s more complex than placing buildings where you think the would go best. People hold on to properties that could be developed (example…big lot north or Little America). There is also supply and demand. Not every company wants to occupy and even less, revamp and older buildings. I’m not a tare old buildings down person, but be realistic in that not every old building will be saved, even when entire city blocks are surface parking. The objection should be at land holders for refusing to develop their land…but this is America, and if an old building is easier to acquire and demolish with city approval, instead of forcing land owners to sell, then that’s what is going to happen. Again. Not SimCity

[Atlas]

I personally think Main Street in SLC is better than any single street in Denver including 16th Street. There's just a wonderful mix of old and new architecture, beautiful big trees, TRAX, and attractions. That said, SLC at this point is mostly a one-street downtown where Denver has tons of awesome streets that cover a large area, from RiNo down to Cap Hill. We are starting to see more life on other streets in the CBD now, notably West Temple, State, 200S, and 300S, but we have a ways to go to get back to pre-1950s downtown vibrancy. We're a decade or two behind Denver in that regard. On the whole though, downtown SLC is definitely getting better. We're seeing more people downtown all the time, better food, better nightlife, and lots of new construction. The urban fabric is recovering, following the (pre-COVID) national trend.


Source

It does suck to lose older structures when there are still empty lots everywhere. But as has been mentioned, when we talk about development we aren't talking about a single "them" or "they." A lot of these lots are owned by land bankers and other people who aren't willing to sell or develop them. Companies and individuals who want to build can't just build anywhere: they have to work with what is actually available. While I wish the city would step up and do something about land banking and parking lots downtown, actually doing so is a complex process and, given that we live in a democracy of sorts, a constant negotiation with many stakeholders.

Changing the subject, I realized that drawing a perspective line along the roofline of the newest Regent Street rendering and comparing to Astra's newest drawings seems to indicate that this mysterious proposal will be approximately ~388 ft, which would make it slightly taller than 111 Main. Big if true!

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Stenar

There are a huge number of empty lots and ugly newer buildings around town that we could build on before demolishing historic structures.

Except this isn't really how development works as you know. That open parking needs to be owned by someone who wants to develop it and most lots are used by existing businesses who aren't interested for various reasons such as not wanting a structure so close to them. Assuming they want to, it would need to pencil out to build a structured parking to accommodate the new building and existing. A lot times that is the deal breaker. Then it has to be zoned right or can be changed. It needs to be in a desirable location as many people don't want to live in a shopping complex with all its noises and traffic volume.

I bring this up because the easy answer is always to see open spaces such as that and get frustrated, but developers see those same spaces and many times they aren't available or pencil out. Many times what makes more sense is old buildings that have been neglected (i.e. cheap acquisition costs)or has worn out its usefulness. These owners can't usually tear it down to convert to a parking lot and therefore have limited options.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Stenar

There are a huge number of empty lots and ugly newer buildings around town that we could build on before demolishing historic structures.

Just curious what you consider to be ugly newer buildings around town.

[Utah_Dave]

Atlas, thanks for posting the diagram with the height of each floor of the Astra tower. My next question is how tall is the top of the main body of the Wells Fargo building? I assume it’s about 400-410 ft to the “top” of the building visually? The little structure on top of the building is at the 422’ mark correct? I’m definitely fixated on our new tallest and trying to picture it in the skyline. I’ve been waiting since the late 80’s for a new tallest so there’s that, cut me some slack! Lol.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Just curious what you consider to be ugly newer building around town.

I would like to see these infill buildings mix it up a little bit. All our infill is coming all at once and it looks very similar. It might become a bit of a problem if it doesn’t age well in 20-30 years. It’s a minor complaint. At the moment I can’t think of a new building that looks terrible. I’m sure there are some but nothing comes to mind.

[TheGeographer]

Thanks Blah for your thoughtful response and Atlas for your two cents. I agree that Salt Lake has lots of potential and has come a long ways even in the short 7 years I’ve been here. The wide streets could be taken advantage of in a number of ways and I’ll be interested to see how they play into Salt Lakes future. Lots of potential there. We probably are all a little biased, me biased being from Denver and you both biased towards Salt Lake. At the end of the day they are both great cities in my opinion.

Blah, the street you included pictures of in Denver has the tall towers, but is probably my least favorite street in Denver due to the reasons you mentioned. Atlas mentioned a few cool neighborhoods I like. Union Station really turned out great. If you’re ever in Denver I’d recommend walking around there and across the pedestrian bridge to highlands. Super cool area. Another exciting development on Denver’s horizon is the River Mile project. Check it out if you have time. The Main Street-16th street comparison are probably less of a comparison and more of a bias towards one or the other based on our personal experiences. Both have malls, both have a mix of old and new buildings, both have public transport, trees and ample walking space and street-side dining. They both are great.

Anyways enough on that topic. Lots to discuss on Salt Lake development. The Regent Hotel will be a great addition assuming it happens. All the residential development downtown is awesome and will bring vibrancy to our urban core. Exciting times!

[Blah_Amazing]

https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Address: 805 S 800 W

TAG is seeking to rezone a 0.11 acre parcel from M-1 to FB-UN-2 for the development of a multifamily project.

Project Description (From Developer):
Sitting on a .11-acre parcel that is currently unoccupied, the TAG 800 W Multifamily Project will be multifamily development in an area of the city that is transitioning away from industrial towards residential and mixed uses. TAG 800 W will work closely with a team of architects to ensure that the new structure has a welcoming and worthy design for the neighborhood gateway in which it will be located. The project’s scale will be compatible with surrounding properties, while offering additional density in a quickly growing area of the city where it is very much needed. The project’s close proximity to public transit, other new developments that will offer shopping opportunities and the Westside recreational hub on the Jordan River, offers a rare chance to develop in a location that has it all without requiring the destruction of any existing structures. As noted in several City Master Plans and documents, the location of TAG 800 W is perceived in a negative light by the Westside community, who no longer want the east-west entries to their neighborhood to necessitate travel through industrial zones. TAG 800 W will contribute to the transition of this area. Units at TAG 800 W will be modest in size and obtainable for young families and those who wish to age in place, thereby contributing to the unique social fabric of the neighborhood context in which the project will be embedded. The current M-1 zoning is not congruent with the stated goals of the city, which has recognized the need for additional housing on the Westside, particularly in 700 W Corridor where the project will be located.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Old houses near urban dense areas are not worth saving unless it is extremely extremely precious, Comrade.

Nothing is worth saving. Salt Lake has made that pretty clear. Salt Lake is a boring city killing its character and hopping aboard the same infill that you're seeing in West Valley, Sandy and other suburbs. In about 30 years, there will be no difference between the urban landscape of Salt Lake City and the rest of the valley because the city will have demolished over most every historic neighborhood in the name of progress.

Salt Lake City is quickly becoming a very ugly city with no discernable roots. SugarHouse right now looks no different than the area around Valley Fair Mall in West Valley. It wouldn't surprise me if the impotent city council turns around and starts allowing for massive redevelopment in the Avenues next.

What's even worse is that Salt Lake City is quickly losing its urban vibe. That's the irony in all of this. Because it continues to develop stale, lifeless condo complexes, they're tearing out huge swaths of the city that made it really unique and actually urban. It's all so soulless and why no one takes Salt Lake seriously as a major city because it increasingly looking less and less like a city and more just a collection of ugly mid-rises.

[Blah_Amazing]

https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Address: 552 North 1500 West

Rezone of several properties to SR-3 for the development of single-family houses.



Background (From Developer):

Riverside properties are located adjacent to Bachman Elementary near Redwood Road. The primary access for the subject parcels is 1500 West off of 600 North. Riverside currently includes 5 parcels, 3 of which contain occupied single-family dwellings, one of which is to be demolished.

Riverside is an infill development, surrounded by older, existing single-family homes to the east and south, new homes to the west, and older apartment buildings to the north.

As a proposed single-family infill development, the petitioners are requesting the SR-3 zoning for the majority of the property and R1-5000 for the homes facing 500 North.

Riverside Zone Change 2021 includes five (5) parcels that total approximately 2.84 acres. (See attached in red outline)

The subject properties include:
- 1522 West 500 North
- 1520 West 500 North
- 1454 West 500 North
- 1454 West 500 North (small parcel)
- 552 North 1500 West

The purpose of the rezone allows for more flexibility in housing options through development of the inner block, while maintaining the R1-5000 zoning along 500 North.

The proposed development is consistent with the purpose statement of the SR-3 zone that calls for a medium-density zoning district that provides “a variety of housing types, in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks”. The Riverside proposal contains single-family homes with multiple floor plan options that can and will meet the needs of our diverse population.

The Planned Development objectives and standards are being met by promoting greater efficiency in use of the land, utility services, and transportation systems. The proposed incremental increase in density utilizes the land to a more efficient degree than would otherwise be found in the area.

The housing options are consistent with the goals found in the citywide plan: Plan Salt Lake, with the second initiative of the Plan Salt Lake housing section being to “Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.”

Not only does the proposed zone change and development meet the criteria of the SR-3 zone, but it is important to note the surrounding amenities that include, Bachman Elementary, a regional park, shopping, banking, the Jordan River trail system, five minutes from Salt Lake International Airport, 2 minutes from employment hubs such as L3, the State of Utah, and much more.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Thanks TheGeographer.

A response to your thoughts.

First, I don't want to sound like I don't think skylines matter - they do. Your right that they can often be a source of pride. I was saying that they are definitely not the most important thing and should not be the guiding factor in policy. I love to look at our nice (albeit smaller) skyline with pride. But I also feel pride in our expanding skyline because it is a mark of the improving quality in our urban environment. Not simply because of a skyline in of itself.

Second, the Denver comparison. While Salt Lake City was founded before Denver, Denver is the one that looks and feels like an old east coast city. It has narrow roads and a flat geography that echo New York. It also saw a vast quantity of its towers built in the 1980s, which resulted in a relatively stark, gray, and angular towers that (imo) are not the most interesting to look at as a pedestrian.

You are right to suggest that the wider streets does have a tendency to dampen the urban canyon effect that Denver has - made worse by the fact that our towers are (at least for now) shorter. But, I would also say that that is exactly why it feels better in Salt Lake's Central Business District overall in comparison to Denver.

Keeping in mind that Salt Lake's downtown is very small in comparison to Denver's, I grabbed a few screenshots from Google Earth to show What I mean.

Denver: I literally just zoomed in to some random intersections along major roads in Denver, so they may or may not be the best representations of the city. That said, a pattern developed between them. You can indeed see (and somewhat feel) the urban canyon effect that Denver's smaller blocks, narrow streets, and taller towers create that does indeed make it feel like the larger city that it is.

But it is also very gray, dark, lacking of greenery, not pedestrian friendly, auto-oriented and many would say that it feels somewhat claustrophobic. It does indeed look and feel like a major east coast city.











Salt Lake: In comparison, Salt Lake has smaller towers, large blocks, and wide roads. This gives off the 'small city' vibes that Salt Lake has somewhat been known for. While the city gained many towers in the 1980s, those towers don't dominate the sky like they do in Denver. We are...late-bloomers, and I think that is a good thing. What Salt Lake really has is possibility. As more and more tower projects are proposed and built, I think Salt Lake will start to make up for being late to the tower party.

This idea of possibility is why I love our wide streets. Yes, right now most of our streets are used by UDOT to move enormous amounts of cars. But even those (as you can see in the photos below) don't have the same level of gray, oppressed, starkness that cities like Denver have. They feel more open and allow light to better enter the street, even under our tallest buildings it feels more open and free (somewhat reflective of traditional Western US ideals). Streets like State Street and West Temple, in the hands of the right people, could become similar to linear plazas and parks for pedestrians and the public to enjoy.











Again, Downtown Salt Lake City is really just at the start of its development journey, while Denver is much more matured. Streets like West Temple look barren in comparison to Denver's large urban canyons. But I know that will only improve from here.

I personally think our wider streets are going to make our future better and more full of possibilities as our towers and urban landscape develops in comparison to the limitations of the narrow streets in Denver. Especially if we can get UDOT to think more about pedestrians and other alternative modes of transit. That was my overarching point in the comparison.

It is all subjective I guess, so this is just how I feel about it. I really like Denver, but I love and am much more hopeful for Salt Lake in the future.

Everything is subjective but Salt Lake's wide streets and wide blocks are absolutely a hinderance and always will be. That's just the reality. No amount of pretending they can be advantageous is going to change that reality.

The fact is, Main Street only works because the city expanded the sidewalks and put a light-rail line down the middle of it. This can't ever be an option for every street. So, instead you run into an area where the streets become less walkable because they're just not inviting to the pedestrian. It's why, despite the fact development increasingly pops up west of downtown, you don't see a lot of people walking from the Gateway area to Main Street.

Salt Lake's downtown is a mess because of this - divided in a way that makes any hope of connection very limited. The biggest issue right now is that there's no viable incentive to get people to walk west - or if they're west, walk east - once you're south of North Temple because there's no TRAX line that goes east/west on 200, 300 or 400 South.

Salt Lake's downtown is very limited due to its design and it's why the city struggles building a fully contained downtown that feels cohesive.

Portland, Seattle, Denver, Sacramento - even Boise have downtowns that are fairly vibrant beyond just one street and it's because its compact and walkable from certain points. In fact, most these downtowns kind of bloom outward from a central spot.

Salt Lake's doesn't. There is no central spot to the area. It's almost entirely vertical as pretty much everything is located on Main Street and State - and then far off west around the Gateway.

From 200 S and Main to the Gateway is a 14 minute walk. Go look at a 14 minute walk in those other downtowns and you're going to see a lot more blocks, and a lot more established development, with a lot more businesses and retail and restaurants and bars than anything you'll see in Salt Lake City.

That obviously can be improved upon the more the city expands but the larger blocks and wider streets impede on the walkable development that makes it worth that 14 minute walk.

[Blah_Amazing]

https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Address: 67 N B Street

The Madeleine Choir School proposes a new 16,500 SF field house and additional classroom space.

Vicinity Map


Site Plan


Street Level Plan


Elevations


Renderings & Building Materials

[Blah_Amazing]

https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Address: 443 West 400 North

Project Description: The Iris - Demolition of old small admin building and main food processing and production plan at 443 West 400 North.

Future Development: The Iris is a planned 7 floor, 95 foot tall, 141 unit project to be built by CW Urban.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Comrade

lol

Salt Lake is destroying street after street of its historic housing stock for ugly infill.

Infill is what's killing Salt Lake City.

What do you propose we do to address the colossal need for new housing? (seriously)

Edit: Just saw the page of posts below this comment.

[rockies]

I think the convention center is a huge barrier for east-west pedestrian travel. Development of those big parking lots between north and south temple along with the west quarter will hopefully help a lot. Couldn't the city do more to replicate main's pedestrian feel on other streets?

[Blah_Amazing]

Some cool person on Youtube has been working on a Minecraft version of Salt Lake City and has posted an update of what they have so far.

Thought y'all would enjoy it.

P.S. Don't forget to give the person a thumbs up!

• Video Link

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

My next question is how tall is the top of the main body of the Wells Fargo building? I assume it’s about 400-410 ft to the “top” of the building visually? The little structure on top of the building is at the 422’ mark correct?

My understanding is that the roofline of the WFC is 400 ft, and that the cylindrical structure on top adds another 22 ft.

Originally Posted by Comrade

Salt Lake's downtown is a mess because of this - divided in a way that makes any hope of connection very limited. The biggest issue right now is that there's no viable incentive to get people to walk west - or if they're west, walk east - once you're south of North Temple because there's no TRAX line that goes east/west on 200, 300 or 400 South.

The Rio Grande Plan + planned 400 S TRAX line will change this. rockies is right about the convention center being a huge barrier between Main and the Gateway. West Quarter Phase II will help substantially there with the midblock connection between 200 S and the Vivint. Also, 200 S is going to be getting a makeover soon, with bus and bike lanes, more trees, etc. Should be a positive change.

The food and bar scene in downtown SLC has gotten substantially better in the last decade. The city is filling in and, despite the hindrance of large blocks and streets, with thousands of new residents it will feel significantly more walkable and happening in the coming years.

[TMoneySLC]

It is not, nor should it solely by SLC's burden to single handedly address a regional issue. Furthermore, the housing being built does not always fill the need for affordable (being below market rate is NOT affordable), nor does it always fill the need for the type of housing stock in demand.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Old houses near urban dense areas are not worth saving unless it is extremely extremely precious, Comrade.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more. Old houses near dense urban areas are those that need the highest level of scrutiny. Diversity in housing stock is necessary for the vibrancy of the city.