Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[RC14]

Originally Posted by Comrade

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.

Chicago's State Street and "Magnificent Mile" are both wide and vibrant/walkable streets.

I'm not sure why everyone wants Salt Lake to be Portland or Seattle. They are beautiful cities but I have never considered them to be the models for every city to follow.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by 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.

If we want Salt Lake to remain Utah's premier city we need our population to keep up with the rest of the state. If we say "It is not.. SLC's burden to.. address [the housing crisis]" and decide not to increase our housing stock, that will push more people into the suburbs and we will continue to loose out to Draper, Lehi, Herriman etc.
If we want the cost of housing to go down we need to build. If we are too worried about saving old single family homes, that will suppress supply relative to demand and the cost of housing will obviously increase. In a few cases, these homes may add enough to the urban fabric that we can say it's worth it but more often than not, my vote is going to be for housing more of our population.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by RC14

Chicago's State Street and "Magnificent Mile" are both wide and vibrant/walkable streets.

I'm not sure why everyone wants Salt Lake to be Portland or Seattle. They are beautiful cities but I have never considered them to be the models for every city to follow.

This is true. Chicago has done a great job with medians with those wide streets - lots of trees and art installations. They are almost mini plazas. That could easily be done in a lot of places downtown SLC. It already is on the trax line streets, but also is on 300 s and 500 w by the Gateway, which is now like a mini-park in the middle of the road. There is no reason the entire downtown grid can’t be like that.

We (as a city) need to stop thinking about our wide streets as a disadvantage, but rather a blank canvas to put in light rail, art, trees, bike lanes, a train box (I see you Hatman), etc.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

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.

I'm talking about houses that are within dense urban commercial areas. It's like the movie UP. Unless it's like the Lion House or something like that, then demo away.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I'm talking about houses that are within dense urban commercial areas. It's like the movie UP. Unless it's like the Lion House or something like that, then demo away.

I know, but we still need houses in dense urban areas. Should we just bulldoze people out of their homes because development encroached upon them? Not everybody wants an apartment, condo, or town home. There must exist a diversity in housing stock. It's flabbergasting how quick some are to just bulldoze, or displace people in the name of "progress"

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by RC14

If we want Salt Lake to remain Utah's premier city we need our population to keep up with the rest of the state. If we say "It is not.. SLC's burden to.. address [the housing crisis]" and decide not to increase our housing stock, that will push more people into the suburbs and we will continue to loose out to Draper, Lehi, Herriman etc.
If we want the cost of housing to go down we need to build. If we are too worried about saving old single family homes, that will suppress supply relative to demand and the cost of housing will obviously increase. In a few cases, these homes may add enough to the urban fabric that we can say it's worth it but more often than not, my vote is going to be for housing more of our population.

Lose out to Herriman, Draper? Lose out on what? I'm not sure what the competition is in this scenario?

And those "old single family homes" in many instances are unique and provide context and history to a neighborhood. I don't agree that we should sacrifice the character of our community for homogeneous, cookie cutter architecture. I may be more inclined to your point of view if the quality of development weren't simply ticky-tacky that is going to be dilapidated within a decade.

Do we need to build more housing, yes? But so does everybody else. SLC being a land of apartments built on the cheap for a quick profit is not appealing to me in the slightest.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I know, but we still need houses in dense urban areas. Should we just bulldoze people out of their homes because development encroached upon them? Not everybody wants an apartment, condo, or town home. There must exist a diversity in housing stock. It's flabbergasting how quick some are to just bulldoze, or displace people in the name of "progress"

The problem that is evident with this is that outside of downtown SLC, the few blocks of downtown Sugar House, and some recently densified areas of the suburbs, basically everything else, like 90% or so of developed land, is for people who don’t “want an apartment, condo, or townhome.” If that is true, then the suburbs are for you. Let downtown actually become a place for the people that want that life, instead of letting the suburban mentality rule downtown too.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

The problem that is evident with this is that outside of downtown SLC, the few blocks of downtown Sugar House, and some recently densified areas of the suburbs, basically everything else, like 90% or so of developed land, is for people who don’t “want an apartment, condo, or townhome.” If that is true, then the suburbs are for you. Let downtown actually become a place for the people that want that life, instead of letting the suburban mentality rule downtown too.

I live downtown exactly because I like that life. Your vision of downtown isn't the only vision of downtown. To suggest that there isn't room for multiple housing types downtown is ludicrous. Why not preserve the things that make our downtown unique when held against others.

I am curious how many people in the forum actually live downtown?

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I live downtown exactly because I like that life. Your vision of downtown isn't the only vision of downtown.

Yes. Everyone's opinion is different on what a city should be. But if you think we should preserve tons of single family houses that are (lets be honest) almost all identical copies of the tens of thousands of other single family houses throughout the city of Salt Lake just because they were here first, your mentality belongs in the suburbs.

Preserving a type of housing stock isn't just the most common type (single-family) but the overwhelming majority isn't creating "diversity in housing stock" it is preventing diversity in housing stock.

I have always been bothered by what can arguably be seen as radical historical preservation. If the same types of preservationist mentality existed in the 19th century, downtown Salt Lake City wouldn't exist whatsoever.

Remember, our 10 acre blocks were designed that way because they were always intended to be large self-sufficient farms and communities. So technically, that is the origins of this valley's (non-native) culture. Where is all the people screaming that every farm and farm house 'ShOuLD hAvE bEeN pReSeRvEd' because they were old, here before any big developers, and likely didn't want the encroachment of business and urban development?

If they had opted for the same preservationist mentalities, then basically everything everyone on this site loves about Salt Lake City would not exist. Progress and development, by and large, IS A GOOD THING. If you go back into old newspapers, many of the buildings people on this forum love, not just here but everywhere in the US, were called 'travisties', 'attacks on 'community, 'eyesores,' etc. Stuff that today, you'd think people would find ridiculous. Except that is exactly how people still sound every time a standard sigle-family house gets demo'd so that the working class and young professional class in our growing population actually has a small studio apartment to sleep in.

I'm honestly growing tired of it.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Yes. Everyone's opinion is different on what a city should be. But if you think we should preserve tons of single family houses that are (lets be honest) almost all identical copies of the tens of thousands of other single family houses throughout the city of Salt Lake just because they were here first, your mentality belongs in the suburbs.

So, again, that's not what I said. But if it were, your suggestion is to replace identical things, with... new identical things? I never suggested things need be historical to be preserved. I suggested that community character is what's being lost. That diversity in housing stock is important.

Also, progress and development are not forever intertwined as one, so to suggest that development is progress is counter to reality. I believe that preservation belongs in our community. Yes, even in my neighborhood downtown. To have somebody assert that I don't belong in my community because I have a view counter to theirs is, in all honesty, quite rude, and I wish that you would please retract that.

You're simply trying to bully and bulldoze me out of this conversation much like people in some single family homes on the edges of downtown, and that seems to be the larger issue here, doesn't it?

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I never suggested things need be historical to be preserved. I suggested that community character is what's being lost.

I fully understood you, cause that was my entire point. What if the original farming community that existed downtown before downtown argued the same thing? What Main Street is today represents the loss of agrarian community character, does it not?

Yet, I am very grateful they didn't argue that. We now have a beautiful and growing city that will CONTINUE to change and evolve into the future. We either grow and evolve to meet the needs of today and the future, or we die.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

I fully understood you, cause that was my entire point. What if the original farming community that existed downtown before downtown argued the same thing? What Main Street is today represents the loss of agrarian community character, does it not?

Yet, I am very grateful they didn't argue that. We now have a beautiful and growing city that will CONTINUE to change and evolve into the future. We either grow and evolve to meet the needs of today and the future, or we die.

But isn't that exactly it, that those choices have led us to where we are today? That in the end, preservation of our larger urban history should have some deference in current choices? Single family homes are where they are currently for a reason, in spite of unmitigated growth. That at the end of the day, maintaining some of the *original* character of our city fosters a community which understands and respects its own history and remains in contact with that which has led us to our current point. That lessons and styles of the past are contextually and physically important to today and not merely bygone dinosaurs to be relegated to the dustbin of history? That this is a way forward which honors the past and enables the future.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I believe that preservation belongs in our community. Yes, even in my neighborhood downtown. To have somebody assert that I don't belong in my community because I have a view counter to theirs is, in all honesty, quite rude, and I wish that you would please retract that.

You're simply trying to bully and bulldoze me out of this conversation much like people in some single family homes on the edges of downtown, and that seems to be the larger issue here, doesn't it?

The notion that anyone is bullying you by pointing out historical fact is utterly fanciful. In your thought process, what right did your (I am now assuming) single family house have to bulldoze the farmhouse or bakers house that stood there before? What right did your single family house have to destroy the overall agrarian community that was here before? eh? If it was built on just an empty field, what right did it have in bulldozing and taking away the wonderful open space that people and animals that originally lived here enjoyed? Would you therefore think its ok to demo your house to restore the original (non-native or native) community? Why do you think your version matters more than the one that existed before it?

According to the logic of the justifications you have presented, these are legitimate questions.

If they in any way seem absurd to you, that proves the overall quality of the foundations of your argument. I in no way want to bully you into leaving this forum. Rather, when discussing serious topics, I want others to present contentions that are sound and logical. Present evidence to back up your ideas. As it stands, I personally have found your logic wanting.

Your feelings, though, have been noted.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Atlas

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!

Yeah, I am excited to get more details on this project. It definitely looks like it will be in the top ten tallest buildings, which is so cool. I really like how well it compliments Astra Tower as well.

Personally, I am getting Miami styled vibes from these buildings. Maybe it's all the white.

I'm also starting to wonder if they are going to pursue a hotel or not. It really isn't the best market for that right now, with the Asher Adams having to crowd fund to get the financing. If they do that would be awesome. However, I am suspicious that it will instead be mostly, if not entirely, be residential.

[Atlas]

I'm curious as to which buildings we are thinking about here, specifically.

Dinwoodey mansion? That one is not actually in danger. Utah Theatre? Eh, we've been through that conversation and it's been derelict for 30 years. Broadway Place? An unremarkable building architecturally and the local businesses seem to have survived. The Kelly houses or LaFrance Apartments? Yeah, those hurt a bit more. Various bungalows around town? Meh, mostly unremarkable structures and mostly being replaced by higher-density housing (not empty/parking lots). The little church at ~350 S 400 E? Anything else? Arrow Press Square was like 10 years ago at this point.

On the other hand, we are getting some nice adaptive reuse with CINQ, Telegraph Lofts, Station Center/Granary warehouses, Kearns Building, Pickle Building, and 255 S State to name just a few. I'm hopeful the Dinwoodey Building on 100 S gets that treatment soon too.

I guess the point of my post is that this era of redevelopment is, at worst, a mixed bag. It's not even close to destroying as many "historic" buildings, or changing the "character" of the community, as the 1960s-80s was. This isn't the era of demolishing the Newhouse or the Dooly, or clearing like 50% of smaller downtown structures for parking lots, freeways, and the Salt Palace. A lot more is being added at this point than is being demolished, in my opinion, albeit there are some more regrettable losses than others.

[Blah_Amazing]

PSA

The Next Planning Commission Meeting is a week from today.

The DeWitt project's design review will be up as well as the zoning map amendment for The Other Side Village homeless housing project.

Sadly, it is not nearly as interesting as last week.

BTW, there are only 3 more Planning Commission Meetings this year: October 27, November 10, and December 8.

[TMoneySLC]

Blah- I wasn’t around then to argue for preservation. But that doesn’t preclude me from trying to argue for it now. By your argument, it shouldn’t matter at all since everything is progress. The fact of the matter is that different housing types all play a part in the tapestry of the community. To assert that one is just expendable for the sake of development makes me cringe.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I'm curious as to which buildings we are thinking about here, specifically.

I’m thinking about neighborhoods on the periphery of the urban core.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

Blah- I wasn’t around then to argue for preservation. But that doesn’t preclude me from trying to argue for it now. By your argument, it shouldn’t matter at all since everything is progress. The fact of the matter is that different housing types all play a part in the tapestry of the community. To assert that one is just expendable for the sake of development makes me cringe.

Again. Why do you think your section of this tapestry deserve to be roughly 90% of the housing stock then? Sounds pretty arrogant. Especially when single family homes in Salt Lake are quickly becoming only affordable to the wealthy and/or white people - solely because they prevent that 'tapestry' of yours from becoming more diverse.

BTW, who are you TMoneySLC? We have had a history of trolls in the past and the fact that you joined not long after one of those got blocked is starting to make me suspicious.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Again. Why do you think your section of this tapestry deserve to be roughly 90% of the housing stock then? Sounds pretty arrogant. Especially when single family homes in Salt Lake are quickly becoming only affordable to the wealthy and/or white people - solely because they prevent that 'tapestry' of yours from becoming more diverse.

BTW, who are you TMoneySLC? We have had a history of trolls in the past and the fact that you joined not long after one of those got blocked is starting to make me suspicious.

I’m merely speaking to the availability & need for diversity in housing stock j. The downtown area.

Lol you think I’m a troll?
Nah, I’ve Followed the forum for years but only recently felt the need to comment.
I have a degree in poli sci and urban planning, work for the gov’t in health,, and am actually a student once again. (As if it matters who I am???) . Who are you?? Maybe you’re a troll? I find it comical that because we disagree you think I’m trolling.

Feel free to follow me on Twitter. (Same handle) Although that’s mostly stuff about sports.