Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[mstar]

Originally Posted by delts145

PAC-12 CHAMPS

.

Originally Posted by scottharding

The Dixon is such an attractive building. I hope other developers take notice.
Brick > Stucco x 1000

I agree 100%! I love this building.

[allh]

https://boisedev.com/news/2021/08/10...rtments-boise/

Not SLC, but loving the design of Boise's upcoming high-rise. The curved roof is also super interesting

[smartdev]

Looks like a standard glass office tower with balconies and an angled roof. Nothing special to me. The rooftop terrace is cool though.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I don't get why they would deny it if the planning department approved it.

NIMBYs. Look at all of the public comments at the end of that document. That area of Sugarhouse is full of NIMBYs who are convinced that a few more townhomes are going to make the neighborhood unlivable. The Sugar House Community Council was also opposed to it.

[bob rulz]

In other news, I noticed that the sidewalks in front of 95 State are open now. When the pedestrian tunnels come down you know the official opening is just around the corner.

[rockies]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Our planning commission just killed another reasonable low-rise infill project on the east side. The planning department even recommended approval of this one.

http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Plan...taffReport.pdf
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Plan...08.2021SOA.pdf (#3 on this list)

There are new modern townhomes right next door... This is insane. Is it about the height limit? What is the future of this site

[delts145]

Originally Posted by smartdev

Looks like a standard glass office tower with balconies and an angled roof. Nothing special to me. The rooftop terrace is cool though.

Agree. I do like the rooftop but I think the upcoming residential towers for downtown Salt Lake are much more attractive. It does feel more like an average office tower than a luxury residential tower. Though, I would be willing to wager that the balcony arrangement design will change for the better before it is built.

[Orlando]

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/des...aven-district/

The Maven District is shaping out to be coolio. This one slipped by my radar last year. So, I'm posting it here.

[delts145]

^^^

That original plan has actually changed Orlando. SAPA, the original developer sold the site to Watcke Development. The new plans are much bigger and covered by BSL below.

Update - New Project, Adaptive Reuse - Maven Lofts

Planning Commission gives green light to new mixed-use project on 900 South

Luke Garrott Reports, Full Article @ https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/res...ng-commission/

...Maven Lofts, the latest mixed-use project by Watcke development, will add 57 units on the site, expanding the existing 1963 two-story building upward to four floors.

The project will include seven micro-retail spaces, from 285 square feet to 800 square feet, in addition to a 1,900-square-foot restaurant with a roof-top patio. It activates the building’s street-level frontages on both 900 South and Edison Street (140 East)...

The site was previously owned by Sapa Investment Group, which also had submitted plans for a planned development on the site. That proposal included only 18 residential units and fewer commercial spaces.

Maven Lofts’ 57 residential units will all be one-bedrooms, at 600 square feet. They will be located on the second, third, and fourth floors of the courtyard-shaped structure which will include rooftop amenities for residents.

Designed by Jacoby Architects


Maven Lofts north elevation. Roof top garden for the restaurant and Edison Street, right. Image courtesy Jacoby Architects.


The Maven Lofts project modeled from the NW, noting the landscaped parts of the project. Image courtesy Jacoby Architects.

[scottharding]

It's well under construction now too.

[meman]

I think the new Boise residential tower looks a hell of a lot better than our

Liberty Sky.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I think it's an impossible comparison. We're looking at one game for a conference championship - not a bunch of season long contests over the course of a few months.

Especially with most every game taking place on a Sunday.

But it's not just whether Utah can get the crowd to the game that matters. It's whether there's corporate financial dollars willing to support the team. At this point, I don't think that's the case.

There are only 8 or 9 home games (depending on if the team is in the AFC or NFC). So, I don't think it'll be that difficult to fill a stadium 8 or 9 times.

I think the requirement for local corporate sponsorship requirement is overblown.

The NFL shares national sponsorship and TV income equally between all teams. Last year, that was $309.6 million per team.

The team with the lowest local revenue was the Cincinatti Bengals at $108 million in 2019 (pre-pandemic).

The Green Bay Packers earned $210 million locally in 2019, but only $68 million in 2020. The difference, according to their financial reports is all in ticketing and concessions. So, they earned approximately $142 million from tickets/concessions in 2019.

The $68 million figure includes local sponsorships and merchandising. So, a Utah NFL team would only have to come up with $30-50 million in local sponsorships. This is very doable. And that's pretty much all dependent on how much income the owner wants to make, because the national shared revenue covers most of the team/salary expenses.

And then there's this:
"A provision in the tax code that allows for the amortization of goodwill and intangibles enables professional sports team owners to write off the entire purchase price of a team over 15 years, according to a longtime NFL owner (whose group did it over an even shorter period under old IRS rules). This accounting benefit, akin to depreciation, is permitted even though the value of sports franchises have in actuality appreciated for years—the growth of team sale prices has outpaced virtually every other industry or index over at least the last decade.

Add these savings to the reliable cash flows in the NFL, and potential investors see the league as something of a safe haven for their money. National media, sponsorships and net royalties from the league’s licensing and film division, which totaled nearly $9.5 billion in 2019—combined with predictable expenses because of the league’s salary cap—guaranteed an operating profit for every team last season. 'NFL teams are virtually running on risk-free auto-pilot,' the late John Vrooman, a longtime Vanderbilt economist, told Sportico in June." (Source: huddleup.substack.com

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

Such a shame. The housing affordability crisis is almost 100% made by our policies.

I went from being a pro-"single family" only proponent when I joined this forum (and houses were $120k) to a complete zoning anarchist.

Burn it down! NO ZONING. If it meets basic structural, electrical, and fire code— the state should compel cities to approve it. Why gives a crap what it looks like? ("But it's too tall." Well, too bad! It's not your city. You have to share!)

The tenth amendment grants zoning power to the state. They outsourced it to cities. But now we have nationally tyranny of small government, who all have adopted overly restrictive code from coast to coast. And it's sooooooo out of touch with the market and demand, it's not funny anymore. I'm sick and tired of existing residents getting 100% of the say and potential residents having NO VOICE in the process.

[bob rulz]

I don't think zoning should be abolished entirely, but I do think we could handle all of our needs with just a handful of simplified zoning codes. I haven't given thought to exactly how barebones I think a zoning code could be, but the smallest scale zoning should still allow at the minimum the ability to build up to fourplexes, and small neighborhood corner stores.

[RC14]

I think heavy industrial and uses that produce excessive noise, smell or pollution should have their own zones but other than that I don't see much need for them. Based on what I have read, I think zoning codes were originally championed by NIMBYS and racists who wanted to keep specific groups out of their neighborhoods.

Now they are championed by ideologs and control freaks who may have good intentions but don't understand the exclusionary nature and the economic and social fallout these tools have created. Just my, probably unpopular, opinion.

[Comrade]

No zoning would pretty much gut every historical neighborhood in the city. I think we need to push for more multifamily housing for sure but the answer absolutely is not 'no zoning laws'. The answer is also not to demolish multifamily affordable housing to build unaffordable housing - which is exactly what was going to happen here (but now, we just have done away with the affordable apartments that were on the site).

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by mattreedah

Agreed. This will not look out of place in 3-5 years.

I don't completely disagree with you guys, but I do think setbacks from level 2 or 1 would help this a lot along with further breakdown of the massing other than some color/material differentiation of an almost flat 7-story facade along 4th west. Just look at the existing building stock there. It's all 1 to 2 story old warehouse buildings from the late 1800's on early 1900's. The architects and developers didn't do much setting back at all on this project, but tried to break it up with some color and material change, which I think is not enough. That portion of 4th west is where it justifies breaking down the scale more. Here's a quick and messy photoshop adjustment:

10' setbacks above level 2 on 4th west and 2/3's of 7th south. Upper level setback at the corner and along 4th west.
You can see that I reduced the lighter portion on the southern half facing 4th west by one story, but am intending
for level 7 to still be there, just set back. Also, a deeper recess of dark colored portion of level 3 on 4th west.



vs. the current 7-story flat wall boxy design



I mean, the opposite corner on 7th south has this 1-2story awesome thing going on...
.

And then this just down the street on 4th west:

[RC14]

Seven 02 update:

[meman]

Drove by 95 State tonight, the lobby appears almost open and the video screen was playing, It looks really neat!!!! Huge Screen!!

[Orlando]

Have any of you looked at the recent proposed budget by Governor Cox? He's got $140 million going towards infrastructure development by the Point of the Mountain/former state prison land. But, nothing for infrastructure improvement in the capital city. I wish we even something like $20 million for the Grand Boulevards, or improvement of infrastructure in the Granary. But, no. This is the same old Utah politician preference...sprawl development. Is there a way to petition the Governor and congress people to get money for the Grand Boulevards project?

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/12...t-lake-drought