Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[T-Mac]

Then I really feel bad for the residents on the west side of downtown because their views of the mountains are shot then with the taller buildings we have downtown. I guess we should give up on height and go for sprawl.

[SLC4L]

I can't see any mountains from my bedroom window since my neighbors two-story (TWO!) homes are blocking my view. I'm sure a blip of a blocked view at 65mph will be nothing. *I'm even considering suicide.

*I'm not.

[Orlando]

Have you driven over there! I used to live over there and I'ld drive on 215 on Knudsen's corner all the time! I was so mad when they started to build those ugly grey box offices right on the hill overlooking the freeway. That area has problay one of the most spectacular views of Twin and Lone Peaks, especially when coming down on I-215 from Olympus Cove. I have a feeling that some of you guys, Tmac & SLC4L have not driven over there very much at all. Here are some pics to show you how your arguments sound like when you don't actually realize the context in which you are talking about. As far as the density arguement goes, that is a super lame excuse to build a 12 story way out next to the mountains!!! Have you seen how little downtown SLC is and how much vacant land there is there??!! With the kind of density argument they were going with and some of you bought into, they might as well build that out in Eagle Mountain, [I]because that would save us a lot of room to develop more out there, right!!

[John Martin]

That's not even where the building is. This is where it is and what it would've looked like:


Link

The density argument doesn't mean much either because they already have an 8-story building under construction. Four more floors, no matter how you look at it, would've made a minor difference to the community and a major difference to the property owners. Let's face it, the height restriction was a lame attempt to save a view which was pretty much gone to begin with, and wouldn't have been much worse had the building been built as originally intended (4 more floors certainly wouldn't have made a difference to people on the freeway). But the loss to the property owners was obviously significant. Property rights still exist whether you like it or not, so the way I look at it, you might as well give the businesses liberty to build what they want, for the sake of the economy if not because these petty restrictions won't achieve anything.

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by Orlando

If you keep going east on 6200 South for about a tenth of a mile you'll get an unhampered view of the mountains. No big deal.

Mountain view notwithstanding, I don't think it's that bad that eight stories were built, instead of twelve. I'd hate to see businesses that otherwise considered moving into an office building downtown settle in Cottonwood Heights. I like the Cottonwood Corporation et al development in Knudsen's Corner, but I equate it to things like the soccer stadium being taken away from downtown and placed in a suburb. Imagine if JetBlue and Overstock were headquartered in downtown instead of Knudsen's Corner.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by T-Mac

Then I really feel bad for the residents on the west side of downtown because their views of the mountains are shot then with the taller buildings we have downtown. I guess we should give up on height and go for sprawl.

Well, the mountains near downtown are really just foothills. The bigger mountains are south of downtown.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by John Martin

That's not even where the building is. This is where it is and what it would've looked like:


Link

Uhhh... those are both the same place, just different views. The photo you posted is looking southwest and the ones Orlando posted are looking southeast, you know, AT THE MOUNTAINS, not away from them.

[Future Mayor]

Orlando's posts are not in the same the location as the new building is being built. The new building is SW of what used to be the Health Rider Building, the new building is adjacent to 215, not on a corner, as show in Orlando's pictures.

the new building is also well below 215, there are at least 1 story maybe 2 below the 215 grade. I drive out there for a training seminar each Tuesday and the additional stories would not have blocked the views of the mountains from the freeway. The biggest issue with a building of that size is that the traffic in that area is already to congested and the addition of a new building 8 or 12 stories will only make those intersections much worse. I would venture to guess that during rush hour those intersections, even with all the new improvements are near an F rating, if not they will be by the time the new building is occupied.

[T-Mac]

Sorry Stenar, I didn't realize we were differentiating between bigger and smaller mountains. My bad. I have lived here all my life of 38 years and know where the larger mountains are.

Orlando, I make the drive all the time out there as I have clients in those office buildings, my uncle lives about a mile south of there and my brother-in-law lives near Wanda Way in the Holladay area.

[Orlando]

So, let me get this straight, you guys think it is totally fine to put a huge monolithic terribly designed building there?!! I guess you guys would totally be fine with building 12 story behemoths in Lehi, Daybreak, Saratoga Springs, etc.? Not only does it block the view, it is poor justification to build that density there!! Let's encourage 12 story densities near city centers, and stop perpetuating sprawl by allowing these things to be built in these locations!!

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Orlando's posts are not in the same the location as the new building is being built. The new building is SW of what used to be the Health Rider Building, the new building is adjacent to 215, not on a corner, as show in Orlando's pictures.

the new building is also well below 215, there are at least 1 story maybe 2 below the 215 grade. I drive out there for a training seminar each Tuesday and the additional stories would not have blocked the views of the mountains from the freeway. The biggest issue with a building of that size is that the traffic in that area is already to congested and the addition of a new building 8 or 12 stories will only make those intersections much worse. I would venture to guess that during rush hour those intersections, even with all the new improvements are near an F rating, if not they will be by the time the new building is occupied.

Well, if it is, then it is even worse because it is closer to the freeway and therefore blocks the view even greater.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Orlando

So, let me get this straight, you guys think it is totally fine to put a huge monolithic terribly designed building there?!! I guess you guys would totally be fine with building 12 story behemoths in Lehi, Daybreak, Saratoga Springs, etc.? Not only does it block the view, it is poor justification to build that density there!! Let's encourage 12 story densities near city centers, and stop perpetuating sprawl by allowing these things to be built in these locations!!

If there were a TRAX station there, along with high density housing, I wouldn't mind the office density so much. These new offices will, however, lower the demand for downtown office space.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Orlando

So, let me get this straight, you guys think it is totally fine to put a huge monolithic terribly designed building there?!! I guess you guys would totally be fine with building 12 story behemoths in Lehi, Daybreak, Saratoga Springs, etc.? Not only does it block the view, it is poor justification to build that density there!! Let's encourage 12 story densities near city centers, and stop perpetuating sprawl by allowing these things to be built in these locations!!

Call a spade a spade and oppose it for being sprawl instead of using BS NIMBY style tactics with view blockage. We have plenty of views here; this isn't freaking San Francisco not being able to peer down at the bay.

That's elitism not proper planning; just ask the people in Boulder Colorado. They have both a green belt and imposed low height rules. Guess who can't afford to live there? everyone who already doesn't live there.

[SLCdude]

I'm glad the zoning change was denied. I strongly dislike office parks due to their auto-oriented nature. Though I can't say the office space that isn't being built here will be contribute to the density downtown, I'd say there's a good chance the businesses that would have been there may at least be located somewhere that's better planned.

[TonyAnderson]

I just never realized the point of freeways was to provide mountain views.

Now, I can understand not wanting a building of that size due to it being in a suburban business park.

[T-Mac]

The clients that I have that are located in those buildings out there take up a few floors of the office space. They have never been located downtown and all of the owners of the companies live in the south end of the valley in Sandy and Draper. They have no desire to be downtown. They just don't want to commute that far.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Call a spade a spade and oppose it for being sprawl instead of using BS NIMBY style tactics with view blockage. We have plenty of views here; this isn't freaking San Francisco not being able to peer down at the bay.

That's elitism not proper planning; just ask the people in Boulder Colorado. They have both a green belt and imposed low height rules. Guess who can't afford to live there? everyone who already doesn't live there.

That's some BS your saying there S.P.! It is view blockage and bad planning! So, a view down to the bay in S.F. is better than the view of those mountains fromt that particular angle????!!!!! Seriously? Move to the bay then.

[Orlando]

I still can't believe that you guys would want a freaking huge monolithic terribly designed building at that location. It's like putting your hand in front of your face, or pretty much flipping the bird at everyone passing by. "Hi. I'm a freakin huge eyesore blocking your view of the mountains. Oh, and I should be in downtown, but people don't like to impose proper planning in this part of the country. So, I get to be built as close to the freeway and show that I am so prominent, and should be more prominent than those mountains in the background."

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Have you driven over there! I used to live over there and I'ld drive on 215 on Knudsen's corner all the time! I was so mad when they started to build those ugly grey box offices right on the hill overlooking the freeway. That area has problay one of the most spectacular views of Twin and Lone Peaks, especially when coming down on I-215 from Olympus Cove. I have a feeling that some of you guys, Tmac & SLC4L have not driven over there very much at all. Here are some pics to show you how your arguments sound like when you don't actually realize the context in which you are talking about. As far as the density arguement goes, that is a super lame excuse to build a 12 story way out next to the mountains!!! Have you seen how little downtown SLC is and how much vacant land there is there??!! With the kind of density argument they were going with and some of you bought into, they might as well build that out in Eagle Mountain.

A three-story building would block those mountains from that view.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Orlando

That's some BS your saying there S.P.! It is view blockage and bad planning! So, a view down to the bay in S.F. is better than the view of those mountains fromt that particular angle????!!!!! Seriously? Move to the bay then.

You know Orlando, you get upset about the nuances of architecture not being taken into consideration. Well if you can't take enough time to stop and weigh the differences between Bay views and Mountain views, I really don't know what to say.

An example, Salt Lake City's mountain views are not passive; you can basically pivot and see them from a different angle if a certain angle is obscured.

Another example, driving into Salt Lake City from the west headed east no matter the skyline (hell drop Denver's skyline in place of ours) and the mountains are going to dominate; such is not the case with every ocean tucked behind a wall of skyscrapers.

So I think a helpful description for something like the bay would be a passive view vs. the Wasatch Front being an assertive view (it commands your acknowledgement from any location in the valley with an exception of the urban canyon on Main Street.

Views are valuable in their scarcity. Any argument otherwise can be used against building ANYTHING ANYWHERE in a developed area. And frankly, there are few view arguments I have seen that I have ever liked, because just look at what happened with San Francisco. Would San Jose have been the sprawl nightmare that it is if San Francisco had created an environment where it was less expensive to build more skyscrapers? Why would a group of people both loathe suburbia and shut out density? Oh I know, because they are elitists.





Salt Lake City skyline, August 2011 by CountyLemonade, on Flickr


Salt Lake City on a clear day by Tony Frates, on Flickr