Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Gastroc

I have stayed very close to this story as I am a Holladay resident.. At first, I was absolutely for this proposal to be approved. I am obviously, PRO DEVELOPMENT or I wouldn't be following this tread... I would often get into debates about how SL county is growing and the only way for it to grow is to go UP.. That site, needs to be developed and hopefully it will.

Then, I was having an interesting conversation with a guy in my neighborhood who owns a very successful luxury home building company who told me he was against the proposal. He said his NUMBER ONE reason for voting against the proposal is not because he is anti-development in Holladay but because Ivory Homes and Woodbury Corp. are in charge of the project... In his experience they are the ULTIMATE penny pinchers and do tacky (stucco) work. I mean, just look at Ivory Homes, they suck.. Holladay is a classy town, just look at our recent downtown additions. He said he would be more than happy to vote for a project that was done the RIGHT WAY by developers (preferably not from Utah) who know how to do high class projects... Lets face it, Utah is full of cheapskates, it's part of the culture.

Anyways, just thought I'd add my two cents. I think a lot of people understand that the site is going to be developed but also want to keep the Holladay charm and classiness that Holladay is used to and that would not be the case with Ivory or Woodbury. I do think SOME Holladay residents do not want anything to go there, ever.. That site needs to be developed but it should be done the right way or not at all.

I have suspected this was a part of the problem. I remember a few years ago when Cowboy Partners was also wanting to develop a particular area in the Holladay Village. Remember when we all loathed the quality of much of Cowboy's work? Anyway, despite all of the hype Cowboy Partner's were putting out about their project city leader and concerned citizens believed it was going to be on the cheap. After looking behind the curtain a lot closer Holladay felt it's fears were being confirmed. It wasn't the development so much as the lack of charm and cheap feel of the whole thing. Much of what they want is what we are alway's yelling for on this forum, and that is less linear frontage. Projects like Sugar House Crossing will never fly for the foreseeable future in Holladay

[tchild2]

Originally Posted by nushiof

It really feels like there is real momentum for a huge 2019 downtown.

What I love about the CCH, Tower 8, Liberty Sky and Block 67 is (1) they stretch our skyline both east and west and (2) they are a good mix of residential, commercial, and hospitality putting more residents, workers, and tourists on our streets.

If all four of these break ground next year, that would be amazing.

I agree. 325 height is a bit disappointing, but it is the migration of midsize highrises to the east and west of Main street that is going to fatten the skyline in an aesthetic manner.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Gastroc

I have stayed very close to this story as I am a Holladay resident.. At first, I was absolutely for this proposal to be approved. I am obviously, PRO DEVELOPMENT or I wouldn't be following this tread... I would often get into debates about how SL county is growing and the only way for it to grow is to go UP.. That site, needs to be developed and hopefully it will.

Then, I was having an interesting conversation with a guy in my neighborhood who owns a very successful luxury home building company who told me he was against the proposal. He said his NUMBER ONE reason for voting against the proposal is not because he is anti-development in Holladay but because Ivory Homes and Woodbury Corp. are in charge of the project... In his experience they are the ULTIMATE penny pinchers and do tacky (stucco) work. I mean, just look at Ivory Homes, they suck.. Holladay is a classy town, just look at our recent downtown additions. He said he would be more than happy to vote for a project that was done the RIGHT WAY by developers (preferably not from Utah) who know how to do high class projects... Lets face it, Utah is full of cheapskates, it's part of the culture.

Anyways, just thought I'd add my two cents. I think a lot of people understand that the site is going to be developed but also want to keep the Holladay charm and classiness that Holladay is used to and that would not be the case with Ivory or Woodbury. I do think SOME Holladay residents do not want anything to go there, ever.. That site needs to be developed but it should be done the right way or not at all.

Screw the 250k utah households that don't have homes because there aren't enough homes.

#nimbynonsense

Srsly look at the numbers people! We have less than a million homes and we are 250k short to meet our needs. That's 1/4! We need the herriman thing and the Holiday thing and a shit load more!

Classy? It was a shit mall on a busy road for 30 years. Give me a break

[Gastroc]

Originally Posted by delts145

I have suspected this was a part of the problem. I remember a few years ago when Cowboy Partners was also wanting to develop a particular area in the Holladay Village. Remember when we all loathed the quality of much of Cowboy's work? Anyway, despite all of the hype Cowboy Partner's were putting out about their project city leader and concerned citizens believed it was going to be on the cheap. After looking behind the curtain a lot closer Holladay felt it's fears were being confirmed. It wasn't the development so much as the lack of charm and cheap feel of the whole thing. Much of what they want is what we are alway's yelling for on this forum, and that is less linear frontage. Projects like Sugar House Crossing will never fly for the foreseeable future in Holladay

Well put, Delts. Glad someone else understands and can see the big picture of what is actually going on...

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Screw the 250k utah households that don't have homes because there aren't enough homes.

#nimbynonsense

Srsly look at the numbers people! We have less than a million homes and we are 250k short to meet our needs. That's 1/4! We need the herriman thing and the Holiday thing and a shit load more!

Classy? It was a shit mall on a busy road for 30 years. Give me a break

Except the Herriman thing ought to be built in S. Salt Lake or Murray or something, not in the middle of nowhere with no vehicular access.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Gastroc

I have stayed very close to this story as I am a Holladay resident.. At first, I was absolutely for this proposal to be approved. I am obviously, PRO DEVELOPMENT or I wouldn't be following this tread... I would often get into debates about how SL county is growing and the only way for it to grow is to go UP.. That site, needs to be developed and hopefully it will.

Then, I was having an interesting conversation with a guy in my neighborhood who owns a very successful luxury home building company who told me he was against the proposal. He said his NUMBER ONE reason for voting against the proposal is not because he is anti-development in Holladay but because Ivory Homes and Woodbury Corp. are in charge of the project... In his experience they are the ULTIMATE penny pinchers and do tacky (stucco) work. I mean, just look at Ivory Homes, they suck.. Holladay is a classy town, just look at our recent downtown additions. He said he would be more than happy to vote for a project that was done the RIGHT WAY by developers (preferably not from Utah) who know how to do high class projects... Lets face it, Utah is full of cheapskates, it's part of the culture.

Anyways, just thought I'd add my two cents. I think a lot of people understand that the site is going to be developed but also want to keep the Holladay charm and classiness that Holladay is used to and that would not be the case with Ivory or Woodbury. I do think SOME Holladay residents do not want anything to go there, ever.. That site needs to be developed but it should be done the right way or not at all.

So do you really think citizens should have the power to veto a project because they don’t like the builder or think they don’t do nice enough work? Think about the ramifications of such a standard. How would you possible get many projects built? Everybody has their subjective standard for enough quality. How would we possibly build enough affordable housing? Frankly this smacks of elistim where the nice classy Holladay doesn’t want certain types of people and income levels in its town. Gastroc, your post is why I don’t want citizens to have wide latitude to challenge developments and why I really hope the Supreme Court decides in favor of developer rights. I don’t blame you for your feelings, but this is the dark side of zoning and how it creates so many problems when it is not balanced with strong developer rights.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Except the Herriman thing ought to be built in S. Salt Lake or Murray or something, not in the middle of nowhere with no vehicular access.

Amen to that.

[Orlando]

.

[taboubak]

Now that I read into it more I believe the Convention Center Hotel will be 375' and the 325' is a mistake. However it will not be our new tallest. We will have to keep waiting, and there currently ate not alot of options on who could possibly give us a new tallest. My guess is the Church would have to be the ones to do it. The church has the states largest tourist attraction in the temple and the conference center, and both don't really have a major hotel right next to them. I think the church should develop the parking lot on North temple and state across the street from the Church Office Tower. They could build a hotel to house the many thousands of visitors that visit their sites each and every day. If they wanted they could even add more office space for their headquarters to over flow into and make it a mixed use development. Either way the church is probably the best bet on a new tallest right now, and their office building has been the defining peice of the SLC skyline for decades. Until then however, I am gald to see alot of 350+ ft towers filling in the skyline I hope all of them get built, so that one day when we finally do get our signature tower our skyline will be ready for it.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

1) Tall buildings are really good at the whole density thing. In fact it is the whole point of tall buildings. A lot of people in a small footprint.

2) It's not an either or proposition. Development begets development. It snowballs, especially when the fundamentals for growth are already in place. I'd rather have 2 500 footers and 4-5 300 footers.

I'm talking about density of buildings. We don't really need much more than 500 feet IMHO. I think Vancouver has one of the most beautiful skylines on the continent and they only have a few taller than 500 feet, but they have dozens of 300-475 footers. My comment was more about super talls. I still haven't been near one outside super dense cities that wows me from street level. That's more of a "from a distance skyline" game. I'm more interested in all of the infill and medium towers we have planned.

As far as form, location and flow, Santiago Chile shares a bunch in common with SLC, (including horrible inversions). They recently got a super-tall but it now looks just as goofy as the OKC tower.



I think SLC can do a shit ton of medium towers and be just fine. The more important aspect to me is more AGGRESSIVE design.

[Gastroc]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

So do you really think citizens should have the power to veto a project because they don’t like the builder or think they don’t do nice enough work? Think about the ramifications of such a standard. How would you possible get many projects built? Everybody has their subjective standard for enough quality. How would we possibly build enough affordable housing? Frankly this smacks of elistim where the nice classy Holladay doesn’t want certain types of people and income levels in its town. Gastroc, your post is why I don’t want citizens to have wide latitude to challenge developments and why I really hope the Supreme Court decides in favor of developer rights. I don’t blame you for your feelings, but this is the dark side of zoning and how it creates so many problems when it is not balanced with strong developer rights.

The whole situation got messy and I ultimately do not think citizens should have the ultimate say but the reality is that they do in some cases, especially when they have money and power. I don't know the solution honestly but I can't say that I am mad that Ivory and Woodbury got rejected. As an example, look at the story behind the building of the New England Patriots stadium. The stadium was proposed and then relocated like 3 or 4 times due to people not wanting it built in their backyard. Again, not saying that is how it should be but it happens from time to time.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Except the Herriman thing ought to be built in S. Salt Lake or Murray or something, not in the middle of nowhere with no vehicular access.

No it should be built in both because we are 250k homes short of full housing and... we're still growing at break neck pace.

1)SLC, SSL, Murray etc aren't going to absorb all the growth. It's not going to happen.

2) higher densities are still preferable on the periphery of the county. You know what might ease congestion? People not having to drive 5-10 miles for everything because their quadrant of the county is too sparsely populated.People being able to choose transit because their quadrant of the county finally made the right decision and allowed for the density to support it. The big Lots with the 2 car garages are the problem.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Marvland

I'm talking about density of buildings. We don't really need much more than 500 feet IMHO. I think Vancouver has one of the most beautiful skylines on the continent and they only have a few taller than 500 feet, but they have dozens of 300-475 footers. My comment was more about super talls. I still haven't been near one outside super dense cities that wows me from street level. That's more of a "from a distance skyline" game. I'm more interested in all of the infill and medium towers we have planned.

As far as form, location and flow, Santiago Chile shares a bunch in common with SLC, (including horrible inversions). They recently got a super-tall but it now looks just as goofy as the OKC tower.



I think SLC can do a shit ton of medium towers and be just fine. The more important aspect to me is more AGGRESSIVE design.

I can agree with that for the most part. I too want aggressive design but I understand the need for projects to pencil out.

So you are going tall and kinda bland, I can live with that.

You want to build a 400 foot wide apt building? Let's design review this one.

[delts145]

ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST - The 9 Best New University Buildings Around the World

Some of the world’s most famous architects—Robert A.M. Stern, David Piscuskas, Thom Mayne, among them—went back to the books to marry design and academia

Lacey Morris for Architectural Digest
Full List of 9 best and Copy @ https://www.architecturaldigest.com/...ound-the-world

Lassonde Studios, University of Utah


One of the first design elements guests of the University of Utah’s Lassonde Studios will notice is an all-copper façade. The $45 million project by Yazdani Studio of Cannon Design in association with EDA Architects opened in August 2016, and its copper exterior is made to fade and change color as it ages. Lassonde Studios is part of the Lassonde Entrepreneur Institute, a division of the David Eccles School of Business, and its innovative design was made to attract the brightest young entrepreneurs to the university. The structure is built on a grid system, which will allow rooms to be easily reconfigured as demands for the space fluctuate.

.

[Comrade]

lol the Cottonwood Mall has been gone for years now and the lot still sits empty because of the continued rejection of that community to any type of legit development there. The only development I'm convinced residents in Holladay will support is a strip mall with suburban apartments built next to it. It's a mindset I absolutely do not want in Salt Lake City.

Shit. I got antsy with how long the SugarHouse hole was around and that was only for like half the time the Cottonwood site has been vacant. They demolished the mall a DECADE ago.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Comrade

lol the Cottonwood Mall has been gone for years now and the lot still sits empty because of the continued rejection of that community to any type of legit development there. The only development I'm convinced residents in Holladay will support is a strip mall with suburban apartments built next to it. It's a mindset I absolutely do not want in Salt Lake City.

Shit. I got antsy with how long the SugarHouse hole was around and that was only for like half the time the Cottonwood site has been vacant. They demolished the mall a DECADE ago.

One of my favorite quotes is from one of the guys who has organized the referendum. He said he is concerned by the traffic from all the housing and instead wants more retail. I am not a traffic engineer, but retail is a much bigger generator of traffic than housing. SLC housing prices are not coming down anytime soon unless a major recession hits.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

1) Tall buildings are really good at the whole density thing. In fact it is the whole point of tall buildings. A lot of people in a small footprint.

2) It's not an either or proposition. Development begets development. It snowballs, especially when the fundamentals for growth are already in place. I'd rather have 2 500 footers and 4-5 300 footers.

This is blatantly false. If that were the case, then European cities would not be such amazing examples of dense, walkable design. I understand that we are not Europe and never will be, but you simply don't need supertall skyscrapers to create dense, liveable cities.

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

One of my favorite quotes is from one of the guys who has organized the referendum. He said he is concerned by the traffic from all the housing and instead wants more retail. I am not a traffic engineer, but retail is a much bigger generator of traffic than housing. SLC housing prices are not coming down anytime soon unless a major recession hits.

People who complain about not having enough retail simply don't understand the market we live under. Amazon has made physical retail so much riskier than it used to be.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

No it should be built in both because we are 250k homes short of full housing and... we're still growing at break neck pace.

1)SLC, SSL, Murray etc aren't going to absorb all the growth. It's not going to happen.

2) higher densities are still preferable on the periphery of the county. You know what might ease congestion? People not having to drive 5-10 miles for everything because their quadrant of the county is too sparsely populated.People being able to choose transit because their quadrant of the county finally made the right decision and allowed for the density to support it. The big Lots with the 2 car garages are the problem.

I agree that the far-suburban and exurban developments need to start becoming denser, and believe it or not they are. Those big lots with 2-car garages are not being built nearly as often as they were before the recession. In fact a lot of new development even in Herriman, Riverton, and South Jordan, is townhomes, or single-family homes on small lots.

However, that huge super-dense development near Herriman that was proposed is not the solution. There is good density and bad density - believe it or not, density in and of itself is not the solution to all problems. That development was a prime example of bad density - density for density's sake. Density of that level only works in areas that have pre-existing infrastructure with ready access to transit. What needs to happen is smart design that creates a framework for more mixed-use development, that is allowed to become denser over time. Daybreak is a pretty good example honestly. I wouldn't mind going a bit denser than Daybreak out there, but at least Daybreak is developing that resilient framework.

[Denvergotback]

I completely agree about density and street engagement over tall buildings, but I can't help but hope (and want) for Salt Lake to have the ambitions to reach for the sky. Not to the extent of Santiago or OKC, that just looks quite frankly, stupid. But rather I want them to break the mold and reach higher, all while still adding a ton of infill. I understand the culture in Utah is very conservative and not real ambitious, but how can you expect them to change their mindset if you continue to build the same type of stuff?

I grew up in a conservative family just outside of Phoenix, not that I was against being open minded and big cities or anything, I just didn't know any better. We lived in Mesa and we would only stay in the suburbs, whenever we would travel we would only stay in the suburbs of those other cities; I would always think that every big city was basically the same just because all suburbs everywhere looked the exact same.

It wasn't until I went on a trip after high school 7 years ago that I went off and traveled with some friends, we traveled to Los Angeles and I remember we drove right by downtown LA, we all pressed our heads to the windows and we were all mesmerized from seeing all the tall buildings at night. Seeing the tall buildings from the freeway made me fall instantly in love with big cities. I never been in a central city before, nor have I really ever seen one (especially being from PHX)

It was the tall buildings, the skyline that drew me in... It made me fascinated about big cities and I always wanted to drive by the tall buildings, that made me want to go in the city itself. Once I got in the big city, it was the density and the street engagement that made me fall in love with cities and wanted to live in them. It was a completely different experience and it has since made me love to travel even more.

My long (probably too long) point is, is that Salt Lake needs to break through their ceiling and build something outstanding, something to draw people in so they can experience what the city has to offer. As much as I like midsize buildings, they don't draw me in unless there is a ton of them (For example: Vancouver). If there is only a few of them they don't really catch my attention or draw me in. Like what was mentioned, this isn't Europe and never will be. This isn't the same mentality as the east coast, this is suburb mania, and at this point in time I believe Salt Lake needs to build something extraordinary and pleasing to draw the attention of the people in Utah.

My wife's family all lives in Utah, and to them (and many other people I know there) Salt Lake is just a place to go see temple square and a Jazz game, then they go home. They don't realize there is more to it than that, I just cant help wonder what a difference the culture would be there if the residence (especially the young adults) knew what Salt Lake had to offer.

So in long story short, I agree, build the pleasant mid size buildings with high density and street engagement, but it would be so cool to also push the envelope of the norm.

[Denvergotback]

Sorry one last thing to add!

continuing on my post above, maybe I'm an outlier or maybe there are more people drawn to tall buildings also, but when I look at Downtown Dallas or Houston, they have the wow factor from the distance, they have that image of intrigue, but unfortunately when you go in them, there is nothing there to retain you.

Salt Lake is constantly adding street engagement and density, it has what Dallas and Houston don't, it has the retaining effect. What it lacks is the wow factor of intrigue.

It just takes one or two WOW buildings

Like that stupid quote, "If you build it, they will come!"

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by asies1981

More info on Brinshore's projects. Looks like there will be two towers at the State Street site.

Were there any renderings for this? I assume that there were. Can anyone dig for them and post on here?