Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[scottharding]

The irrelevant thread is more than irrelevant. It's stupid. No other region of this forum has felt the need to create a thread to argue opinions. I never check that thread because I'm not interested in what other people think about my choice of religion, lifestyle, race, demographic, or neighborhood. Those that do want to go in there and fight should expect to be offended. That is the only function of that thread, in the end.
Hopefully people will wise-up and let the irrelevant thread disappear. I think its existence is an embarassment to Utah on this forum. I shudder when I think of when people from other parts of the region go in there just out of curiousity. What an impression it must make.

[Comrade]

This is why I haven't stepped foot in that thread.

Seriously, let's not take this internet thing too seriously to the point where you stomp off and leave the board.

[WeST]

I personally like the idea of an irrelevant thread. It funnels topics that are off topic and borderline off topic into a forum that is a catch all. I think that personal attacks are ridiculous, but debating issues is great. It also can serve the purpose of holding discussions related to development, but only indirectly. I don't understand why some forumers can't handle having their beliefs challenged. I appreciate Delts wanting to have this as a place of positive reinforcement, but having that all the time would be boring.

I have no problem if other forumers disagree and challenge everything I say. I welcome having to defend by views. One of the things that motivated me to begin contributing to this forum was to challenge my views and others. I think vigorous debate and discussion is essential to better outcomes. You can't improve yourself in life if you are so sensitive to critiques and challenges.

[DMTower]

For the past little while most of this sort of discussion has directed itself to the Irrelevant thread... it seems that in the past few pages that has started to bleed back into these threads. Why don't we just stop talking about it, or at least continue our non-development discussion in the thread that people are complaining about... the Irrelevant thread.

[John Martin]

Yes, I like that area (right at the mouth of Emigration). I know my grandmother lived up there, and I just went up there to explore a few months ago, as I hadn't been there in at least a decade. I was actually just scouting places to get good shots of the downtown skyline but realized there's an interesting atmosphere in that area. I'm curious to know how old most of the buildings in that area are, some were obviously brand new. There's also a really nice big park to the west, seems like an excellent area.

[Justnslcsugarhood.]

so, Urbana on eleventh is going up!!!

[T-Mac]

Broadway Park Lofts

[WeST]

Downtown Alliance Executive Director Talks About Future of Downtown

http://utahpolicy.com/featured_article/jason-mathis-executive-director-downtown-alliance

[wrendog]

I wonder why that area is never mentioned or discussed on here. I nominate T-Mac to drive up there to take some street level pics of the area. All in favor? Say aye!

[Comrade]

I've mentioned it before and I did a photo thread a few years ago.

But I'm not sure how many photos remain from there, since I lost much of my photos when I got a new computer.

Here's what I have found, though:







The street-level isn't anything interesting.

[cololi]

that density belongs in a more urban neighborhood. Not on the foothills. It kind of sucks that you have one of the most dense areas in the City (on a per acre basis) and it is completely removed from everything. You need a car for everything, except to go to the park and the zoo. Most of those things were built 20+ years ago. the zoning in t hat area changed in 1995, with a few lots having development agreements that were/are still valid. I think only two developments have been built since, and I think there is maybe one more parcel that can be developed in a similar fashion.

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by cololi

that density belongs in a more urban neighborhood. Not on the foothills. It kind of sucks that you have one of the most dense areas in the City (on a per acre basis) and it is completely removed from everything. You need a car for everything, except to go to the park and the zoo. Most of those things were built 20+ years ago. the zoning in t hat area changed in 1995, with a few lots having development agreements that were/are still valid. I think only two developments have been built since, and I think there is maybe one more parcel that can be developed in a similar fashion.

It definitely does not suck.

If you are lucky (ie Salt Lake City) you have gorgeous sight views that are spectacular.

It does not suck that they were built where they are. What a great area. Great view, you have a sense of being removed... PLUS you are still close to the downtown etc.

I remember going out with a girl that lived in the white structure in the center. It was NICE!

High rise...(maybe mid rise) should not be relegated to urban downtowns.

[cololi]

I hear ya, but it does suck that there is virtually nothing else there. You literally cannot walk to anything except the park and zoo. I think that is what I was getting at, not so much that the apartments and condos are there, but there is nothing else there. I wonder if any sort of street level commercial would be successful there, meaning is there enough rooftops to be the sole support for even one or two businesses?

And High rise should most definetely be in an urban setting. Mid rise (10 stories or less), sure, pop them up in appropriate locations with appropriate uses.

[esirhgih]

Actually, I don't know how well a retail or restaurant space would do there. It seems that most of the people that live there are too old or wealthy to be bothered with walking around their neighborhood. They'd much rather drive to Foothill Village. It would take a lot more than a zoning change to make it work, there would have to be demand. Suncrest is a similar story. Most of the people who live there are content to just drive down the mountain for whatever they need. As odd as it may sound, the market up there closed last year because there was little demand for a store there. Same reason I rarely see any of the elderly mormons who live in condos downtown or the residents of American Towers walking around the city center and shopping. They don't want to and would rather drive to a store somewhere else.

If you've never been up there to see what its like at street level, just look at the google street views of the area. There is nothing urban about it at all.

[jmonkey]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

The street-level isn't anything interesting.

I really like that building--the one on top--call me crazy. But the rest of the buildings there--meh. And comrade is totally right about the street level. It's a typical suburban streetscape, with some higher density buildings thrown in. There isn't a business anywhere in the neighborhood to my knowledge. It's completely car-centric. But I bet they have killer views.!

Speaking of killer views, thanks for the pics from atop the City County Building, cololi!! Were you out on the catwalk?

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

I've mentioned it before and I did a photo thread a few years ago.

But I'm not sure how many photos remain from there, since I lost much of my photos when I got a new computer.

Here's what I have found, though:







The street-level isn't anything interesting.

Thanks for the pics... That would be a perfect area to have street level retail... groceries, delis, cafes etc. Oh well.

[Comrade]

Yes, it's unfortunate the area was so poorly developed. I know there were talks of building more high-rises where the zoo stands had they moved out to the middle of the valley (as was proposed earlier this decade). Obviously, though, that isn't happening.

The street names up there are interesting. One is named after President Kennedy and the other after the goddamn Donner Party.

And for those who are interested in what the streets look like:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...3Xvk82iFLr-ZSS2LTA&cbp=12,11.93,,0,-5.71

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...vz44g1suWlOh4KOhsnxcw&cbp=12,0.97,,0,1.8

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...g1suWlOh4KOhsnxcw&cbp=12,214.11,,0,-0.91

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...J0WUKKVgJQT0ax2dw&cbp=12,100.35,,0,-0.01

Pathetic, actually.

[Future Mayor]

It really is to bad that there was no small retail planned. Even a coffee shop or a little convenience type store would be nice for the neighborhood, I'm sure a dry cleaners would do killer business up there. It would be a huge change to be able to get a decent size retail outlet/grocery store up there but even a few small shops would improve it so much. The residents would have to get in their cars for absolutely EVERYTHING.

I'm sure they could manage to find space for a small market like the one at the top of Suncrest in Draper.

[WeST]

I don't see why there can't be some rezoning to allow mixed use development and some stand alone retail. There seems to be plenty of room to remedy this mistake.

[delts145]

Exactly WeST, delivery service is often the norm for seniors in New York, even when the market is right on the street below the building. I think there are several types of businesses that could flourish in that type of senior, upscale environment. Delivery service would be a must.

When the majority of those buildings were constructed, their typical buyer would be someone who both appreciated the views and the quiet,(what we call dead). Times are changing perhaps, as people like us, who appreciate a more urban setting become more numerous, and will someday approach these type of projects with different demands.