Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by DCRes

I knew they were building Church Meeting House space on two of the lower levels of the building. When I saw that rendering it suddenly clicked for me. The non-glass portion of the tower is the LDS meeting house, then the glass portion of the first level is the office tower lobby, with the office tower above. Does anybody know if the wards that are currently meeting the Joseph Smith Memorial Building will be moving to this new building? I know there are lot of new residences downtown but I can't imagine that so many of them are active LDS that it would require construction of a new church. Just wondering if they are replacing an older church or if this is net-new.

Does that mean no bars or restaurants (that serve alcohol) 600 feet from the new tower? Because that is some pretty stupid city planning right there.

[Utah_Dave]

I did a lot of driving today. Adobe 2nd phase is well underway. There is also a large development going in on the Draper bench that I assume is Plurasights new building. West Valleys new high rise is topped out and I’m glad they put an interesting roof on the building. It makes a big difference in person. Sorry, no photos.

Just a little wishful thinking on my part but I would hope in the next 25 years or so we will see some high rise residential built along south temple on the east side of town and also along some of the lower avenues. I was think up A street to about 7th-8th Avenue there are some potential high rise possibilities. They would have great views of the city, valley, and capital building. The entire east side of the city between south temple and about 6th-7th south heading east is also an excellent area to build some tall narrow residential towers in the coming decades. Also around liberty park would be a natural fit to for some dense residential. It will be interesting to see what the next 25 years will bring and what areas really see the development I really think 4th south between downtown and the university was a real disappointment in the way it came together and the terribly wide buildings that were put up. The changes they made to the zoning and planning of that area were too late and now that prime area is completely underutilized.

Someone nailed it when they said these buildings will be coming down in the not too distant future

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Does that mean no bars or restaurants (that serve alcohol) 600 feet from the new tower? Because that is some pretty stupid city planning right there.

Yes. It screws any alcohol licenses within proximity. 200 feet as the crow flies and 300 feet "normal walking distance" for restaurants and 600 feet for bars. I hate the legislature.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I did a lot of driving today. Adobe 2nd phase is well underway. There is also a large development going in on the Draper bench that I assume is Plurasights new building. West Valleys new high rise is topped out and I’m glad they put an interesting roof on the building. It makes a big difference in person. Sorry, no photos.

Just a little wishful thinking on my part but I would hope in the next 25 years or so we will see some high rise residential built along south temple on the east side of town and also along some of the lower avenues. I was think up A street to about 7th-8th Avenue there are some potential high rise possibilities. They would have great views of the city, valley, and capital building. The entire east side of the city between south temple and about 6th-7th south heading east is also an excellent area to build some tall narrow residential towers in the coming decades. Also around liberty park would be a natural fit to for some dense residential. It will be interesting to see what the next 25 years will bring and what areas really see the development I really think 4th south between downtown and the university was a real disappointment in the way it came together and the terribly wide buildings that were put up. The changes they made to the zoning and planning of that area were too late and now that prime area is completely underutilized.

Someone nailed it when they said these buildings will be coming down in the not too distant future

I hope that doesn’t happen.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Yes. It screws any alcohol licenses within proximity. 200 feet as the crow flies and 300 feet "normal walking distance" for restaurants and 600 feet for bars. I hate the legislature.

Does this or could it in the future affect the educational liquor license that Harmons has?

[delts145]

Wow, Thanks for calling attention to the Adobe construction. I had all but forgotten about that. Have also been wondering about the Pluralsight construction.

I'm curious as to what you meant by high rise possibilities along sights such as the eastern parts of S. Temple. If by high rise you mean something along the same height as Liberty Sky or taller then it will never happen. I think it's pretty well established that anything taller than a moderate mid rise would never be built in places such as some of the areas you mentioned like the Avenues east and north of 2nd E. I would like to see some handsome mid-rise construction along 7th E., especially across from Liberty Park, but I question high rises of say above 15 floors going up in eastern Salt Lake City beyond say 2nd East. Personally, I would definitely like to see the skyline expand southward and westward, especially along streets such as State and Main, with a good deal of high rise infill on W. Temple.

Don't lose hope in 4th S. There's still a huge amount of undeveloped plots between Downtown and the U. of U. Also, streets like 5th and 6th S., between Downtown and 7th East present even more opportunity. Again though eastward, I think it's wise to keep it at no more than 10 or fewer floors.

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I did a lot of driving today. Adobe 2nd phase is well underway. There is also a large development going in on the Draper bench that I assume is Plurasights new building. West Valleys new high rise is topped out and I’m glad they put an interesting roof on the building. It makes a big difference in person. Sorry, no photos.

Just a little wishful thinking on my part but I would hope in the next 25 years or so we will see some high rise residential built along south temple on the east side of town and also along some of the lower avenues. I was think up A street to about 7th-8th Avenue there are some potential high rise possibilities. They would have great views of the city, valley, and capital building. The entire east side of the city between south temple and about 6th-7th south heading east is also an excellent area to build some tall narrow residential towers in the coming decades. Also around liberty park would be a natural fit to for some dense residential. It will be interesting to see what the next 25 years will bring and what areas really see the development I really think 4th south between downtown and the university was a real disappointment in the way it came together and the terribly wide buildings that were put up. The changes they made to the zoning and planning of that area were too late and now that prime area is completely underutilized.

Someone nailed it when they said these buildings will be coming down in the not too distant future

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Does this or could it in the future affect the educational liquor license that Harmons has?

No. All in place licenses are protected. But if the use of the license lapses, it's gone forever. Yay.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I did a lot of driving today. Adobe 2nd phase is well underway. There is also a large development going in on the Draper bench that I assume is Plurasights new building. West Valleys new high rise is topped out and I’m glad they put an interesting roof on the building. It makes a big difference in person. Sorry, no photos.

Just a little wishful thinking on my part but I would hope in the next 25 years or so we will see some high rise residential built along south temple on the east side of town and also along some of the lower avenues. I was think up A street to about 7th-8th Avenue there are some potential high rise possibilities. They would have great views of the city, valley, and capital building. The entire east side of the city between south temple and about 6th-7th south heading east is also an excellent area to build some tall narrow residential towers in the coming decades. Also around liberty park would be a natural fit to for some dense residential. It will be interesting to see what the next 25 years will bring and what areas really see the development I really think 4th south between downtown and the university was a real disappointment in the way it came together and the terribly wide buildings that were put up. The changes they made to the zoning and planning of that area were too late and now that prime area is completely underutilized.

Someone nailed it when they said these buildings will be coming down in the not too distant future

I like where you are going but I don't see any truly tall development outside of the CBD in SLC except perhaps along a short extension of D1 to include parts of North Temple and 400 S. Too much bias from residents and planners against height outside of the core I'm afraid. There is an amazing level of controversy surrounding adding even one single level to buildings to get them to pencil. My dream would be to see no zoning restrictions outside of the res and industrial zones. Our city is waaaaay over-planned and is now getting the housing prices to prove it:

http://www.homebuyinginstitute.com/n...-utah-markets/

[billbillbillbill]

A few weeks ago, there was talk about if they were going to replace the north office building at the capitol. Looks like we have our answer:

https://www.ksl.com/article/46552422...n-taylorsville

The 60-year-old State Office Building at the north end of the Capitol complex is headed for demolition after legislative leaders voted Tuesday to buy the American Express campus in Taylorsville.

The $30 million purchase authorized by the Legislature's Executive Appropriations Committee is intended to free up parking at the Capitol, a significant problem for the public when the Legislature meets, by relocating some 700 state workers.

Money to pay for the credit card company's buildings will come from $110 million set aside during the 2019 Legislature to deal with the aging structure on Capitol Hill long seen as an eyesore that needed to be replaced.

So they are going to buy the American Express Building off of I-215 and move people there. Sounds like we will be getting a parking lot and landscaping for now.

[delts145]

There are definitely many areas around the CBD, southward and westward that demand taller construction. However, eastward is a difficult sell. Those rare apartment buildings that are of a taller nature on the east side are viewed as a big blunder by a wide range of professionals, blunders that should never have happened. I have to admit, looking at certain cities and their districts that have allowed high rise apartment construction all over their boundaries, aesthetically speaking, they do resemble a hot mess. Salt Lake City is particularly vulnerable to that hot mess look because of its extraordinary and stunning eastern bench and mountain topography.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by billbillbillbill

A few weeks ago, there was talk about if they were going to replace the north office building at the capitol. Looks like we have our answer:

https://www.ksl.com/article/46552422...n-taylorsville



So they are going to buy the American Express Building off of I-215 and move people there. Sounds like we will be getting a parking lot and landscaping for now.

Very interesting Bill, thanks for catching that. In reading the article do I understand this correctly? Short term, American Express is building a new building. The State is going to rehab the Am. Express building and move in its current 400 plus employees on Capitol Hill, plus an additional 1300 scattered around the Valley. This will free up an additional much needed current 400 subterranean and surface parking spaces at the Capitol site. All of this being accomplished with rainy day funds.

Then, depending on future funds, at the very least the current structure will be demolished, and the empty plot will become landscaped gardens. With more future funds available, the plot could become gardens, and a mixed-use structure housing a museum and offices. The whole project sounds like a big win/win situation. The Capitol grounds will be at the very least further enhanced with more beautiful gardens, or even possibly gaining a new museum.

I'm curious now about the new American Express building. Anyone know where it's going up? Any possible renderings?

[Utah_Dave]

There are two older mid rise apartment building on A ave and 6th which gave me the idea to want to see that area add some density. There’s also the condo complex’s on 2nd and 3rd ave that are good examples of what is needed in the areas just east of state street. 4th south is where the “high rise residential” should be located, with 8-12 stories options in strategic locations that would best fit for some of the other areas I mentioned. This was just wishful thinking on my part. I know the south and west part of the Salt Lake valley will continue to be the emphasis of developments. KSL just had an article this morning about the south end of the valley. If we could get the 60 yr old + demographic some good housing options in or near the neighborhoods they currently live in, to down size that effort would help alleviate the housing shortage for families. The entire east side of the valley has this problem, older couples living in homes that are too much for them but they really don’t have good alternative housing to move into. All the dense town homes and mid rise developments are going up on the west side Andy south end of the valley. In my experience, the older folks prefer the neighborhood they are in and lack options in the eastern neighborhoods. The cottonwood mall site would be a perfect location for this type of development in my opinion.

Perhaps my imagination was getting carried away with my early post of high rises on the east side of SLC.... lol.

[SLCLvr]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Just a little wishful thinking on my part but I would hope in the next 25 years or so we will see some high rise residential built along south temple on the east side of town and also along some of the lower avenues. I was think up A street to about 7th-8th Avenue there are some potential high rise possibilities. They would have great views of the city, valley, and capital building. The entire east side of the city between south temple and about 6th-7th south heading east is also an excellent area to build some tall narrow residential towers in the coming decades. Also around liberty park would be a natural fit to for some dense residential. It will be interesting to see what the next 25 years will bring and what areas really see the development
e

South Temple, the lower Avenues, and portions of the central city area are historic districts. The whole preservation effort in Utah was kickstarted when smaller apartment buildings began being built in the Avenues and along South Temple. Not only is there zero possibility of high rise buildings in the Avenues, along South Temple, or anywhere close to Liberty Park, anyone seriously suggesting it would be inciting the greatest public outrage the city has ever seen.

[bob rulz]

There is more than enough land that can be used to build high-rise housing throughout downtown, especially west and south of the CBD, and along the 400 South corridor, that I'm not particularly concerned about higher-density housing being available on the east side.

The density of the east side could be achieved through ADUs, targeted construction of smaller multi-family units (bring back duplexes and fourplexes!), and redevelopment of existing commercial properties into mixed-use buildings as needed.

There is still plenty of land along 400 South to develop as well. It is not a lost cause by any means.

A serious discussion about densification of the east side will have to happen at some point, but as long as we have so many parking lots in the CBD, underutilized commercial land and vacant property (particularly south and west of the CBD), and businesses like car dealerships and huge banks on the periphery of downtown, I think that discussion can wait.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Marvland

I like where you are going but I don't see any truly tall development outside of the CBD in SLC except perhaps along a short extension of D1 to include parts of North Temple and 400 S. Too much bias from residents and planners against height outside of the core I'm afraid. There is an amazing level of controversy surrounding adding even one single level to buildings to get them to pencil. My dream would be to see no zoning restrictions outside of the res and industrial zones. Our city is waaaaay over-planned and is now getting the housing prices to prove it:

http://www.homebuyinginstitute.com/n...-utah-markets/

Is there any evidence that looser planning laws decreases housing costs?

Yes Houston is cheap, but it is also a sprawling mess that goes on forever. We can't do that. And given our limited geography, planning is absolutely necessary. I agree that maybe in some sense we are "over-planned" - I think we could probably consolidate some of the residential and commercial zoning designations that SLC has - but we simply can't just do away with zoning.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Some love from the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/video/three-of-t...4NzjqMgH6inEWQ

More love for Salt Lake City and Utah:


Salt Lake City = #2 Surge City https://www.inc.com/surge-cities/bes...-business.html

4 out of top ten small cities for business startups are from Utah:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...p-verizon.html

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by SLCLvr

South Temple, the lower Avenues, and portions of the central city area are historic districts. The whole preservation effort in Utah was kickstarted when smaller apartment buildings began being built in the Avenues and along South Temple. Not only is there zero possibility of high rise buildings in the Avenues, along South Temple, or anywhere close to Liberty Park, anyone seriously suggesting it would be inciting the greatest public outrage the city has ever seen.

I would have to say I completely agree with you about the reality of the situation. I know there’s plenty of land on the west side of the city. I just have my doubts about that area being a desirable place to live for the money. The opportunity is there, but it will require the proper spark. Patients is the name of the game.

[Orlando]

I think some of you guys are overreacting to the comment made about adding more density and taller buildings to the east of downtown and along south temple, and possibly the lower avenues. There's already precedence for buildings 10 stories or more in those areas. I'm all for it. It's how all big cities grow up. Though, I would do them as residential mid-rise/high-rise with a max. of 12 stories. You can keep the historically significant buildings, and build bigger buildings that match the street character of the area also.

[Marvland]

I

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Is there any evidence that looser planning laws decreases housing costs?

Yes Houston is cheap, but it is also a sprawling mess that goes on forever. We can't do that. And given our limited geography, planning is absolutely necessary. I agree that maybe in some sense we are "over-planned" - I think we could probably consolidate some of the residential and commercial zoning designations that SLC has - but we simply can't just do away with zoning.

Absolutely. There is a massive body of scholarly work dedicated to zoning affects on housing stock and prices. I'll spare you and I the Google battle. Restrictive zoning increases land value and decreases density. For sure. And Houston is absolutely kicking ass as a city right now. Emerging as a world city.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by Marvland

I

Absolutely. There is a massive body of scholarly work dedicated to zoning affects on housing stock and prices. I'll spare you and I the Google battle. Restrictive zoning increases land value and decreases density. For sure. And Houston is absolutely kicking ass as a city right now. Emerging as a world city.

Excessive zoning can increase land value, but I think Houston is a bad example of density.

That being said, excessive zoning can turn into higher land value which can also cause a need for larger and taller development to make the projects “make sense” for the land cost. For example Seattle (and Toronto to an extent)

So I can see the argument either way, I do however must point out that outside of the urban core Seattle really lacks in density and Toronto is a very bad comparable city as it’s a global city and in a completely different tier; but both far more dense and alive than our best example of a city without zoning.

I do have to take a middle ground though, I feel like some zoning is needed, but too much can be suffocating.