Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[SLC Projects]

Treasure hill looks awesome!!!

http://www.treasurehillpc.com/subdoc...xplanation.pdf

[cololi]

Treasure Hill looks horrible!!!!

Why do we always seem to take the heart and soul out of places through development?

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by cololi

Treasure Hill looks horrible!!!!

Why do we always seem to take the heart and soul out of places through development?

Should we just STOP development all together?

God people bitch when a development is too close to something,
but yet people also bitch when a development is too far away from everything say Lehi.

Freaking hell main street is all built out. Would you rather see these developers start tearing down old historical buildings on main to make way for these highrise? At least this project is out of the way, but yet it's still near by everything.
And it's NOT going to kill EVERYTHING on main street. You people need to get over that fear. It's more hotel and condo space for the area!!! If anything it will bring even more people to the area.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Should we just STOP development all together?

God people bitch when a development is too close to something,
but yet people also bitch when a development is too far away from everything say Lehi.

Freaking hell main street is all built out. Would you rather see these developers start tearing down old historical buildings on main to make way for these highrise? At least this project is out of the way, but yet it's still near by everything.
And it's NOT going to kill EVERYTHING on main street. You people need to get over that fear. It's more hotel and condo space for the area!!! If anything it will bring even more people to the area.

Lee, there is no need for highrises in Park City, it is not a business center, not a government center nor a commerce center. I am not opposed 6 story buildings but taller than that will take away from the character of what Park City is. It is not a city, it is an authentic old mining town revived by the ski and arts industry. It will never be a city, as you mentioned, there is no land left. Keep the historic buildings, renovate them... if some become no longer viable, replace them with new buildings that fit in with the feel. This entire Treasure Hill project looks like it should be going in near Emigration Canyon, not Park City.

I don't think anyone on this forum is anti-development, it's just we want to see the appropriate development in the right area. It's organization... It's smart growth.

We all know that living here, growth is inevitable, but haphazard, irresponsible growth like what is happening in Lehi and Sandy and many of the suburbs isn't good for our region as a whole. Look at the big picture, not just a single city's perspective.

[skierforlife17]

this project cant and should not be allowed it will destroy what park city means...

[delts145]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Treasure hill rendering:

I wouldn't even want this look in Salt Lake Valley, let alone Park City. I'm dumbfounded that the Sweenys would even present this architectural design. Are they seriously this unsophisticated, or just completely irresponsible.

Something tells me they're pushing this over-the-top monstrosity in order to land an agreement compromise that will suit their greedy little ambitions.

[nickfreakingrules]

Did ya see the fun car in the plans? I just wanna ride in that!

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

It is not a city, it is an authentic old mining town revived by the ski and arts industry It will never be a city, as you mentioned, there is no land left.

Park City isn't the little old mining town that it used to be. It kind of grown out of that awhile ago. Park City is becoming more like a city then a town. Park City is a ski and arts industry that is run by business and companies. It's about people making money and alot of people come to visit park city every year. Hell we just had the SunDance these past two weeks.
You say it's a "business center" more like a Hotel industry" With all the millions of people who come to park city each year why do you think there are Hotels and Condos popping up everywhere? People need a place to stay and these developers know they can make money from that.
Park City is becoming the "Vegas of Ski" here in Utah. Park City is the hot place to be. With the coolest night clubs and bars unlike Salt Lake. People say just how lame Utah is, but at least we have Park City the "sin city of Utah" LOL I don't know if that kind of growth all at once is good or bad, but I can say that it's great for our local economy.
AT least these developers are trying to do the smart thing by building upwards so that way these buildings won't take up so much open land. If there's anything we want to try to save and keep in that area would be the open land. I'm not saying that a 50-story tower would look great in Park City. But those buildings look to be around 6-12 stories tops. That's smart growth.

[urbanboy]

I think this development would be fine, as long as there is no retail included as part of the development. All retail should be concentrated on Park City's Main Street

However, I do have a concern about the environmental impacts, e.g. watershed, conflicts with natural habitat, etc.

[John Martin]

I really don't think you can compare Park City to Las Vegas. Las Vegas is nothing but a tourist destination, purely because of the abundance of faux buildings and attractions. Park City may not be what it once was, but it's still there only because of its natural beauty. Building unimaginative high-rises right in front of a skiing paradise is only meant to take away from the environment created by the actual environment. If you want to go shopping and have 100 restaurants to choose from, go to Las Vegas. If you want to do that and possibly wear a pair of skis while going down a shallow slope, go to Aspen. The only thing I can slightly agree with you on is that Park City is dead during the summer months, and, frankly, it's still not world class when it is in the spotlight, even when the whole world is coming to stay there. But guess what, I'd bet anything tourists don't go to ski towns to find the latest fashions and foods, they go there to escape the world.

[cololi]

Think about what makes Park City great. If it conjures up 6-10 story buildings creeping further up the mountainside and a "metropolitan" feel, then you have never been there and you have no respect for the history of the place. It is about respecting the place, the environment around it, the historical development pattern, etc. treasure Mt does none of that. There are few resort towns that are able to manage their growth in a way that preserves a places heart and soul and in the and preserve the very thing that makes people want to travel there. Think South lake tahoe vs north lake tahoe. Where would you rather be, in the south where they have had no regard for sight lines, height impacts, and incorporating development into nature, or north lake tahoe where at least some form of growth management consideration has taken place.

I think some form of this project is entirely appropriate. As presented no. The positives of this project is far too small to offset the negatives.

[Wasatch_One]

I would like to see a more natural and unimposing architecture used especially because it will be so prominent standing above Main St. on the hillside.

...And as urbanboy mentioned, primarily residential units with maybe a few small amenities on the base levels for those living in close proximity to the development.

We cannot sellout the history and heritage of PC to outside developers (which I am actually not sure if they are from outside the state or not) ...looking only to cash in on the current national and international cachet of the town.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by nickfreakingrules

Did ya see the fun car in the plans? I just wanna ride in that!

True that, Nick!!

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I think this development would be fine, as long as there is no retail included as part of the development. All retail should be concentrated on Park City's Main Street

However, I do have a concern about the environmental impacts, e.g. watershed, conflicts with natural habitat, etc.

I think I'm on the same page with you on this one, Urban boy. I think they have made an effort to make the buildings unique and I like the whole built-into-the-hillside look. Retail would be best left on Main St. Noting Park City's natural beauty, I do hope that developments like these are kept under control and don't take over the lanscape. I also worry about the environmental impacts this project could potentially have.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by John Martin

I really don't think you can compare Park City to Las Vegas. Las Vegas is nothing but a tourist destination, purely because of the abundance of faux buildings and attractions. Park City may not be what it once was, but it's still there only because of its natural beauty. Building unimaginative high-rises right in front of a skiing paradise is only meant to take away from the environment created by the actual environment. If you want to go shopping and have 100 restaurants to choose from, go to Las Vegas. If you want to do that and possibly wear a pair of skis while going down a shallow slope, go to Aspen. The only thing I can slightly agree with you on is that Park City is dead during the summer months, and, frankly, it's still not world class when it is in the spotlight, even when the whole world is coming to stay there. But guess what, I'd bet anything tourists don't go to ski towns to find the latest fashions and foods, they go there to escape the world.

There's alot there I disagree on.
First I never said it was on the same level as Las Vegas as you make it sound like I did on your post. I said that Park city is like a mini Vegas ( Utah's closet thing to Vegas ) Las Vegas is a hot tourist destination and Park city is also becoming a hot tourist destination. Sure there's no way Park City will ever be as big as Vegas. But again, here in Utah Park City is the Party City of our state and that was the point I was trying to make. when it comes with the restaurants.bars and clubs. Park City is a tourist destination. People don't just come here to ski anymore. Sure that's a big part of it, but there is also shopping, dinning and entertainment. We just had something called SunDance. Kind of a big deal. That has nothing to do with skiing, but tons of tourist showed up for that. That's why hotel space is needed. I do agree with urbanboy who said that retail should stay on main street. That's fine. But more hotel space is needed and that's what makes this project a great idea.
These developers can built highrises and still keep the natural beauty. Like it shows with that pdf i posted on here it shows that 97% of the land in that area will still be open space. This project is only taking up 3% of the land. Now think about this.....If these guys were to built 1-4 story buildings that would take up far more land then these highrises would.

[urbanboy]

I'm sure many people prefer Park City over Vegas.

Perhaps the architect can change the design so that it visually steps up with the mountainside, perhaps even including rooftop gardens. This way the development will not be so visually imposing. I think the imposing nature is intentional, but I don't think the developer should be able to have his cake and eat it too on this one.

[delts145]

I'm beginning to wonder how much of the problem of Treasure Hill lies with the renderings. Remember the rendering of 9th and 9th? The design of the building was interesting and well received, but the exterior treatment was a big question. Infact, I remember the rendering of 9th and 9th looking very much the same as the new Birkhill addition below. Then Ark explained that the new addition would actually be brick, not stucco as it appears. That explanation by Ark completely changed my mindset when looking at the Birkhill project. I also remember how delighted I was to see the choice of brick that was actually used on the 9th & 9th project.

Some of the current visual renderings we're getting of the Treasure Project reminds me of the look of the old Univ. of Ut. Hospital complex. Thankfully, that very dated and unattractive look has been replaced by something much improved.

Just a side note to add to the many positive comments about the new Birkhill addition. The Craftsman style porch/balcony at street level is a very welcome touch of pure charm and class. I'm head over heels enthusiastic about how this new addition greets the street level.

The Sweeneys need to do allot more in regard to their renderings of the Treasure Project. There needs to be an actual and very realistic dimension as to how the Project's size, height and finished look will greet the views from Main Street and various other angles. Again and very critical is the way the rendering is giving us no idea of the actual finished appearance of the structures themselves. Yes, there's a claim of using earth tones and certain types of materials etc., but the renderings give a very sterile and completely un-Park City feel to the structures. It's going to be impossible for the average (visually very picky) Parkite to embrace this project as presented.

Those of us who love Park City with a passion have wrung our hands for years over situations like the Fields Mall on Main. When it was announced that the new owner would be making dramatic changes to it's appearance, the cheers from Park City were audible. The last thing that the people of Park City in general want is to make the same kind of visual design mistake that was made with the Field's Project.

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Actually very little of the facade of these buildings will include stucco.
It doesn't convey very well in the rendering, but the only stucco will be the cream-colored areas circled below. The rest of the elevation will be brick that matches the existing building, and the orange and brown colored sections shown will be painted hardie-board.



Most of the stucco will be limited to the alley side of the building.

[Future Mayor]

I have to side with those that feel that the treasure mtn project is a good idea, for the most part. Yes the design needs to be altered to better incorporate with the surroundings, and develeopers more often than not will always propose a project with more height and more density than they really need in order to make a profit, they do this simply for one simple reason, because so many people freak out about how many units per acre or how tall it will be, when the appease the masses with lower heights or lower densities they are simply lowering those to the number were they will make a profit. If they proposed it at the very minimum break even and then had to reduce it, a larger majority would never be completed.

John, you talked about if someone wants to go shopping or to a restaurant than they should go to Vegas. Have you been on Main St in PC lately, have you looked at some of the stores and restaurants and the prices they charge for their goods? Many of them are pretty Vegasesque in that regard.

The main focus of retail in PC should be on Main St. but there will be a need for a small amount of retail in the development.

With better design or better clarification of the design with regards to the surroundings, and with the eventual reduction in height or density this project. The conserving of open space, creating a walkable resort while still keeping up with an ever growing demand in PC, this could be a nice addition to PC and the overall economy of UT.

[cololi]

The problem with the treasure mt site is that access is difficult. There is no public transportation to the site and roads make it difficult. It is also very difficult to service the site due to the slope of the roads. I forget the name of the street, but the north-south access presents some challenges that require further cutting into the hillside to widen it for access as mentioned in their proposal. There also is no storm drain in that street, so cutting into the hillside creates water runoff issues for downhill users. It is also not a very walkable site due to the hills. The people mover helps, but will it run all the time, will it require a fee, how ADA accessible will it be, etc/ There are a lot of questions that need to be answered and their proposal needs to be refined more.

park city may need more hotel rooms, but they need more hotel rooms that are convenient to main st. right now, there aren't many (maybe 4-5) within easy walking distance to main st. I have no problem with PC wanting to expand the tourism draw, but it needs to happen in places where it makes sense. I would prefer to the City go into a joint partnership with the developer and PCMR that would result in the parking lots at the base of the resort being developed with structured parking prior to open space being developed. I also think reclaiming the mining sites in Empire Canyon is a prudent use of space. by the way, they have a 10 story structure going in there that will be the tallest in the park city area.

[TANGELD_SLC]

I'm with Projects. I really like Treasure Hill and I think it can only be an asset to Park City