Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by scottharding

There's working happening at the Convexity site today. A backhoe is excavating.

Alright alright alright! Also, based on the citizen portal entry for the project that has been updated as of 2/9, it looks like their building permit was probably issued!

EDIT: Photo from Reddit user u/HossTR showing the site (with 255 S State and Moda Luxe in the background)

[Atlas]

double post, delete

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by i-215

This. Right here? This is gentrification, by the way.

Not attacking you personally, Ironweed. But just want to show how the NIMBY/whiteflight/gentrification sneaks up on every community, including us.

We're all for helping the homeless someplace else.
We're all for affordable housing someplace else.

But there's never actually a "someplace else."

You have a great point. I have my prejudices, I'm sure.

I actually work in homeless outreach as a volunteer. They are human beings, and need help. Mostly from themselves. Mental illness and drug abuse are hard to beat. They have to want to. Most don't.

Only concern from me is drug abuse and human refuse.

It will be an interesting contrast with the new building. Let's see how it works out.

[LuisPanzer]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Alright alright alright! Also, based on the citizen portal entry for the project that has been updated as of 2/9, it looks like their building permit was probably issued!

EDIT: Photo from Reddit user u/HossTR showing the site (with 255 S State and Moda Luxe in the background)

I thought the Worthington Tower Project was getting a re design? or did they finalize the final design already?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

I actually work in homeless outreach as a volunteer.

Well, you put me in my place. Honestly, I'm a keyboard warrior (useless). You are actually out there doing something.

[Blah_Amazing]

I guess my take is that St Vincent's location made sense when the Road Home was located across the street, since both served mostly the same people.

With the Road Home gone and that property now in private hands, it really doesn't make much sense to have St Vincent where it currently is, rather than relocate near one (or more) of the new homeless resource centers.

Another idea is that they could discuss with St Vincent on possibly relocating their site to the proposed 'tiny home' community Salt Lake City has been working on. It has faced some delays, but I think is still likely to happen.



Some articles on it:
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/7/...-side-homeless

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/mas...e-if-approved/

Either way, the current location, without the Road Home there, is actually inconvenient for those experiencing homelessness. It's location is away from any homeless resource center, so it actually both encourages the types loitering in Rio Grande area that has made the west side of Downtown so notorious to begin with, while also forcing them to trek back and forth across the city for aid.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

I guess my take is that St Vincent's location made sense when the Road Home was located across the street, since both served mostly the same people.

With the Road Home gone and that property now in private hands, it really doesn't make much sense to have St Vincent where it currently is, rather than relocate near one (or more) of the new homeless resource centers.

Another idea is that they could discuss with St Vincent on possibly relocating their site to the proposed 'tiny home' community Salt Lake City has been working on. It has faced some delays, but I think is still likely to happen.



Some articles on it:
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/7/...-side-homeless

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/mas...e-if-approved/

Either way, the current location, without the Road Home there, is actually inconvenient for those experiencing homelessness. It's location is away from any homeless resource center, so it actually both encourages the types loitering in Rio Grande area that has made the west side of Downtown so notorious to begin with, while also forcing them to trek back and forth across the city for aid.

If that happened, then you would probably need either to have the 4th street clinic relocate as well or open additional clinical services at the community.

[delts145]

Pictured, is Kier's most recent photo of Greenprint Gateway. Someone remind me what that is going up now across the street on the southeast corner? Amazing how that area is exploding!


https://www.kier.org/wp-content/uplo...022-1459-E.jpg

[Atlas]

delts, the one on the southeast corner is "Central Station West" which prior to design review was quite literally a low-effort mirror image of the "Central Station Apartments" a few doors east. It was so similar that they didn't even bother making a new rendering.

After some community/commission pushback they added a small ground floor retail space on the corner and updated the rendering:

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

If that happened, then you would probably need either to have the 4th street clinic relocate as well or open additional clinical services at the community.

You are correct, Always Sunny. There are also plenty of other resources still in the area such as the Salvation Army, Family Promise, VOA (youth homeless), Palmer Court, etc.

I’m wary of moving these resources simply to accommodate the comfort of prospective residents. The homeless are members of our community too and deserve to be considered when discussing development.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

You are correct, Always Sunny. There are also plenty of other resources still in the area such as the Salvation Army, Family Promise, VOA (youth homeless), Palmer Court, etc.

I’m wary of moving these resources simply to accommodate the comfort of prospective residents. The homeless are members of our community too and deserve to be considered when discussing development.

The way I look at it is there will likely be demand for those apartments. But those new people, along with huge influx of people from the other apartment complexes going up right now in the gateway area, will create more stakeholders for change. It may not happen overnight, but it will change the area. I worked for almost a decade on that block and experienced firsthand the criminal element homelessness can bring (multiple break-ins to my car and my co-worker getting assaulted in broad daylight).

Criticizing homelessness doesn’t make you a “nimby”or a “gentrifiier”. Those people are, of course, people, and no one is better than anyone else. Sadly, many are on drugs and/or mentally ill. Some have served our country well in war.
The crazy part about homelessness as political policy is that we can’t seem to figure out what works - only what doesn’t work.

We know by sad experience that the historical way of approaching homelessness -putting those people in jail - does not work. People can’t get out of the cycle and get what they really need. Instead, they just get criminal records which make getting services harder. Instead, homeless advocate have pushed “decriminalizing” homelessness. Sadly, these new policies have only added fuel to the homelessness fire and led to open air drug markets and unsafe camp cities.

I thought operation Rio grand was a great idea and executed well as it focused on both order and legitimate care. That being said, I don’t think it put a dent in the overall problem. My point is nothing seems to work and attacking each others’ motives will not get us anywhere.

[bob rulz]

Our country has failed our veterans and our mentally ill. No one city can "solve" homelessness, because it's a result of our country's erosion of social services and growing wealth inequality. I know everywhere has homelessness, but other wealthy countries have a much better handle on it than we do because they actually take care of their people.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by mattreedah

I thought operation Rio grand was a great idea and executed well as it focused on both order and legitimate care. That being said, I don’t think it put a dent in the overall problem. My point is nothing seems to work and attacking each others’ motives will not get us anywhere.

I was a supporter of operation Rio Grande also. I think you’re right that it didn’t really dent the problem. More seemed to spread it out, as it led to homeless people living in my neighborhood that had not previously been there. I also had a halfway house come online in my neighborhood, which has been an overall positive experience.
It’s a tricky situation to try and get a firm grasp on because of the many different reasons which lead to individuals and families to suffer from housing insecurity, but I do see our community doing a lot more in terms of innovation and addressing how to lift people up than I do in most other metro areas.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Atlas

delts, the one on the southeast corner is "Central Station West" which prior to design review was quite literally a low-effort mirror image of the "Central Station Apartments" a few doors east. It was so similar that they didn't even bother making a new rendering.

After some community/commission pushback they added a small ground floor retail space on the corner and updated the rendering:

Thanks Atlas, It seemed like Central West from the construction photo locations but I wasn't quite sure. Some previous info. had Central Station West listed as a 500 West site and Greenprint as 600 West. Obviously, the Central Station West address was incorrect.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Our country has failed our veterans and our mentally ill. No one city can "solve" homelessness, because it's a result of our country's erosion of social services and growing wealth inequality. I know everywhere has homelessness, but other wealthy countries have a much better handle on it than we do because they actually take care of their people.

I don’t know that “wealth inequality” matters to this debate but perhaps. And maybe cradle to grave welfare policies may indeed help some, but don’t know that they would help solve everything.

Part of the issue is the amount of personal liberty rights people have in this country. Other countries do not have some of these protections. For example, We used to have involuntary mental hospitals and they really helped get people off the streets and into mental help. I used to work at one such hospital in Washington St (it stopped being involuntary, sans the criminal section, decades ago). The idea in getting people out of these institutions was to 1) protect the rights of the patients by putting them into the community (ACLU types fought for this) and 2) save money (state governors fought for this). And there were good reasons to do both as they were extremely expensive and were FULL of abuse. The place where I worked used to do involuntary lobotomies on patients and people were kept there for veeeeery flimsy reasons. With the bad, however, was a lot of good. Those were legit communities and those with true mental disorders were cared for.

There are of course other factors that are at play that a bigger welfare state still might not fix - for example the sheer amount of people who have been to war and have mental or pain issues leftover from that, and of course those that have been to prison. Further, our black community was plagued by the crack wave in the 80’s and our white population by opioids in the last twenty years.

I do think it can be fixed, but It all builds together and there is no silver bullet.

[wrendog]

Drone footage from a dude on top of the Walker Center

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sEG2-tl0HE

[Rileybo]

Originally Posted by mattreedah

I don’t know that “wealth inequality” matters to this debate but perhaps.

Wealth inequality is the biggest factor.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by mattreedah

The crazy part about homelessness as political policy is that we can’t seem to figure out what works - only what doesn’t work.

That's where a part of me says, 'eff it. Throw out all the rules.

Unlimited density. No parking requirements. Everywhere. Just let the engine run. If you can built it safely, you can build it.

Personally, I'd love to *buy* and SRO apartment (like a hotel room) for like $75,000 to live in. I'm single, and I don't need much. And it would make for a good way to build equity until I need something better.

And the housing authorities can actually put unsheltered people INTO A HOUSE. Because at $75k, that's do-able. Versus the $500k per unit monstrosities that Los Angeles ends up building because they have to meet so many zoning restrictions.

[delts145]

‘We want 2030,’ Utah Olympic committee chief says during Park City remarks - Decision regarding which Games will be sought could be made by the middle of summer.


Park Record - https://www.parkrecord.com/news/park...-city-remarks/

The top official in the organization seeking a Winter Olympics for Utah said on Tuesday he prefers the state host the Games of 2030 rather than those of four years later.

Fraser Bullock, who is the president and CEO of the Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games, addressed a joint meeting of the Park City Council and the Summit County Council at the Utah Olympic Park, covering a wide range of issues. Bullock, importantly, provided a general explanation of the process underway as it is determined which event Salt Lake City and the wider Olympic region will seek. The Winter Olympics in 2030 or the Games of 2034 are seen as possibilities.

“We want 2030,” Bullock told the elected officials.

Los Angeles, however, will host the Summer Olympics in 2028. Back-to-back Olympics in the U.S. in 2028 and 2030 could pose complications since the two organizing committees would be raising monies at the same time. There could also be international indignation under the scenario of consecutive Olympics in the U.S.

Bullock said the Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games is weighing the dynamics of the U.S. hosting the Summer Olympics in 2028 and the Winter Olympics in 2030.


He said the Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games wants to learn by the middle of the summer whether the Games in 2030 or 2034 will be sought. Bullock said he expects the International Olympic Committee will award the Games of 2030 in 2023.

Bullock, meanwhile, noted that Vancouver, Canada, the Winter Olympic host in 2010, is also interested in staging a second Games. If the British Columbia city is awarded the Games of 2030, it would be more difficult to hold the 2034 event in the U.S. based on a traditional rotation of continents, he said. Bullock also mentioned interest in Sapporo, Japan, which hosted the Winter Olympics in 1972, and in Barcelona and the Pyrenees region in Spain. Barcelona was the 1992 Summer Olympics host.

The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee in late 2018 selected Salt Lake City as the nation’s bid city for a Winter Olympics. The International Olympic Committee is expected to turn its attention to selecting the host of the Winter Olympics in 2030 in coming months after holding the Summer Olympics in Tokyo and the Winter Olympics in Beijing in quick succession as a result of the postponement of the Games in Japan out of concern of the novel coronavirus pandemic. A precise timeline for the selection of a host for 2030, though, is not known.

The Park City area is crucial to the Winter Olympic efforts. Park City Mountain Resort, Deer Valley Resort and the Utah Olympic Park are identified as major competition venues. The area would also be key to the transportation, security and celebration planning.

The meeting on Tuesday was seen as the beginning of ongoing discussions involving the Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games and the two local governments. Park City and Summit County officials are also expected to hold upcoming talks with their individual constituents in coming months.


.

[UtahBison]

Originally Posted by delts145

‘We want 2030,’ Utah Olympic committee chief says during Park City remarks - Decision regarding which Games will be sought could be made by the middle of summer.

I just want the Olympics back, whether it is 2030 or 2034 is fine with me. Although, the sooner the better! One thing I was curious about. Should RES expand one more time before the Olympics come back, just to give us more seating for the Opening and Closing ceremonies? The only realistic option to expand would be to add an upper deck on the East side. I don't think they will expand in the NEZ due to the field house and South Campus Drive right underneath it. The stadium currently seats 51,444, and I am not sure what the additional temporary seating capabilities are.