Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[i-215]

I dunno. I've been warming up to the development (thanks to talking this over with you guys here). But pushing all the streets to a lower level (or putting pedestrians on a higher level) just screams GM's Futurama to me.

Like, I'm getting serious Downtown L.A. vibes. And that's just not how you build a vibrant downtown.





Compare that with "human scale" development that you see in downtown Portland:



Burnside is 6 LANES WIDE at this point. Yet it's still very friendly to cross, thanks to good street design (landscaped medians, narrow lanes, etc.) I'd take this all day every day over a highway-style tunnel under 2 blocks of the city center.

You know how fast cars are going to come screaming out of that tunnel? Especially if they get a green at 200 South? Like 55. Because the tunnel convinces drivers they are on a freeway.

I know I sound like some sort of NIMBY Scrooge over every aspect of this development. But the lack of local criticism is frightening. To me it still sounds like SLC lost its mind and is ready to privatize 2 blocks, raise taxes and gift it to a billionaire (regressive), create more megablocks (which ruin the downtown feel, and oppose the alleyway project SLC has worked hard to do, which chops up blocks). And now they want to build a 2-block freeway under downtown.

I'm sorry. But a lot of this is really dumb. Shortsighted and dumb. And as much as I love the Jazz ('98 Jazz were the greatest team ever!), it really sounds barely worth it.

[Comrade]

If 300 West was a walkable, active street at that point, I'd understand the trepidation. But it's a highway and lacks any level of engagement with the area.

It's hard for me to think we're actually losing something by turning this part of 300 West into a tunnel. Especially as it relates to the arena block. If it was all of 300 West, I'd agree - but this extension? Na.

[delts145]

Thanks for the updates Paniolo Man. Wow, this one shocked me. I thought they had given up on "The June" a couple of years ago. Great to see it finally underway.

By Paniolo Man

[bob rulz]

I would prefer they significantly narrow 300 West there than underground it for sure. I don't have faith in UDOT to do that though - cars are first, second, and third priority for them. I agree with i-215 that while the block itself might be good with a pedestrian plaza over it, it's hard to make the entrances and exits to a tunnel engaging for pedestrians. That would be my biggest concern.

[Nebula3lem123]

Narrowing 3rd west would be given the same roadblocks as narrowing state street, since they're the same highway: route 89. The only solution I can see would be to redirect highway 89 off of state street at 13th, 21st, take your pick, and have it merge with I-15 sooner. That would kill 2 birds with 1 stone, either making UDOT more willing to narrow those streets or even relinquishing control whatsoever.

On the other hand (this is now an I-215 reply), I think a major thing you're ignoring here for a tunnel under 3rd west is the fact that burying the street will increase connectivity, unlike the projects in LA you showed, where, much like the salt palace subway, pedestrians have to follow cars underground. Meanwhile, from what I've seen and heard, the design of 3rd west will be such that developing on top of the cap will be difficult, and the pedestrian corridor will remain. I will be very surprised if the city/county/UDOT gives the land to Smith, especially since Smith doesn't own any of the land there anyways. I understand the concerns of said tunnel being "freeway-like" but 3rd west is already in this state, and burying the car lanes will make it safer for the pedestrians above.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Comrade

If 300 West was a walkable, active street at that point, I'd understand the trepidation. But it's a highway and lacks any level of engagement with the area.

It's hard for me to think we're actually losing something by turning this part of 300 West into a tunnel. Especially as it relates to the arena block. If it was all of 300 West, I'd agree - but this extension? Na.

I absolutely agree. It's a horrible downtown street as it stands.

Maybe the tunnel can be a negotiating tactic to get a better "Portland"-type 6-lane street through there (or, even 4-laner)? If you want a dog, start by asking for a horse.

300 West is in the no-man's land of being bad for driving and bad for downtown use. Let's push it in the RIGHT direction... not the wrong direction.
What we don't want is a tunnel that forever locks 300 West into being a high-speed highway. (Look, I tend to drive -- so it's no sweat for me to blast 55 through downtown. But if downtown is building stuff that makes *my* driving better, it's making the wrong choice!)



I mean, I-15 is only a few blocks to the west. There's no reason why 300 West needs to be a "highway" of sorts -- at least not until north of 600 North, perhaps.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by i-215

I absolutely agree. It's a horrible downtown street as it stands.

Maybe the tunnel can be a negotiating tactic to get a better "Portland"-type 6-lane street through there (or, even 4-laner)? If you want a dog, start by asking for a horse.

300 West is in the no-man's land of being bad for driving and bad for downtown use. Let's push it in the RIGHT direction... not the wrong direction.
What we don't want is a tunnel that forever locks 300 West into being a high-speed highway. (Look, I tend to drive -- so it's no sweat for me to blast 55 through downtown. But if downtown is building stuff that makes *my* driving better, it's making the wrong choice!)



I mean, I-15 is only a few blocks to the west. There's no reason why 300 West needs to be a "highway" of sorts -- at least not until north of 600 North, perhaps.

The thing is, 300 West IS a state highway. It likely always will be. The chance that they would consider ever eliminating a lane on that street is less than 1%. Especially with current leadership and the full-fledged mentality at UDOT.

Heck. They even said in the article that the department believes State Street is 'at capacity.' Since WHEN!? Every time I've been on that street its 50-85% empty! Sorry, but capacity should mean that traffic backs up most or all the way from one end of the block to the other (from light to light). That would be capacity. Not 5-10 cars waiting at a light at any given time. Still. That gives you an idea of how insane they are at UDOT.

So there is basically no chance 300 West will ever become a pedestrian friendly street. Not in our lifetimes anyway. Sure, they could put lipstick on the pig and stick a few planters and some stick trees and call it 'traffic calming' but nothing would really change.

I think the two likeliest scenarios is either the street gets buried or it stays basically the same. Maybe. Maybe. We get a pedestrian bridge. Personally, I would take the buried road with parks and greenspaces at ground level any day over leaving the street as is. That's just me I guess. Is it a little ugly for those driving in the tunnel? Sure. But that is so the entirety of the land at ground level is for people, not machines.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

The thing is, 300 West IS a state highway. It likely always will be. The chance that they would consider ever eliminating a lane on that street is less than 1%. Especially with current leadership and the full-fledged mentality at UDOT.

Heck. They even said in the article that the department believes State Street is 'at capacity.' Since WHEN!? Every time I've been on that street its 50-85% empty! Sorry, but capacity should mean that traffic backs up most or all the way from one end of the block to the other (from light to light). That would be capacity. Not 5-10 cars waiting at a light at any given time. Still. That gives you an idea of how insane they are at UDOT.

So there is basically no chance 300 West will ever become a pedestrian friendly street. Not in our lifetimes anyway. Sure, they could put lipstick on the pig and stick a few planters and some stick trees and call it 'traffic calming' but nothing would really change.

I think the two likeliest scenarios is either the street gets buried or it stays basically the same. Maybe. Maybe. We get a pedestrian bridge. Personally, I would take the buried road with parks and greenspaces at ground level any day over leaving the street as is. That's just me I guess. Is it a little ugly for those driving in the tunnel? Sure. But that is so the entirety of the land at ground level is for people, not machines.

I have yet to see a rendering that uses this space for what you’re describing, as a green belt or park space. It appears to be a highly developed concrete walkway with stores, restaurants, and buildings alongside it.

Did I miss where this looks more like the Kennedy Greenway in Boston? Because that’s kind of interesting although it produces basically no money for an owner or the city, it’s a nice community destination.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by i-215

There's no reason why 300 West needs to be a "highway" of sorts -- at least not until north of 600 North, perhaps.

Maybe there is something here. What if they turned 300 West into something like Wacker Dr/ Lower Wacker Dr in Chicago, from 600 North down to where the flyover bridge is that currently spills out onto W Temple? UDOT could remove the flyover bridge for the W. TEMPLE exit and have that same exit connect to "Lower" 300 West instead which could remain underground until 300 W becomes Beck St. There could be two or three connections to downtown (400 S and North Temple for example) from lower 300 W. The at grade 300 west could be a narrower, more pedestrian friendly street.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by RC14

Maybe there is something here. What if they turned 300 West into something like Wacker Dr/ Lower Wacker Dr in Chicago, from 600 North down to where the flyover bridge is that currently spills out onto W Temple? UDOT could remove the flyover bridge for the W. TEMPLE exit and have that same exit connect to "Lower" 300 West instead which could remain underground until 300 W becomes Beck St. There could be two or three connections to downtown (400 S and North Temple for example) from lower 300 W. The at grade 300 west could be a narrower, more pedestrian friendly street.

Exactly, there is no need to bury the street IMO. By comparison to big cities none of the already massive streets slicing N/S and E/W through DT SLC are even remotely close to at capacity. Change this one into something more urban oriented and spend the $$$ on amenities, not burying the dumb street. That will eat up so much of the budget and it's really not necessary at all.

[Blah_Amazing]

Something that I noticed was that they are proposing burying 300 West from 100 S all the way to North Temple.

For the purpose of the entertainment district, they would only need to do it for one block from 100 South to South Temple.

Are we seeing some of the first evidence that SEG is actively working with the LDS Church? We heard they were, but saw no evidence of it. Until now?

I could be reading too much into it, but directly connecting the two blocks between North Temple and South Temple and between 400 W and 200 W was part of that crazy proposal for a grander Temple Square that leaked.

While I don't think a lot of that proposal will ever be built, I do think the LDS Church will pick elements from it. Could connecting those two blocks be one of those things?

[TRex]

Putting 300 W underground gets a huge no vote from me. No one is complaining about crossing a street. Streets are commonplace. Burying the street is fixing a problem that does not exist in my opinion. Use that money for parts of the development that have merit.

Putting a pedestrian tunnel under 300 W to the Delta Center seems much easier and cost effective if you really think crossing the street is an issue.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by TRex

Putting 300 W underground gets a huge no vote from me. No one is complaining about crossing a street. Streets are commonplace. Burying the street is fixing a problem that does not exist in my opinion. Use that money for parts of the development that have merit.

Putting a pedestrian tunnel under 300 W to the Delta Center seems much easier and cost effective if you really think crossing the street is an issue.

So, you think it's better to shove pedestrians underground instead of cars?

I don't think I agree with you there.

Especially when burying the street could buy Salt Lake an extra 2.5 to 3 acres of pedestrian only spaces in an area that would become a major hub for the city. These spaces are something that is desperately needed in Salt Lake, since we have a serious lack of pedestrian friendly greenspaces and plaza spaces downtown. Pioneer Park is the largest and it is entirely surrounded by wide and unfriendly streets and goes underused as a result. This just solves multiple issues.

But it seems most would rather have the city remain car dominated and that's a shame.

[bob rulz]

(double post)

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by TRex

Putting 300 W underground gets a huge no vote from me. No one is complaining about crossing a street. Streets are commonplace. Burying the street is fixing a problem that does not exist in my opinion. Use that money for parts of the development that have merit.

Putting a pedestrian tunnel under 300 W to the Delta Center seems much easier and cost effective if you really think crossing the street is an issue.

No one is complaining about crossing a street? I complain about crossing these streets every time I'm downtown, and I know I can speak for many many others. Downtowns should not have 6-lane highways running through them. Have you really never seen/heard the discussion about how bad these kinds of roads are for pedestrian connectivity and street life? It's not even "discussion", it's a proven fact with decades of studies supporting it.

Originally Posted by locolife

I have yet to see a rendering that uses this space for what you’re describing, as a green belt or park space. It appears to be a highly developed concrete walkway with stores, restaurants, and buildings alongside it.

Did I miss where this looks more like the Kennedy Greenway in Boston? Because that’s kind of interesting although it produces basically no money for an owner or the city, it’s a nice community destination.

I mean didn't this tunnel proposal just come out like a week ago or less? I don't know why people are so hung up on ANY of the renderings we've seen so far. They are all conceptual. No finalized details have been established for any part of this project yet.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by TRex

Putting 300 W underground gets a huge no vote from me. No one is complaining about crossing a street. Streets are commonplace. Burying the street is fixing a problem that does not exist in my opinion. Use that money for parts of the development that have merit.

Putting a pedestrian tunnel under 300 W to the Delta Center seems much easier and cost effective if you really think crossing the street is an issue.

The problem doesn't exist today because the eastern portion of 300 West is completely blocked off by the Salt Palace and the Sturve Building (which has seen much better days):



Of course no one is crossing over. You're confusing this block with its current setup compared to the potential future setup where a plaza and district connects West Temple and 300 West. In that example, absolutely people would complain about having to cross a massive highway (that, mind you, most major cities don't have to deal with in their downtown as their downtown is often filled with narrow streets anyway).

Pushing them underground is just asking for the tunnels to turn into homeless encampments like you see with the pedestrian tunnel in SugarHouse.

A plaza across 300 West, connecting to the new entertainment district, is infinitely better than keeping a massive highway running right through the district.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

So, you think it's better to shove pedestrians underground instead of cars?

I don't think anyone here is proposing grade separating pedestrians above or below the street. But rather, that in downtown areas it's better to tame the street and keep everything on one level.

I'm a slow convert to this way of thinking. And don't get me wrong, in the suburbs, I'm all about high-speed freeways and grade separation. But downtowns (and small town centers) are special places where we need to slow and re-route thru traffic. Make it very clear that 1,000 pedestrians are worth more than 1,000 vehicles.

Great cities like London or Portland calm the traffic. Keep everyone on the same level.



Other cities like Chicago or Los Angeles decided to go the grade separation route, and it makes the city feel much "scarier" and intimidating than it needs to be. (In fairness to Chicago, flooding was part of the issue there — something neither Los Angeles or Salt Lake City deal with).

Paradise, NV is basically a "suburb" in the way it is built. And they've done a good job with grade separation, but it certainly feels intimidating. Compare that with Fremont Street in downtown Las Vegas that is working to calm at-grade crossings. As a result, Fremont Street feels more like a "city" with tons of public space. Versus Paradise ("The Strip") that is pretty much all private space.




I hate seeing SLC make so much progress, only to take 5 steps backwards and turn into a weird hybrid of downtown L.A. and privatized Paradise, NV.

But yes, nobody is advocating for putting the pedestrians underground. That would be very foolish!

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Are we seeing some of the first evidence that SEG is actively working with the LDS Church? We heard they were, but saw no evidence of it. Until now?

That's a fascinating thought.

If there's one thing my very-frustrating 14 years involved with BYU taught me... the LDS church says jack about its plans until, like a monarch, they make a huge proclamation of what they intend to do.

I had just made an assumption that they'd be using the North Temple to South Temple segment to change elevation to drop below South Temple. And then use the 100 S to 200 S segment to return to grade.

But they can get 200 W under the convention center with just 200 feet. And the block is more than three times that length, so who knows?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

The thing is, 300 West IS a state highway. It likely always will be. The chance that they would consider ever eliminating a lane on that street is less than 1%. Especially with current leadership and the full-fledged mentality at UDOT.

It's getting better. But yes, the mindset is slowly shifting. But maybe this could be a moment to push them.

Even if UDOT didn't eliminate a lane, they could work to tame is significantly.

Under the current alignment:


But with a bit of tweaking, we can reclaim 34 feet (about 3 lanes):


And if we can warm UDOT up to removing left turns at South Temple and 100 S, (see Provo 300 S for precedence) we can reclaim another 5 feet.

Add in the traffic calming effect street trees and narrower lanes will have, and suddenly you have a much tamer street and a much more affordable price. Beef up that third signal midblock, and you've got a good design, imo.




We could probably narrow this even more, eliminating left turns and narrowing the center median — and if anyone argues, I'd counter that the tunnel wouldn't allow ANY access to South Temple and 100 South. At least at-grade would allow right turns.

The signals can eliminate through and left movements, making it basically three pedestrian (and transit) signals.

[airhero]

That's exactly what I'm thinking 215. Burying the road won't really result in a much more pedestrian friendly experience overall. The approaches on either end of the tunnel will be a horrible blight, especially considering we may be doing it for just a (not even?) two block stretch. The solution above isn't as nice as the pedestrian plaza in the local Delta Center area, but it would still make a big difference, cause essentially no new problems as burying the road would, and be a fraction of the cost, which would free up money for other things, like potentially making a much, much longer stretch of the highway 89 corridor through downtown more pedestrian friendly, including parts of 300 W, 400 S, and State Street.