UDOT should just reroute US-89 down 500/600 South and have it re-emerge on 600 North to reconnect with 300W/Beck Street. Give up all of their roads through downtown.
Hell even better have it follow I-80/I-15 from the intersection with State Street all the way until Bountiful.
What if UDOT split the highway? Instead of one 6 lane road, they could have two, one way roads with 2-3 lanes. For example, 300 and 400 W from Beck St to 400 south.
__________________
Real estate agent working in Salt Lake and Ogden
Doe anyone on this thread know if they are going to re-clad that horribly ugly University Club building as they are re-furbishing it for use as apartments?
UDOT should just reroute US-89 down 500/600 South and have it re-emerge on 600 North to reconnect with 300W/Beck Street. Give up all of their roads through downtown.
Hell even better have it follow I-80/I-15 from the intersection with State Street all the way until Bountiful.
But I know that's a pipe dream.
Agreed. UDOT should not own any roads in SLC East of I-15, West and South of the Mountains and North of I-80. No one drives through that area to get to another city. It is only a destination.
Doe anyone on this thread know if they are going to re-clad that horribly ugly University Club building as they are re-furbishing it for use as apartments?
The developer is out of NYC. Curious how whey they are pursuing something like this in SLC. Here's the developer: https://www.xylem.nyc/
They do cool projects. Not sure who the architects is.
Wasn't the idea of the old Public Safety Building that it was unfixable and unsafe in a big earthquake? I'm concerned to see a developer trying to still use the old building if it has "bad bones" so to speak.
I must not quite understand the situation.
__________________
When even the freeway guy is concerned about a development, you know there's trouble!
Wasn't the idea of the old Public Safety Building that it was unfixable and unsafe in a big earthquake? I'm concerned to see a developer trying to still use the old building if it has "bad bones" so to speak.
I must not quite understand the situation.
Repairs and retrofitting are certainly a problem. The harder to fix issue was how much they had outgrown it and it didn't fit their needs.
I just remember an anti-tax group (Utah Taxpayers Assoc.?) took a tour of the public safety building, leading up to the bond issue vote—
And this group, who has never seen a tax hike they ever liked, came out with wide eyes and cold sweat and basically said, "Holy crap! Support this bond!"
__________________
When even the freeway guy is concerned about a development, you know there's trouble!
Wasn't the idea of the old Public Safety Building that it was unfixable and unsafe in a big earthquake? I'm concerned to see a developer trying to still use the old building if it has "bad bones" so to speak.
I must not quite understand the situation.
I brought this up during the Abravanel Hall discussion, government entities tend to really exaggerate how bad an existing building is when they want to replace it. I see that Public Safety Building weekly pretty close up when I'm at work. Its issues are more related to neglect and vagrancy, the structure is fine. They'll need to reconstruct the interior, though I'm glad the exterior appearance will be preserved.
The biggest issue with the building was that they feared an earthquake would put it out of commission and since it was the public safety building, being completely out of commission during a major emergency was a no-no.
The truth is, renovating it probably brings it up to the safety level of most newly built residential buildings in Salt Lake. They're built to withstand a major earthquake but that's about all they're expected to do. And even back in 2009, when talk about building a new public safety building started, the city pretty much conceded that the building likely wouldn't collapse during a major earthquake.
Even if that building were generally safe in an earthquake, I doubt it really fit the needs of a modern public safety building in a large city. I'm glad to see that new affordable housing project there after the previous project seems to have fallen through. That block needs help and renovating that area can only help.
Even if that building were generally safe in an earthquake, I doubt it really fit the needs of a modern public safety building in a large city. I'm glad to see that new affordable housing project there after the previous project seems to have fallen through. That block needs help and renovating that area can only help.
Yes. That was the other concern: the city had outgrown the building.
Even if that building were generally safe in an earthquake, I doubt it really fit the needs of a modern public safety building in a large city. I'm glad to see that new affordable housing project there after the previous project seems to have fallen through. That block needs help and renovating that area can only help.
No complaints from me, either.
I was just left with the impression that the building was a total teardown.
__________________
When even the freeway guy is concerned about a development, you know there's trouble!
This was posted on the main City Compilations page for SLC. What is the deal with the top 2 sets of "windows" on the glassy side of Astra? Are they botching the most visible part of the building?
Now you're going to need another new tallest building to overshadow this hunk-a-junk.
Prev
Linear Mode
