Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

My question is: why is there even a D-4 Zone?

All the Downtown Zones should just be consolidated into a single Central Business District Zone (D-1).

The downtown zones are already surrounded by other commercial or multifamily zones that act as mid-density buffers between the downtown zones and the lower density residential anyway.



Having a single D-Zone (made from D-1 code) replacing the areas covered by D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4 would make things way simpler.

Salt Lake planning department officials last night claimed they want to consolidate and simplify the zoning code. Here is an excellent way to do that!



Going even further than this though, in the future we could combine the CG and GMU Zones all the way to I-15 to further simplify and expand the 'Greater CBD/Downtown Zone.'

Also, I feel like consolidation would go a long way to simplifying the code and improving downtown development and livability.

Especially considering D-3 is only about 4 blocks in size and D-4 is only about 7 blocks in size (half being the Delta Center and the Salt Palace).

These consolidations would actually make Salt Lake much more similar to other mid-size city's downtowns and would allow for more freedom and higher quality development to occur.

I fear if we leave things as they are now, we will permanently hinder the city's long-term development and stick us with a bunch of 5 floor buildings for decades where taller and more diverse development could have been.

I think the Planning Department should put their 'money where their mouth is' so to speak and propose zoning consolidations that will actually matter and improve the city's future opportunities and development.

[Orlando]

Okay. For all those lovers of the Worthington, I just had to share this example. It's so much more cleverly thought out than the Worthington. The Worthington is a very unrefined building. Not much thought at all. It probably would have got slaughtered in Design Review in Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco. A lot of you are complaining about the blah of some of these new buildings, and that is probably due to that SLC doesn't have a very rigorous design review process. And that's partially due to the fact that they want it to be easier to get projects permitted and built, when compared to the suburbs. That's what SLC is fighting against. Anyways, enough of my rant...

https://www.ankrommoisan.com/project.../?architecture

[Ironweed]

The planning commission has been a negative influence to the development of the city for decades. They are in fact incompetent, misguided, and short sighted. I said this on another board: The planning commission would prefer to keep SLC looking more like Missoula MT.

[RC14]

I whole heartedly endorse Blah's plan to consolidate the downtown zones.

[mstar]

I also like Blah's idea! Well thought out! Anyway we can get Blah on the Planning Commission?

[Orlando]

Not me. Too oversimplified.

[Comrade]

Everything east of 300 West to say 300 East, and north to South Temple and south to 400 S should be considered D1.

[RC14]

At minimum, we should consolidate D1 and D4. Maybe D3 as well. One could argue that the Granary district should be separate but downtown is too small, geographically to justify that many zones. When every block, or every other block is a different zone, that's too complex and, as Blah pointed out, these zones are only 4-7 blocks. If you wanted to build a highrise downtown, you would have to manage to secure a piece of property on one of the 3-7 blocks that are within the zone that supports what you want to build. That seems to me like it would severely restrict the number of possible projects. Especially after you consider how much of the real estate in those zones is taken up by government or church use, historical buildings or other large developments that aren't going anywhere.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Not me. Too oversimplified.

Salt Lake has way more zones than almost any city in the US of similar size. It needs to be substantially simplified.

There is no reason a downtown that is only about 1-2 square miles should have 4 different zones. Especially when there is a a dozen mid-density zones directly surrounding it. Plus really only D-1 is actually acting like a downtown district right now anyway. D-2 and D-3 are practically mid-density zones.

This could benefit the city and developers because then there wouldn't be the need to go through tons of rezones in the future.



For the warehouse district, if we want to keep it somewhat distinct, Salt Lake could make it the single Central Business District (D-1) Zone and then create a Zoning Overlay restricting things like design, building materials, etc. that would be more beneficial to creating a cohesive district than the broad CG Zone does (which really only hampers development and will give us a bunch of 5 over 1s). Many notable warehouse districts have towers and skyscrapers that our current zoning code would not permit in the area.



Also, don't forget that the recently discussed concept for the Rio Grande area includes allowing towers basically bringing 'downtown' almost to I-15 anyway:



Wouldn't it make more sense to just zone the areas in-between for the same type of development (especially since it would only be separated by 2-3 blocks between the D-1 and the Rio Grande area)?

Why waste all of the land that's left in the middle to mid-rises when we could open it up and free developers to build all types of projects instead.

[meman]

Orlando,

In my opinion that building in San Francisco that you showed isint that much different from Worthington with the exception of a couple of differenct colored panels on the exterior. Its still basically a boxy building like worthington which I still think is one of the most attractive new buildings in Salt lake.

[Paniolo Man]

Too much fighting around here. University Club Tower:

[delts145]

I've never been a fan of the University Club Tower, even as a child I thought it was ugly. But of course, opinions can be subjective. I'm glad to see it being given a new life. One thing that makes total sense to me is opening up those tiny windows to the north and south. When you are creating a residential tower and you have a city with some of the most phenomenal natural views in the country you need to capitalize on it if you plan to attract those who will pay a premium to live there.

While I'm waiting to see the final outcome at the base cladding of Worthington along 300 S, I think overall from various viewpoints, The Worthington has more interesting angles than the simple box shown above. The previous box has an interesting color scheme, but it's still basically a four-square box...and that is just my subjective opinion.

Looking at the Worthington timeline of the construction photos it seems as if they rethought the paneling at the lower levels along 300 S. and are switching it out. Anyway, from this angle below Worthington is more attractive and breaks away from being just another four-square box. In this March photo, the cladding that they were putting up seems to have been removed recently.

Photo By Taylor Anderson @ BuildingSaltLake.com - https://buildingsaltlake.com/strong-...llest-whistle/


In Atlas latest June photo you can see where the previous paneling no longer exists.

.

[RC14]

I also prefer the Worthington to the building Orlando posted. However, I don't have the trained eye that he does.

[delts145]

Well, I have more often than not agreed with your opinion. Having a trained eye doesn't mean you are always the one and only opinion to be respected. Some of my favorite architects have created some real duds, then again some monumental genius. What might be a dud to some is beautiful to others. When it comes to general design I have a very well-trained eye, which received a lot of acclaim from the leading press and trades in N.Y. However, there are many on this forum from a wide range of occupations, who have often caused me to take a second and third look at a particular design and adjust my opinion.

[Rileybo]

I’m totally in the minority, but I’ve always had a soft spot for the University Club Tower. I love the tiny green windows.

[Comrade]

I don't hate it. It's not a favorite of mine but I've never found it particularly ugly.

I do think the renovation is ugly, tho.

[i-215]

The University Club building is one of those that I always forget is there. Like, if you handed me a pad of paper and said draw all the high-rises in downtown SLC, I would forget to put it on there. (Along with those two random residential high-rises southwest of the convention center).

I didn't realize it is 25 stories tall. That's pretty significant for the skyline.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by delts145

In Paniolo Man's latest June photo you can see where the previous paneling no longer exists. [/B][/CENTEr]

Pretty sure I took that one!

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Hey Orlando, if you get a chance could we get a skyline massing with the towers in the SEG draft plan? The taller one is probably 500-600 ft.

Coincidentally I was working on this last night, along with the Firestone one. They're just boxes but gives an idea. I assumed 530' for both the taller SEG building and Firestone and 300 for the SEG hotel. Also had to finish Worthington and Astra:

[airhero]

Gotta say the building Orlando posted does seem to be a much more thoroughly vetted design. It looks very cohesive. Makes Worthington look messy, like one building was just thrown on top of another. Yet the definition throughout its facade also makes Worthington look plain in comparison. Obviously the several floors of parking facing the street harden Worthington's street presence. The other building seems a lot more pleasant to approach. Of course it'll look better when it's finished but yeah, it's far from perfect.