Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Atlas]

Yeah, our skyline hasn't changed as much as Austin's has.

But skyline isn't everything. We've added more than 10,000 new residents downtown in the last 5 years with more to come. The "missing teeth" are filling in and the city fabric is reconnecting. The roads are getting narrower and more trees are being planted. The food scene has gotten significantly better and now we are talking about fully pedestrianizing Main Street and getting an entire "green loop" around downtown. We are also getting a massive investment from the city and SEG that will refurbish Abravanel, build a new UMOCA, rebuild the convention center, make Japantown something again, and add an entire sports district around a new professional sports team. We are getting at least one big downtown TRAX expansion in the next 10 years and probably a new central station, as well as one of the biggest and most important climbing gyms in the nation. Another professional team (MLB) and adjacent river district is also on the horizon.

Things are looking up for SLC, despite high interest rates and high construction costs. We actually have a few things that Austin doesn't.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Yeah, our skyline hasn't changed as much as Austin's has.

But skyline isn't everything. We've added more than 10,000 new residents downtown in the last 5 years with more to come. The "missing teeth" are filling in and the city fabric is reconnecting. The roads are getting narrower and more trees are being planted. The food scene has gotten significantly better and now we are talking about fully pedestrianizing Main Street and getting an entire "green loop" around downtown. We are also getting a massive investment from the city and SEG that will refurbish Abravanel, build a new UMOCA, rebuild the convention center, make Japantown something again, and add an entire sports district around a new professional sports team. We are getting at least one big downtown TRAX expansion in the next 10 years and probably a new central station, as well as one of the biggest and most important climbing gyms in the nation. Another professional team (MLB) and adjacent river district is also on the horizon.

Things are looking up for SLC, despite high interest rates and high construction costs. We actually have a few things that Austin doesn't.

For sure. Lot's of good things happening in SLC. Hopefully rates start going down and we get more towers proposed or even some towers resurrected

[rockies]

Originally Posted by Tippy

Does this one have ground floor retail?

Yes

[zurich]

[QUOTE=Atlas;10244993]Yeah, our skyline hasn't changed as much as Austin's has.

Salt Lake has many things going for it vs Austin. The beautiful mountains, winter sports, better summer weather, a much better transportation system. I also think the wider roads could end up being a blessing in disguise with the green loop and some of these roads are kind of like a blank canvas. I'm very excited about the future. I am just very surprised no big company has moved downtown yet - I have a feeling that is going to happen very soon especially 2-3 blocks south of the main downtown.

I also wonder why we don't have a bikeway up to Park City. Imagine living downtown, knowing you could bike up to Park City and back for the day. I know this has nothing to do with downtown development, but anything you can do to make the mountains more accessible when living downtown would be a big draw.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Yeah, our skyline hasn't changed as much as Austin's has.

But skyline isn't everything. We've added more than 10,000 new residents downtown in the last 5 years with more to come. The "missing teeth" are filling in and the city fabric is reconnecting. The roads are getting narrower and more trees are being planted. The food scene has gotten significantly better and now we are talking about fully pedestrianizing Main Street and getting an entire "green loop" around downtown. We are also getting a massive investment from the city and SEG that will refurbish Abravanel, build a new UMOCA, rebuild the convention center, make Japantown something again, and add an entire sports district around a new professional sports team. We are getting at least one big downtown TRAX expansion in the next 10 years and probably a new central station, as well as one of the biggest and most important climbing gyms in the nation. Another professional team (MLB) and adjacent river district is also on the horizon.

Things are looking up for SLC, despite high interest rates and high construction costs. We actually have a few things that Austin doesn't.

It's a shame 90% of the construction of these residential developments downtown are ugly as sin and brings zero character to the city.

[bob rulz]

There's a lot more to character than just what buildings look like.

And no we haven't grown as much as Austin, but why are we comparing ourselves to them? I'll bet if you look at the change in most mid-sized American city skylines in the last 20 years, most of them have changed about as much or maybe even less than Salt Lake has. Austin is an outlier, not the norm.

[Tippy]

Do you guys feel like the potential future issues with the Great Salt Lake has stunted growth since the big story dropped or do you think it will stunt growth? I’ve always wondered if it scares away outside investment. Online I’ve seen on several occasions that people wouldn’t move here because of that, or have moved away at least partially because of it.

[Paniolo Man]

Stadler Rail has requested that their parcels be consolidated and reconfigured, the first step to expansion.

Stadler is expanding their manufacturing facility to include additional assembly space on the east, and welding on the south. This plat is necessary to rearrange the lots so that the east building remains at least 60 feet from the property line, and the south building does not cross over the property line.

[Paniolo Man]

Building Salt Lake is reporting this morning that SLCO was so close to tearing down Abravanel Hall for SEG that they nearly released an RFP for demo contractors.

A couple months ago I brought up that the county massively inflating the cost of renovation was proof that they had decided to demolish behind closed doors. The sudden, significant public backlash saved Abravanel hall, none of us really realized how quickly SLCO was willing to make a rash decision just to please SEG.

As late as May 5, language was internally circulated stating, “Abravanel Hall is a beautiful architectural gem with world-class acoustics. But many challenges with the facility and its aging infrastructure make it impossible for the Hall to meet the needs of an accessible modern performance space. We can take all the great things that make these buildings iconic and rebuild them with the right elements necessary for a 21st Century world-class arts venue.”

Meanwhile, the Procurement Division seemed to be gearing up to issue an RFP.

Teresa Young, Procurement Director Jason Yocom’s No. 2, revealed the speed with which the County was moving on from Abravanel. On April 29 to an attorney in the DA’s Office who praised her for keeping up with all the traffic in her office in an email about a new Animal Services facility.

“​​Wait until I come to you for the Salt Palace and AH [Abravanel Hall] demolition and Rebuild CMGC [construction management general contractor] RFPs in a few weeks. Then we really get to have some fun.”

It is my strong opinion that SEG and SLCO acted in bad faith in regards to this entertainment district and that we need far more transparency in regards to projects like this.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Tippy

Do you guys feel like the potential future issues with the Great Salt Lake has stunted growth since the big story dropped or do you think it will stunt growth? I’ve always wondered if it scares away outside investment. Online I’ve seen on several occasions that people wouldn’t move here because of that, or have moved away at least partially because of it.

I think the majority of people follow the jobs and the money. I doubt it's had much impact on investment. Most other things are secondary for most people. The number of people who move here because of the nature opportunities probably exceeds the number who choose not to because of the stories about the GSL and air pollution. That's all conjecture though.

I think the biggest reason for any struggles attracting outside investment is still just a perception that Utah is weird and backwards. We are shedding that image but it's still prevalent.

[meman]

Hey Schmoe

Are those lights across the entire east-facing roofline of the Astra Tower?

If not what are they?

By the way, what kind of lighting will Astra have at night when it is completed?

[RC14]

Originally Posted by zurich

When looking at these pictures of Salt Lake, it's really depressing, especially with all of the same, bland architecture and lack of creativity.

I actually feel much more optimistic when I look at Austin. In 2011, Fortune magazine released a list of the best "new cities" in the world. (Or some title similar to that.) Salt Lake City and Austin were the only two U.S. cities on the list.

I think Salt Lake City and Austin have allot in common. We even have allot of advantages they don't (as other have pointed out.) I think Salt Lake will/could follow a similar trajectory to Austin. We are just a decade or two behind them.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

Building Salt Lake is reporting this morning that SLCO was so close to tearing down Abravanel Hall for SEG that they nearly released an RFP for demo contractors.

I just spent several days in Las Vegas on business. The city has a reputation for being "disposable" with new casinos popping up constantly and old ones disappearing in fantastic implosions.

But it's just a reputation, if you look at actual ages:

• Tropicana is up next for demolition: 1959/1987-2024 (about 40-65 years old)
• Riviera: 1966/1988-2015 (about 30-40 years old)
• New Frontier: 1955-2007 (about 50 years old)
• Stardust: 1958-2007 (about 50 years old)
• Castaways: 1955-1987 (about 30 years)

Here's the thing: I don't think SLC is far better.

• Salt Palace Arena: 1966-1994 (about 30 years)
• Key Bank Tower: 1980-2007 (about 30 years)
• Crossroads Plaza: 1980-2007 (about 30 years)

Granted, I'm not advocating against demolishing those buildings. But with Abravenel Hall being in the same window of time (1979-2024, 45 years), I have to ask:

If New York became New York, and Boston became Boston, and Paris became Paris, and London became London... because many of the city's grand buildings were allowed to stand for centuries. And this created the city's culture...

And Las Vegas will never develop culture because no building will ever be allowed to stand long enough to survive a single century...

Therefore What is Salt Lake City doing that makes it more like the great cities of the world, and not just a cold-version of Las Vegas? I see Abravenel Hall as a building we are stewards of and hand down to many future generations. So that 88 years from now, Utahns alive long after we're dead can see the building the way a New Yorker today looks at Carnegie Hall.

...or we can just keep demolishing stuff. The city will always be new. But the city will always be empty, like Disneyland or a casino in Las Vegas.

[delts145]

215, Simply put as politely as possible, your post is substantively thin and inaccurate. I don't know where I would even begin a response. I'll make this brief. The billions of dollars that have been and are currently being spent over the past couple of decades in order to restore and seismically upgrade major historic structures is impressive, to say the least for a Western U.S. city of its comparative past size and relative national youth. Sure, some such as Arrow Press and The Pantages have slipped through the cracks and I am well aware of every one of those lost. But many more have been or are being restored at a total cost of billions and are seen as international standards of restoration, such as The Capitol and City Hall. Currently, close to 200 million is being spent just on the Rio Grande and The Moss Courthouse, not to mention the billions being spent on the Temple Square Campus. I can name dozens of splendid examples such as City Hall, Boston and Newhouse, Commercial Club, The Tribune, The Devereaux, Union Pacific, The hundreds of restorations through The Avenues, Capital Hill, and Marmalade, The Governors Mansion, The Veterans hospital, The New Yorker, Alta Club, OC Tanner, and on and on. These and many more. So post one photo of a historic icon in Las Vegas the likes of City Hall, The original Hotel Utah or Boston and Newhouse, etc. and I'll post more than a dozen lavish historic Salt Lake City icons. The truth is those kinds of icons don't exist in Vegas, even though it's a relatively older Western U.S. settlement when compared to similar Western U.S. cities. Even intimating that Salt Lake City is somehow the same as Las Vegas or especially proclaiming it a cold version of Las Vegas shows us a whole new level of inaccurate hyperbole.

Edit: I enjoy spending time in Vegas, and would check off a number of modern developments that I'm wildly enthusiastic about. However, SLC and Vegas have two very different vibes when it comes to classic or historic structural icons.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by i-215

I just spent several days in Las Vegas on business. The city has a reputation for being "disposable" with new casinos popping up constantly and old ones disappearing in fantastic implosions.

But it's just a reputation, if you look at actual ages:

• Tropicana is up next for demolition: 1959/1987-2024 (about 40-65 years old)
• Riviera: 1966/1988-2015 (about 30-40 years old)
• New Frontier: 1955-2007 (about 50 years old)
• Stardust: 1958-2007 (about 50 years old)
• Castaways: 1955-1987 (about 30 years)

Here's the thing: I don't think SLC is far better.

• Salt Palace Arena: 1966-1994 (about 30 years)
• Key Bank Tower: 1980-2007 (about 30 years)
• Crossroads Plaza: 1980-2007 (about 30 years)

Granted, I'm not advocating against demolishing those buildings. But with Abravenel Hall being in the same window of time (1979-2024, 45 years), I have to ask:

If New York became New York, and Boston became Boston, and Paris became Paris, and London became London... because many of the city's grand buildings were allowed to stand for centuries. And this created the city's culture...

And Las Vegas will never develop culture because no building will ever be allowed to stand long enough to survive a single century...

Therefore What is Salt Lake City doing that makes it more like the great cities of the world, and not just a cold-version of Las Vegas? I see Abravenel Hall as a building we are stewards of and hand down to many future generations. So that 88 years from now, Utahns alive long after we're dead can see the building the way a New Yorker today looks at Carnegie Hall.

...or we can just keep demolishing stuff. The city will always be new. But the city will always be empty, like Disneyland or a casino in Las Vegas.

Maybe I am missing your point and I apologize if I am but the examples you give aren't very good.

Are you suggesting the old Salt Palace shouldn't have been demolished?

I feel like that's a weird building to focus on because it clearly had reached its end-date as a sports arena. It was far too small to continue housing the Jazz (in its final season, it was one of the smallest arenas in the NBA).

I think there's something to be said about preserving a city's character and understanding cities evolve.

It's interesting you mention New York because I'm sure you're familiar with what Madison Square Garden replaced, right?

It replaced the old Penn Station:



That's maybe far more egregious than anything Salt Lake replaced haha

I support preserving Abravanel Hall but I also understand that downtown can't remain stagnant and unfortunately, things will be lost to time - as is the case with every city.

I'm not too upset the old Key Bank Tower was brought down or that Crossroads is gone.

I do take issue with stuff like the Newhouse, which was demolished for a fucking parking lot.

The Salt Palace Convention Center? I would not oppose an entire rebuild over by the Rio Grande if needed because I don't see the building as being all that culturally significant to he city.

[i-215]

Penn Station is a monumental loss. I agree!

And again, to reiterate what I said before in what is clearly an inelegant post on my part (re: my examples):

I'm not advocating against demolishing those buildings.

My examples are very weak. Fair enough.

And yes, nobody misses the original Salt Palace, though it does may be a bit sad to see buildings only survive a couple of decades (seems wasteful and poorly planned). And much better examples, like the Newhouse Hotel, completely did not cross my mind.

Better examples recently, including the old Pantages Theater on Main that could have been made into something. But even better would be preserving Abravanel Hall as something that can be around 100+ years.

I guess I am trying to make a case that if SLC treats good buildings like Abravanel Hall as "disposable," it really makes the city not much better than the Paradise "Strip" of Las Vegas (or you could substitute the tourist parts of Orlando/Kissimmee). I know that hurts to hear, but I think I'm making a fair criticism.

Many of the buildings in the city are just disposable "cars." We drive 'em to 30 years and then smash them and get something new. But if we treat *all* of the buildings like that (Abravanel), then what is left? The Cathedral of the Madeline and the Salt Lake Temple and... what?

And if we foster a culture of disposability now, future generations will respond in kind, and eventually everything gets demolished. And what will SLC look like in 130 years? (Think that's hyperbole? Look at what cities lost in the 1950s. And the 1960s. And the 1970s. And the 1980s... But suddenly it's the 2020s, and we're immune from short-sightedness because... how exactly?)

(TL;dr - Abravanel has potential to be a long-lasting building. We are stewards of it at this point of time and have the power to hand it to future generations. Glad the county didn't abruptly put out an RFP for demolition because that would be short-sighted and theft from future Utahns).

[i-215]

The Salt Palace Convention Center? I would not oppose an entire rebuild over by the Rio Grande if needed because I don't see the building as being all that culturally significant to he city.

No. The convention center has NO cultural significance. But it sure has heck has huge economic significance.

I've watched everyone on this forum rave for a DECADE about how important building the "Convention Center Hotel" would be. We had to urgently expand the Salt Palace to the south. We had to urgently build the convention center hotel because of how critical Outdoor Retailers and other shows are to the city.

The paint is still drying on the Hyatt. And now suddenly we can just shrug everything and toss the convention center out of the urban core?

As the risk of sounding a bit Johnathan Swift, here's a modest proposal: Why not just move the Convention Center out of downtown entirely? Build it in West Valley City or Bluffdale if it isn't important?

(I realize I'm engaging in hyperbole, but I want to pose the question: Just how important is the convention center to the central core?)

As a more serious answer, I think finding a way to "stack" the convention center on top of itself as a multi-floored venue (e.g., Walter Washington in D.C.) is probably preferable to moving it out of the central core.

I mean, isn't the entire idea of the SEG project to bring dollars into the central core? Wouldn't chasing the Salt Palace away be robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Comrade]

There is a strong line between supporting disposability and stifling development. The reality is that downtown for 100 years has been chock-full of development that was likely needed that also replaced historic buildings. It absolutely is a balance and Salt Lake can't be afraid of major development because they want to save specific buildings. Downtown isn't large enough for that mindset to not negatively impact the city.

With that said, we absolutely should advocate for preservation of the most impressive buildings. That included the Utah Theater. But it's not like the Utah Theater was lost to development. In fact, it was lost the extreme of preservation: the site sat vacant and rundown for so long because no one actually wanted to develop it.

At the end of the day, Abravanel Hall is going to be saved. Nothing of quality is likely to be lost with this development.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That included the Utah Theater. But it's not like the Utah Theater was lost to development. In fact, it was lost the extreme of preservation: the site sat vacant and rundown for so long because no one actually wanted to develop it.

That's an interesting take I hadn't considered. In fairness, I never even knew it was there all these years, until it was ready to be demolished. I just saw the "UTAH ARTS" sign along Main Street from riding TRAX, but never knew what was behind there.

It wasn't like if an operating theater, like say the Capitol Theatre, were suddenly under threat of demolition.

I guess I'm just sour on the Pantages because once I knew what was there, it was too late to save it. And for what? A vacant lot?

It absolutely is a balance and Salt Lake can't be afraid of major development because they want to save specific buildings.

And even the building itself gets called into question. I do think even the best buildings go through an age (maybe 30-50 years old?) where everyone sees it as "junk" and mocks anyone who calls for preservation. But if the building can survive past that age without getting butchered by a "modernization project" or demolition, the future generations are grateful.

And lately, there's been a lot of losses. Outside of SLC, I argue that the Provo Temple was one worth saving. It was a weird, wacky design that made it one of the most iconic. And I think replacing it with a McTemple is a mistake.

On the BYU campus, the loss of the Harris Fine Arts Center (HFAC) was a real shame. It was one of the few truly brutalist buildings in Utah. But I suppose if it was irredeemably dangerous in an earthquake, I suppose I can justify its demolition. But if I'm honest, I feel like the LDS church/BYU tend to swing around "seismic vulnerabilities" a bit too liberally these days as excuses to demolish stuff for the sake of avoiding criticism (see: Utah Woolen Mills Building).

And that's why I'm happy to see the county step up and protect Abravanel Hall. I think it's new enough to be seismically safe. And keeping it avoids risk of a possible Pantages-like "vacant lot" experience. It's good news all the way around, in my opinion.

[Paniolo Man]

I take issue with the mass demolition of mid-century LDS chapels. Unique buildings that came from an era when congregations raised the funds for and designed their own buildings. These chapels have character, they reflect the communities they reside in. These are being sold off under the requirement that the new owners tear the building down. I saw this happen to several in Logan and half a dozen more in the Salt Lake Valley. It is pretty obvious that it's an image thing, they don't want non-LDS entities having the appearance of occupying an LDS building.

I fully agree with I215 that we fail to recognize when a building has potential to be historic. I think that we don't assign the value deserved to buildings built from the 1940s to the 1980s.

Utah State University has demolished half or more of the buildings it had in 1920, and now most buildings built in the 1930s and 1940s are gone or planned to be removed. Utah absolutely has a problem keeping buildings long enough to consider them historic.

I want to see new buildings, but we have a habit of assuming that historic preservation is a zero-sum game: We can have the old stuff or we can have the new stuff.