Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[airhero]

While I'd love to see a taller tower, why would we push for affordable housing in a luxury apartment tower on Main Street? Wouldn't that ultimately cost way more money than giving subsidies to property owners of already existing buildings to rent more affordably? I don't understand cramming all this affordable housing in nice new buildings. Seems kinda fishy. But maybe I don't have a good grasp on how affordable housing works.

[airhero]

Also, I understand if the theater is demolished but it's a little embarrassing that Minneapolis can restore a theater very similar to this one in 2002 after decades of population decreases and, consequently, decreasing revenue streams, while Salt Lake is booming and can't figure out anything for its theater. Yeah there may not be as much demand for another theater...now, but it's a century old and more than worth preserving and eventually renovating. If the city is more patient they'll get the opportunity eventually to fund it. But they're just giving up.

Like I say, I understand, but it's embarrassing. Excited to have a proposal like this from Hines but it's bittersweet.

[Orlando]

I assume that this will be a competition between the Kensington tower and this tower to see who starts building first. Based on the previous ten years or so, I'm not sure the city could get two stunning high-end residential towers at the same time roughly.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by airhero

While I'd love to see a taller tower, why would we push for affordable housing in a luxury apartment tower on Main Street? Wouldn't that ultimately cost way more money than giving subsidies to property owners of already existing buildings to rent more affordably? I don't understand cramming all this affordable housing in nice new buildings. Seems kinda fishy. But maybe I don't have a good grasp on how affordable housing work.

It is best, when possible, to include a mixture of incomes in new construction. This helps the overall community. When a building is fully lower income, it generally isn't maintained as well for whatever reasons.

With regards to this building, the Developer stated they plan to include 10% (30) of the units as affordable. What I think the City is saying is that as the developer is already planning for 30 units, why not make it 50 affordable units and have 500 units in the building to keep the 10% level. The City would help to provide additional funds if needed for this increase in units.

This could in turn add roughly another 250'+ to the building roughly helping to make the the building a centerpiece for the City.

[Hatman]

My complaint is the necessity of tearing down the theater. I am exited to have a new tower on Main Street and couldn't be happier with the design. But why can't the two things co-exist?

Here is a picture from the KSL article:



This picture is looking east, with the Kearns building on the left, the new mid-block walkway in the middle, and the new tower on the right. Where does this mid-block walkway go? Into an isolated green space that doesn't make any sense. The walkway doesn't connect through the block at all. It dead-ends in the park that is placed exactly where the theater used to be.

Here is the current view from Google Maps (I outlined the proposed footprint of the tower in red - best guess):



So we're not replacing the theater with a tower, we're replacing the theater with an open lot of grass. Call it a park or green space or whatever, but I say this is unnecessary and weird.

Why can't the developer just... not? Why not build the tower as planned, and take the entrance way to the theater (because who cares about that) but leave the 'house' part of the theater as-is?

Nobody is asking for money to restore it now. Just leave it where it is and we'll get to it later.

I completely agree with Airhero, it would be extremely embarrassing for Salt Lake City to level its old theater when Minneapolis-Hennepin was able to restore their exact copy of the Pantages. Here is the usual comparison:

Minnesota:



Utah:

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Makid

It is best, when possible, to include a mixture of incomes in new construction. This helps the overall community. When a building is fully lower income, it generally isn't maintained as well for whatever reasons.

With regards to this building, the Developer stated they plan to include 10% (30) of the units as affordable. What I think the City is saying is that as the developer is already planning for 30 units, why not make it 50 affordable units and have 500 units in the building to keep the 10% level. The City would help to provide additional funds if needed for this increase in units.

This could in turn add roughly another 250'+ to the building roughly helping to make the the building a centerpiece for the City.

I'm assuming Hines is getting subsidies or tax credits or something either way, as long as they provide affordable housing. I'm assuming the lower income residents will have access to all the same common amenities as everyone else? Just seems wrong to give incentives for affordable apartments in luxury buildings.

[airhero]

Looks like the next "phase" of Hardware Village is going forward. Planning docs were submitted for the Hardware Crossing development being built just west of 4th West Apts. Nothing new on the bigger office building west of the hardware building yet.

[Pencil]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/09/...city-approves/

[Orlando]

It's a nice design, but I don't think this fits in this area at all. It's way too clean looking, especially the white brick.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

I assume the walkway and park will connect through in the future. I think it is the first step with the anticipation further development will provide a complete link. The complaint that we put 140m into Eccles Theater is comparing apples to oranges. We were investing in a venue that had a lot of pent up demand and people have been very willing to spend their own money to fill the shows. The Pantages has no obvious market and could be a 100m movie theater. I am sure they could use get use out of it, but the ratio of cost to use seems pretty out of wack.

[millhouse]

Originally Posted by airhero

While I'd love to see a taller tower, why would we push for affordable housing in a luxury apartment tower on Main Street? Wouldn't that ultimately cost way more money than giving subsidies to property owners of already existing buildings to rent more affordably? I don't understand cramming all this affordable housing in nice new buildings. Seems kinda fishy. But maybe I don't have a good grasp on how affordable housing works.

The reason additional affordable housing is attractive to the city is obvious. But the reason it is attractive to the developer is it allows for other long term financing options.

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by Orlando

It's a nice design, but I don't think the white brick fits with this area.

White is their thing. Most of the other CW Urban developments have a fair amount of white on the outside--and inside for that matter.

[airhero]

I've nothing against providing for more affordable housing. Whether it's attractive to the city or the developer doesn't matter in this context. My concern is with this particular development and me paying for a portion of it. Why should I be okay with my tax dollars (and everyone else's) being spent on incentivizing developers to provide apartments for lower-income people in a luxury apartment building that 95% of city residents can't afford to live in? If my tax money is going to affordable housing, it should be in something more...average maybe? The purpose is to provide housing. A place to live. Not an apartment in a prime location with luxurious amenities.

If Hines wants to put affordable housing in this building without our tax dollars, that's fine. But everything changes when they're taking incentives. That's why I ask, is it just a fact of life that in order to deal with the affordable housing crisis we need the incentivize for something affordable in every new development possible (including luxury apt buildings), such that people who make far less than most people in the city get the opportunity to live in better apartments than the rest of us, who don't qualify for affordable housing? Are we just supposed to deal with that? I'm asking seriously. And sorry if I'm annoying people

[Utah_Dave]

I completely agree with you with this particular building and affordable housing. There are plenty of more affordable construction projects a city could get more bang for the buck out of. Maybe the city is getting caught up in the excitement too just like I would, who knows. Other people’s money is fun to spend right.

In this case, I’m kinda cool with it. It pales in comparison to what we have seen lately with the Prison/ Draper Developement and the way the Inland port fiasco. But I agree with your premise.

[bob rulz]

I don't see why providing incentives for developers to include affordable housing in their developments is a bad thing. I get your point but frankly if it gets more people into housing then I'm all for it. And if adding more affordable housing gets us a new tallest, then sign me up.

I'm more worried about us providing low-interest loans to developments that are entirely luxury condos, like the CW Urban Pioneer Park condo project mentioned above. Not to mention the inland port/prison stuff (though that's a whole separate issue that I won't get into).

[airhero]

Yeah I guess one case isn't a huge deal, and if it gets us a taller building than has been proposed (and possibly a visible new tallest, It's a great central location for one!) then I'll probably be happy hehe.

[airhero]

CBSDR application submitted for 255 S State (13 and 8 story buildings at former La Porte site). Yet another project taking an additional step.

[Gastroc]

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/qualtr...-headquarters/




Frustrating that Seattle gets a new downtown tower from a company started in Utah by Utah natives... This would have looked so good in SLC.

[FullCircle]

^^^ That is a bit of a kick in the shorts for sure.

[Orlando]

.