My best guess, based on what I think is the current building peeking out from behind that taller new one, is that this view is looking southeast from 600W across 200S.
Ya, I still think this is not legit. This is probably some conceptual work for the owner of the property, but probably nothing that has been vetted through city zoning, etc. Also, I think the design needs a lot of editing.
Here is a little photo update for you all. (taken today)
Sugarmont: the coverings on the northeast side are coming down. The parts that are still covered seemed like they were still unfinished. Still no activity at the Sugar Alley site.
Dixon Place is coming along nicely. It's dwarfed by the Sugarmont.
Liberty Sky is on the 7th floor, 17+ more to go.
Paperbox:
West Quarter:
95 State starting to make a big impact at City Creek:
As a bonus, here are a couple images of the exterior of the Utah Theater from the alley behind the parking structure on 200S. I wonder how old the Daynes Music sign is and if it could be saved as an artifact.
Ya, I still think this is not legit. This is probably some conceptual work for the owner of the property, but probably nothing that has been vetted through city zoning, etc. Also, I think the design needs a lot of editing.
Pencil, how do you have access to this?
These renderings are from the ELEV8 Architecture Instagram so its public. It seems like ELEV8 is currently in the process of converting hotel rooms in the south tower of the Red Lion hotel to apartments. https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...ncyCode=SLCREF
I think that the RL proposal is very doable given the fact that all of its mixed-use aspects are in desperate demand in downtown Salt Lake. Bringing the numbers down on Hotel rooms and increasing the Apartment units is very smart, at least until this whole COVID shakeout is more clear.
The lineup of the RL site, Patrinely, 6th and Main, along with 6th and State will make for a major shift from the unimpressive mediocrity of 6th S. as the City's major gateway.
As Makid pointed out, parts of the RL site renderings really do scream future tech space or possibly bio lab space at the northwest corner. This article below posted by Atlas made some excellent points, one of which, how short on supply downtown Salt Lake City is on floorplans for Tech and or potential Bio lab. This is especially accute given the tremendous interest of out-of-town companies wanting to move to the Salt Lake area and their preference for Downtown Salt Lake's urban offerings and exciting development. Problem is, they're having to go to the big metro business parks instead of their number one choice of downtown. The new 95 S. State tower, Patrinely and hopefully the development of Red Lion will help to begin to meet that demand. I think the development of the Red Lion Property as proposed, along with 95 S. State and Patrinely will get the snow ball rolling toward Salt Lake City proper's push as a major tech hub of the CSA. The Bio Lab aspect is particularly interesting in that you can't home office something of that nature. If COVID does have a lasting effect on office patronage, then bio tech would be a something that Downtown Salt Lake City should accentuate, given its already existing leadership in the field.
I appreciate your eternal optimism Delts, but there are a few things that make me very pessimistic that this will get built as shown or at all.
Comrade, where are you? You two are the polar opposites. Delts is overly optimistic and Comrade is overly pessimistic. I need your pessimism to balance out Delts optimism.
Here are my reasons why I am very pessimistic:
1) This is looks highly speculative. They're probably just doing these super conceptual ideas to show potential of what to do on this site to the owner so that they can drum up financial support; The owner probably doesn't really know either what the real demand for the site is.
2) The designers are way underexperienced and just out of school;
3) They're probably super eager and not getting paid for all of this work;
4) This needs a lot of editing. They've stuffed way too much on that size in a semi-haphazard order; There's a lack of cohesiveness, and organization. They've just thrown a bunch of building on to that site. The curved glass building in front of the existing building and then these two very boxy & symmetrical buildings(pretty ugly).
5) There's no possible way all of this will be built as dense as they are showing considering that it's mostly parking lots around.
6) This is all super conceptual, and they probably don't have any tenants for the office.
7) We've seen this all too well with other speculative developments.
8) I've been down this road with developers. They say something, like can you design something that is (fill in the blank), but never really intend to build it or pay for your services, but they are highly complimentary of your design, etc.
I appreciate your eternal optimism Delts, but there are a few things that make me very pessimistic that this will get built as shown or at all.
Comrade, where are you? You two are the polar opposites. Delts is overly optimistic and Comrade is overly pessimistic. I need your pessimism to balance out Delts optimism.
Here are my reasons why I am very pessimistic:
1) This is looks highly speculative. They're probably just doing these super conceptual ideas to show potential of what to do on this site to the owner so that they can drum up financial support; The owner probably doesn't really know either what the real demand for the site is.
2) The designers are way underexperienced and just out of school;
3) They're probably super eager and not getting paid for all of this work;
4) This needs a lot of editing. They've stuffed way too much on that size in a semi-haphazard order; There's a lack of cohesiveness, and organization. They've just thrown a bunch of building on to that site. The curved glass building in front of the existing building and then these two very boxy & symmetrical buildings(pretty ugly).
5) There's no possible way all of this will be built as dense as they are showing considering that it's mostly parking lots around.
6) This is all super conceptual, and they probably don't have any tenants for the office.
7) We've seen this all too well with other speculative developments.
8) I've been down this road with developers. They say something, like can you design something that is (fill in the blank), but never really intend to build it or pay for your services, but they are highly complimentary of your design, etc.
That curved glass building definitely looks ridiculous when considering it appears set more north of the RL and the RL isn’t very set back from the street. I don’t know how it could fit in such a small footprint. With that said I think Delts is right that from a conceptual stand point nothing this concept seems to imply would not be needed. A tech or bio tech campus is definitely needed and demanded in SLC. Housing also is of course in need. This concept is workable if the developer partners with someone experienced.
Don't worry. I think it's a pie-in-the-sky development, as well. I don't doubt something can be developed there but it's highly unlikely it'll be anything remotely this expansive. Not only does it seem they overbuilt the lot size, it just seems too ambitious and, as we all should know, ambitious projects in Salt Lake often falter long before they even begin. There are exceptions, of course, but those are rare and we have multiple more examples of failed, or scaled down, projects than those completed to their initial desired state.
Okay, so I was bored today and wanted to dig around to find out how feasible the whole Hotel RL redevelopment is.
The primary developer is J. B. Earl. Currently they are focusing on redeveloping the existing Hotel. When they are completed with this phase it will entail: 184 Studio Apt Units | 216 hotel rooms
I think the first image that was shown was more conceptual for what could occupy the space:
The more recent update looks to be more realistic:
The newest update has the pool cut down drastically, no more wind surfing. Additionally, the Eastern edge of the new image includes more apartments. They went from 4 to 5 story buildings to 10-11 story buildings.
The new design only uses the northern section of the block, Brewvies would now stay. It also looks like the Sinclair station on the SW corner of 6ht South and West Temple will stay.
The biggest issue I see right now is Parking. Hotel RL doesn't have any underground/structured parking. As they are converting rooms to apartments (184), and will continue to operate a hotel, they will need to ensure access to parking. This means a multi-phase development.
For phasing, I could see them working on the Eastern side of the project first, the 3 apartment buildings. This way it wouldn't conflict with the Patrinely projects just to the East (650 Main and its twin on West Temple).
As the primary developer has more experience with Residential, this does make more sense. It also allows the Western edge to be refined and possibly find tenants. The amount of space shown is probably close to 450,000 square feet. It is doubtful that this would be built on spec.
I do however think that the image was specifically made to shop around to possible Tech and Bio Tech companies.
Overall though, I still lean to the probable side of the development but I think as of now, we can really only expect the Residential component, along West Temple, being built. I also think that the design may change as we are most likely 12 to 18 months out from plans being submitted to begin the process with the City.
We have already seen some large changes between the 2 designs in only a few months and I think it is very reasonable to expect a few more changes before this is presented to the City.
Chat on Twitter is that the team is for sure staying in Utah and possibly the Miller family is interested in the purchase. Also, possibly the Qualtrics guy.
Chat on Twitter is that the team is for sure staying in Utah and possibly the Miller family is interested in the purchase. Also, possibly the Qualtrics guy.
The Garff family may also be interested.
It is good to hear that there are a few local interested parties willing to step up.
Utah’s largest homebuilder is reworking its plans for a new high-density housing project in Salt Lake City’s Avenues after pushback from neighbors.
Ivory Homes, headquartered in Murray, had sought a zoning change on 3.1 acres of open space at the north end of F Street at 13th Avenue with plans to construct 25 new single-family homes of different styles, 20 of them with a smaller and self-contained living unit, often called a mother-in-law apartment, already built in.
CEO Clark Ivory said company officials see the Capitol Park project at 673 N. F St. as potential proof that taking a prebuilt and larger-scale approach to mother-in-law apartments can help address the state’s affordable housing crisis.
“This is a city that has embraced housing affordability more than others,” Ivory said of Salt Lake City. “Now we want to share a very positive example of how this kind of development can be executed.”
Fierce opposition has surfaced among neighbors and an organized group calling itself the Preserve Our Avenues Zoning Coalition. They contend that putting a total of 45 homes on the site — or even a scaled-back 35 units Ivory is now mulling — would be too dense, bring too much traffic and tailpipe exhaust and be out of character with the neighborhood.
“This development, were it to be built, would be passionately resented by residents of the Avenues,” said Peter Wright, who heads the coalition and lives nearby. “While we recognize the city faces a severe housing shortage, individual housing projects have to make sense. This one does not.”
A senior planner for Salt Lake City confirmed the project’s initial application was on hold at Ivory Homes’ request. The city now awaits a revised proposal before restarting the process, which will include public comment.
Clark Ivory said the company was in talks with residents and city officials as it eyes potential design adjustments.
Ivory Homes has an agreement to buy the land from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and church officials applied to Salt Lake City in late April to have the tree-lined undeveloped area rezoned. Documents indicate the request seeks to convert the land from a special foothills-specific zoning that requires home lots above a quarter-acre to an open-ended and denser zoning not used in the Avenues before.
The existing rules would allow up to 12 homes on the F Street property, according to city code, whereas the new zoning being sought could allow four times that limit or more.
In June, a neighborhood leaflet and petition campaign targeting homes in the upper Avenues drew more than 2,070 signatures in opposition. Then there was a contentious online meeting of the Greater Avenues Community Council on the Ivory Homes proposal in July. On Aug. 5, that community council held a vote. It was 688-4 against the zoning application.
The neighborhood’s Salt Lake City School Board trustee has also voiced concerns for student safety by adding as many as 90 more vehicles to traffic flows through the neighborhood, especially on that steep nearby segment of F Street.
Officials with Ivory Homes, in turn, cite Salt Lake City’s own five-year housing plan as a reason to back the project. That document urges city support for more infill housing projects in already developed neighborhoods, creating more options for various types of housing and eliminating limits on density and other development barriers.
“Infill is smart,” Ivory said, “and it’s good for neighborhoods.”
With recent mandates from the Utah Legislature that cities develop detailed affordable housing plans, encouraging mother-in-law apartments and similar living units is the most common strategy they are choosing, he noted. “But if none of them ever do it,” Ivory said, “it doesn’t have any positive impact on housing affordability.”
Opposing neighbors argue that the current zoning rules on the F Street site call for less-dense development, which is seen as a better fit with the hilly Avenues in promoting environmental protections, scenic character and wildlife habitat with larger lots and buffers. The switch to new zoning, they said, would clash with the exiting Avenues master plan.
There are also differing opinions on whether this Ivory Homes project would help to address Utah’s current shortage of rentals and homes for sale within reach of residents earning average incomes.
Housing experts and economists in Utah estimate that after years of price escalation and limited inventories, the state has a shortage of somewhere around 50,000 moderately priced housing units. Those conditions appear to be worsening, too, with the pandemic.
Chris Gamvroulas, president of Ivory Development, said plans for the Capitol Park project include five upscale and customized single-family homes facing onto F Street for purchase at between $1.2 million and $2 million. Those larger homes, he said, will offset sales prices for other homes farther west in the development, each of which would also include its own 500-square-foot apartment either at ground level or over the garage, with a separate entrance and kitchen.
The accessory dwellings, Gamvroulas said, open the option of bringing affordable rentals into an attractive, well-established neighborhood where building new housing is costly, including apartments for students and ground-floor living spaces that could be used by the elderly or disabled.
With recent mandates from the Utah Legislature that cities develop detailed affordable housing plans, encouraging mother-in-law apartments and similar living units is the most common strategy they are choosing, he noted. “But if none of them ever do it,” Ivory said, “it doesn’t have any positive impact on housing affordability.”
Opposing neighbors argue that the current zoning rules on the F Street site call for less-dense development, which is seen as a better fit with the hilly Avenues in promoting environmental protections, scenic character and wildlife habitat with larger lots and buffers. The switch to new zoning, they said, would clash with the exiting Avenues master plan.
There are also differing opinions on whether this Ivory Homes project would help to address Utah’s current shortage of rentals and homes for sale within reach of residents earning average incomes.
Housing experts and economists in Utah estimate that after years of price escalation and limited inventories, the state has a shortage of somewhere around 50,000 moderately priced housing units. Those conditions appear to be worsening, too, with the pandemic.
Chris Gamvroulas, president of Ivory Development, said plans for the Capitol Park project include five upscale and customized single-family homes facing onto F Street for purchase at between $1.2 million and $2 million. Those larger homes, he said, will offset sales prices for other homes farther west in the development, each of which would also include its own 500-square-foot apartment either at ground level or over the garage, with a separate entrance and kitchen.
The accessory dwellings, Gamvroulas said, open the option of bringing affordable rentals into an attractive, well-established neighborhood where building new housing is costly, including apartments for students and ground-floor living spaces that could be used by the elderly or disabled.
With recent mandates from the Utah Legislature that cities develop detailed affordable housing plans, encouraging mother-in-law apartments and similar living units is the most common strategy they are choosing, he noted. “But if none of them ever do it,” Ivory said, “it doesn’t have any positive impact on housing affordability.”
Opposing neighbors argue that the current zoning rules on the F Street site call for less-dense development, which is seen as a better fit with the hilly Avenues in promoting environmental protections, scenic character and wildlife habitat with larger lots and buffers. The switch to new zoning, they said, would clash with the exiting Avenues master plan.
There are also differing opinions on whether this Ivory Homes project would help to address Utah’s current shortage of rentals and homes for sale within reach of residents earning average incomes.
Housing experts and economists in Utah estimate that after years of price escalation and limited inventories, the state has a shortage of somewhere around 50,000 moderately priced housing units. Those conditions appear to be worsening, too, with the pandemic.
Chris Gamvroulas, president of Ivory Development, said plans for the Capitol Park project include five upscale and customized single-family homes facing onto F Street for purchase at between $1.2 million and $2 million. Those larger homes, he said, will offset sales prices for other homes farther west in the development, each of which would also include its own 500-square-foot apartment either at ground level or over the garage, with a separate entrance and kitchen.
The accessory dwellings, Gamvroulas said, open the option of bringing affordable rentals into an attractive, well-established neighborhood where building new housing is costly, including apartments for students and ground-floor living spaces that could be used by the elderly or disabled.
Ivory Homes is considering five fewer houses with these extra units, along with bigger yards and more generous common spaces between the structures. Exterior designs are in Georgetown-style red brick and match nearby homes and the wider neighborhood in terms of architecture, Gamvroulas said.
Opponents, though, predict that the homes with mother-in-law apartments will be priced for sale at $800,000 to $1.2 million. Even with creative financing, those apartments are unlikely to go on the market for rents below $1,500 per month, they predict, putting them out of reach for people with modest means.
”There’s nothing affordable about these things at all,” Wright said of the planned homes. “Nothing at all.”
Prev
Typo, my bad.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/sltrib/AYCYDACQ45AVLEI2WH7DYVJM64.jpg)
Linear Mode
