Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[allh]

Saw a 50 ft drill yesterday at the Astra site, anyone know what it’s for?

[JAMESEY271975]

Originally Posted by mstar

Did everyone see the post that the "Save the Pantages" made over on Reddit? That guy is officially, certifiable crazy! That post looks to me like a clear threat to the Mayor, City Council and Hines. I think he now has no hope for his cause as he burned any cred. Not like he had any to begin with.

He went on hunger strike between supper and breakfast. Not exactly Bobby Sands commitment

[bob rulz]

I also left a comment about how heights need to be significantly raised, including unlimited height in the D1 zone and higher limits in the Granary District. I did approve of a doubling of allowed heights in the Depot District, even if I think even 180 feet is still too low.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by allh

Saw a 50 ft drill yesterday at the Astra site, anyone know what it’s for?

This is for drilling out the support piers. Once the hole is drilled, a steel mesh is lowered into the hole and then the hold is filled with concrete.

This has become the primary pier construction method in the downtown area as it is faster, quieter, and less damaging than the previous method of pile driving.

Here is a link to a site that can better describe what is occurring:
https://theconstructor.org/geotechni...ruction/11242/

[TheGeographer]

Filled out the survey and advocated for taller buildings and less height limits. We should strive to be like Calgary, a city with a million less in their metro and has a way better skyline.

[allh]

Originally Posted by Makid

This is for drilling out the support piers. Once the hole is drilled, a steel mesh is lowered into the hole and then the hold is filled with concrete.

This has become the primary pier construction method in the downtown area as it is faster, quieter, and less damaging than the previous method of pile driving.

Here is a link to a site that can better describe what is occurring:
https://theconstructor.org/geotechni...ruction/11242/

Good looks Makid, thanks.

[Hatman]

Alright, which one of you guys added the Rio Grande Plan to the depot's Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver...alt_Lake_City)
Whoever you are, you are my new hero! It's this kind of community effort that is going to make this thing actually happen!

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Alright, which one of you guys added the Rio Grande Plan to the depot's Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver...alt_Lake_City)
Whoever you are, you are my new hero! It's this kind of community effort that is going to make this thing actually happen!

It amazes me that Salt Lake City and/or UDOT aren't all over funding the Rio Grande Plan. Utah is actively losing economic potential every year they don't fund it.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Makid

It would remove the need for design review for exceeding 100' mid-block like today.

My issue is that outside of the direct downtown area (West Temple and 200 East and 100 South and 400 South) that is currently zoned D1 would see the maximum height drop from 375' to 250'. So rather than expand heights through a larger area, it is a reduction in area. The only exchange that is offered for this reduction in area is an increase in as of right height for mid-block locations.

Then the heights for the Depot and Granary areas are still to short. They need a 50% increase at a minimum.

I think that at least in the Depot and Downtown areas, the maximum height should be unlimited when going through a design review. Granary maybe should be set to a max height of 375' through a design review for now unless it is along Trax, then no limit.

While the opinion may not be shared by many, I think that we need to encourage and even offer increased height for better density, affordable housing options, transit improvements, mid block connections, public parks, etc. that benefit the community and the city overall. Usually these are called out during the design review process but maybe if they are included in the filing process. Perhaps a scoring system could be built as a way to bypass the design review process to expedite the proposal to construction process.

I completely disagree with this. A 375' zoning height allowed in the Granary? That would be disasterous to the character of that area. That would also be disasterous for the Depot District. The City should enforce height limits. I do agree that in downtown they should require any new development to go through Design Review, but loosen up the height maximum to 500'.

[delts145]

I tend to agree with you Orlando. I'm sure Makid would have some flexible thoughts after your excellent point.

For sake of discussion how would you like to see the pyramid effect of the skyline develop? I'm thinking the tallest towers of say anywhere between 5 and 600 ft. would be between 1st and 4th South(North to South view), and State and 2nd west(East to West view). Outside of those perimeters the tapering would begin. Of course, you would have a lot more flexibility proceeding southward along State, Main, and W. Temple.

[Atlas]

I'd like to see an allowed height of 120-ft by right in the Depot District. More with design review. For the Granary, double what it is now.

D-1 is mostly fine as it is, imo. The 375-ft design review requirement isn't too onerous for such large projects. Maybe allow taller buildings without design review in the midblock parcels.

Originally Posted by Hatman

Alright, which one of you guys added the Rio Grande Plan to the depot's Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver...alt_Lake_City)
Whoever you are, you are my new hero! It's this kind of community effort that is going to make this thing actually happen!

Well it was me initially, but it looks like someone has added/reworded it since then.

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

Filled out the survey and advocated for taller buildings and less height limits. We should strive to be like Calgary, a city with a million less in their metro and has a way better skyline.

Calgary has a bigger skyline than Denver despite having only 1.3 million people (compare to SLC MSA of 1.2 million, Denver MSA: 3 million). Edmonton has gotten impressive too. The Canadians are doing something right.


Source

[delts145]

What is even more impressive about Calgary is that its entire 2022 estimate CSA total is 1.38 million. That's less than half of Salt Lake City's CSA total estimate for 2022. Even more impressive when you compare it to Denver's CSA total(also including Boulder). I also think tower for tower Calgary's a bit more attractive than Denver. To be fair to Salt Lake and Denver though, their skylines are probably both going to change a lot over this next decade. As far as Salt Lake City taking cues from some of the current tower designs out there, I think a dab of Austin and Calgary should be looked at for trends. That is if you're not looking for shorter versions of some of the newest towers in New York.


Edmonton's pretty impressive also with an even smaller CSA (1.13) than Calgary. Not quite as perfectly arranged as Calgary (could use a couple of gradual step-downs to the left of the new tallest) but still impressive, especially for its size.

[Makid]

As I have thought about the height limits, I have come up with something that may help the City as a whole and make things easier as the City grows.

There are 2 different methods that can be used:

Template 1:
Downtown
As of Right Height: 400'
Design Review Height: Unlimited

Depot District
As of Right Height: 2/3 height of tallest building within the Downtown district or 300', whichever is taller
Design Review Height: 3/4 height of tallest building within the Downtown district or 350', whichever is taller

Granary District
As of Right Height: 2/3 height of tallest building within the Depot district or 200', whichever is taller
Design Review Height: 3/4 height of tallest building within the Depot district or 235', whichever is taller

Template 2:
Downtown
As of Right Height: 400'
Design Review Height: Unlimited

Depot District
As of Right Height: 2/3 height of tallest building within the Downtown district
Design Review Height: 3/4 height of tallest building within the Downtown district

Granary District
As of Right Height: 1/2 height of tallest building within the Downtown district
Design Review Height: No design review height adjustment

With both templates, the City can grow taller in multiple districts at the same time. We also have a pyramidal type of design in that the highest intensity projects (tallest) are still focused in the Downtown area.

Template 2 has an advantage over Template 1 in that only 1 zoning area needs to be adjusted, if needed, over time. That being the Downtown area.

For practical application, we can use todays heights for the limits using Template 2 but using the Astra as an example:

Downtown: Astra Approx. 450'
Depot as of Right: 297' (Round up to 300')
Depot with Design Review: 338' (Round up to 340')
Granary as of Right: 225'

Having an as of Right height of say 300' or a max height of 340' around either the Central Station or the Rio Grande station is more fitting than current plans. It would help to activate the area and would not be a drain on other districts.

We should be able to imagine 20-25 story apartment buildings near and around the busiest transit hub in the State. Imagining 13-18 story apartment buildings spread out in the Granary shouldn't be a stretch either.

Even with the increased limits, we won't see developments reaching that height tomorrow, they would increase gradually and as development increases, it will be seen as a more natural progression.

We need to stop forcing all tall buildings (250'+) Downtown and limiting the height in other zones by an arbitrary number will cause a continuation of the issues we have been seeing: Constant redevelopment Downtown with less historic preservation and developers fighting for years to see a height increase in areas with the best transit coverage in the State.

Lastly, the types of heights allowed under Template 2 would actually benefit the Downtown district as it would reduce the incentive to sit on developable land with the hope of a big payday. As other sites are developed and heights increase, more space opens up for additional taller developments.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I'd like to see an allowed height of 120-ft by right in the Depot District. More with design review. For the Granary, double what it is now.

D-1 is mostly fine as it is, imo. The 375-ft design review requirement isn't too onerous for such large projects. Maybe allow taller buildings without design review in the midblock parcels.




Well it was me initially, but it looks like someone has added/reworded it since then.


Calgary has a bigger skyline than Denver despite having only 1.3 million people (compare to SLC MSA of 1.2 million, Denver MSA: 3 million). Edmonton has gotten impressive too. The Canadians are doing something right.


Source

For what its worth, aerial photos probably give a better sense of the size and density of Calgary's city centre:

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by Makid

This is for drilling out the support piers. Once the hole is drilled, a steel mesh is lowered into the hole and then the hold is filled with concrete.

This has become the primary pier construction method in the downtown area as it is faster, quieter, and less damaging than the previous method of pile driving.

Here is a link to a site that can better describe what is occurring:
https://theconstructor.org/geotechni...ruction/11242/

Correct. These are auger cast piles. If you stop by the site, you can see many of these reinforcement cages lying around. That drill can reach depths over 100 feet.

[TheGeographer]

Thanks for the aerial photo of Calgary. Puts things in perspective. A quick look at Calgary’s wiki page shows they have one 800 ft tower, three 700-800 ft towers, and fifteen 500-700 foot towers. If you look at their downtown in the aerial photo it looks like there are a decent number of 150-400 ft towers away from the core downtown. Given the population comparisons if Calgary can support this sort of height, I don’t see why Salt Lake could not if they are innovative enough when it comes to planning and building use. The heights Makid is proposing would give us something more like Calgary in the future. A dab of what Austin is doing would also be nice.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I completely disagree with this. A 375' zoning height allowed in the Granary? That would be disasterous to the character of that area. That would also be disasterous for the Depot District. The City should enforce height limits. I do agree that in downtown they should require any new development to go through Design Review, but loosen up the height maximum to 500'.

This is going to be something I think I disagree with both Orlando and delts.

What has allowed the great Canadian skylines like Edmonton and Calgary is the ability to build towers in more than one small section of the city. Freedom to build without restricting everything to suit some arbitrary ideas of the past is critical to achieve skylines like these. All of these limits on Salt Lake's will make a skyline like these impossible here.

Downtown Salt Lake City is already surrounded on its Eastern and Northern edges with neighborhoods that will fight even an inch added to the height restrictions on the grounds that it will be "disastrous to the character of the area."

This means Downtown only has two directions it can grow. By refusing to allow towers in the granary, you have thus eliminated its Western expansion. That leaves only southwards. While there is a lot of potential south, especially along State Street (if it was up to me, I'd zone everything bordering State Street D-1 all the way to 2100 South), it doesn't make up for the loss of potential westward expansion.

Many warehouse districts around the world have allowed towers and it has enhanced, not detracted from the area. Why wouldn't that be true here as well? Why does adding a bunch of 3-5 floor standard apartment buildings suit the area, but not a more efficient use of the space like beautiful new towers? Why does that harm the character of the downtown adjacent neighborhood, but another standard beige suburban style apartment building does not?

Why should we be defining the Granary District so poorly? Stunting its growth and potential before it even can come into its own? Making it out to be nothing more than a few 1 floor warehouses and a beige apartment building or two, when it could be an amazing and eclectic section of a bustling Downtown?

Limiting the Granary's height and artificially forcing things like a 'skyline pyramid' snuffs out creativity and potential. As someone who wants Salt Lake City to have an amazing future, I think such actions will be a terrible mistake.

[Orlando]

There is plenty of spaces for towers in the D-1 zone and elsewhere. There may be a few spaces where an 8-12 story might work in the Granard, but there is plenty of spaces closer in where taller buildings can exist. Also, there already has been community charrettes for the Granary where people have voiced that they want dense development but low-scale. A 20-story tower has no place in the Granary. Trust me as someone who was worked on many zoning feasibility studies in Seattle, Portland, and SLC. There is a time and place.
Even Seattle limits heights in certain areas to keep views and appropriate scale for the area. I designed an 8-story building close to downtown, because the height limit only allowed that much, and it was the right scale.

Anybody posting that there needs to be height limits up to 300' plus in the Granary does not understand the context. I've been down this road with developers in the Granary before and I had to show them that 20-story towers do not belong there.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Orlando

There is plenty of spaces for towers in the D-1 zone and elsewhere. There may be a few spaces where an 8-12 story might work in the Granardy, but there is plenty of spaces closer in where taller buildings can exist. Also, there already has been community charrettes for the Granary where people have voiced that they want dense development but low-scale. A 20-story tower has no place in the Granary. Trust me as someone who was worked on many zoning feasibility studies in Seattle, Portland, and SLC. There is a time and place.
Even Seattle limits heights in certain areas to keep views and appropriate scale for the area. I designed an 8-story building close to downtown, because the height limit only allowed that much, and it was the right scale.

Anybody posting that there needs to be height limits up to 300' plus in the Granary does not understand the context. I've been down this road with developers in the Granary before and I had to show them that 20-story towers do not belong there.

As someone who has lived here my whole life, who intends to live here my whole life, I DO understand the context of the area. The idea that I do not insulting to say the least.

Some people and cities have become so addicted to zoning restrictions and control that they do not realize they themselves are destroying of the potential of their communities, not preventing it.

We all know that much of the land in D-1 that is developable is either in the process of being developed, owned by a few land-banking organizations (that without reform, may be indefinite), or is already occupied with lower level buildings and may stay that way for a considerable amount of time.

Salt Lake City is at the exact right time to eliminate its zoning height restrictions on the western sides of downtown in areas like the Granary before things solidify. However, that time is quickly passing. Every new 3-5 floor building that is built in the area, it further solidifies it as the norm.

When we reach a point where Downtown SLC is fully built out its current D-1 (likely in the next 10-15 years or so), there will be a fully built Granary District and that will be solidly 50 feet and under. At that point, it will be TOO LATE to rezone the area because it genuinely would stand against the character of the area that has developed under the arbitrary powers of the zoning. I fear it will be just as entrenched in its 5 floors and under ways as the Avenues is.

So I respectfully, disagree. To wait is to only make rezoning and height rises in these areas more difficult to outright impossible. The speed of development is such that the rezones are really now (next 3 years or so) or likely not at all.

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by Orlando

There is plenty of spaces for towers in the D-1 zone and elsewhere. There may be a few spaces where an 8-12 story might work in the Granardy, but there is plenty of spaces closer in where taller buildings can exist. Also, there already has been community charrettes for the Granary where people have voiced that they want dense development but low-scale. A 20-story tower has no place in the Granary. Trust me as someone who was worked on many zoning feasibility studies in Seattle, Portland, and SLC. There is a time and place.
Even Seattle limits heights in certain areas to keep views and appropriate scale for the area. I designed an 8-story building close to downtown, because the height limit only allowed that much, and it was the right scale.

Anybody posting that there needs to be height limits up to 300' plus in the Granary does not understand the context. I've been down this road with developers in the Granary before and I had to show them that 20-story towers do not belong there.

I’ll preface by saying that I do not have experience in zoning feasibility, and I do agree there are still many spots downtown where taller buildings can be built. What I’m interested in and want to know from your perspective and insight, why can Calgary and other Canadian cities build taller buildings away from their downtown main core and make it work (see aerial photo)? Is it that in the US we only want tall buildings in the core downtown? As you mentioned those living in the granary area don’t want taller buildings. Or is there something more to it? How does Calgary make it work with half the CSA population and we cannot? Genuinely interested in your perspective on this since I speak from my opinions and desires and you have actual professional experience.