Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeographer
I’m new to posting to the forum but have been reading it for several years now. Blah, thanks for all the posts on new development you contribute. They are much appreciated. With that said I agree with most of your points. SLC needs more infill first before we truly build up. Otherwise we’d end up looking like OKC. The lack of infill on a larger scale as you pointed out is due to housing zones, and in my opinion due to the way many cities were designed in the US, with sprawling suburbia focused on car transport. To your last point I feel differently. I feel SLC wide streets contribute to the lack of urban feel. With the wide streets and ridiculous car dealerships downtown in SLC I often feel like I’m not in an urban environment. Not sure how the Denver comparison works either. Denver has the 16th street mall, which is an urban canyon with some height in the foreground, has street performers and many bars/restaurants, and much more pedestrian activity than Main Street. And it’s closed to cars all the time other than a street bus, providing that pedestrian experience you’re describing. To cap it off, the 16th street mall in Denver ends at the Union station, an actual transportation hub, at least by Intermountain West standards. I know you’re not comparing the density, rather you’re pointing out that narrow streets in NYC and Denver make it feel claustrophobic compared to SLC. Too me, the narrow roads, urban canyons and bustling street scenes are what make a city feel like a city. Wide roads with tons of cars remind me of the suburbs.
To another point, I disagree that the skyline only matters to visitors. As a kid growing up in Denver I would always feel a sense of pride when I saw our skyline. I know Denver’s skyline is not anything compared to some skylines, but I felt a sense of pride when viewing it through my kids eyes and still with my adult eyes to this day. Some may think it’s outdated and ugly, but the Cash Register building is iconic to Denver. What towers are iconic to SLC? The temple (not a tower)? The other day when I saw the new Hyatt hotel I thought to myself this is a cool looking building with the glass, curves and narrow shape N-S. This could be an iconic building to SLC. I do agree infill is a priority over building one or two large towers, but eventually it would be nice for SLC to get an actual skyscraper and not end up looking like Phoenix. Otherwise we’ll just always be the city with less tall buildings than St. Paul Minnesota. I bet the people of Austin are more proud of their burgeoning skyline by the day. If the infill doesn’t follow though I do agree the height can be a bad thing. It’s a fine balance. A burgeoning skyline is about more than just how it makes visitors feel. It’s about a sense of pride in the community and a sense of place in my opinion.
Anyways, like I said, been following for years now. I moved to SLC 7 years ago and have been impressed by the development so far. Hoping there is much more infill in the future, and maybe even a few iconic towers eventually if we’re lucky. Big thanks again to Blah, Hatman, Delts and others who contribute to the forum.
|
Thanks TheGeographer.
A response to your thoughts.
First, I don't want to sound like I don't think skylines matter - they do. Your right that they can often be a source of pride. I was saying that they are definitely not the most important thing and should not be the guiding factor in policy. I love to look at our nice (albeit smaller) skyline with pride. But I also feel pride in our expanding skyline because it is a mark of the improving quality in our urban environment. Not simply because of a skyline in of itself.
Second, the Denver comparison. While Salt Lake City was founded before Denver, Denver is the one that looks and feels like an old east coast city. It has narrow roads and a flat geography that echo New York. It also saw a vast quantity of its towers built in the 1980s, which resulted in a relatively stark, gray, and angular towers that (imo) are not the most interesting to look at as a pedestrian.
You are right to suggest that the wider streets does have a tendency to dampen the urban canyon effect that Denver has - made worse by the fact that our towers are (at least for now) shorter. But, I would also say that that is exactly why it feels better in Salt Lake's Central Business District overall in comparison to Denver.
Keeping in mind that Salt Lake's downtown is very small in comparison to Denver's, I grabbed a few screenshots from Google Earth to show What I mean.
Denver: I literally just zoomed in to some random intersections along major roads in Denver, so they may or may not be the best representations of the city. That said, a pattern developed between them. You can indeed see (and somewhat feel) the urban canyon effect that Denver's smaller blocks, narrow streets, and taller towers create that does indeed make it feel like the larger city that it is.
But it is also very gray, dark, lacking of greenery, not pedestrian friendly, auto-oriented and many would say that it feels somewhat claustrophobic. It does indeed look and feel like a major east coast city.
Salt Lake: In comparison, Salt Lake has smaller towers, large blocks, and wide roads. This gives off the 'small city' vibes that Salt Lake has somewhat been known for. While the city gained many towers in the 1980s, those towers don't dominate the sky like they do in Denver. We are...late-bloomers, and I think that is a good thing. What Salt Lake really has is possibility. As more and more tower projects are proposed and built, I think Salt Lake will start to make up for being late to the tower party.
This idea of possibility is why I love our wide streets. Yes, right now most of our streets are used by UDOT to move enormous amounts of cars. But even those (as you can see in the photos below) don't have the same level of gray, oppressed, starkness that cities like Denver have. They feel more open and allow light to better enter the street, even under our tallest buildings it feels more open and free (somewhat reflective of traditional Western US ideals). Streets like State Street and West Temple, in the hands of the right people, could become similar to linear plazas and parks for pedestrians and the public to enjoy.
Again, Downtown Salt Lake City is really just at the start of its development journey, while Denver is much more matured. Streets like West Temple look barren in comparison to Denver's large urban canyons. But I know that will only improve from here.
I personally think our wider streets are going to make our future better and more full of possibilities as our towers and urban landscape develops in comparison to the limitations of the narrow streets in Denver. Especially if we can get UDOT to think more about pedestrians and other alternative modes of transit. That was my overarching point in the comparison.
It is all subjective I guess, so this is just how I feel about it. I really like Denver, but I love and am much more hopeful for Salt Lake in the future.
Prev
Linear Mode
