Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Orlando]

https://www.mhtn.com/portfolio-item/...nces-building/

[Orlando]

This place is awesome! Huge climbing wall inside and striking presence from I-15.

https://www.mhtn.com/portfolio-item/...climbing-club/

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Makid

Something development related that might have been missed last week:

The 6th and Main project is still moving forward.

It appears that the developer is looking to work with the Planning Commission on a Planned Development for the project.

For those that may not remember, this has been mentioned to include a 20+ story apartment building. It will be directly east of the first phase of the Patrinely buildings as well as near the upcoming Trax infill station.

Renderings for this project were uploaded. I believe it was mentioned that Lowe building a 20+ story building was a pipe dream. Apparently they agreed in the end. Plans are for 8 stories now. 175 Units.

6th and Main:





I think it looks great.

[asies1981]

PC denied a CBSDR for the Broadway Apartments

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by asies1981

PC denied a CBSDR for the Broadway Apartments

The facade looks good, and I'm glad the city is requiring them to break up the block long project, etc.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by airhero

Renderings for this project were uploaded. I believe it was mentioned that Lowe building a 20+ story building was a pipe dream. Apparently they agreed in the end. Plans are for 8 stories now. 175 Units.

6th and Main:




I think it looks great.

Yes. Great street engagement.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by asies1981

PC denied a CBSDR for the Broadway Apartments

Good for the Planning Commission. It sounds as if they're listening to residents and their complaints about a lot of the developments that have gone up. I have no idea how the developers can fix this. I agree with them that it's a complicated site. But the building shouldn't span the whole block like that.

I've brought this up before and recently, but I strongly believe zoning should be put into place that restricts building width for all buildings, or something like that. Exceptions could be granted for some buildings, but not apartment buildings. Since Salt Lake's blocks are so big, there need to be rules in place to prevent sprawling complexes like this. Milagro Apartments didn't even go through a CBSDR even though it is huge. And it looks terrible. Every time I pass by it I cringe.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by twig

Dude, your the one embarrassing us here. Its salty irrational, immature people like you that have really made me hate coming on this site. And its seems to be only people here in Salt Lake who seem to have a stick up their asses thinking that there can be nowhere else in the world better than them, when honestly most people do not care about us here in Utah, its the hard reality you should probably consider. We are more like New Hampshire than we are a real cosmopolitan place. To the average person in the country, its easy to forget about Utah, just like New Hampshire.

Are we closer to the mountains than Denver? Sure, but most people don't care, plus if people in Colorado want to live right up against some stunning mountains they have Colorado Springs and Boulder, its not like they don't have amazing options there. But honestly, as a city, Denver is way better and more amazing than here, Proximity to mountains aren't everything, ever consider that? If they were then the Olympics wouldn't even consider Denver. But truth is, Denver has a crap ton of options and only an ignorant douche who can't see passed his own arrogance can see why.

Denver is way better suited to host World Cup matches than SLC that's why they are going to. Nobody thinks that is throwing shade on SLC. It just is what it is. Good for Denver.

The point about the distance isn't a shit on Denver. It is a reality when it comes to infrastructure costs. The same project in SLC is cheaper. Per mile they are comparable but for many fewer miles.

This isn't just true for Denver it is true almost everywhere. This is why SLC is almost the only city in the world that wants the winter Olympics without nervous reservation.

It's kinda like how LA can welcome the summer Olympics without worry. That's not to shit on any other town it's just that LA is well suited(being close to the Ocean and having all the facilities anyway) to do it without piling up pointless debt.

The who cares answer to your question is people in Denver who will have to pay for it.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by airhero

Good for the Planning Commission. It sounds as if they're listening to residents and their complaints about a lot of the developments that have gone up. I have no idea how the developers can fix this. I agree with them that it's a complicated site. But the building shouldn't span the whole block like that.

I've brought this up before and recently, but I strongly believe zoning should be put into place that restricts building width for all buildings, or something like that. Exceptions could be granted for some buildings, but not apartment buildings. Since Salt Lake's blocks are so big, there need to be rules in place to prevent sprawling complexes like this. Milagro Apartments didn't even go through a CBSDR even though it is huge. And it looks terrible. Every time I pass by it I cringe.

I agree and disagree with you at the same time. The width of the building is very important on the frontage but not really internally to the block. There are many good examples in SLC in how to use our block to maximize financial feasibility of a project with minimal frontage use. Buildings that have slender faces should be the norm but in order to make that work we need to allow developers to go deep within the block.

I think this so much that I think we should flip the script on our height allowances. Instead of allowing greater Heights on the corners and less mid block we should restrict corners but allow greater height midblock.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by airhero

Renderings for this project were uploaded. I believe it was mentioned that Lowe building a 20+ story building was a pipe dream. Apparently they agreed in the end. Plans are for 8 stories now. 175 Units.

6th and Main:





I think it looks great.

I like it! Will be another excellent addition of infill for 600 S. This makes for quite a few projects lining up on 600. Seems like most are moving forward also, which is long overdue for that important gateway into the CBD.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Orlando

The facade looks good, and I'm glad the city is requiring them to break up the block long project, etc.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I agree and disagree with you at the same time. The width of the building is very important on the frontage but not really internally to the block. There are many good examples in SLC in how to use our block to maximize financial feasibility of a project with minimal frontage use. Buildings that have slender faces should be the norm but in order to make that work we need to allow developers to go deep within the block.

I think this so much that I think we should flip the script on our height allowances. Instead of allowing greater Heights on the corners and less mid block we should restrict corners but allow greater height midblock.

I very much agree with you regarding the length and width of this project. Length and width should not be confused with each other. This is not the same type of aberration as some of those previous projects which engage the street frontage for several hundred feet. Also, if I remember correctly the West side of this project is well hidden by other structures on the west street view side of the block, running its length from north to south, some of which are historic and quite attractive. The East half of the block is either woefully underdeveloped or contains unattractive suburban style retail. The east half of the block will probably be redeveloped in the not too distant future. I think the fact that the project has a narrow attractive engagement on the north and south actual street views is far more important than how many feet its hidden length will be. I wondered from forum protests in the beginning if everyone realized the buildings actual positioning on the block. It seemed as if more than a few just assumed it was running parallel with the street frontage. I can understand that being the case if one only looks at that initial drawing, without digging deeper into the proposal. I do think its a plus for them to do something more creative with the middle.However, the developers should also be allowed another floor or two to compensate, if needed in penciling out.

[airhero]

I think it looks fine on the street frontage but the long monotonous east facade looks terrible. We don’t know how long until, or even if the parcels to the east will be developed. Even if they are, this building could still stick out and look very bad. I think a good solution would be to require a cbsdr for buildings as long as this one. Thankfully this one is going through a cbsdr, but only because it exceeds the height limit. But a 600 foot long building should trigger a review. Even a 300 foot wide building probably should. Maybe not ban it outright. There could be an even more strict limit on those with a wide street frontage. My main issue in recent developments is Milagro. That should have had a cbsdr.

This parcel is tricky. But Paperbox is a very similar site and they’ve planned townhomes on one side, apartments on the other with a midblock street running through the center, and a couple of small plazas as well. And there are two apartment buildings, one on the west half, one on the east half. You can put a whole lot on a parcel that big, even if it’s long and skinny. Now admittedly, this parcel isn’t quite as wide as the Paperbox parcel, and they can’t do all that is being done on Paperbox, but they need to do something different otherwise it will look terrible. I don’t have a problem holding these guys to a higher standard.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by airhero

I think it looks fine on the street frontage but the long monotonous east facade looks terrible. We don’t know how long until, or even if the parcels to the east will be developed. Even if they are, this building could still stick out and look very bad. I think a good solution would be to require a cbsdr for buildings as long as this one. Thankfully this one is going through a cbsdr, but only because it exceeds the height limit. But a 600 foot long building should trigger a review. Even a 300 foot wide building probably should. Maybe not ban it outright. There could be an even more strict limit on those with a wide street frontage. My main issue in recent developments is Milagro. That should have had a cbsdr.

This parcel is tricky. But Paperbox is a very similar site and they’ve planned townhomes on one side, apartments on the other with a midblock street running through the center, and a couple of small plazas as well. And there are two apartment buildings, one on the west half, one on the east half. You can put a whole lot on a parcel that big, even if it’s long and skinny. Now admittedly, this parcel isn’t quite as wide as the Paperbox parcel, and they can’t do all that is being done on Paperbox, but they need to do something different otherwise it will look terrible. I don’t have a problem holding these guys to a higher standard.

I agree. Just because the long part is in the middle of the block, does not mean that it won't be visible. Those buildings to the west are smaller and it would just dominate them from behind. I'm all for breaking this building up into two. They could still be connected with pedestrian bridges.

[wrendog]

SLC is the USOC pick for the 2030 olympics. So far Sapporo and Almaty are the challengers.

Go get it, SLC!

https://www.ksl.com/article/46448463...inter-olympics

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I agree. Just because the long part is in the middle of the block, does not mean that it won't be visible. Those buildings to the west are smaller and it would just dominate them from behind. I'm all for breaking this building up into two. They could still be connected with pedestrian bridges.

Break them into two buildings and connect them with a sky bridge or if there is underground parking it can have a pass-through from there as well.

With the way the frontage has been designed it would look great with an extra floor or two.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by airhero

I think it looks fine on the street frontage but the long monotonous east facade looks terrible. We don’t know how long until, or even if the parcels to the east will be developed. Even if they are, this building could still stick out and look very bad. I think a good solution would be to require a cbsdr for buildings as long as this one. Thankfully this one is going through a cbsdr, but only because it exceeds the height limit. But a 600 foot long building should trigger a review. Even a 300 foot wide building probably should. Maybe not ban it outright. There could be an even more strict limit on those with a wide street frontage. My main issue in recent developments is Milagro. That should have had a cbsdr.

This parcel is tricky. But Paperbox is a very similar site and they’ve planned townhomes on one side, apartments on the other with a midblock street running through the center, and a couple of small plazas as well. And there are two apartment buildings, one on the west half, one on the east half. You can put a whole lot on a parcel that big, even if it’s long and skinny. Now admittedly, this parcel isn’t quite as wide as the Paperbox parcel, and they can’t do all that is being done on Paperbox, but they need to do something different otherwise it will look terrible. I don’t have a problem holding these guys to a higher standard.

One of the things I most want is density. Density provides for a ton of income per block and truly allows a city to blossom. What better place to get it than midblock? I understand the apprehension that a 600 foot long horizontal line causes but why jump to creating a space for homeless people to potentially take over? Why not allow for more height on the central 200x200 feet of the block? Why not ask the developers to build higher in the middle of the block? Why not create more usable space to break up that line instead of having less usable space?

[Old&New]

Olympics: Salt Lake City selected for potential 2030 Winter games bid

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKBN1OD2RJ

‘We’re just on cloud nine:’ Salt Lake City beats Denver for right to bid for a future Winter Olympics, likely 2030

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/12/...als-pick-salt/

Salt Lake City to bid for Winter Olympics

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...JVP/story.html

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

One of the things I most want is density. Density provides for a ton of income per block and truly allows a city to blossom. What better place to get it than midblock? I understand the apprehension that a 600 foot long horizontal line causes but why jump to creating a space for homeless people to potentially take over? Why not allow for more height on the central 200x200 feet of the block? Why not ask the developers to build higher in the middle of the block? Why not create more usable space to break up that line instead of having less usable space?

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. I’m not proposing a plaza. It may not be right for this project, though it could be if there is something there to engage the space. Was only using Paperbox as an example that a lot can be done on a parcel like that. I think it’s good that this particular proposal is going through a design review. But it was the height that triggered it, not the length. I think the length/width of a building should be restricted and at least trigger a design review. The long monotonous facade should be changed. It is a sprawling wall and overwhelming. I’m all for density as well, as long as it isn’t density for the sake of density. I wouldn’t have a problem with more height. Don’t see the city changing the zoning for this project though.

[taboubak]

I think the Olympics returning will be huge for our cities development. We will see huge investments in infrastructure and urban development. I wouldn't be surprised if some good sized hotels and condo buildings are built because of it as well. This is a huge win for us and should lead to some exciting years ahead for Salt Lake City! Also if SLC bids for 2030 they will most definitely be chosen. With the 2018 and 2022 games in Asia and 2026 likely to be in Europe, North America will get 2030 if a good bid is presented.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by wrendog

SLC is the USOC pick for the 2030 olympics. So far Sapporo and Almaty are the challengers.

Go get it, SLC!

https://www.ksl.com/article/46448463...inter-olympics

HHHHEWWWG! A few Pie in the Sky things I want to happen in step with the Olympics. In no particular order, my Olympic Pipedreams:

- I want to see a tall observation tower built downtown stretching to 500 + feet to celebrate our second Olympics. The top could be shaped like hands holding the flame. It stands as our Olympic tower for eternity and is a huge tourist draw.. Think BIG. Not many cities get TWO Olympics.

- I want to see the most progressive work in the country done on the pollution front. Maybe the tower above is some sort of pollution scrubber and at that point we have massive "safe nuclear" and renewable power running huge public electric car fleets. Hey It's the future!

- I want the IOC to hold the Utah State Legislature hostage and force normalization of our liquor laws in exchange for the Olympics. Those guys on the hill worship the Mighty Dollar we will use the Mighty Dollar to get them out of the way.

- I want either the ski jump, skeleton or luge track run from the top of a brand new glass tower downtown, landing on Main street (only half kidding). A boy can DREAM BIG.