Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
They can always upzone later. I just don't see the need or demand to go 30+ stories in the Power District. I mean, how many 30+ story towers do we have built in Utah now?? 2 And they are both in the CBD. I think we are seeing this a lot lately with all of the development proposals out there, ie. Station Center, Utah City, etc.
|
I think starting off with a 400' limit is better than say a 200' limit.
With a 200' zoning, the area may fill out faster but the problem is what happens when it is full? Generally this means that 1 or 2 buildings are removed to make way for a taller building as well as multiple meetings with the city to either get either a conditional use zoning increase, a rezone of the property/surrounding property or an update to the development agreement.
If we want to have the city increase the overall density of buildings, we need to have zoning set for what the city wants to become tomorrow, not a city that just redevelops the same few blocks.
Just look at the Rio Grande / Central Station area. The city lost an approximate 200' building as the city had it zoned for 120'. This area is a transit hub and growth has stymied due to the lack of zoning heights. Even today, the area has been talked about for years and a 3rd party has suggested raising the heights to allow 400' and taller buildings to take advantage of the transit accessibility. The city is still researching this increase.
This is something that the State has been trying to find a way to fix with cities along the Wasatch Front. They see the need for taller buildings, especially around rail transit stations. The biggest issue though is that all the cities want things done gradually. Start small and then grow up as demand happens. This sounds good in theory but we end up in a debilitating cycle. Let's say a city wants to allow 350' buildings next to their transit station and 200' up to 1/4 mile out, but decides to take the approach of start shorter and up-zone later. The city decides to allow for 100' buildings directly around the transit station and then 60' extending to 1/4 mile from the transit station. The area fills out quickly (say 5-7 years) because of the demand (this is similar to the Fire-clay district in Murray but taller). As the area is now built out per the zoning, the only option would be to up-zone the area, demolish and build taller in the same area.
I think that in many cases, the current zoning plan for SLC is holding back development as we have already seen. I think that areas with high frequency rail transit should have the highest zoning matching the D1 downtown. I also think that the D1 downtown area needs to expand.
Sure, most developers won't build to the limit but we would definitely see taller buildings pop-up around the city, especially near transit stops. We would also see less land-banking happening downtown as more areas would be open to allow for the tallest buildings.
As for the power district, the Miller's are wanting a planned development agreement where they will include parks and open space, various public amenities and more for the ability to build up to 400'. This is something that they could start with immediately, or never even hit in 30 years. Having the option though provides them with more flexibility in how they decide to grow and develop their properties.
We have to remember that this area will be served by 2 Trax lines in the next 10 years (a rerouted Blue line and the planned Orange line). There are also the frequent bus routes along Redwood Road and North Temple. Lastly, there is also a transit hub that is planned to be either within or directly adjacent to the project area. Not even accounting for the close proximity to I-80, this area is primed for taller development. This is something that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Taller, denser development that is spread out will encourage additional development more so than rebuilding the same few blocks every 30 years.
Prev
Linear Mode
