Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

Sorry one last thing to add!

continuing on my post above, maybe I'm an outlier or maybe there are more people drawn to tall buildings also, but when I look at Downtown Dallas or Houston, they have the wow factor from the distance, they have that image of intrigue, but unfortunately when you go in them, there is nothing there to retain you.

Salt Lake is constantly adding street engagement and density, it has what Dallas and Houston don't, it has the retaining effect. What it lacks is the wow factor of intrigue.

It just takes one or two WOW buildings

Like that stupid quote, "If you build it, they will come!"

Well said. SLC, is definitely needs a wow building or 3. I don’t care about height but, I am very keen on design. I think Orlando said as much. Design, design, design. It is what inspires and motivates people to live, work and entertain in the city. Great cities are great because their design of streets, parks, buildings etc. one point I disagree on is I think Utah is very ambitious in many ways. It has a very high entrepreneurial spirit, but in other ways we are very conservative. While I love that PRI is investing SLC, you will never get them to build a wow building because they build to compliment the temple not challenge it for eyeballs. It will likely have to be an outside firm or maybe DDRM?

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

No it should be built in both because we are 250k homes short of full housing and... we're still growing at break neck pace.

1)SLC, SSL, Murray etc aren't going to absorb all the growth. It's not going to happen.

2) higher densities are still preferable on the periphery of the county. You know what might ease congestion? People not having to drive 5-10 miles for everything because their quadrant of the county is too sparsely populated.People being able to choose transit because their quadrant of the county finally made the right decision and allowed for the density to support it. The big Lots with the 2 car garages are the problem.

Phoenix tried something similar. It was a disaster. Density needs to be mainly built in existing urban areas and inner suburbs. What you're describing is just dense sprawl. Houses on big lots haven't been built in the suburbs for over a decade.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

Well said. SLC, is definitely needs a wow building or 3. I don’t care about height but, I am very keen on design. I think Orlando said as much. Design, design, design. It is what inspires and motivates people to live, work and entertain in the city. Great cities are great because their design of streets, parks, buildings etc. one point I disagree on is I think Utah is very ambitious in many ways. It has a very high entrepreneurial spirit, but in other ways we are very conservative. While I love that PRI is investing SLC, you will never get them to build a wow building because they build to compliment the temple not challenge it for eyeballs. It will likely have to be an outside firm or maybe DDRM?

Sorry let me clarify, when I said Utah doesn’t have much ambition I was only talking about buildings, height, etc.

I agree though, a wow building doesn’t have to be a monster, just something out of the norm that sticks out in a good way.

Honestly, even though Denver has lots of buildings and they are fairly tall, I think we are just now getting to the point where design is understood

[taboubak]

Anyone know where these renderings came from? http://www.utahprojects.info/Project...n-Center-Hotel

[ThePusherMan]

^^^ I was just going to complain about a lack of renderings. Although I'm sure these are pretty not even close to where we will end up it is nice to see something.

[wrendog]

Is that renderings of phase two of block 67? That's not the CCH

[Orlando]

Ya, this is from 2013 and on Block 67.

[ThePusherMan]

Well then where are my renderings!?!?!

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

This is blatantly false. If that were the case, then European cities would not be such amazing examples of dense, walkable design. I understand that we are not Europe and never will be, but you simply don't need supertall skyscrapers to create dense, liveable cities.

It most certainly is not blatantly false. I said "it is not an either or proposition"(density or tall buildings/a bunch of short ones or a few tall ones). Salt Lake city isn't competing with itself it is competing with the rest of the Wasatch Front. Of ice space and Residential that isn't built in SLC will be built in the burbs.

As far as tall buildings they absolutely do as a matter of fact provide the opportunity to reach higher densities than would otherwise be achievable. SLC's daytime population is double its nighttime population. This is due to 2 main factors The U, a massive institution, and the tall buildings in our CBD. Those buildings allow thousands of people to come together in a small space. The activity created by those people in a small area is perhaps the greatest advantage our CBD has over the suburban office parks. The retail, food and entertainment
That has a base of support due to that activity is SLC's greatest advantage over suburban residential. SLC is at a competitive disadvantage in almost every respect but having a mature DT where tall buildings are feasible.

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I agree that the far-suburban and exurban developments need to start becoming denser, and believe it or not they are. Those big lots with 2-car garages are not being built nearly as often as they were before the recession. In fact a lot of new development even in Herriman, Riverton, and South Jordan, is townhomes, or single-family homes on small lots.

However, that huge super-dense development near Herriman that was proposed is not the solution. There is good density and bad density - believe it or not, density in and of itself is not the solution to all problems. That development was a prime example of bad density - density for density's sake. Density of that level only works in areas that have pre-existing infrastructure with ready access to transit. What needs to happen is smart design that creates a framework for more mixed-use development, that is allowed to become denser over time. Daybreak is a pretty good example honestly. I wouldn't mind going a bit denser than Daybreak out there, but at least Daybreak is developing that resilient framework.

That development was going to be incorporated almost immediately. A city that would have had the tax base from a dense community so that it could afford the infrastructure it needed without putting such a burden almost wholly on the rest of the residents in the county. Ultimately that land will be developed with much less density, most residents will go everywhere by car, and the county and state will have to take responsibility for building and maintaining the infrastructure that that community cannot afford.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Phoenix tried something similar. It was a disaster. Density needs to be mainly built in existing urban areas and inner suburbs. What you're describing is just dense sprawl. Houses on big lots haven't been built in the suburbs for over a decade.

Maricopa County is over 9k square miles. SL County is less than 750 including the mountains. Salt Lake cannot get physically larger than Phoenix proper. We have only 4 viable entrances in and out of the county. Apples to oranges.

We have to fit another 600k+ people in that area and we already are short on housing.

[Orlando]

I'm with Stenar on this one. We need to fill in and create denser development where existing infrastructure is. Yes, we do need to expand, but smartly. The proposed development out by Herriman is a leapfrog development away out on the fringe of existing infrastructure, etc. There is so much development going on the southern edges of the Salt Lake Valley that create higher demand on existing infrastucture, and greater transporation challenges, and further dependence on the car. People like walkable communities, but I think there is a misunderstanding. You could have a walkable residential area like out in Herriman, but not truly walkable in a mixed-use urban sense, where you can walk to the store, or to work. Compare Portland to Phoenix. Yes, Portland does have some sprawl, etc. but those inner city neighborhoods are so lively and connected with stores, and restaurants, etc. People bike to work or take the transit system to work.

There are so many vacant lots and underdeveloped areas in downtown SLC and the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a significant amount of infill occurring, but the center of the metro area (downtown Salt Lake City) becomes drained of vibrancy when so much development seems to pull away from the center of the metro.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Orlando

There are so many vacant lots and underdeveloped areas in downtown SLC and the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a significant amount of infill occurring, but the center of the metro area (downtown Salt Lake City) becomes drained of vibrancy when so much development seems to pull away from the center of the metro.

Agreed. BTW the biggest land bankers downtown are Salt Lake City Corp and one family. The SLC redevelopment regime is sitting some sick ass dirt and has been for decades in some cases. Time for them to sell it. Yesterday.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

This is blatantly false. If that were the case, then European cities would not be such amazing examples of dense, walkable design. I understand that we are not Europe and never will be, but you simply don't need supertall skyscrapers to create dense, liveable cities.



I agree that the far-suburban and exurban developments need to start becoming denser, and believe it or not they are. Those big lots with 2-car garages are not being built nearly as often as they were before the recession. In fact a lot of new development even in Herriman, Riverton, and South Jordan, is townhomes, or single-family homes on small lots.

However, that huge super-dense development near Herriman that was proposed is not the solution. There is good density and bad density - believe it or not, density in and of itself is not the solution to all problems. That development was a prime example of bad density - density for density's sake. Density of that level only works in areas that have pre-existing infrastructure with ready access to transit. What needs to happen is smart design that creates a framework for more mixed-use development, that is allowed to become denser over time. Daybreak is a pretty good example honestly. I wouldn't mind going a bit denser than Daybreak out there, but at least Daybreak is developing that resilient framework.

Bob, with all due respect, this is the Skyscraper Page, not the mid-rise clearance at K-Mart Page. SLC does need to grow taller and denser. Much more so than now. The city's attempt of infill is admirable, but far off pace from what is needed. Some of the suburbs are becoming denser than the parts of the city center, which is nonsensical and backwards.

I am strongly against more suburban/exurban sprawl & growth. I disagree with your second paragraph, but I emphatically agree with your third paragraph.

Building around mass transit is essential. Creating dense city centers is critical. Changing an Automobile centric culture is extremely important.

We are to add another 3-4 million on the Wasatch front by 2060. We are geographically hemmed in. We have to grow denser and taller in places like Murray and South Salt Lake, particularly around transit. Despite someone's discouraging post saying it won't happen. If it doesn't this place will be undesirable to live in.

Going cheap will not be the answer. Sprawling into infinity won't work. The NIMBY's and redneck locals need a reality check. The cheap ass developers need a kick in in theirs.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

That development was going to be incorporated almost immediately. A city that would have had the tax base from a dense community so that it could afford the infrastructure it needed without putting such a burden almost wholly on the rest of the residents in the county. Ultimately that land will be developed with much less density, most residents will go everywhere by car, and the county and state will have to take responsibility for building and maintaining the infrastructure that that community cannot afford.

I don't know how many times I need to post this in this forum until some of you get this, but the existing roads to this land are already near failure. You cannot put that many people that far from major roadways when there is no room to build highways or freeways to them. And rather than spending billions on new roadways to reach this land (for one developer's profit), we could build much more densely along existing highways.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Were there any renderings for this? I assume that there were. Can anyone dig for them and post on here?

The only rendering I've seen was for a project that wasn't selected.

[Liberty Wellsian]

I see the homelessness not only on the streets but the young people living in basements and on couches. The state is 250k households short (not people households!). Let's say,since SLC is roughly 1/3 the pop, that around 85k are in SL county. We are already short 85k households! On top off that we need to add 600k people. Divided by the people per household (around two and a half) we are talking another 240k households in the county. That is 325k new households needed in SL county alone! There is less than 1 million in the entire state right now!

Srsly the change, the development that is needed to accommodate what is here now and what is coming is absolutely unprecedented in the history of Utah. Housing is quickly becoming our biggest problem and almost everyone is underestimating the scale of it.

[Liberty Wellsian]

1/3 of the homes from St. George to Tremonton. That is what we have to build in the next 30 years, in Salt Lakecounty alone, with very little land to do it on.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

1/3 of the homes from St. George to Tremonton. That is what we have to build in the next 30 years, in Salt Lakecounty alone, with very little land to do it on.

There is plenty of land in SL county. It needs to be re-purposed and developed properly.

It needs to be placed around mass transit. Where 'some' effort is taking place.

[Marvland]

Qualtrics sells for 8 Billion cash to SAP. Take that unicorn IPO off the table.

BOOM

[Orlando]

The housing demand is even greater up here in Seattle, yet they have restricted or severely limited freeway expansion, and sprawl. The state and Seattle Metro communities have upzoned many existing developed areas to higher density mixed-use housing. Strip Malls and underutilized urban and suburban parking lots are being developed into carefully planned mixed-use housing. I've been on a project for a few years now which has demolished a suburban strip mall (with a Trader Joe's) for 600 units and 5 to 7 stories of higher density housing and amenities. It is much smarter and sustainable to develop and densify those areas already around existing key transportation and employment nodes then to continue to sprawl outwards and depend greater on the car and spread out infrastructure.