HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2941  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 10:20 PM
twig twig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
If the question is why we don't have more towers downtown than 215 is spot on when he says the location of downtown is driving this issue. SLC has a downtown that is tucked away and is not centrally located, so as the suburbs developed it has relocated that power away from downtown. If your downtown is centrally located and all the suburban development radiates more or less equally from there, the city center retains is status of influence and also is not as far of a commute as the region grows. This creates a situation where company owners and executive officers, who make these decisions where to locate their offices, know they don't have to commute as far. SLC is in a place where the power center has shifted South and many of those people are living 20-50 miles away from SLC.

If the question is why we don't have taller towers the answer is simple: block size. There is a strong correlation between block size and tower height. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Denver and even Phoenix have small blocks relative to SLC and not surprisingly have taller towers.
Again that’s just another excuse. Every city has their own unique reasons why developers don’t need or maybe shouldn’t build taller towers. Look at Denver, they have MUCH more developable available land than Salt Lake does, and yet they are incredibly urban and dense compared to most other inland cities with endless available land to use. It is much cheaper to build in the burbs there and yet because of the increasing demand in the center city they keep building a great urban core.

All I’m saying is if there is real demand for high rises, developers will build them. If there is real demand then developers will take the risk and build taller buildings downtown, they do in every other city. Salt Lake is not different in this aspect. But since there is not that demand, developers are going to use the large blocks to their advantage and build safer smaller risk developments. Everything is about supply and demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2942  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 10:23 PM
twig twig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 65
Developers have a hard enough time getting small high rises we have here off the ground, so why on earth would developers ever shoot for anything larger here, it would be stupid and way too much of a risk. When demand comes, larger towers will come along with it regardless of how big your block is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2943  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 11:21 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 509
Understanding the dynamics in each city/region and how that impacts how they develop are not excuses. The reasons why SLC or any other area develop the way they do is complex and multidimensional. Of course demand is the biggest part of it, but understanding the situation helps determine WHY demand is not as high as it could be. Your desire to call anything outside of your reasons "excuses" is intellectually lazy. If researchers were to study this phenomenon they would look at many factors and most likely come to a conclusion that is far more complex than what you are offering. If for example we compare Phoenix and SLC, it is noteworthy to notice that their downtown is in the middle of the metro region and has much smaller blocks. I highly doubt that Phoenix has any less of a sprawl impulse than SLC does, so these factors could be important in understanding the difference. Once we understand the causes we can advocate for policies that address the issue. For instance, we can more aggressively limit the footprint of a building relative to height which creates de facto smaller blocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2944  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 11:41 PM
twig twig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
Understanding the dynamics in each city/region and how that impacts how they develop are not excuses. The reasons why SLC or any other area develop the way they do is complex and multidimensional. Of course demand is the biggest part of it, but understanding the situation helps determine WHY demand is not as high as it could be. Your desire to call anything outside of your reasons "excuses" is intellectually lazy. If researchers were to study this phenomenon they would look at many factors and most likely come to a conclusion that is far more complex than what you are offering. If for example we compare Phoenix and SLC, it is noteworthy to notice that their downtown is in the middle of the metro region and has much smaller blocks. I highly doubt that Phoenix has any less of a sprawl impulse than SLC does, so these factors could be important in understanding the difference. Once we understand the causes we can advocate for policies that address the issue. For instance, we can more aggressively limit the footprint of a building relative to height which creates de facto smaller blocks.
So large blocks are keeping demand low? Large blocks are not what if keeping people from creating demand to live in and work downtown to the extend to demand large buildings. Large blocks are a reason that developers use to create small less risk developments because they are far from comfortable to build taller buildings. If a developer saw such high demand then they would be a lot less reluctant to build taller buildings in the downtown area, and the large blocks would have little to do with the decision at that point. What Orlando said makes far more sense to as why high rise demand isn’t as high, why would people live downtown if most the jobs are going at the silicon slopes area? There’s the answer to your supply and demand answer. Not large blocks.
Large blocks are just another piece to the puzzle.
Every large city has obstacles to overcome.
Want to change the demand pace, then entice these large companies to move downtown instead of the burbs, and wallah! You got office space demand and you in turn start to get much more residential demand regardless of block size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2945  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 11:41 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
I think that the 2020s may be different for a number of reasons.

1)We are starting to run out of developable land.

2) We can't fix traffic by expanding I-15

3) Rents are climbing fast, making a tower more economically feasible.

4)DT is already a much more attractive option than it used to be and I believe it is only going to get better.

5) The population is diversifying. We are now importing new residents. It seems like many have a more urban taste.

6) This ties in with number one. We still have a ton of teenagers yet to hit adulthood. All of those kids born in the late 90's and 2000's are going to have to live somewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2946  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 12:30 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by twig View Post
So large blocks are keeping demand low? Large blocks are not what if keeping people from creating demand to live in and work downtown to the extend to demand large buildings. Large blocks are a reason that developers use to create small less risk developments because they are far from comfortable to build taller buildings. If a developer saw such high demand then they would be a lot less reluctant to build taller buildings in the downtown area, and the large blocks would have little to do with the decision at that point. What Orlando said makes far more sense to as why high rise demand isn’t as high, why would people live downtown if most the jobs are going at the silicon slopes area? There’s the answer to your supply and demand answer. Not large blocks.
Large blocks are just another piece to the puzzle.
Every large city has obstacles to overcome.
Want to change the demand pace, then entice these large companies to move downtown instead of the burbs, and wallah! You got office space demand and you in turn start to get much more residential demand regardless of block size.
Large blocks

Decrease available frontage. Demand wider roads. Decrease possible pedestrian pathhways and increase walking distances. There is little doubt in my mind that our block sizes definitely impact DT vitality. The key will be to be aware of the negative impacts that our block sizes have so that we can be creative in finding ways to mitigate them while still reaping the benefits of greater developable density. I think we started to see that happen under Becker with his emphasis on breaking up the blocks with pedestrian pathways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2947  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 12:48 AM
airhero airhero is offline
ML Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 908
The Birdie, 218 S 200 E (SW corner of 200 E 200 S):



There will be 2300 sq ft of retail on the corner.

Kinda hope this dies because this is one of my dream parcels for a highrise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2948  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 3:00 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
With the coming Inland Port, SLC will see most residential, industrial and commercial in the next decade.

SLC is already at an all time high for population. Most feel that we are already over 200K and some feel that there is a good chance that the city will be over 210K if not around 220K come the 2020 census. This is without increasing boarders/annexing, all through actual growth. Downtown population will have gone from around 5K to between 12K - 15K (doubling to tripling) in 10 years.

Sure, we may have only completed 3 20+ story towers since 2010 so far but we should have 2 finish in either late 2020 or early 2021: Tower 8 and 151. There are very good odds that Held will start soon as well.

We will continue to see more infill be built throughout downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods which will further increase the population of the city which in turn helps in corporate recruitment and expansion.

The best thing that SLC has going for it is the poor planning of the suburbs, especially Lehi and Draper. The changing tide of tech development is shifting slowly away from the suburbs and SLC will be more readily able to handle the shift. There are many Tech companies located downtown currently and many that want to be there as well but the space isn't available currently. This may be changing soon with Tower 8 and Patrinely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2949  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 4:09 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
L.A.-based artist to propose design for Regent Street public art
Quote:
edia artist Refik Anadol has been invited to submit a public art proposal for Regent Street by the city's Redevelopment Agency and the Salt Lake City Arts Council.

The commission of a public artwork designed specifically for the street is the final element of the RDA's $12-million reconstruction of the area. Funded by the RDA and managed by the city's Public Art Program, the project has a budget of up to $2 million, which when completed will be the city's largest public art project ever commissioned. Regent Street is located between Main and State and 100 and 200 South.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ublic-art.html

Check out his work!
http://refikanadol.com/works-grid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2950  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 4:28 AM
Ironweed Ironweed is offline
Ironweed
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by airhero View Post
The Birdie, 218 S 200 E (SW corner of 200 E 200 S):



There will be 2300 sq ft of retail on the corner.

Kinda hope this dies because this is one of my dream parcels for a highrise.
I agree Airhero. That corner should be for a high rise, not a low-rise apartment building. What is proposed is certainly better than what is there now...A parking lot.

As far as SLC falling further and further behind as a dynamic urban center is concerned, I think everyone has valid points on what the problems are.

Below are what I believe are the issues retarding the city's growth.
Many of you have already mentioned them. None of these are in particular order. Except #1.

1.) Piss Poor bi partisan leadership and vision. Especially in the economic
development category. Economic development for the city alone has been
an utter failure. It also has been going on for decades. The downtown
rising was an LDS project. Without it, the city would be a disaster zone
today with little investment.

2.) Local culture and ignorance - Many local folks in Utah are only two
generations off the farm, and prefer sprawl with large lots. They
some how believe urban density is a threat. This is untenable for the
future.

3.) Automobile obsession - A strong automobile cartel and lobby has
developed in Utah as the result of the locals preference for the auto. This
group has little incentive to stop selling cars.

4.) Local developers - Mostly small minded, very greedy, and lack vision.
They will be forced to changed their MO.

5.) Partisan politics. The state and city hate each other.

Lack of demand is a straw man argument. Pure B.S. I agree that Comrade is absolutely correct. I hope he and I are proven wrong. I do applaud the city for trying to provide additional residents downtown, which can help with some vibrancy. In the meantime Squat Lake will continue to be an after thought until the above items change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2951  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 6:00 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
There has been a lot of dirt moving on the 151 State site recently, I believe they just started paving the street or parking area that's supposed to be next to it (I don't remember the details of the plan), but I work downtown and there has been something going on there almost every day.

They recently did soil testing at the Tower 8 site next to Harmons. Based on the talk here, Tower 8 seems like almost a done deal.

I would be surprised if both 151 State and Tower 8 were not under construction by the end of the year. Hopefully Block 67 and Patrinely will follow as well. Sure, we haven't heard anything recently. But neither one of them is behind the schedule that we originally heard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2952  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 6:22 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
If the question is why we don't have more towers downtown than 215 is spot on when he says the location of downtown is driving this issue. SLC has a downtown that is tucked away and is not centrally located, so as the suburbs developed it has relocated that power away from downtown. If your downtown is centrally located and all the suburban development radiates more or less equally from there, the city center retains is status of influence and also is not as far of a commute as the region grows. This creates a situation where company owners and executive officers, who make these decisions where to locate their offices, know they don't have to commute as far. SLC is in a place where the power center has shifted South and many of those people are living 20-50 miles away from SLC.

If the question is why we don't have taller towers the answer is simple: block size. There is a strong correlation between block size and tower height. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Denver and even Phoenix have small blocks relative to SLC and not surprisingly have taller towers.
This would be true if we were looking at it purely from just the Salt Lake Valley perspective but that's not the case. Salt Lake City is at the near center of the Wasatch Front:



(this is a map of heroin overdoses but you get the point)

Ogden to Salt Lake City is 38.2 miles (Ogden being the general northern edge of the Wasatch Front) and Provo is 45 miles. That's pretty damn centralized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2953  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 3:07 PM
jedikermit's Avatar
jedikermit jedikermit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post

(this is a map of heroin overdoses but you get the point)
__________________
Loving Salt Lake City. Despite everything, and because of everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2954  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 3:25 PM
twig twig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 65
I guess I'm in the minority then that think that even if we would have smaller blocks we still wouldn't have anything more or that much taller than what they currently are. I mean we have only really have ever had one real developer, and that is the church. And I don't ever see Cowboy doing anything more ambitious than they currently have already. So what has told us that we would have taller buildings if we had smaller blocks besides looking at other cities. I mean, we really aren't that big of a city, and we definitely don't have the same drive as Austin. I just don't see large blocks as being a huge reason as to why we don't have tall buildings. I think its just a small piece of the puzzle. Is it a problem? Yes! But its not the real reason as to why. There are plenty of US cities that have a crap ton of available land in their downtown but still have tall buildings. And I understand the idea that large blocks create this idea in developers heads that they need to do something different and creative to make a great pedestrian experience but what developers are actually caring about the pedestrian experience? More than half of all the development downtown doesn't even offer street level retail.

Its not the large blocks so much keeping demand out, its the lack of large companies willing to locate there. And you cannot say that its the lack of office space downtown, if there was really that many companies willing to move downtown then the buildings will come. That is how every city midsize city operates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2955  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 4:07 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by twig View Post
I guess I'm in the minority then that think that even if we would have smaller blocks we still wouldn't have anything more or that much taller than what they currently are. I mean we have only really have ever had one real developer, and that is the church. And I don't ever see Cowboy doing anything more ambitious than they currently have already. So what has told us that we would have taller buildings if we had smaller blocks besides looking at other cities. I mean, we really aren't that big of a city, and we definitely don't have the same drive as Austin. I just don't see large blocks as being a huge reason as to why we don't have tall buildings. I think its just a small piece of the puzzle. Is it a problem? Yes! But its not the real reason as to why. There are plenty of US cities that have a crap ton of available land in their downtown but still have tall buildings. And I understand the idea that large blocks create this idea in developers heads that they need to do something different and creative to make a great pedestrian experience but what developers are actually caring about the pedestrian experience? More than half of all the development downtown doesn't even offer street level retail.

Its not the large blocks so much keeping demand out, its the lack of large companies willing to locate there. And you cannot say that its the lack of office space downtown, if there was really that many companies willing to move downtown then the buildings will come. That is how every city midsize city operates.
I agree with you on the block size. Smaller blocks would have more streets but we would still have smaller buildings. We may actually have less high rises than we do now. We may have a lot more 8 to 10 story buildings but a lot less 12+ story buildings.

It is also possible that with smaller blocks, the zoning would be different and the minimum height would be shorter as well as there could not be a zoning issue against surface parking.

I tend to think that the large blocks will eventually lead to taller towers as they are easier to build on larger blocks. The current zoning is actually beneficial to this with the corner lots in the D1 encouraging height and the mid block encouraging mid-rises.

As I said in my post last night, we are seeing a turning point in that people are moving to SLC in large numbers. More and more people are moving in and developers are playing catch up. The only thing holding back the people are the number of units available. Even the rental rates aren't slowing them down.

What needs to happen is someone needs to look at what is slowing down the process of proposals through ground breaking. If it is something the City can address directly (Planning, Zoning, Design Review, etc.) to speed it up, the City needs to start looking into it now. If it is outside of its control, maybe it can start an enterprise fund or a corporate relocation fund to help encourage direct growth in the CBD that helps spur additional growth.

We know that Commercial growth increases Residential growth and that increases transportation growth which increases Commercial growth and so forth.

We can see a slightly accelerated version of this since the mid 90's:

Salt Palace Expansion
American Stores/Grand America/Olympic Bid Secured
Trax
Gateway
FrontRunner
City Creek Center
222
More Trax
More FrontRunner
S-Line
111
Eccles Theater
1st South Hotels (South Across from Arena)
AC Hotel
2nd South Apartments
Micro Marriott next to Holiday Inn Express
-Announced-
151 (Residential)
Tower 8 (Commercial)

This doesn't count the residential along 4th South, the main Library, or any of the thousands of other residential units that have been completed or are being built around downtown that are taking up available space.

It is this available space more than anything that has been main cause behind the lack of high rise building in SLC. Demand is there for high rise living but demand isn't fully there on property values and definitely on available land, land banker thinking aside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2956  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 4:29 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,447
I don't think we'd have any more buildings, or any taller buildings, than we do now no matter where downtown was located or what the block situation was - those aren't trivial matters, but they're also not city-altering matters, either. Downtown doesn't have a good amount of towers because of a few reasons.

1. High Rise living - this makes up a bulk of construction in a great deal of similar metros (see: Austin) and SLC has been behind the ball on this one the last two decades. I'm hopeful there is a trend forming that will change that but most the development we're seeing today, these cities saw in the 90s. So, we've got a lot of catch up to do (and thankfully we have the LDS Church pushing high-rise living because without 'em, the last 'tall-ish' residential tower development downtown would've been the Parc at Gateway, which opened in what ... 2001?).

2. High commercial demand - SLC has a lot of startups and smaller businesses but not a lot of the type of companies that would need to fill a tower. Maybe with the Wall Street of the West thing becoming more a thing, that'll change. But for now, there just isn't the need.

Now as for the block sizes. Like I said, I don't believe they've impacted the actual building of towers. However, I will say they've impacted the skyline and overall vibrancy of downtown. If Salt Lake had smaller blocks, and the streets weren't as wide, the skyline would certainly be more compact and appealing and downtown would potentially be more walkable. That would help.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2957  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 4:30 PM
ajiuO's Avatar
ajiuO ajiuO is offline
A.K.A. Vigo
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,989
They need to do somthing with the north end of gateway. I think they should put a MacFrugal‘s where forever 21 used to be. Then they can turn the old Apple store into a title loan type of place. Maybe up above that they could put like a dope ass Vape shop. The old skybox could be gutted out and become an indoor swap meet. They should also squeeze a couple nasty Chinese and Mexican food places in there that change their names every two months. Then they need a sleazy convenient store that has a bunch of outdated crap but a great selection of beer And cigarettes. One of those stores were you can get five T-shirts for $20 would also be great. It’s too bad Payless shoes went out of business because they would also be a great fit.

No.. A couple people of told me that they said on the news that gateway was going to do something about the movie theater there. Does anybody know anything about this? Is Megaplex going to remodel or or is Gateway getting a new operator? I think they should give some of the auditoriums to the planetarium... and then get someone like Brewvies to move in. I think brewvies would be a much better fit for what they are trying to do. I know brewvies is opening a new location in Ogden with reclining seats and everything. So it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that they might be looking to update in Salt Lake.
__________________
On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a
throne of blood! What was will be! What is will be no more! Now is the season of evil!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2958  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 5:35 PM
Utah_Dave Utah_Dave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 690
I think the zoning for height is also too restrictive in the downtown area and there are many hoops and delays to get an exception thus making projects even more difficult. I understand there can be adjustments and exemptions but the process is slow from what I hear. Not to mention the zoning can drive up the prices of land too, however I have no evidence for this.

I say expand the max height zoning area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2959  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 9:23 PM
gakidave gakidave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Not downtown, but still of interest to Salt Lake City:

Quote:
(KUTV) -- United Parcel Service announced it is constructing a $275 million regional operations facility at 380 S. 6400 West in Salt Lake City's northwest quadrant.

Once complete, the facility on nearly 160 acres is said to be among the largest processing facilities in its global package network. More than 1,500 permanent employees are to be hired at the regional hub.
Given the size of it, I wonder if we'll get UPS cargo flight outside of Louisville and Ontario.

http://kutv.com/news/local/ups-to-hi...n-regional-hub
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2960  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 9:23 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Exit 298
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Valley / Los Angeles
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post
This would be true if we were looking at it purely from just the Salt Lake Valley perspective but that's not the case. Salt Lake City is at the near center of the Wasatch Front:



(this is a map of heroin overdoses but you get the point)

Ogden to Salt Lake City is 38.2 miles (Ogden being the general northern edge of the Wasatch Front) and Provo is 45 miles. That's pretty damn centralized.
That was true 10-15 years ago when the job growth wasn't dominated by software. There's something weird going on, because houses in Salt Lake and Utah Counties are all $300-400k+ while I can still get a house in Weber county for under $200k.

The new office buildings are software dominated. And that shifts the center of the map away from downtown to the Silicon Slopes corridor (SoJo to Lehi). Getting a midrise office building approved is a piece of cake, especially if it is along the I-15/Frontrunner corridor. I mean, just look at all the development going up near 106th. It's a freaking edge city now.

If we had a boom in commercial banking, I could see Downtown SLC getting a lot of towers. But the boom is in software. And they've picked their place to plant in the ground and grow. And it pretty much strattles the county line.

Quote:
(this is a map of heroin overdoses but you get the point)
LOL
__________________
Celebrating 20 years on SkyscraperPage
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.