HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7241  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 9:11 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,224
This is probably your best bet.

The problem is, this building isn't particularly charming, and it doesn't even look old. The metal cornice added in the '90s or whenever probably spoils any chance this building had at being considered under the age & integrity criteria, as if the lack of significance weren't enough.

Like I've said before, the only thing old thing I appreciate about this building is its style. A more attractive building of a similar style could easily be built today, just look at the 50 East South Temple office building.

I have more sympathy for the prudential building next door. Problem is, that building has been empty for a long time, and it doesn't look like anyone has expressed a sincere desire to renovate or occupy the building.
     
     
  #7242  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 9:24 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
This is probably your best bet.

The problem is, this building isn't particularly charming, and it doesn't even look old. The metal cornice added in the '90s or whenever probably spoils any chance this building had at being considered under the age & integrity criteria, as if the lack of significance weren't enough.

Like I've said before, the only thing old about this building is its style. A more attractive building of a similar style could easily be built today, just look at the 50 East South Temple office building.

I have more sympathy for the prudential building next door. Problem is, that building has been empty for a long time, and it doesn't look like anyone has expressed a sincere desire to renovate or occupy the building.
This argument has been used time and time again to justify the tearing down of older buildings, including beautiful theaters. A 3,000 seat opera house in San Francisco (which even had survived the San Francisco earthquake) was demolished because it "wasn't being used." Now the city wishes it hadn't demolished it. It's no surprise Main Street storefronts have been vacant durring the last 30-40 years. Until recently, downtown was dead. Give these older buildings a few more years, and they are sure to find new life.
     
     
  #7243  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2011, 1:54 AM
gemery's Avatar
gemery gemery is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
The problem is that we leave the power of that decision to whoever owns that land. I think the public should have a say in their city about what gets knocked down. Once we have knocked down something forever it will be gone. Despite the landowning situation, I think we can avoid more buildings knocked down, and put pressure on owners to develop on vacant lots. Salt Lake's downtown is so much richer with its older buildings. We have so little of them that every time one is knocked down, more of what historic charm the city has is forever erased. Some cities have very strong historic preservation values. Salt Lake City does to some extent obviously. But, I think it could have done much better. Remember that the original theater proposal did not intend to knock down any buildings, and now it has turned in to knocking them down.
Well, I think that the right to decide what you do with your property is inherently American, so I don't see the government (see also "the public") taking over like that anytime soon. I think that there is definite value in having historical societies that set regulations for historical buildings, and they do. However, you can't just say to the owner of the parking lot, "I'm sorry, but a theater will be here, so shove off!"

Of course, I would love having a theater on that parking lot. However, the option of an additional decade of debate just to get the land rights (maybe) isn't worth it. I'd rather have a world-class theater now. And, though I love the Benion building, I really don't see the buildings being torn down as inherent historical value. I think increasing the value of downtown buildings (by surrounding them with things like a broadway-style theater) will encourage further development downtown (including potentially building on that parking lot). So, I'd say it's worth it.
__________________
"Boys will be boys. And even that wouldn't matter if we could prevent girls from being girls."
-Anne Frank
     
     
  #7244  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2011, 5:43 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old&New View Post
This argument has been used time and time again to justify the tearing down of older buildings, including beautiful theaters. A 3,000 seat opera house in San Francisco (which even had survived the San Francisco earthquake) was demolished because it "wasn't being used." Now the city wishes it hadn't demolished it. It's no surprise Main Street storefronts have been vacant durring the last 30-40 years. Until recently, downtown was dead. Give these older buildings a few more years, and they are sure to find new life.

The problem is that Main Street is a deceiving folksy name. Main Street is really Salt Lake City's Wall Street (the financial corridor and urban canyon of the whole State of Utah). Look at other cities down their main urban canyon and see if they have fared much better than SLC.

I think considering how conservative we are in Utah and considering how much we love cars, it's nothing short of a miracle that Salt Lake City has as many historical buildings as it does. It's a miracle we didn't become Huston and it's a real tribute to the good work that has been accomplished by the Utah Heritage Foundation.
     
     
  #7245  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2011, 7:05 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
The problem is that Main Street is a deceiving folksy name. Main Street is really Salt Lake City's Wall Street (the financial corridor and urban canyon of the whole State of Utah). Look at other cities down their main urban canyon and see if they have fared much better than SLC.

I think considering how conservative we are in Utah and considering how much we love cars, it's nothing short of a miracle that Salt Lake City has as many historical buildings as it does. It's a miracle we didn't become Huston and it's a real tribute to the good work that has been accomplished by the Utah Heritage Foundation.
I'd much rather Main street keep a good mix of uses and activities rather than become a boring financial district. Perhaps, if you have your heart set on it, a more appropriate place for a financial district would be along the State Street corridor or south of 400 South on Main Street.
     
     
  #7246  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2011, 7:50 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
The problem is that Main Street is a deceiving folksy name. Main Street is really Salt Lake City's Wall Street (the financial corridor and urban canyon of the whole State of Utah). Look at other cities down their main urban canyon and see if they have fared much better than SLC.

I think considering how conservative we are in Utah and considering how much we love cars, it's nothing short of a miracle that Salt Lake City has as many historical buildings as it does. It's a miracle we didn't become Huston and it's a real tribute to the good work that has been accomplished by the Utah Heritage Foundation.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Salt Lake City started seeing a huge decrease in population around the time automobiles became the primary use of transportation. Houston and other cities that lost much of their historical architecture saw their biggest growth in an era where the automobile was the emphasis of planning.

Salt Lake City didn't see much growth from 1960-1990 - the era that defined many of those cities. Because of that, there wasn't a need to go in and demolish total neighborhoods for new housing projects that sprung up in a great deal of other cities throughout the south and west.

Look at it this way: in 1950, Houston had a population of 596,163. In 1980, thirty years later, they were at 1,595,138 - an addition of one-million people in a very short span.

Salt Lake City saw its most significant population increase since the Great Depression in the 1940s - well before cars impacted development patterns. The 1950s, when the automobile really started taking off, was the last decade the city saw a net improvement in population until the 1990s.

So when the automobile was introduced to the average American, population shifted to the suburbs and that left much of Salt Lake City untouched for decades - beyond development patterns west of downtown.

In that regard, we kind of lucked out. Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte and Atlanta all saw explosive growth post-1950 and because development patterns had dramatically changed from where they were in the earlier 20th Century, it forced many of these cities to go in and rework their urban fabric.

Charlotte is a good example of this. That city lost a lot because of urban renewal when it became a far more important southern city from 1950 to today, really, and that huge population increase altered the makeup of the city.

In 1950, Charlotte had a smaller population than Salt Lake City. In 1960, ten years later, it had surpassed Salt Lake City and that includes the final decade Salt Lake saw growth until the 90s.

By 1990, Charlotte had gone from 100,899 in 1940 to 395,934. Salt Lake City went from 149,934 in 1940 to 159,936 in 1990.

I think had the growth patterns been different and Salt Lake City saw an economic and residential boom from 1950-1990, we're probably looking a bit more like many established southern cities that lost a great deal of their history than a city that was able to preserve it because population patterns were not favorable for such a long stretch.

And isn't that the ironic thing about this? Salt Lake City lost a huge portion of its population and that loss probably made it easier to preserve so many neighborhoods and buildings because the city, even though it did dab in urban renewal (the malls downtown, a few other instances) didn't see the kind of growth that would dictate such development.

What'll be interesting is to see how the city does in population the next ten years. Salt Lake City barely grew from 2000-2010 and that was after its best decade of growth since 1950. 2.6 growth isn't bad, but the slowdown has to worry city officials because it's similar to the slowdown we saw prior to the three-decade long decrease in population.
     
     
  #7247  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2011, 8:03 PM
StevenF's Avatar
StevenF StevenF is offline
The Drifter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: American Fork, UT
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds View Post
I think it has more to do with the fact that Salt Lake City started seeing a huge decrease in population around the time automobiles became the primary use of transportation. Houston and other cities that lost much of their historical architecture saw their biggest growth in an era where the automobile was the emphasis of planning.

Salt Lake City didn't see much growth from 1960-1990 - the era that defined many of those cities. Because of that, there wasn't a need to go in and demolish total neighborhoods for new housing projects that sprung up in a great deal of other cities throughout the south and west.

Look at it this way: in 1950, Houston had a population of 596,163. In 1980, thirty years later, they were at 1,595,138 - an addition of one-million people in a very short span.

Salt Lake City saw its most significant population increase since the Great Depression in the 1940s - well before cars impacted development patterns. The 1950s, when the automobile really started taking off, was the last decade the city saw a net improvement in population until the 1990s.

So when the automobile was introduced to the average American, population shifted to the suburbs and that left much of Salt Lake City untouched for decades - beyond development patterns west of downtown.

In that regard, we kind of lucked out. Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte and Atlanta all saw explosive growth post-1950 and because development patterns had dramatically changed from where they were in the earlier 20th Century, it forced many of these cities to go in and rework their urban fabric.

Charlotte is a good example of this. That city lost a lot because of urban renewal when it became a far more important southern city from 1950 to today, really, and that huge population increase altered the makeup of the city.

In 1950, Charlotte had a smaller population than Salt Lake City. In 1960, ten years later, it had surpassed Salt Lake City and that includes the final decade Salt Lake saw growth until the 90s.

By 1990, Charlotte had gone from 100,899 in 1940 to 395,934. Salt Lake City went from 149,934 in 1940 to 159,936 in 1990.

I think had the growth patterns been different and Salt Lake City saw an economic and residential boom from 1950-1990, we're probably looking a bit more like many established southern cities that lost a great deal of their history than a city that was able to preserve it because population patterns were not favorable for such a long stretch.

And isn't that the ironic thing about this? Salt Lake City lost a huge portion of its population and that loss probably made it easier to preserve so many neighborhoods and buildings because the city, even though it did dab in urban renewal (the malls downtown, a few other instances) didn't see the kind of growth that would dictate such development.

What'll be interesting is to see how the city does in population the next ten years. Salt Lake City barely grew from 2000-2010 and that was after its best decade of growth since 1950. 2.6 growth isn't bad, but the slowdown has to worry city officials because it's similar to the slowdown we saw prior to the three-decade long decrease in population.
Is this the same for a city that lost a lot of people such as St. Louis? How much of their history have they been able to preserve? St. Louis was once well over 500,000 people and now is only around 350,000.
     
     
  #7248  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2011, 10:37 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,521
I'm sure St. Louis and other midwest cities were able to preserve far more of their urban fabric than southern cities that aren't much younger than they are.

They could have lost massive areas due to economic despair, as parts of Detroit were completely demolished over the years because of abandoned neighborhoods, but again, on a whole, eastern and midwest cities were able to hold on to their history better than those communities that grew up around the automobile.
     
     
  #7249  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2011, 12:41 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
This is probably your best bet.

The problem is, this building isn't particularly charming, and it doesn't even look old. The metal cornice added in the '90s or whenever probably spoils any chance this building had at being considered under the age & integrity criteria, as if the lack of significance weren't enough.

Like I've said before, the only thing old thing I appreciate about this building is its style. A more attractive building of a similar style could easily be built today, just look at the 50 East South Temple office building.

I have more sympathy for the prudential building next door. Problem is, that building has been empty for a long time, and it doesn't look like anyone has expressed a sincere desire to renovate or occupy the building.
I agree 100 percent with you John. I really don't even understand why there would be a problem with redeveloping the Bennion corner for a much taller and more financially sound use. There is nothing particularly historical about the Bennion at this point. There are any one of a hundred structures in the CBD of far more historical, or even simply aesthetic charm. If any one of those 100 structures were at that corner, then yes, I would be very much against the corner's demolition. Also, since the Bennion has no particular historical nuasance, we might as well bring up the point that it's location on that specific corner is completely underwhelming, and makes for a very weak sightline, looking south down Main.

Something you brought up, which has also crossed my mind a lot lately, is the fact that there are new buildings under construction with far more aesthetic charm than the Bennion. For example, as you pointed out, the new law offices on South Temple, also the new Gateway Six will be infinitely more attractive, or I'm sure most would agree, the Broadway Park Lofts. Even the Amusen, with it's minor non-historical elements, is far more charming and accurate than the Bennion.
     
     
  #7250  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2011, 4:51 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
I agree 100 percent with you John. I really don't even understand why there would be a problem with redeveloping the Bennion corner for a much taller and more financially sound use. There is nothing particularly historical about the Bennion at this point. There are any one of a hundred structures in the CBD of far more historical, or even simply aesthetic charm. If any one of those 100 structures were at that corner, then yes, I would be very much against the corner's demolition. Also, since the Bennion has no particular historical nuasance, we might as well bring up the point that it's location on that specific corner is completely underwhelming, and makes for a very weak sightline, looking south down Main.

Something you brought up, which has also crossed my mind a lot lately, is the fact that there are new buildings under construction with far more aesthetic charm than the Bennion. For example, as you pointed out, the new law offices on South Temple, also the new Gateway Six will be infinitely more attractive, or I'm sure most would agree, the Broadway Park Lofts. Even the Amusen, with it's minor non-historical elements, is far more charming and accurate than the Bennion.
That is very funny! You think Gateway 6 is going to be "infinitely more attaractive." Some of you on here like it. But, I tell you now, that it's going to be a bland, stripped down version of what you think it will be.

And, who's to say that the Bennion Building and the others on that corner should be torn down!!!! Especially, when there is a parking lot right across the street from it!! IMO, I think the Bennion building is far more attractive than a lot of buildings around town.

Past developers made value judgements on existing buildings, just like you did, when they tore down older buildings in the city. Who's to say what should be torn down or not??!! I wish we still had that Sears Roebucks building on the SW corner of 3rd and Main instead of that 1970's highrise that stands away from the street and has very little pedestrian charm.

Last edited by Orlando; Jul 26, 2011 at 5:03 PM.
     
     
  #7251  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2011, 8:32 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,521
I'm with Orlando on this one. Six Gateway looks no different than anything else developed at the Gateway. I'm not saying it's ugly, but it ain't infinitely more attractive than the Bennion Building.

And I'm one of those guys who really doesn't care about the Bennion Building.
     
     
  #7252  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2011, 10:05 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds View Post
I think it has more to do with the fact that Salt Lake City started seeing a huge decrease in population around the time automobiles became the primary use of transportation. Houston and other cities that lost much of their historical architecture saw their biggest growth in an era where the automobile was the emphasis of planning.

Salt Lake City didn't see much growth from 1960-1990 - the era that defined many of those cities. Because of that, there wasn't a need to go in and demolish total neighborhoods for new housing projects that sprung up in a great deal of other cities throughout the south and west.

Look at it this way: in 1950, Houston had a population of 596,163. In 1980, thirty years later, they were at 1,595,138 - an addition of one-million people in a very short span.

Salt Lake City saw its most significant population increase since the Great Depression in the 1940s - well before cars impacted development patterns. The 1950s, when the automobile really started taking off, was the last decade the city saw a net improvement in population until the 1990s.

So when the automobile was introduced to the average American, population shifted to the suburbs and that left much of Salt Lake City untouched for decades - beyond development patterns west of downtown.

In that regard, we kind of lucked out. Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte and Atlanta all saw explosive growth post-1950 and because development patterns had dramatically changed from where they were in the earlier 20th Century, it forced many of these cities to go in and rework their urban fabric.

Charlotte is a good example of this. That city lost a lot because of urban renewal when it became a far more important southern city from 1950 to today, really, and that huge population increase altered the makeup of the city.

In 1950, Charlotte had a smaller population than Salt Lake City. In 1960, ten years later, it had surpassed Salt Lake City and that includes the final decade Salt Lake saw growth until the 90s.

By 1990, Charlotte had gone from 100,899 in 1940 to 395,934. Salt Lake City went from 149,934 in 1940 to 159,936 in 1990.

I think had the growth patterns been different and Salt Lake City saw an economic and residential boom from 1950-1990, we're probably looking a bit more like many established southern cities that lost a great deal of their history than a city that was able to preserve it because population patterns were not favorable for such a long stretch.

And isn't that the ironic thing about this? Salt Lake City lost a huge portion of its population and that loss probably made it easier to preserve so many neighborhoods and buildings because the city, even though it did dab in urban renewal (the malls downtown, a few other instances) didn't see the kind of growth that would dictate such development.

What'll be interesting is to see how the city does in population the next ten years. Salt Lake City barely grew from 2000-2010 and that was after its best decade of growth since 1950. 2.6 growth isn't bad, but the slowdown has to worry city officials because it's similar to the slowdown we saw prior to the three-decade long decrease in population.

All too true. Salt Lake City's biggest blessing was its economic weakness and flight to the suburbs during a time so vulnerable in all American cities. It literally didn't have the mojo to tear most of its historical buildings down .
     
     
  #7253  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2011, 12:57 AM
SLCdude's Avatar
SLCdude SLCdude is offline
PSU MURP student
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 831
Just an observation...

The Twilight Concert Series has been great for Salt Lake's nightlife this year. Many restaurants such as Bruges and The Pie Hole stay open later on Thursdays than other weekdays. I can imagine that major events such as public concerts and sporting events not only bring people downtown but Introduce them to what the city has to offer as well.
     
     
  #7254  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2011, 1:19 AM
Sight-Seer's Avatar
Sight-Seer Sight-Seer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 448
One thing that makes it so difficult to compare Salt Lake City with other cities is that much of the area within the city limits is empty, most of the west part of it. That effects the total population and average population density. According to Wikipedia, the city population is 127th in the US, but the metro population is 48th. Of course lots of cities have areas of water, which would have the same effect.
     
     
  #7255  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2011, 4:03 AM
Merewether's Avatar
Merewether Merewether is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: 8410*
Posts: 171
former SLTrib Building on Main as residences?

"Former Trib Building could be housing"
Posted by: kirk on Jul 26, 2011
Utah Heritage Foundation blog

http://www.utahheritagefoundation.co...e-housing.html

(and props to the Heritage Foundation for the tours of Exchange Place this summer)
     
     
  #7256  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2011, 4:41 AM
stayinginformed stayinginformed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 478
Great find Merewether. I think turning the Tribune Building into condos is a great idea. It will put more people on the streets, and hopefully will be filled by people who are not buying a second home.
     
     
  #7257  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2011, 7:35 AM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 417
All I have to say is, I think we need a balance between, preserving historic buildings and creating new vibrant developments.
I like S.P. Hansen's post about the Urban Canyon. Yes, there is alot of history on Main street, but it's also the heart of Downtown. If we don't alow for new developments on Main Street, we will place a cap on the growth and vibrancy of the street and it will continue to become less appealing.
I am not a fan of the Bennion Jewlers Building, but I do love the Metro Building and I don't want to see it go. However, I see the empty buildings on Main and the lack of pedestrian traffic and a part of me worries that Main Street will become a display case full of historic artifacts (buildings) that no one can tuch.
Now, at the same time, I really want to get away from the one street down town we have now. I would like to see South temple and 200 south between Main and SLC Central Station, develop into streets with more life and pedestrian focus.
     
     
  #7258  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2011, 4:51 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,819
The latest Forbes magazine ranks Ogden, Provo, & Salt Lake City as the top cities for something. I couldn't find the article, but maybe one of you can.
     
     
  #7259  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2011, 3:39 AM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,380
Just spend a week in Seattle. When ever I visit a bigger city, It kind of makes me depress. Why do I feel like the only why I'm ever going to see a 40+ story skyscrapers is to move to that city? Not that I don't love Salt Lake. But it just frustrates me sometimes that other cities can build skyscrapers left and right every year while SLC we be lucky to get two or three new highrise once every 10 years. For example we stayed at a city called "Bellevue" that is about 20 to 30 mins from Seattle. And while I understand that they have a by far bigger metro ( over 4,000,000 ) Bellevue itself only has about 123,000 people living in it, but yet they have a bigger skyline and taller buildings then we do. 123,000 people. Come on that's about as many people living in West Valley. They must be doing something right since it seems they are in a building boom with having a few new 30, 40 story towers ( with an s ) getting built every year. And while that's good for them and I can't help but to be a bit jealous it just makes me wonder............were are our towers? I keep hearing Utah/SLC is a hotspot right now with business wanting to move or expand here. But yet we are not seeing any new highrise office towers out of it. It's taken 222 south Main 2 years so far just to be about 55%-60% leased out. It just seems like nobody is going downtown. Maybe there's a few, who only just end up moving into buildings we already have or they might build a 5-story building somewhere downtown if we are lucky I guess. Sorry for the rant, I just really want to see big name company build a skyscraper in downtown SLC. Not build a 4-story campus in Lehi.
I really hope once CCC opens next year this will finally put SLC on the map when it comes with companies wanting to move their business downtown and build downtown. I'm pass only seeing ONE, TWO or maybe THREE ( if lucky ) towers once every 10 years. We should be pass that point. If we are one of the fastest growing metros in the U.S. And a business hotspot......then lets see it.

I think this trip might of open my eyes a bit on where we should be developing.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
     
     
  #7260  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2011, 5:52 AM
ajiuO's Avatar
ajiuO ajiuO is offline
A.K.A. Vigo
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
Just spend a week in Seattle. When ever I visit a bigger city, It kind of makes me depress. Why do I feel like the only why I'm ever going to see a 40+ story skyscrapers is to move to that city? Not that I don't love Salt Lake. But it just frustrates me sometimes that other cities can build skyscrapers left and right every year while SLC we be lucky to get two or three new highrise once every 10 years. For example we stayed at a city called "Bellevue" that is about 20 to 30 mins from Seattle. And while I understand that they have a by far bigger metro ( over 4,000,000 ) Bellevue itself only has about 123,000 people living in it, but yet they have a bigger skyline and taller buildings then we do. 123,000 people. Come on that's about as many people living in West Valley. They must be doing something right since it seems they are in a building boom with having a few new 30, 40 story towers ( with an s ) getting built every year. And while that's good for them and I can't help but to be a bit jealous it just makes me wonder............were are our towers? I keep hearing Utah/SLC is a hotspot right now with business wanting to move or expand here. But yet we are not seeing any new highrise office towers out of it. It's taken 222 south Main 2 years so far just to be about 55%-60% leased out. It just seems like nobody is going downtown. Maybe there's a few, who only just end up moving into buildings we already have or they might build a 5-story building somewhere downtown if we are lucky I guess. Sorry for the rant, I just really want to see big name company build a skyscraper in downtown SLC. Not build a 4-story campus in Lehi.
I really hope once CCC opens next year this will finally put SLC on the map when it comes with companies wanting to move their business downtown and build downtown. I'm pass only seeing ONE, TWO or maybe THREE ( if lucky ) towers once every 10 years. We should be pass that point. If we are one of the fastest growing metros in the U.S. And a business hotspot......then lets see it.

I think this trip might of open my eyes a bit on where we should be developing.

I just got back from San Francisco and agree on the coming back depressed thing

Salt lake doesn't even seem like a city after coming back from SF. the union square area is amazing. They have an amazing indoor mall with curved escalators... About 8 - 9 stories.. Not far from union square. They have tons of outdoor shopping. They don't have bozo companies like Larry h Millars megaplex that use their power to prevent other movie operators from running first run movies within the city (I wish Cinemark would build something on the east side of salt lake... Megaplex couldn't do shit about them..... Sorry for the rant but I'm still pissed over what megaplex did to trolly corners).... Any who salt lake has a long long long longlong way to go before it becomes a notable city.... Still a pretty col place though
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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 11:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.