HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7221  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 5:19 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
Except that Walmart already owns the land, wants to open a store there, and has every legal right to do so in the existing building if they chose. Rather than make good decisions based on the facts at hand, the city council is taking a stand against the project because they don't like what Walmart "is really about"

If the issue were really one of protecting the character of the surrounding neighborhood, it should have been taken into account when the site was first developed in the 1960's, or the city should be willing to work with Walmart to create a better store and site rather than dismissing them outright.

You can't just take a company's property and turn it into a park because you disagree with their business model.
The city can act in its own best interests. Wal-Mart might own the land, but that doesn't give them carte blanche.

They shouldn't hold the city hostage because the city council is skeptical of this development. Now go re-read the damn article before insisting the city dismissed them outright. That isn't the case. Hell, the article even says the city council has yet to tip its hand when it comes to making a decision.

Ultimately, I don't think the city is opposed to the idea of a Wal-Mart there. I think they are opposed to the idea of another suburban-style shopping center in an area that is woefully un-urban already.

There is nothing wrong with that.

So no, I don't accept either of your two's premise that there are two options here. If Wal-Mart can't develop a store there, they should sell the land and then we can start over. Unless, of course, Wal-Mart decides that if it can't get its property, then they'll sit there and squat on that land for a generation just to spite the city.

If that's the case, then we're back to my original point about them holding the city hostage on that site - forcing them to accept something the city might deem not right for the area.

Better yet, let's ask the residents around the area? It is, after all, their city and their backyard.

City councilman J.T. Martin, who is far more conservative than Soren Simonson, said this in 2008:

Quote:
Martin says residents don't want Wal-Mart as their new neighbor. "More traffic; I don't particularly care for Wal-Mart," one woman said.
So, haven't you thought maybe the city council is acting on behalf of the public? You know, the people they represent?

Last edited by Comrade; Jul 21, 2011 at 6:06 AM.
     
     
  #7222  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 2:42 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,731
All I'm saying is that the city should work in its best interest, but should do so in consideration of the fact that there will almost certainly be a Walmart there no matter what they decide on the rezoning issue. Walmart has approved plans to renovate the existing store and have stated that if the current rezoning proposal fails, they will just remodel the old Kmart and open a store there next year.

The city and its residents are acting counter-productively by pretending that the choice is between a Walmart and something else entirely when the real choice is between a smaller store designed with input from the city and its residents, or a minimally remodeled 40-year-old Kmart.

But, like I said earlier, I don't live in Salt Lake or frequently shop at Walmart anymore, so I'll just leave my comments at that.
     
     
  #7223  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 4:57 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
I don't think the challenge facing the city council is a matter of choosing what is the most desirable end result for that property. Walmart vs. empty Walmart might not be the only options, but they're probably the most realistic at this point. If Walmart were to be rejected, give up, and sell the land, and someone bought it looking to build a mixed-use development, park, etc., then everyone would live happily ever after. But the challenge of the council really lies in whether or not they'll allow a legitimate business owner to use their property to build and operate a legitimate business. They'd be setting a dangerous precedent if they decided not to allow that, whether it be because of the stigma attached to the brand, big boxes in general, or petty traffic concerns. I think the city might as well flush its business friendly reputation down the drain if it's not going to allow an empty Kmart to reopen as a Walmart, only because it's not most people's first choice. Property owners ought to be able to do whatever they want with their property within existing laws and ordinances, as long as it is reasonable to do so, and this proposal is by no measure outrageous.
     
     
  #7224  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 5:18 PM
UTPlanner's Avatar
UTPlanner UTPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 913
I do not think that any City Council should think only about what would look nice today. I think it's important to note that the Salt Lake City Council has the duty to think about the long term best use of a property and not just what we presently see in front of us. It is tempting for any government body to want to fill or improve a property this very moment without considering the long term effects.

Yes, Wal-Mart can certainly move into the building and operate as they would like but frankly if the City Council does not feel that a C-S Community Shopping Zone is appropriate for the property in the long term than they should not change the zone. That is really the question at hand and not whether or not they should approve a specific retailer. The current zoning does allow for retail sales but it does not allow for superstores. If Wal-Mart wanted to open a new grocery store or a new retail store without groceries and smaller than proposed than they could do it.

I am not saying that I personally think they should make the zone change or not but I would hope that the city representatives would make a decision for what is best for the East Bench Community in the long run.

Also if the only place that you find information about SLC is in the Tribune or the Deseret News I would encourage you to branch out a little bit. The reporters are often ignorant of the real issues and whether it's purposeful or not leave out important details about projects or the process.
     
     
  #7225  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 6:34 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,553
A city council's first duty, beyond anything, is to listen to the constituents. For years, people in that area have opposed the idea of a Wal-Mart and I'm guessing much of the city council is basing its opinion on the fact that there is little support for a Wal-Mart in that area.

It does not matter if Wal-Mart has the right to do this or that and it wouldn't be unprecedented for the city to step in and demand specifics about this property. It is, after all, the major retail center of that neighborhood and if the people are opposed to it, their voice is equal, if not greater, than the property owner because it impacts their community in a far bigger way than Wal-Mart would ever be impacted if it can't build its store there.

I think it's shortsighted to give in knowing that this development will be in place for 20-30 years and continue the suburbanization of an area in Salt Lake City that already is lacking in any type of density.

The city has to not only look out for its best interests and the people's best interests today but also down the road.

That, in my opinion, trumps corporate interests - especially when dealing with a corporation that is not local. Wal-Mart is not a Utah or Salt Lake based company and I have a hard time sympathizing with their side or even supporting the idea if it's massively opposed.

The irony here, as much as we're chastising the city, I think they've been open to the idea of a Wal-Mart there - just not a suburban Wal-Mart. Yet the corporation doesn't appear to be budging and wants to open a center that would feel more at home in Herriman than an established area of Salt Lake City.

This is the big issue here. It's something I addressed in my last post. I doubt the city is opposed to Wal-Mart - they're opposed to the idea of what Wal-Mart brings to the area. We'll get more sprawl, more traffic and less walkability.

That was something with the old K-Mart and it's a good opportunity to rectify the situation.

Unfortunately, if we allow this development as is and even get a 300 W version of Wal-Mart, we're continuing the same disastrous trend that the city council wants to avoid. That area can be more walkable and better planned.

In fact, I think there is great potential for that entire Parleys Way to be developed into a fairly decent commercial center for the Parley's Canyon/Country Club neighborhoods.

Maybe not as massive as SugarHouse - but something similar. I don't foresee that materializing with a Wal-Mart there.
     
     
  #7226  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 8:09 PM
SLCdude's Avatar
SLCdude SLCdude is offline
PSU MURP student
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 830










     
     
  #7227  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 8:55 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,553
Sometimes I just don't get art.
     
     
  #7228  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 11:08 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195

It's kind of fun, although, considering the budget was $46,000, it's pretty underwhelming. And by that I mean a waste of money (hopefully the kid who designed it ended up only using a fraction of that ...?).


Gallivan Plaza











Questar









F. Courthouse

     
     
  #7229  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2011, 11:18 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,296
Yeeesss...John's pics are back!! I'm diggin the copper on the Gallivan, at least from the pic's perspective. I think for that particular design and location, the copper makes for a much more interesting look than say a simple beige or gray finish. How did it look in person John? Also, nice stone work at the base of Questar. All excellent and much needed additions to the CBD.

Even before the frame begins to rise, I'm getting very excited about the skin that will be going on the Federal Courthouse. I think it's going to be both unique and stunning for the Downtown.
     
     
  #7230  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 12:14 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,296
update on the meters

Donation meters have raised $1,000 for homeless, program looks to expand

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...to-expand.html

By Benjamin Wood - Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY — In April, red parking meters began sprouting up downtown when local businesses, city leaders, law enforcement and social service providers partnered to launch the Homeless Outreach Service Team program.

The donation meters were intended to curb panhandling by encouraging people to donate their spare change directly to homeless service providers, rather than giving to beggars on the street...



Pamela Atkinson makes a donation at the announcement of the Homeless Outreach Service Team (HOST) Program and unveiling of HOST donation meters in Salt Lake City, Thursday, April 21, 2011. (Ravell Call, Deseret News)

.

Last edited by delts145; Jul 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM.
     
     
  #7231  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2011, 7:59 PM
redzeppelin redzeppelin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 103
The Tribune is running a bunch of archive photos from the 1947 Pioneer Day parade on their website today. There are some fantastic images of Main Street. Take a look:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52...hotos.html.csp
     
     
  #7232  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 12:58 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,296
Travel magazine touts four Utah establishments

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...isure.html.csp

By Mike Gorrell
The Salt Lake Tribune


Top 100 Resorts Properties In The U.S. & Canada
Stein Eriksen #2 - St. Regis #10 - Sundance #18

The St. Regis at Deer Valley luxury hotel was ranked as the 10th best resort in the United States and Canada by readers of Travel + Leisure magazine. Courtesy St. Regis at Deer Valley.

.
     
     
  #7233  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2011, 11:30 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by redzeppelin View Post
The Tribune is running a bunch of archive photos from the 1947 Pioneer Day parade on their website today. There are some fantastic images of Main Street. Take a look:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52...hotos.html.csp

Thanks for posting this redzeppelin. This is a great photo. They just don't make buildings like this anymore. The craftsmanship of the new office building between zion's and eagle gate tower is close, but doesn't have the intricate details these old buildings do:



Love the old sears building pictured here...
Looks like this float represents polygamy in heaven (It's too bad we can't be as open about our beliefs these days without facing criticism and ill will):



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52...hotos.html.csp

Last edited by Old&New; Jul 24, 2011 at 12:06 AM.
     
     
  #7234  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 5:18 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,648
It's sad to see how many old buildings that have been knocked down for new ones.
     
     
  #7235  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 5:26 AM
SLCdude's Avatar
SLCdude SLCdude is offline
PSU MURP student
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 830


I agree. It pains me to see plans to see plans for narrow buildings on Main Street to be demolished for the new theater. It's a shame we don't see more buildings like these being built.
     
     
  #7236  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 6:07 AM
StevenF's Avatar
StevenF StevenF is offline
The Drifter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: American Fork, UT
Posts: 1,041
Unfortunately, buildings were not designed to today's standards and would end up costing to much to fix up, or too small to use in today's massive have everything stores. Yes, its sad to see some history go. I too would love to see some of the older buildings still downtown that I remember seeing as a child in the 80s and asking my mom how old it was or what is that one called. But also think of what Salt Lake looks like now, with a few more modern towers in the mix. I don't think I would really want it to stay exactly like it was.
     
     
  #7237  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 8:47 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,648
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCdude View Post


I agree. It pains me to see plans to see plans for narrow buildings on Main Street to be demolished for the new theater. It's a shame we don't see more buildings like these being built.
There are quite a few forumers who could care less about knocking down those buildings for the new theater and tower despite that there are plenty of parking lots around town that the theater could be built on. Ya ya, landowner politics, bla bla bla. If the people want to save something they should voice it despite the powers that be. People raised their voice against the City Creek Developers from tearing down the First Security Building. I just don't get it that some forumers on here would rather knock down a decent building or three when there is a vacant parking lot right across the street.
     
     
  #7238  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 11:08 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,296
I thought what this homeowner in Sugar House did with her bungalow remodel was incredibly cool.

Bungalow turned loft: Homeowner wouldn't change a thing

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...e-a-thing.html

By Anne Robinson and Annie V. Schwemmer

From the street, this little bungalow located in Salt Lake City looks like many of the other homes in the neighborhood.

"It is very deceptive," says Barbara, the home's owner. "On the outside it looks just like a Sugar House bungalow, but when you walk in, it looks like a New York City loft."...



Garage-style doors open to the patio following of this Sugar House bungalow. While the exterior of the house looks the same, the interior looks like a contemporary loft. (David T. Price)

.
     
     
  #7239  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 6:39 PM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
There are quite a few forumers who could care less about knocking down those buildings for the new theater and tower despite that there are plenty of parking lots around town that the theater could be built on. Ya ya, landowner politics, bla bla bla. If the people want to save something they should voice it despite the powers that be. People raised their voice against the City Creek Developers from tearing down the First Security Building. I just don't get it that some forumers on here would rather knock down a decent building or three when there is a vacant parking lot right across the street.
That's a straw man. If the choice were between two equally available properties, one with older buildings and one with a parking lot, most people if not everyone here would probably choose to develop the parking lot. You're acting as if they wouldn't. But you can't just build stuff on property you don't own, and acquiring that property involves more than voicing your opinion/being enthusiastic/etc.. Who owns what is not something you can just gloss over by saying 'bla bla bla.' City Creek was an entirely different situation, as they had the option of fulfilling their original plans elsewhere on their property, while preserving the Deseret Bank building. In this case, to the contrary, there's a desire to build an office tower and theater in place of existing buildings. The options are to keep those buildings there, or to replace them. They wouldn't be making this proposal if the latter option weren't more desirable. If we could just wave a magic wand to make this happen on the property across the street, we would.
     
     
  #7240  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2011, 7:49 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
That's a straw man. If the choice were between two equally available properties, one with older buildings and one with a parking lot, most people if not everyone here would probably choose to develop the parking lot. You're acting as if they wouldn't. But you can't just build stuff on property you don't own, and acquiring that property involves more than voicing your opinion/being enthusiastic/etc.. Who owns what is not something you can just gloss over by saying 'bla bla bla.' City Creek was an entirely different situation, as they had the option of fulfilling their original plans elsewhere on their property, while preserving the Deseret Bank building. In this case, to the contrary, there's a desire to build an office tower and theater in place of existing buildings. The options are to keep those buildings there, or to replace them. They wouldn't be making this proposal if the latter option weren't more desirable. If we could just wave a magic wand to make this happen on the property across the street, we would.
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.
     
     
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 5:48 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.