HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8481  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 7:18 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 5,037
If I had a project or two under my belt or had the time to line up a group of investors, this is what I would propose.

Adaptive reuse of both the Barnes Bank Building and the SL Roasting Company building. Directly adjacent to the SL Roasting company building on the west side I would step up to 4 stories, half way to the corner, then from that point I would step it up to 8 or 10 stories for the rest. The 8 or 10 stories would be adjacent to the Barnes Bank Building, (already at 5). The four story section would wrap around the back of the SL Roasting Co building, and on the east side I would either step it down to 3 stories and 2 stories. Giving the frontage on 400 S some variety. All the upper floors would be residential.

I would push for the parcel east of Blair St to be 6 to 8 stories, with a mix of office retail and residential, instead of the proposed 3 stories.

For the parcel south on Blair St I would push for 6 to 7 stories instead of the suggested 4.

The reason I have the mix of 3 and four story front west of Blair is to better mix in the existing 2 story SL Roast Co building. The reason I feel there needs to be much more density there is that the entire purpose of the Transit Station Center zoning is to maximize the density around certain Trax stations, and it needs to be maximized. There is also so much open space on the Library and City Hall blocks that more people living in the area will provide more usage of those highly underutilized open spaces.

Yellow - 3 stories
Orange - 4 stories
Blue - 5-7 stories
Purple - 6-8 stories
Green - 8-10 stories
Bright Green I wouldn't build on to allow for the potential of a future mid-block connection, whenever 400 East gets redeveloped.


Last edited by Future Mayor; Jan 10, 2017 at 8:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8482  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 7:59 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
If I had a project or two under my belt or had the time to line up a group of investors, this is what I would propose.

Adaptive reuse of both the Barnes Bank Building and the SL Roasting Company building. Directly adjacent to the SL Roasting company building on the west side I would step up to 4 stories, half way to the corner, then from that point I would step it up to 8 or 10 stories for the rest. The 8 or 10 stories would be adjacent to the Barnes Bank Building, (already at 5). The four story section would wrap around the back of the SL Roasting Co building, and on the east side I would either step it down to 3 stories and 2 stories. Giving the frontage on 400 S some variety. All the upper floors would be residential.

I would push for the parcel east of Blair St to be 6 to 8 stories, with a mix of office retail and residential, instead of the proposed 3 stories.

For the parcel south on Blair St I would push for 6 to 7 stories instead of the suggested 4. Also also the NE section of orange would be isolated requiring its own elevator and stair well. That's probably not worth it for a single floor that size.

The reason I have the mix of 3 and four story front west of Blair is to better mix in the existing 2 story SL Roast Co building. The reason I feel there needs to be much more density there is that the entire purpose of the Transit Station Center zoning is to maximize the density around certain Trax stations, and it needs to be maximized. There is also so much open space on the Library and City Hall blocks that more people living in the area will provide more usage of those highly underutilized open spaces.

Yellow - 3 stories
Orange - 4 stories
Blue - 5-7 stories
Purple - 6-8 stories
Green - 8-10 stories
Bright Green I wouldn't build on to allow for the potential of a future mid-block connection, whenever 400 East gets redeveloped.

Why did you leave the little building west of Blair? Also isn't that dirt lot to the south going to be part of this?

Last edited by Liberty Wellsian; Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8483  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 8:08 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
Why did you leave the little building west of Blair? Also isn't that dirt lot to the south going to be part of this?
The little building west of Blair is an underground parking entrance for the PSB. Yes I believe the dirt may be, I just missed it. I would have that be 4-6 stories as well. (corrected)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8484  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 8:13 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Mayor View Post
The little building west of Blair is an underground parking entrance for the PSB. Yes I believe the dirt may be, I just missed it. I would have that be 4-6 stories as well. (corrected)
I didn't know that.

The NE section of orange would be isolated from the rest of the building requiring its own elevator/stairwell. It doesn't seem worth it for a single floor that size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8485  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2017, 9:38 PM
Future Mayor's Avatar
Future Mayor Future Mayor is offline
Vote for me in 2019!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
I didn't know that.

The NE section of orange would be isolated from the rest of the building requiring its own elevator/stairwell. It doesn't seem worth it for a single floor that size.
That's a good point. I hadn't fully thought it out, just a quick brain storm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8486  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 12:45 AM
asies1981 asies1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 796
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8487  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2017, 3:57 PM
nushiof nushiof is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 58
Tiny nugget on CCH.

It was at least talked about at a Utah Tourism meeting yesterday. Doesn't sound like its dead anyway.

http://www.utahbusiness.com/tourism-...creation-draw/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8488  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 3:04 AM
Utah_Dave Utah_Dave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by nushiof View Post
Tiny nugget on CCH.

It was at least talked about at a Utah Tourism meeting yesterday. Doesn't sound like its dead anyway.

http://www.utahbusiness.com/tourism-...creation-draw/
Mr Metcalf isn't helping matters. 6 national parks and 12 national forests in our state equates to an anti recreation attitude apparently. I haven't heard a single politician that is anti recreation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we promote recreation quite strongly in this state.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8489  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 4:52 AM
Wasatch Wasteland's Avatar
Wasatch Wasteland Wasatch Wasteland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah_Dave View Post
Mr Metcalf isn't helping matters. 6 national parks and 12 national forests in our state equates to an anti recreation attitude apparently. I haven't heard a single politician that is anti recreation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we promote recreation quite strongly in this state.
Utah has 5 national parks. Not 6. Arches, Canyons, Capitol, Bryce, and Zion.

And only 8 national forests. Not 12. Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8490  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 5:03 AM
TheWire TheWire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah_Dave View Post
Mr Metcalf isn't helping matters. 6 national parks and 12 national forests in our state equates to an anti recreation attitude apparently. I haven't heard a single politician that is anti recreation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think we promote recreation quite strongly in this state.
It goes beyond that (is anyone actually anti recreation?). The biggest brands that have invested in Utah take public land conservation very seriously. It is part of their branding and its a huge deal for their consumers. When we become the standard bearer for privatizing public land and stripping out the antiquity act, its not a good look for these companies to have their headquarters here or hosting their largest show. Especially when our logistical problems are reason enough to get them looking elsewhere. Peter Metcalf is making a real point. He's holding our elected leaders accountable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8491  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 1:55 PM
Utah_Dave Utah_Dave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland View Post
Utah has 5 national parks. Not 6. Arches, Canyons, Capitol, Bryce, and Zion.

And only 8 national forests. Not 12. Ashley, Cache, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-LaSal, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch.
Thank you for the correction on the number of national forrests in Utah. Bears Ears National park makes 6... if it's not official yet then it would be 5 but I basically count it as 6 now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8492  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 2:11 PM
Utah_Dave Utah_Dave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWire View Post
It goes beyond that (is anyone actually anti recreation?). The biggest brands that have invested in Utah take public land conservation very seriously. It is part of their branding and its a huge deal for their consumers. When we become the standard bearer for privatizing public land and stripping out the antiquity act, its not a good look for these companies to have their headquarters here or hosting their largest show. Especially when our logistical problems are reason enough to get them looking elsewhere. Peter Metcalf is making a real point. He's holding our elected leaders accountable.
I really believe it's the process in which these national parks are created that have some Utahns upset. I'm fine with with the national parks but there creation is very definitive and it certainly limits what the State can do. It's all about the process to me. Look at the huge swath of oceans that are now off limits to drilling. It's steps like these that really look like over reach to me regardless of your opinion on the out come. Imagine what a spiteful Donald Trump could do on his way out the door to any number of states with the same power. It's just too much power in the political world we live in and I think there is a better way.

I do agree with your points however. I just don't like Mr Metcalfs tactics and threats, there's a better way.

Sorry, off topic
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8493  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 3:51 PM
jedikermit's Avatar
jedikermit jedikermit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah_Dave View Post
Thank you for the correction on the number of national forrests in Utah. Bears Ears National park makes 6... if it's not official yet then it would be 5 but I basically count it as 6 now.
Bears Ears will be a National Monument, not a National Park (so is Grand Staircase-Escalante, which may have been what you were counting as another NP earlier) ...I wouldn't correct, except that NPs generally get more visitors and generate more income and tax dollars than NMs do.

Where the national parks are huge tourism and revenue generators for the state, I don't understand the shortsightedness of our congressional delegation in fighting against Bears Ears (and before that, Grand Staircase-Escalante) so hard. Except that it takes that land away from oil and gas developers, so they won't profit directly from it. Basically the National Park/National Monument designation is good for the people/government of Utah vis a vis tax dollars, but not as good for the wallets of our congressmen. Especially Rob Bishop, the so-and-so.

I think their rage against the method in which they're created is partially legitimate, but they're more pissed that they won't be able to personally profit off that land. There's no way they would have passed any legislation protecting Bears Ears. They've had decades to do that, and they haven't. Screeching about federal overreach is just a way to cloak their greed. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and looking at how much of western state land is owned by the federal government compared to eastern states (virtually nothing) is an eye-opener...but Bishop et al would sell off that parcel to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.

Four of the five national parks we have faced similar outcry when they were created (Zion was the first, and the only one seemingly publicly welcomed) and the foresight and profits of each have been realized over time. They're a cornerstone of out state economy now. Figuring out a way to parlay the new national monuments into a similar revenue generator would benefit the local and state economy more than any other use of that land.
__________________
Loving Salt Lake City. Despite everything, and because of everything.

Last edited by jedikermit; Jan 12, 2017 at 3:57 PM. Reason: Fixes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8494  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2017, 10:48 PM
Utah_Dave Utah_Dave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedikermit View Post
Bears Ears will be a National Monument, not a National Park (so is Grand Staircase-Escalante, which may have been what you were counting as another NP earlier) ...I wouldn't correct, except that NPs generally get more visitors and generate more income and tax dollars than NMs do.

Where the national parks are huge tourism and revenue generators for the state, I don't understand the shortsightedness of our congressional delegation in fighting against Bears Ears (and before that, Grand Staircase-Escalante) so hard. Except that it takes that land away from oil and gas developers, so they won't profit directly from it. Basically the National Park/National Monument designation is good for the people/government of Utah vis a vis tax dollars, but not as good for the wallets of our congressmen. Especially Rob Bishop, the so-and-so.

I think their rage against the method in which they're created is partially legitimate, but they're more pissed that they won't be able to personally profit off that land. There's no way they would have passed any legislation protecting Bears Ears. They've had decades to do that, and they haven't. Screeching about federal overreach is just a way to cloak their greed. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and looking at how much of western state land is owned by the federal government compared to eastern states (virtually nothing) is an eye-opener...but Bishop et al would sell off that parcel to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.

Four of the five national parks we have faced similar outcry when they were created (Zion was the first, and the only one seemingly publicly welcomed) and the foresight and profits of each have been realized over time. They're a cornerstone of out state economy now. Figuring out a way to parlay the new national monuments into a similar revenue generator would benefit the local and state economy more than any other use of that land.

Thanks for the Clarification again. It's hard to make an argument when I don't have the facts straight! Lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8495  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 1:26 AM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,764
Also, National Parks are created by acts of Congress, so a lot of people have to vote on them, not just by presidential fiat, as National Monuments can be legally created according to the Antiquities Act.

National Monuments can only be created on Federal lands. The president can't just go and seize someone's land and proclaim it a monument.

If people are opposed to the creation of national monuments by presidents, they should be urging Congress to change the Antiquities Act and not harass a president for doing what is entirely legal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah_Dave View Post
I really believe it's the process in which these national parks are created that have some Utahns upset. I'm fine with with the national parks but there creation is very definitive and it certainly limits what the State can do. It's all about the process to me. Look at the huge swath of oceans that are now off limits to drilling. It's steps like these that really look like over reach to me regardless of your opinion on the out come. Imagine what a spiteful Donald Trump could do on his way out the door to any number of states with the same power. It's just too much power in the political world we live in and I think there is a better way.

I do agree with your points however. I just don't like Mr Metcalfs tactics and threats, there's a better way.

Sorry, off topic
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8496  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 1:48 AM
asies1981 asies1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 796
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8497  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 1:56 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,327
When I looked at this latest update pic recently by Airhero I thought that Liberty Crest was going to be finished in a lot of beige stucco. Good to see with this updated rendering on their site that isn't the case.

Downtown Update - Liberty Crest


Pic By Airhero

Updated rendering of the finished product

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com[/CENTER]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8498  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 5:13 PM
tygr tygr is offline
Development Junkie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stenar View Post
National Monuments can only be created on Federal lands. The president can't just go and seize someone's land and proclaim it a monument.
How does this work when monuments like Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears lock up non-federal SITLA land?

Does creating the monument(s) create islands within the monument, or is the government basically claiming eminent domain?

If it creates islands, that also means they can block access to the SITLA land making it essentially useless and killing any financial value.
__________________
The only thing worse than being blind is having sight, but no vision.
—Helen Keller
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8499  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 5:26 PM
UTPlanner's Avatar
UTPlanner UTPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 938
SITLA lands in the past were replaced with far more lucrative federal properties and cash. Here's a story detailing the process: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/477273...ildren-if-utah
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8500  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 7:19 PM
millhouse millhouse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedikermit View Post
Bears Ears will be a National Monument, not a National Park (so is Grand Staircase-Escalante, which may have been what you were counting as another NP earlier) ...I wouldn't correct, except that NPs generally get more visitors and generate more income and tax dollars than NMs do.

Where the national parks are huge tourism and revenue generators for the state, I don't understand the shortsightedness of our congressional delegation in fighting against Bears Ears (and before that, Grand Staircase-Escalante) so hard. Except that it takes that land away from oil and gas developers, so they won't profit directly from it. Basically the National Park/National Monument designation is good for the people/government of Utah vis a vis tax dollars, but not as good for the wallets of our congressmen. Especially Rob Bishop, the so-and-so.

I think their rage against the method in which they're created is partially legitimate, but they're more pissed that they won't be able to personally profit off that land. There's no way they would have passed any legislation protecting Bears Ears. They've had decades to do that, and they haven't. Screeching about federal overreach is just a way to cloak their greed. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and looking at how much of western state land is owned by the federal government compared to eastern states (virtually nothing) is an eye-opener...but Bishop et al would sell off that parcel to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.

Four of the five national parks we have faced similar outcry when they were created (Zion was the first, and the only one seemingly publicly welcomed) and the foresight and profits of each have been realized over time. They're a cornerstone of out state economy now. Figuring out a way to parlay the new national monuments into a similar revenue generator would benefit the local and state economy more than any other use of that land.
The reason the Utah delegation is crying foul on Bears Ears is that it is severely impacting the local towns in that area. Primarily in the recreational sports arena. Long term making Bears Ears a monument is the right thing to do, but short term, it is hurting a lot of people. It is the same with the Grand Staircase. That was one of the largest coal deposit in the state. The taxes that were generated from that specific deposit funded most of the Utah educational system. Going back to my original point, long term, its the right thing to do. Short term, a lot of people got hurt. Overall I think it forced Utah to fund their schools differently and by in large we are better off now by being a little more diversified. I think the other reason the Utah delegates are outraged is that the Federal government already owns 80% of the land in Utah. There isn't another state in the union that the government has that much ownership.
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 2:24 PM.

     

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