Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Orlando

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

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

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

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

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. I never said tall buildings were unnecessary, but you were implying that building taller and taller buildings is the ONLY way to achieve that density, and I was simply pointing out that isn't true.

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

So you think that people in that development wouldn't have driven anyway? The only way that would be feasible is if you immediately built a world-class transit infrastructure out there, or put so many desirable jobs and retail and nightlife there that nobody would want to drive. Neither one of those ideas is feasible. I think you're kidding yourself if you think that people wouldn't drive from an even farther-out-there community just because it's denser.

As I said, there is good density and bad density. Infill in already-developed areas close to transit and neighborhood centers - good density. Building a super-dense community from scratch where no transit or infrastructure currently exists in an area far away from jobs and retail - bad density.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

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

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

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

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

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

As I said in the previous post, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I am 100% for density, but the post I was responding to made it seem as if building taller and taller is the only solution, but I simply disagree when there's so much land to fill in still. All I said was that "supertall skyscrapers are not essential to create liveable cities", though I guess it depends on your definition of supertall. Anyway, one begets the other - the more midrise infill occurs, the more demand there will be for buildings to go taller.

Hell I don't even own a car, so you don't have to tell me that we need to change our automobile-centric culture.

Final note: And of course I am pro-skyscraper regardless of anything I said. Every new skyscraper announcement in Salt Lake gets me giddy, even if I know some may never come to fruition. I am not knocking skyscrapers - I am only trying to put their importance for urban life into perspective. As someone above said, Houston and Dallas are filled with skyscrapers, but are relatively dead at the street level and aren't exactly known for their walkability. Boulder, Colorado isn't exactly known for its skyscrapers, but yet it probably puts Salt Lake to shame in vibrancy.

[Makid]

LDS Church developer plans to build a 28-story office tower in downtown Salt Lake City

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/11/...rch-developer/

Building on their success with 111 Main, developers for the LDS Church are planning a new 28-story office tower in downtown Salt Lake City.

City Creek Reserve, a real estate arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has submitted preliminary plans for a sleek, curving and glass-clad skyscraper on the northeast corner of State Street and 100 South, just west of the Harmons Grocery store and south of the church’s Social Hall Heritage Museum.

City Creek Reserve spokesman Dale Bills declined to comment, beyond issuing a short statement saying the company was working to finalize city approvals for the luxury high-rise.

“We’re pleased to be bringing another Class A office tower to downtown Salt Lake,” Bills said. “We’ll have more to say in the coming weeks as we progress through the city’s approval process.”

The new tower would also be directly across the street from City Creek Center, the upscale LDS Church-built, open-air shopping and residential campus. The $1.5 billion mall, built during the Great Recession, opened to the public in 2012.

Bills did not offer a timeline for the new building’s completion, but city officials say it could take up to five years. Initial plans for the project are emerging while several other additions to the city’s skyline are in the works.

Officials with the city’s Department of Economic Development say the city currently lacks a healthy inventory of office spaces of 50,000 square feet or more.

Plans submitted to the city’s Planning Division could get an initial public hearing as early as January, though a city planner said nothing had been scheduled as yet.

And a follow up for other taller projects:

On Tuesday, government officials announced approval of $75 million in tax incentives for private developers Portman Holdings and DDRM to build a 29-story convention hotel with up to 750 rooms on the southeast corner of the Calvin L. Rampton Salt Lake Palace Convention Center on 200 S. West Temple.

Groundbreaking for the $337 million hotel is now planned for fall 2019, according to Gov. Gary Herbert’s Office of Economic Development. It is scheduled to open in spring 2022.

Also potentially joining the city’s skyscraper list is a 250-foot residential tower called Liberty Sky being planned for 150 S. State St. That’s slated to be a $90 million project by Utah developers Boyer Co. and Cowboy Partners and will reportedly include nearly 300 apartments and a rooftop swimming pool.

I didn't quote the whole article, just portions of it as it didn't provide much new information. I did want to bring over and highlight something that we have discussed here but I think that it is really going to cause problems for the City if it isn't addressed soon.

There are 2 aspects of time listed, first is the estimated time to complete the building. Dave Bills didn't provide an estimate (I will get to possible reasons shortly) but the City stating "up to 5 years" isn't good at all.

Next, we have the time for the Planning Commission to begin to look at the project. The developer has submitted plans and a design to the planning commission but they aren't looking at having an initial hearing until sometime in January but no date has yet been set.

This is a 2+ month wait after submitting documents just for the initial hearing on a CBDR for increased height on a corner lot in a D1 zone. If the initial hearing goes well, it would be another month at least before they are given the CBDR approval for the height increase. At this point we are in mid to late February if not March for a project submitted in late October to early November. Now, if there are changes needed or further updates, a secondary hearing is done 4 to 6 weeks later. Then possible approval another month away, if any changes just rinse and repeat.

Because of the possible challenges with the Planning Commission, Dave Bills isn't able to provide an estimate.

The rest of the process, demolition, excavation and building permits are relatively straight forward and quick to obtain.

This lengthy process for both initial hearings and approvals is one of the main reasons that the City is lacking a decent inventory of commercial space availability around the 50K sq ft range.

Now, the City has updating zoning along the Trax lines to do scoring in a way to bypass the Planning Commission and get projects built faster. Something similar needs to be done for the Downtown area.

The City should be working to speed up projects within the Downtown area, especially those that want to exceed current zoning limits. I would be okay with a dedicated Downtown Planning Commission to speed up the process. When times are light, they can help speed up projects in other areas of the City.

A self funded developer shouldn't have to expect a 5 year time frame for a project that should be complete in 3 years or less just to work around the City.

Lastly, this type of news emboldens suburban building developers. They see that they have potentially 5 years before they have to worry about any competition for clients. It will also help them secure loans as they can show that Salt Lake City (the City itself) doesn't expect the project to be completed soon so the developer is more likely to gain the clients needed to repay the loan.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Makid

LDS Church developer plans to build a 28-story office tower in downtown Salt Lake City

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/11/...rch-developer/

Wow. 28 stories in a tower less than 400 feet? That's really trying to pack in square footage. I wonder, though, if they understand that the target client for 50,000sf is high tech companies, as far as I have been understanding so far. And, those companies, according to the recent article on the Gateway, prefer high ceilings, and creative office spaces. I wonder if they are missing the mark on this tower.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Wow. 28 stories in a tower less than 400 feet? That's really trying to pack in square footage. I wonder, though, if they understand that the target client for 50,000sf is high tech companies, as far as I have been understanding so far. And, those companies, according to the recent article on the Gateway, prefer high ceilings, and creative office spaces. I wonder if they are missing the mark on this tower.

From what has been written previously this is likely going to be for Goldman Sachs and Mormon Church administrative services.

In reference to Makid, I am having a hard time believing that article is correct in stating the "up to 5 year" timeline or it was someone shooting from the hip. I agree that the bureaucracy is still maddeningly slow, but 5 years seems crazy talk.

[ryerop]

https://www.ksl.com/article/46425770...ake-and-denver

Reno-Tahoe pulled out of an Olympic bid so now it is Salt Lake and Denver. So this is potentially an interesting twist in Salt Lake going for another Olympics, it'll be interesting to see how everything plays out.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Wow. 28 stories in a tower less than 400 feet? That's really trying to pack in square footage. I wonder, though, if they understand that the target client for 50,000sf is high tech companies, as far as I have been understanding so far. And, those companies, according to the recent article on the Gateway, prefer high ceilings, and creative office spaces. I wonder if they are missing the mark on this tower.

Hmm..I wonder if this is another one of those newspaper articles with some incorrect facts. The rendering shows 24 stories, which is more fitting for that height. 28 stories would be for a tower typically higher than 420 feet.

[bob rulz]

It also stated when talking about other skyscrapers in the works that Liberty Sky's height is expected to be 250 feet. That doesn't seem right either, does it?

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

It also stated when talking about other skyscrapers in the works that Liberty Sky's height is expected to be 250 feet. That doesn't seem right either, does it?

For a residential tower, it's about right. Res. towers are about 10 foot per floor, whereas office towers are around 14 feet per floor.

[Orlando]

Sorry for the blitz of posts today. I had some free time during lunch. Here is an update of all the developments proposed and confirmed along State Street in downtown north of 3rd south. The gray towers are those proposed and have not been confirmed to be either dead or moving forward. The white buildings are all confirmed projects moving forward.
[IMG][/IMG]

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Sorry for the blitz of posts today. I had some free time during lunch. Here is an update of all the developments proposed and confirmed along State Street in downtown north of 3rd south. The gray towers are those proposed and have not been confirmed to be either dead or moving forward. The white buildings are all confirmed projects moving forward.
[IMG][/IMG]

Mmmmmmmmm

That’s nice

If there aren’t in a hurry to build, perhaps the extra wait time for the project could result in a few extra floors being added? Naive I know.

[JMK]

This mural going up across the street from the Eccles Theatre

[Old&New]

Jubguy3, can you update the rundown on the first page? I’m not sure what development is going on the Carls Jr plot (very exciting). Can someone fill me in?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Hmm..I wonder if this is another one of those newspaper articles with some incorrect facts. The rendering shows 24 stories, which is more fitting for that height. 28 stories would be for a tower typically higher than 420 feet.

Maybe the original rendering is for 24 @ 395 but they have decided to add 4 floors. By my estimation we could be talking 450'.

Cross dem fingers

[Ironweed]

[QUOTE=Makid;8376513]LDS Church developer plans to build a 28-story office tower in downtown Salt Lake City

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/11/...rch-developer/



"This is a 2+ month wait after submitting documents just for the initial hearing on a CBDR for increased height on a corner lot in a D1 zone. If the initial hearing goes well, it would be another month at least before they are given the CBDR approval for the height increase. At this point we are in mid to late February if not March for a project submitted in late October to early November. Now, if there are changes needed or further updates, a secondary hearing is done 4 to 6 weeks later. Then possible approval another month away, if any changes just rinse and repeat.

Because of the possible challenges with the Planning Commission, Dave Bills isn't able to provide an estimate.

The rest of the process, demolition, excavation and building permits are relatively straight forward and quick to obtain.

This lengthy process for both initial hearings and approvals is one of the main reasons that the City is lacking a decent inventory of commercial space availability around the 50K sq ft range.

Now, the City has updating zoning along the Trax lines to do scoring in a way to bypass the Planning Commission and get projects built faster. Something similar needs to be done for the Downtown area.

The City should be working to speed up projects within the Downtown area, especially those that want to exceed current zoning limits. I would be okay with a dedicated Downtown Planning Commission to speed up the process. When times are light, they can help speed up projects in other areas of the City.

A self funded developer shouldn't have to expect a 5 year time frame for a project that should be complete in 3 years or less just to work around the City."

This is what I have been saying for years. There is a load of incompetence within the RDA and planning commission. This ineptitude has existed for decades. There needs to be a complete overhaul of those departments. The bureaucrats need to be replaced with intelligent individuals who can get things done!

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Maybe the original rendering is for 24 @ 395 but they have decided to add 4 floors. By my estimation we could be talking 450'.

Cross dem fingers

28 floors x 14 feet per floor = 392.

[Liberty Wellsian]

It seems like there are more and more out of state labor getting shipped in, the local IBEW is doing commercials begging for journeyman electricians, there are billboards up and down I-15 for construction labor. Yeah the airport will be done soon but then we are going to jump straight into an inland port and the point of the mountain thing. I wonder if anyone has an idea how to address this. Should the state be sponsoring a new trade school? It seems like we could be being more proactive.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by wrendog

28 floors x 14 feet per floor = 392.

395- 20(crown)=375

375/24 is around 15.6

How much of that you would attribute to the first 1 or 2 floors I don't know

Multiply by 28 add 20 back on for crown 450 ish

Wishful math? Probably

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Jubguy3, can you update the rundown on the first page? I’m not sure what development is going on the Carls Jr plot (very exciting). Can someone fill me in?

There's been nothing proposed as far as I know, but an out-of-state developer with a history of doing skyscrapers has bought that plot.