HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8361  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 9:56 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
As a self-professed "urban planning nerd" you should know that conditional use requirements for additional height are neither that uncommon or a deterrent to high(er)-rise development. Do you and arkhitektor know how conditional uses work? Conditional uses are, by definition, ALLOWED uses as long as certain conditions are met---generally certain conditions that developers automatically meet anyway (in the case of setbacks) or could easily (in the case of public art funding).

I can't think of a single high-rise development in SLC in the last 20 years that didn't already meet the conditional use requirement for a taller building. In short, if developers of any of the sub-375' feet structures referenced above had wanted to build higher, they could have.

Salt Lake City does NOT have a height restriction of any kind in the CBD. Building height as a "major design control" is just that: a design control for public art and setback limits---not a height control.
1% of the cost of a large highrise is a lot of money. How much did CCC Tower 1 cost to build? How much would they have been made to spend on 'public art' if they had made the building 6 feet taller? Those things are not inconsequential to developers. The fact is that in Salt Lake City, it is more restrictive and costly to build over 375' tall and almost nobody ever does. If the city's goal is to control design, then the ordinance is pretty meaningless because it doesn't apply to almost anything that is actually being built. (Towers on corners that are under 375' tall)

Making any process more complicated and costly is going to be, at least on some level, a deterrent to people doing it.

Last edited by arkhitektor; Nov 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM.
     
     
  #8362  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 10:49 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
1% of the cost of a large highrise is a lot of money. How much did CCC Tower 1 cost to build? How much would they have been made to spend on 'public art' if they had made the building 6 feet taller? Those things are not inconsequential to developers. The fact is that in Salt Lake City, it is more restrictive and costly to build over 375' tall and almost nobody ever does. If the city's goal is to control design, then the ordinance is pretty meaningless because it doesn't apply to almost anything that is actually being built. (Towers on corners that are under 375' tall)

Making any process more complicated and costly is going to be, at least on some level, a deterrent to people doing it.
You're completely ignoring the facts and should probably familiarize yourself with the laws before criticizing them.

That part of the ordinance actually says: "Not less than one percent (1%) of the building construction budget shall be used for enhanced amenities, including art visible to the public, enhanced design elements of the exterior of the building or exterior spaces available to the public for cultural or recreational activities. The property owner shall not be required to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in required amenities."

You don't think they've already spent more than the required $100,000 on "enhanced amenities visible to the public?" The "Transcend" fountain alone is supposed to cost nearly $1 million.

So how is the process any more costly or complicated when the developers have already met the conditional use requirements for a taller building?

I maintain: any development that wanted to build higher than 375' in SLC could have done so without ANY additional expense; they all already had approved conditional use permits for greater height available to them.
     
     
  #8363  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 10:51 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
As a self-professed "urban planning nerd" you should know that conditional use requirements for additional height are neither that uncommon or a deterrent to high(er)-rise development. Do you and arkhitektor know how conditional uses work? Conditional uses are, by definition, ALLOWED uses as long as certain conditions are met---generally certain conditions that developers automatically meet anyway (in the case of setbacks) or could easily (in the case of public art funding).

I can't think of a single high-rise development in SLC in the last 20 years that didn't already meet the conditional use requirement for a taller building. In short, if developers of any of the sub-375' feet structures referenced above had wanted to build higher, they could have.

Salt Lake City does NOT have a height restriction of any kind in the CBD. Building height as a "major design control" is just that: a design control for public art and setback limits---not a height control.

The process of review and the conditions set for skyscrapers should apply for every property on the block; no need for a admittedly low height limit.

Spending 1% on art is stupid; we just end up with that flying potato thing in Gallivan Plaza instead of a real landmark.
     
     
  #8364  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 10:57 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Spending 1% on art is stupid; we just end up with that flying potato thing in Gallivan Plaza instead of a real landmark.
See above about it being capped at $100,000 and it not being just limited to "art."

Critiquing something you've not researched seems a lot more stupid than encouraging public art and amenity enhancements in major developments.
     
     
  #8365  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:04 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,746
If the 375' limit is as meaningless and you make it out to be, why does it even exist? Did some planner just pull it out of thin air? Why not just have a zoning ordinance that states that all corner buildings downtown be no less than 100' tall and meet the requirements of the conditional use since, as you stated previously, there hasn't been a single highrise in the last 20 years that didn't already meet the conditional use requirements?
     
     
  #8366  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:04 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
See above about it being capped at $100,000 and it not being just limited to "art."

Critiquing something you've not researched seems a lot more stupid than encouraging public art and amenity enhancements in major developments.

Please, give me the practical outcome of the art requirement. Explain to me how it has helped Salt Lake City and why it's needed. Based on your previous response it sounds like people already do what is required without the rule being in effect. Again, why do we have this rule?
     
     
  #8367  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:10 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,746
If I find out that the god-awful rock on a pole at Gallivan Plaza was the result of a conditional use requirement, I might just lose it
     
     
  #8368  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:17 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
There's not really a practical reason for having large buildings on corners, it is simply an urban design principle. It's a bit of a nuisance, but it's kind of funny, SSP'ers spend so much time advocating rules and regulations with the intent of promoting urban design principles, this is probably a rare case of forum members actually complaining of such rules.
This really isn't fair to say to the extent that Urban Planning design principles are often fiercely opposed to each other. Urban planning is a struggle between the elitism of telling people how they should live and the art of observation of seeing what is already working best (augmenting what is already working).

It's the Lewis Mumford vs. Jane Jacobs struggle. City Planners who aren't hacks, passionately disagree on design principles.


Quote:
Developers generally prefer corner locations because of their prominence, but the practice of putting the tallest building on a block has become popular as an urban design principle because tall corner buildings "anchor" intersections. A booklet was written in 1983 by a group of architectural consultants and urban planners called, "Preservation/Development Strategies for Salt Lake City," in which this practice was promoted. It said, "Buildings at the corners of street intersections are important determinants of the space of the intersection. Many corners on Main Street are anchored very well with tall buildings having square corners. This historic pattern is especially important, considering the very wide streets, for defining the space of the intersection. The guidelines maintain tall buildings with square corners at the intersection. The corner buildings should be taller than those in mid-block."
Quote:
I do agree, for the most part. Tall corner buildings are important, especially for Salt Lake, because of the massive streets. They make the streets seem narrower and the intersections seem smaller. They're important for making an urban environment that is balanced, comfortable, and walkable. That being said, Salt Lake also has massive blocks, and putting tall buildings only on corners can just as easily make for a less-than-ideal urban environment by dispersing density and confining activity to street corners. So it's a tricky situation, and there's not really a system that works for every situation. It's easy to understand why tall buildings are desirable on corners, but it's a bit harder to explain why mid-block buildings ought to be shorter, especially when we have examples like 222 (which doesn't affect the feeling of the intersection much) and University Club (which, IMO, still creates a comfortable urban space at the intersection despite being mid-block).
You've been to Paris right? You don't really need a building taller than 5-7 stories in order to get enough height to anchor a street (even a wide street in Paris).

Every one of the original downtown Salt Lake City pre war corner buildings that comes to my mind were all over 5-7 stories.

Now as far as making interior buildings larger than the corners, I can see no aesthetic reason why that would be less desirable. I care more about what works for people than aesthetics in this regard, but still, I'm not even seeing where anyone would be coming from based on aesthetics with that kind of assertion. Salt Lake City blocks are HUGE; no one disputes this. Putting the taller buildings on the edges actually seems like it magnifies the cavernous nature of the blocks.
     
     
  #8369  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:19 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
If the 375' limit is as meaningless and you make it out to be, why does it even exist? Did some planner just pull it out of thin air? Why not just have a zoning ordinance that states that all corner buildings downtown be no less than 100' tall
Uh... because not EVERY corner should have a highrise on it. Can you see something taller than 100' on the corner of 400 South and Exchange, for example? And I never even implied it was meaningless; just redundant in today's current development and design climate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Please, give me the practical outcome of the art requirement. Explain to me how it has helped Salt Lake City and why it's needed. Based on your previous response it sounds like people already do what is required without the rule being in effect. Again, why do we have this rule?
Developers generally already do this because it makes good sense and is good business and good design. But that doesn't mean every developer for the foreseeable future will recognize that.

Isn't it better to have a redundant rule in place to safeguard against the potential idiot developer, rather than have no rule at all? Better safe than sorry.

If we didn't have it, and someone built a monolithic 400' tower with no setback, one that blocked light from the street and mountain view corridors from established historic properties, then you'd all just bitch that we didn't have a conditional use zoning ordinance in place to mandate setback on conditional use heights.

As for the public "art" requirement, I don't necessarily understand its need when it's such a tiny number and almost any "added" design feature on the exterior of a building could potentially qualify. But I can't argue with requiring good public aesthetics. Especially when it's definitely not a deterrent to developers.
     
     
  #8370  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:21 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
If I find out that the god-awful rock on a pole at Gallivan Plaza was the result of a conditional use requirement, I might just lose it

That's what Luke Garrott told me.
     
     
  #8371  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:25 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
You've been to Paris right? You don't really need a building taller than 5-7 stories in order to get enough height to anchor a street (even a wide street in Paris).

Now as far as making interior buildings larger than the corners, I can see no aesthetic reason why that would be less desirable. I care more about what works for people than aesthetics in this regard, but still, I'm not even seeing where anyone would be coming from based on aesthetics with that kind of assertion. Salt Lake City blocks are HUGE; no one disputes this. Putting the taller buildings on the edges actually seems like it magnifies the cavernous nature of the blocks.
You've been to the financial district of Manhattan, right? Interior block high-rises block light and air to the street more substantially then corner buildings because the corners have additional light and air pathways (the cross-streets, duh). It's a given then dark, stank, cavernous streets are bad; it's even a public health concern. Requiring lower, or more set-back, buildings mid-block alleviates those concerns quite a bit... hence New York's additional zoning laws mandating such things by the time the island was developing north of about Canal Street.
     
     
  #8372  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:28 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
Uh... because not EVERY corner should have a highrise on it. Can you see something taller than 100' on the corner of 400 South and Exchange, for example? And I never even implied it was meaningless; just redundant in today's current development and design climate.



Developers generally already do this because it makes good sense and is good business and good design. But that doesn't mean every developer for the foreseeable future will recognize that.

Isn't it better to have a redundant rule in place to safeguard against the potential idiot developer, rather than have no rule at all? Better safe than sorry.

If we didn't have it, and someone built a monolithic 400' tower with no setback, one that blocked light from the street and mountain view corridors from established historic properties, then you'd all just bitch that we didn't have a conditional use zoning ordinance in place to mandate setback on conditional use heights.

As for the public "art" requirement, I don't necessarily understand its need when it's such a tiny number and almost any "added" design feature on the exterior of a building could potentially qualify. But I can't argue with requiring good public aesthetics. Especially when it's definitely not a deterrent to developers.

I think you and UTPlanner get defensive because you think we're anti regulation. That isn't the case. I'm channeling Obama here, regulation is good, redundant regulation is bad.

If building practices have changed since the 80's maybe it's time to change some things back from the 80's.

Is that really so radical to assert? Why not just say that SLC is totally open to tall buildings everywhere in the CBD, but make the review process horizontal for corner and mid block properties? That's really all us plebs are complaining about.
     
     
  #8373  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:32 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
You've been to the financial district of Manhattan, right? Interior block high-rises block light and air to the street more substantially then corner buildings because the corners have additional light and air pathways (the cross-streets, duh). It's a given then dark, stank, cavernous streets are bad; it's even a public health concern. Requiring lower, or more set-back, buildings mid-block alleviates those concerns quite a bit... hence New York's additional zoning laws mandating such things by the time the island was developing north of about Canal Street.

Dude our blocks are HUGE. Trying to derive principles based on New York blocks is meaningless. And blocking views is not an argument that impresses me. It's a NIMBY argument of the worst order; an anti density ethic.
     
     
  #8374  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:33 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
That's what Luke Garrott told me.
Don't believe everything an elected official tells you.
And one more lesson in doing your own research before opening your mouth.

While I think it's hideously ugly, Matsubayashi's "Asteroid Landed Softly" is interesting as a sundial. Built in 1993, it cost $200,000 and was paid for entirely through a donation by (then) Utah Power.
     
     
  #8375  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:34 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
Don't believe everything an elected official tells you.
And one more lesson in doing your own research before opening your mouth.

While I think it's hideously ugly, Matsubayashi's "Asteroid Landed Softly" is interesting as a sundial. Built in 1993, it cost $200,000 and was paid for entirely through a donation by (then) Utah Power.

Trusting elected officials isn't any worse than trusting the planning experts. The track records are about the same.
     
     
  #8376  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:44 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
Don't believe everything an elected official tells you.
And one more lesson in doing your own research before opening your mouth.

While I think it's hideously ugly, Matsubayashi's "Asteroid Landed Softly" is interesting as a sundial. Built in 1993, it cost $200,000 and was paid for entirely through a donation by (then) Utah Power.
Two questions:

1. Did they in fact need public artwork like this to get the added height?
2. If I were building a 400' tower would I be able to take donations for my public artwork requirement?
     
     
  #8377  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:44 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Dude our blocks are HUGE. Trying to derive principles based on New York blocks is meaningless. And blocking views is not an argument that impresses me. It's a NIMBY argument of the worst order; an anti density ethic.
And that's a blanket statement that's meaningless. Besides, NIMBYism is arguably a good thing for a community as a whole. It drives corrective action within a sometimes skewed planning process. (See: In Defense of the NIMBY)

Our blocks may be much bigger than NYC's, but when we're talking hundreds of feet in the air, light is still blocked from a street floor that's only dozens of feet wide. The principles weren't derived from NYC, btw, but from the pure geometry of height necessary to create multi-hour shadows on OUR street widths. THAT is where the 375' figure comes from. I only used Manhattan as the most egregious example since you "plebs" seem to be missing the point.

I'm actually not very fond of regulation, so you're misinterpreting defensiveness, and I'm very fond of density---just density done well. No one want Pruitt-Igoe.

What pisses me off is opinions formed out of ignorance rather than research and experience.
     
     
  #8378  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:44 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
Uh... because not EVERY corner should have a highrise on it. Can you see something taller than 100' on the corner of 400 South and Exchange, for example? And I never even implied it was meaningless; just redundant in today's current development and design climate.
I don't disagree, but wouldn't the ordinance allow someone to build a 374' monolithic tower with no setback on that same corner with no additional input from the planning dept.?
     
     
  #8379  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:50 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: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionide View Post
And that's a blanket statement that's meaningless. Besides, NIMBYism is arguably a good thing for a community as a whole. It drives corrective action within a sometimes skewed planning process. (See: In Defense of the NIMBY)

Our blocks may be much bigger than NYC's, but when we're talking hundreds of feet in the air, light is still blocked from a street floor that's only dozens of feet wide. The principles weren't derived from NYC, btw, but from the pure geometry of height necessary to create multi-hour shadows on OUR street widths. THAT is where the 375' figure comes from. I only used Manhattan as the most egregious example since you "plebs" seem to be missing the point.

I'm actually not very fond of regulation, so you're misinterpreting defensiveness, and I'm very fond of density---just density done well. No one want Pruitt-Igoe.

What pisses me off is opinions formed out of ignorance rather than research and experience.

But what if we are in school taking 19 credit hours and too busy with that to find out about the flying potato and would just rather give you and UTPlanner a hard time, and ask questions so that we can learn with less expended effort?

In all seriousness though, I really do appreciate you taking the time to express your views on the matters at hand and for clearing some things up. And I totally disagree when it comes to maintaining mountain views in the CBD. The density of Salt Lake City is a spectacle far more unique in the Wasatch Front than the spine of mountains; the density from within and afar inspires me more on a daily basis than my front yard foothills.
     
     
  #8380  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2011, 11:50 PM
Zionide's Avatar
Zionide Zionide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen View Post
Two questions:

1. Did they in fact need public artwork like this to get the added height?
2. If I were building a 400' tower would I be able to take donations for my public artwork requirement?
1) Um... what added height? If you're talking about One Utah Center, I believe it is less than 375'... it's more like 350'.
2) I have no idea. I wouldn't imagine SLC planning has any requirements about the source of your funding. The Utah Department of Commerce may have something to say about accepting donations and how they're spent.

For the record, Utah Power paid for the "art" sundial for the tax-supported and RDA-owned Gallivan plaza development. I don't believe it had anything to do with any private or building development.
     
     
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 8:55 AM.

     

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