HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 8:38 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
I really don't understand some of you guys sometimes. One day you'll all for a project then the next day everyone hates it.
Those run down buildings are in no way historical. They were built in what the 60's? They were ugly. I think this project will look alot nicer without those ugly two story buildings.
I thought we like new taller, mix-use buildings with underground parking and store front retail.
Did I miss something here?
__________________
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

Last edited by SLC Projects; Jan 21, 2008 at 9:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 8:38 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanboy View Post
..........
I AGREE!
Coming from you that's no surprise.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 8:45 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
I really don't get you guys. One day you'll all for a project then the next day everyone hates it.
Those run down buildings are in no way historical. They were built in what the 60's? They were ugly. I think this project will look alot nicer then those ugly two story buildings.
I thought we like new taller, mix-use buildings with underground parking and store front retail.
Did I miss something here?
They were not built in the 60's! Maybe if you understood the historic aspect of those buildings your opinion might change. It was, however, around the 60's that the original brickwork on those buildings was covered by the hideous aluminum siding that we are all familiar with. I wonder what the developer could have exposed by removing the butt ugly aluminum siding? Also, I don't remember hearing anything about underground parking. Will their really be underground parking?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 9:06 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Ok i didn't know about the "original brickwork" on those buildings. Just by looking at those pics those store fronts looks 60ish. But I remember hearing that the developers thought about saving them, but could not because they were unsafe and fulling apart. And on top of that the buildings were too small.
Also I do remember hearing that the new buildings will have brickwork on them to help give surgarhouse that historical feel.
Plus these new buildings will be anywhere from 4-7 stories with Office and Condos on the upper levels. This will bring more people to live and work and shop in Sugarhouse.
And yes there will be underground parking under the 6-7 story buildings. I remember viperlord posting a link that showed a layout of it.
I think this project is a great idea. As long as the new buildings fit in the Surgarhouse area. And by looking at the renderings I think it will fit in. :]
__________________
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

Last edited by SLC Projects; Jan 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 9:49 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120

The Developer is the Owner! He should have done a better job keeping them up. There are great historic buildings that, although they were once "falling apart," are now solid. Also, the size was perfect for local businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:10 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
I really don't understand some of you guys sometimes. One day you'll all for a project then the next day everyone hates it.
Those run down buildings are in no way historical. They were built in what the 60's? They were ugly. I think this project will look alot nicer without those ugly two story buildings.
I thought we like new taller, mix-use buildings with underground parking and store front retail.
Did I miss something here?
Uh, maybe you're confused, but I've been against this project from the start.

And those buildings certainly were not built in the 1960s. Maybe that's when they were reclad, but they were built in the early 1900s, when SugarHouse was known for its high-end retail (furniture row). But my issue goes beyond just destroying those buildings (they could be saved). The root of my problem stems from the fact the charm SugarHouse once had will be lost. Instead of a thriving, hip neighborhood that offers something no other area in Utah offers, we're going to get something that every suburb offers.

Your simplistic view of this entire project is startling, Projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:16 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,291
I agree with much of what you are saying Projects, and I hope others understand that you were not advocating national chains. I too will be frustrated if this new Sugarhouse is just another beautiful wrapping with only stores such as the GAP. But, as rendered it is at least a beautiful wrapping. I think we all hope for a continuation of eclectic local-grown businesses in and around Sugarhouse.

If the original facade's of some of these former buildings could have been salvaged, then there should be an investigation. Can someone show me a specific study conducted on the facades of these buildings by a recognized expert? Someone who can verify that the historical facades were not irreparably damaged and destroyed when that grotesque steel covering was added. Often when these 50's facades were attached, many original elements were removed and destroyed.

The differing views here are often overly simplistic, even when there not meant to be. Often, forumers who even have the same tastes get confused over what someone else is writing, just because they fail to include the entire encyclopedia of their thoughts in one phrase. Let's at least assume that our local forumers have left out certain opinions and perhaps we can politely ask them if they want to add something.

Last edited by delts145; Jan 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:21 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
I agree with you Projects, and I hope others understand that you were not advocating national chains. I too will be frustrated if this new Sugarhouse is just another beautiful wrapping with only stores such as the GAP. But, as rendered it is at least a beautiful wrapping. I think we all hope for a continuation of eclectic local-grown businesses in and around Sugarhouse.
Well hope in one hand and shit in the other and tell me which one fills up faster.

I hope that this project keeps the local vibe as well, but it isn't going to happen. Especially the type of local businesses that once populated the retail center. The rental prices will be too high for them and they will be forced out, leaving only the chains which can afford to rent there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:35 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,291
It is my understanding that the majority of these stores have found new locations in and around Sugarhouse. Also, a few have moved to downtown. Is this correct?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:41 PM
DMTower's Avatar
DMTower DMTower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 784
I think a major project like this will likely be a shock to the local market initially, but I believe Sugarhouse will rebound and maintain it's character. Blue Boutique has already found a new spot nearby and there are still lots of old buildings and houses where local business can open up. I don't advocate wasting recyclable buildings just to have something new, but those building really had had it. I'm also not so sure the architecture was really interesting or significant enough to save either... does anyone have any pictures of the original buildings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:46 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
It is my understanding that the majority of these stores have found new locations in and around Sugarhouse. Also, a few have moved to downtown. Is this correct?
Not that I know of.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 10:48 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMTower View Post
I think a major project like this will likely be a shock to the local market initially, but I believe Sugarhouse will rebound and maintain it's character. Blue Boutique has already found a new spot nearby and there are still lots of old buildings and houses where local business can open up. I don't advocate wasting recyclable buildings just to have something new, but those building really had had it. I'm also not so sure the architecture was really interesting or significant enough to save either... does anyone have any pictures of the original buildings?
The problem I'm seeing is that all these businesses now are being spread throughout the neighborhood. So instead of having a "core" of locally owned businesses, they're scattered around an entire region, while the downtown area of SugarHouse will mostly be chain stores. I don't like that idea.

In my opinion, downtown SugarHouse will be no different than the Gateway. And as a resident of SugarHouse, I don't want to see that happen. I'm not ragging on the Gateway, I just don't think it works well for this area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2008, 11:55 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
I can assure you: the new development will not be as walkable as the former shopping district was!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2008, 4:04 AM
WASDEN's Avatar
WASDEN WASDEN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kailua HI
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
I really don't understand some of you guys sometimes. One day you'll all for a project then the next day everyone hates it.
Those run down buildings are in no way historical. They were built in what the 60's? They were ugly. I think this project will look alot nicer without those ugly two story buildings.
I thought we like new taller, mix-use buildings with underground parking and store front retail.
Did I miss something here?
Projects- its not that I am opposed to any of these redevelopments (Sugar House, Cottonwood mall, Gateway) its just that I have really, really high expectations! I agree that the Gateway is certainly better than abandoned railyards, and even a "European Village" will be better than the old Cottonwood mall. But really I'm not convinced that either of these redevelopments will have a longer life span than those they are replacing. At the moment, "lifestyle centers" are the fad, and like all fads they will fade. I just think that they would fare better if they tried to actually fit in with their existing neighborhoods rather than drop in like some alien tribute to yellow stucco in the middle of a warehouse district (same point for a "European Village" in the heart of Holliday.)


I hold the Sugar House redevelopment to a particulary high standard because it is replacing what was allready a living, breathing, unique neighborhood.


We should demand more from these developers, especially if they are getting 76 million in taxpayer money!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds View Post
Well hope in one hand and shit in the other and tell me which one fills up faster.
Comrade I am still laughing!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 6:55 PM
UTPlanner's Avatar
UTPlanner UTPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 913
I'm personally glad to see some growth and change happening in this area of the valley. Sugar House in many ways is a victim of its own success. It has become chic and popuar. I think its important to keep in mind that a city is like a living body, it grows and it changes, or it dies. Could you imagine downtown SLC if no historic buildings were ever removed? The Grand America would not exist, the Wells Fargo tower wouldn't be there, the new library, the list goes on and on.

I certainly feel that where preservation is an option that a building should remain but I also have a firm optimistic vision of what Sugar House could become, and that vision consists of the historic nature of the area connected to a modern world.

And I believe that this development will absolutely be walkable and even more so than the former development. The former buildings acted as a huge wall, it was impossible to make it to the back portions of the block. This new development will be far more open.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 7:36 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTPlanner View Post
I'm personally glad to see some growth and change happening in this area of the valley. Sugar House in many ways is a victim of its own success. It has become chic and popuar. I think its important to keep in mind that a city is like a living body, it grows and it changes, or it dies. Could you imagine downtown SLC if no historic buildings were ever removed? The Grand America would not exist, the Wells Fargo tower wouldn't be there, the new library, the list goes on and on.

I certainly feel that where preservation is an option that a building should remain but I also have a firm optimistic vision of what Sugar House could become, and that vision consists of the historic nature of the area connected to a modern world.

And I believe that this development will absolutely be walkable and even more so than the former development. The former buildings acted as a huge wall, it was impossible to make it to the back portions of the block. This new development will be far more open.

UTPlanner I agree. As forumers we tend to want taller and bigger towers built in our downtown and yet we want all the old smaller buildings to remain. But sometime we can't have both. Sometime we will have to lose a building or two to get something bigger in it's place.
I for one don't really remember what used to be at the wells fargo site or grand America Hotel site, but I am glad we have these towers that shape our skyline.
But something like losing the New House Hotel in 1983 was pointless since all there is there today is a damn parking lot. But want I would really like to see is developers start to develop on those parking lots downtown. There's alot of them.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 7:56 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanboy View Post
I can assure you: the new development will not be as walkable as the former shopping district was!
Please explain Urbanboy. Do you mean not as uniquely shoppable?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 8:43 PM
urbanboy urbanboy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Downtown Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Please explain Urbanboy. Do you mean not as uniquely shoppable?
No, that's not what I meant. If you look close at the renderings, the new development's orientation to the street is not anywhere near as good as the former buildings' orientation to the street. If I remember correctly, there is landscaping in between the building and the sidewalk?! Pedestrians like to walk next to buildings and peer into windows. If there is to be any landscaping involved in this project, it should be to create a buffer between the street and the sidewalk, not the sidewalk and the buildings! Also, no one answered my question. Is there going to be an underground parking lot?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 9:08 PM
UTPlanner's Avatar
UTPlanner UTPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 913
Urbanboy, you actually remember incorrectly. There will not be landscaping between the building and the sidewalk, though there will be landscaping between the sidewalk and the busy street. Yes, the entire project will have underground parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2008, 9:19 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTPlanner View Post
Urbanboy, you actually remember incorrectly. There will not be landscaping between the building and the sidewalk, though there will be landscaping between the sidewalk and the busy street. Yes, the entire project will have underground parking.

I already told Urdanboy that there would be underground parking. But I don't think he believes anything I say on here.
__________________
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
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 5:22 AM.

     

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