Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I believe that there should be a height moratorium of around 500’ for SLC to preserve sight-lines to the mountains and conversely to the lake if you’re looking the other way. Being so close to the Wasatch is one of the defining natural feature of SLC. Ensuring that, to the best of our abilities, we preserve peoples ability to enhance their lives through appreciation of nature we should make those efforts.
I do not think we should sacrifice our appreciation of the natural environment for the built environment.

I do agree we should value our nature and the beauty of the Wasatch and Great Salt Lake in our backyard. The bigger enemy to our natural viewsheds are pollution from seasonal inversion and wildfires in my opinion. If the entire Wasatch front decides to densify around smart development and public transport hubs, and increase and incentivize public transport for those who already live in the burbs, then we can mitigate vehicle emissions that pollute and obscure natural viewsheds. More densification whether tall or medium height will obscure viewsheds from a street level assuming one is a valley dweller and not up on the bench.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

I do agree we should value our nature and the beauty of the Wasatch and Great Salt Lake in our backyard. The bigger enemy to our natural viewsheds are pollution from seasonal inversion and wildfires in my opinion. If the entire Wasatch front decides to densify around smart development and public transport hubs, and increase and incentivize public transport for those who already live in the burbs, then we can mitigate vehicle emissions that pollute and obscure natural viewsheds. More densification whether tall or medium height will obscure viewsheds from a street level assuming one is a valley dweller and not up on the bench.

Bully on that.
Your point is well taken re: views from the valley floor. Speaking to that, I think it highlights the need for more urban parks and open space to afford sight-lines as development occurs. Tricky part is finding the land anymore. *sigh*

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I believe that there should be a height moratorium of around 500’ for SLC to preserve sight-lines to the mountains and conversely to the lake if you’re looking the other way. Being so close to the Wasatch is one of the defining natural feature of SLC. Ensuring that, to the best of our abilities, we preserve peoples ability to enhance their lives through appreciation of nature we should make those efforts.
I do not think we should sacrifice our appreciation of the natural environment for the built environment.

We can’t have an ever increasing labyrinth of regulations and expectations and expect to also have more affordable developments or to lure in many of these companies who have their offices in the burbs. We need to have a handful of non negotiable expectations and then give wide latitude on everything else. For me it is that all buildings have active street engagement or are built so the space can be easily converted to active uses when demand develops. I would give wide latitude on height maximums and most materials.

[Atlas]

Count me as against any height maximums in D-1.

MVE posted a bigger version of the rendering from this BSL article:



Some really interesting elements in this project, and if it's up to the standard they've set with Dixon Place it'll be great. Granary/Post District is booming. I hope we see movement on that 400W TRAX connection soon.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Some really interesting elements in this project, and if it's up to the standard they've set with Dixon Place it'll be great. Granary/Post District is booming. I hope we see movement on that 400W TRAX connection soon.

I like this A LOT! Let’s see how it comes out in the other side of the design review meat grinder. Lol

[TheGeographer]

[QUOTE=Atlas;9502233]Count me as against any height maximums in D-1.

Same here, I wouldn’t mind a few taller towers downtown. The MVE looks great, thanks for sharing!

[i2theSKY]

Thanks for the photos Reeder113, 95 State is a nice looking tower!

As far as a height moratorium I'm not a fan. I think it's past due for the D-1 375' rule to be changed. Lets be honest, a downtown setting is not the ideal location for mountain views to begin with unless you build up. The entire state has mountain views so a few dedicated areas for towers will not hurt IMO. As far as parks and green-space, I agree that SLC could use more.

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by i2theSKY

My point is it doesn't matter who carries the story, or who their readers are. It will still receive the same amount of complaints. For whatever reason many people think a comment section is for pissing and moaning. I often get sucked into reading comment sections and always leave with a headache and a lower IQ lol.

Ugh. I just made the same mistake. I regret it.

Originally Posted by Reeder113

Some pics of the Astra groundbreaking yesterday from KSL:

Damn, that's a good looking group, right there! But the bald guy in the blue sweater looks like a total schmoe.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

I believe that there should be a height moratorium of around 500’ for SLC to preserve sight-lines to the mountains and conversely to the lake if you’re looking the other way. Being so close to the Wasatch is one of the defining natural feature of SLC. Ensuring that, to the best of our abilities, we preserve peoples ability to enhance their lives through appreciation of nature we should make those efforts.
I do not think we should sacrifice our appreciation of the natural environment for the built environment.

This argument doesn't wash. Sorry. You can't put the height limit at 500 feet if you're concerned about the views. That is not compatible. The views that will be blocked by a 600 foot or 700 foot tower will still be interrupted by a 500 foot tower. You either accept a height limit that is well below 500 feet (which is silly too) or you concede there will be a mix of views and understand that is the trade off for living in a growing, vibrant city.

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Schmoe

Ugh. I just made the same mistake. I regret it.



Damn, that's a good looking group, right there! But the bald guy in the blue sweater looks like a total schmoe.

Is that you Schmoe?

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by Comrade

This argument doesn't wash. Sorry. You can't put the height limit at 500 feet if you're concerned about the views. That is not compatible. The views that will be blocked by a 600 foot or 700 foot tower will still be interrupted by a 500 foot tower. You either accept a height limit that is well below 500 feet (which is silly too) or you concede there will be a mix of views and understand that is the trade off for living in a growing, vibrant city.

You’re just saying 500’ is silly. I say not so much. 500 is way less than 6-700.

If you’re saying it’s arbitrary. Sure. I can agree to that. I have no studies to back up 500’ being better than 525’. Just my opinion is all. I’m not out here to change minds or anything. Just chipping in my two cents every now and then.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I'm excited for this...

I am too! The home 'groan' locals who complain about anything growth related in Utah are typically the redneck, inbred, hick types. Go Astra!!

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by bflatflat9

Is that you Schmoe?

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Gastroc

Is there a way to get all of these proposals under the Salt Lake City "diagrams" link? We don't even have Liberty Sky on there. Other cities seem to have all of their under construction and proposed buildings on the "diagrams" link and it's awesome to look at all of the renderings with their heights, usage, etc. This website definitely needs an update of some kind!

Hopefully the image is in this post. We got Astra going and west quarter phase too seems to be coming soon. Any word on convexity? Sundial?

What do you think the chances are that another potential “unknown” tower will be revealed in 2022? I’m feeling greedy and want another tower to drop into our laps this year. I sure hope Main Street tower, convexity, Sundial and the tower on 4th and west temple are still moving forward.

If you have some details, now is the time to drop them

[Utah_Dave]

Dang, the wonderful diagram image didn’t show up with all our pretty and new buildings

[Utah_Dave]

Also, anyone been in touch or heard anything from the Priskos group and the APS lot?

[Reeder113]

Here's a bird's eye view (video) of downtown and the valley today (courtesy of Scott T. Taylor on Twitter). Wow, the inversion looks really bad. I'm really digging how the Hyatt Regency is filling in that section of downtown from certain angles.

https://twitter.com/Grallon/status/1481739711110516737?s=20

[meman]

I dont think people in Salt Lake need to worry too much about losing their mountain views from downtown, with the very small number of tall buildings we have downtown . When we have a skyline that looks like Austin or Toronto maybe you naysayers will have a point, but untill them bring on the tall buildings!!!!

[Reeder113]

Originally Posted by Schmoe

Alright, Schmoe, we're expecting some incredible insider information from you!

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by TMoneySLC

You’re just saying 500’ is silly. I say not so much. 500 is way less than 6-700.

If you’re saying it’s arbitrary. Sure. I can agree to that. I have no studies to back up 500’ being better than 525’. Just my opinion is all. I’m not out here to change minds or anything. Just chipping in my two cents every now and then.

It's not, though. If your point is to preserve the mountain views at all costs, I hate to break it to you but it's too late. You ain't unringing that bell because 100 feet isn't going to the difference between maintaining the mountain views and not.

Neither is 200 feet.

So, it's an arbitrary number that is absolutely useless.

Now if we were discussing 800 and 900+ foot towers, you'd have more solid ground to stand on. But we're not.