Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Makid

I just wish that while discussing height limits, the City looked into project width and depth limits. These all go hand in hand.

This was my biggest comment on the survey that the city sent out last week...the height isn't what's killing 400 South and some other streets, it's the long walls with no interruption, no engagement, no life.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by DJ Mentat

For the most part, I agree with many of the assessments that have been made here regarding increasing zoning height restrictions throughout the city, including the Granary district. I live in the Granary district, and while the existing urban fabric contains some pretty cool industrial buildings that can be repurposed, I do think that there is a loooooooot of potential for additional development.

And the issue I see with Salt Lake's "warehouse district," as opposed to the districts in cities already mentioned, along with Detroit's warehouse district where I spent a large portion of my college years, is that we do not have enough of the historic building fabric to truly designate this as an established warehouse district with an established character. Right now, the character of the Granary is banal, low-height, light industrial buildings. We don't have the 5-7 story brick warehouse and factory buildings of larger cities, and we have seen this lack of historical fabric manifest with modern day historic warehouse imitations, i.e. Pacific Yards (brick/stone facades, grid windows, etc.).

All that to say that IMO, living in the Granary, there isn't a lot of existing "warehouse" character, and we should open the district up to additional height and creativity.

To that last point, I wanted to mention another issue that I've seen come to the fore over the last several years. Specifically, allowable heights per the building code. One of the reasons the 5-over-2 product is so prevalent is that it is very easy to build from a code standpoint. Only the exterior walls of the building are required to be rated (outside of elevator and stair shafts, and other requirements for ratings between units, corridors, etc.). But the key there is that none of the structural elements are required to be rated.

Anything above a 5-over-2 triggers additional fire rating requirements. A 5-over-3 requires most structural elements to be 1-hour rated. And while this construction type technically still allows for wood, most 5-over-3 products (Brinshore, 6th and Main) use metal stud framing.

All that to say that anything above 7-stories and 75' feet gets more expensive, quickly. This scares developers away (have seen this happen many times personally) from pursuing added height, especially if a design review is required. We have not seen many developers push the height in the D-2 zone because only 65' is allowed by-right, and a design review is required for the 120' maximum.

What we should do in areas of the city where heights are being increased is bump up allowable maximums to either 120' (maximum height allowed for Type II-B - metal stud system typically - and IV-B - Heavy Timber! - construction), or 180' (maximum allowable height for Type IV-A - still Heavy Timber! - construction). Allowing these heights - at a minimum - to be achieved by-right has the potential to encourage developers to build taller and add the density we so desperately need, as it would squander a financial opportunity to not build taller.

Note that it may still be worth it for the city to implement some design standards, as they have with the TSA zone. This would further encourage better design while pushing heights upward.

Anyhow, that concludes my ramblings. Long story short, we should consider the existing character - or lack thereof - in the Granary district and develop a plan to define that character (without imitating a style of warehouse building whose old-school qualities cannot be replicated) while pushing height limits up, being cognizant of the defined height limits in the building code and ways in which to encourage developers to explore different construction types that don't result in a bunch of stucco boxes. Because, honestly, that's not character.

I like this, except I would allow the 120 foot height not wholesale across the Granary but at certain locations.

[Orlando]

Just some examples of good infill mid-rise projects to show you something better than what you all have seen on 4th south. These are all Portland projects, except for the last two.













This is Capitol Hill in Seattle:

[Northernlad]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Just some examples of good infill mid-rise projects to show you something better than what you all have seen on 4th south. These are all Portland projects, except for the last two.

Some of those look similar to what I've seen being built in downtown Boise. Attractive designs and retail at ground level.

[TheGeographer]

This is a quote from a recent buildingsaltlake article on the Granary.

“ While the city and state all but guaranteed the area would see a rush of development, zoning in the Granary remains primarily the auto-oriented General Commercial (CG).

That zoning limits heights to five stories and no more than 60 feet, which encourages five-story buildings with no realistic ground-floor retail space.”

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/the-gra...l-uses-for-new-housing-and-office-space/

Have to go through the design review to build anything more than 60 feet. With the tax incentives in the Granary, the Granary could be in for a bunch 5 story apartments. Nothing remotely close to Orlando’s vision that had a little more height and a better design.

[Blah_Amazing]

It appears the demolition permits have been filed for the old historic Utah (Pantages)Theater and the other included Main Street retail properties. I believe this includes everything between the Kearns Building and the US Bank Building.





Demo Permit Filings Links:
136 S. Main

144 S. Main

156 S. Main

160 S. Main

A reminder: These properties will be replaced by the 31 floor, 392 ft. tall 150 S Main Street apartment tower and a raised public park (aka Pantages Park).

[Blah_Amazing]

Essentially, it looks to me like Hines is ready to move forward with the project. I wonder if they granted the rumored requests for eviction extensions for the retail shops through February or if they plan on enforcing the prior reported end of January eviction.

I honestly can only imagine the reaction of the Save the Pantages guy when he finds out.

[bob rulz]

Orlando, I don't think that anybody is arguing against good mid-level density. We just object to your characterization that a few tallers towers scattered around would ruin the "sense of place". Like I said, that tower in your rendering doesn't even look remotely out of place to me.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Orlando, I don't think that anybody is arguing against good mid-level density. We just object to your characterization that a few tallers towers scattered around would ruin the "sense of place". Like I said, that tower in your rendering doesn't even look remotely out of place to me.

Agreed. A few towers mixed in with mid level density looks great

[i2theSKY]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

I honestly can only imagine the reaction of the Save the Pantages guy when he finds out.

Given some of his statements I sadly think his mental stability is in question. It's almost a given he's going to create a scene, I just hope he doesn't do something stupid.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by i2theSKY

Given some of his statements I sadly think his mental stability is in question. It's almost a given he's going to create a scene, I just hope he doesn't do something stupid.

He also recently bought into one of the businesses there (the barber shop). The eviction will not be pretty.

[Atlas]

I saw this Philadelphia proposal and it has me wishing that our Utah Theatre Tower, and some of our other tower proposals for that matter, could manage to have more than a single retail space at the base. What do you all think of this project's street engagement? Given the current discussion, could something like this fit into the Granary District given that it matches the surrounding 3-story lowrise scale before the setback?



Rendering of full tower, designed by SCB:

[msbutah]

I walked by the Pantages properties this morning and they're all packing up except the Barbershop. So, it would seem they're looking for a fight.

[Orlando]

Wow. That is beautiful. I like how it relates to the older buildings at the base and there's a good setback at level 4. I wouldn't go as tall in the granary though.

[mstar]

Exciting news about the demolition permits for the Pantages Theater. This project is a real game changer for downtown. I also worry what the "Save the Pantages" guy is going to have a epic meltdown. Let's hope not!

[Boz]

"Save the Pantages" guy has morphed into "Save the Pantages Guy".

We need to start a campaign. Maybe he started one already.

[Comrade]

Does this mean Boomerangs Down Under on Main will be demolished too? It's a great little bar that used to be called Murphy's Pub, I believe. I really hate seeing bars go - especially downtown.

I might have to start up a Save the Boomerang.

[Orlando]

I was at Metro last night, and if you like bars and great live concerts, that's a great little venue. Super cool vibe.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Orlando, I don't think that anybody is arguing against good mid-level density. We just object to your characterization that a few tallers towers scattered around would ruin the "sense of place". Like I said, that tower in your rendering doesn't even look remotely out of place to me.

I don't mind having something in the 120-160' range, but Blah Amazing was advocating that zoning heights in the Granary be lifted across the board to 325', which is what I object to. There's no need for that there.

[BretUtah]

I walked past the barber shop last night and they were packing up and clearing out. It looks like they will be out by the end of the month as well.