If You Were the Architect
I am sitting at my office keyboard at City Weekly in the historic David Keith building. The address is 248 S. Main Street. I have two 8-foot high picture windows (which desperately need cleaning) looking eastward and straight down at the Gallivan Plaza TRAX stop. Sometimes I look down at that zany KUTV news crew doing live reports with barbecue chefs or some such fun on the sidewalk right across the street.
It’s 4:39 p.m. Before human beings started working around the clock and from home offices, this used to be known as “rush hour.” In Salt Lake City’s downtown golden age–50 years ago or more–it meant people moving on the sidewalks, cars idling at traffic lights. Men and women in hats and pressed suits.
There was life here.
Now there is scarcely any life at all.
The TRAX trains fill up nicely. A good thing, certainly. But they come into town and go home to the suburbs. Nothing on lower Main Street draws a crowd.
I think we are supposed to be patient, wait for another five years while the LDS Church builds its City Creek Center three blocks to the north. We keep hearing about the trickle-down theory of marketing and commerce. We’re told the new mall will wake up everything down here, and great throngs will find their way to Second, Third and Fourth South.
One of the most important questions we can ask the field of mayoral candidates is what are their plans for this sad, decaying, shuttered-up downtown. I’m not willing to give up to The Gateway–just to throw up my hands and admit priorities have shifted to chain stores and beige stucco.
If you were the architect, what would you do to kick the real downtown SLC into gear? One suggestion will do. Post it here, on the blog. Or am I just wrong? Maybe I live in one of those filmy, TV dream montages, where the downtown of my youth shows up and keeps me in a constant state of wishing for more. Maybe downtown is just dead; its resurrection just a pipe dream. Geez, Holly. Just get over it.
I think any downtown resurgence hangs on more than simply changing the liquor laws, though that would help. I’d love to hear your thoughts. And maybe the people running for Salt Lake mayor would, too. Most of them read this blog.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I consider myself an amateur urban planner, since I didn’t own a car until I was 28 and had plenty of time to think about what works and what doesn’t when walking or taking public transportation.
IMHO, the biggest thing is to encourage more apartment/condo(affordable! no more “luxury” condos)(re)development downtown. The next step would be to ensure that those who live downtown can get the most needed items within a short walk. A mixed use building could house apartments above, with a food market below, for instance.
The housing must encourage diversity — families are very important, people of all income levels and cultures. Also, we shouldn’t tear down the old and interesting buildings, but should renovate to accomodate new dwellings.
I’d live downtown in a heartbeat if I could afford it. There’s tons to do downtown (a lot for free) and easy access to public transportation. I’d love to give up my car but Salt Lake City isn’t accomodting enough for my families needs yet to go carless.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Ooops! That’s “family’s” not “families”
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
This is a tough one….
Perhaps a not so close parallel would be Detroit, just about destroyed during the 60s but with a dynamic mayor (Coleman Young) the place has come part way back. The Renaissance Center (1979) was the start and new stadiums for the Red Wings,Tigers and Lions really helps.
For me the loss of the Hotel Utah is a tragedy…tells the world that Mormons own the town and other opinions are irrelevant.
The future ? Albert Brooks` film `Defending Your Life` might be a good metaphor. Everyone dressed appropiately and wearing beatific smiles…but maybe this is too cynical.
I do remember the Walker Bank with its color coded sign as a weather forecast…really nostalgic.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Idaho had this issue in the 70’s. Downtown was a huge draw, then not so much, an (one, this is Boise, kids) an somewhat outlying mall)…then nothing.
Boise came back in the late 80’s and early 90s with a roar. There are restaurants, housing (admittedly high end which bugs me) in condos and high rises, events. NO URBAN TRANSIT though of any reality which will cause them issues later in life.
Holly, I agree with this concern. I wish Downtown would turn into something. My biggest problem with SLC (when I get there) is that there isn’t much compared to the much smaller town I moved from/grew up in. I tell you this, I’m ready to go back to the lovely place I know with all its problems because this place doesn’t seem interested in diversifying or having community events. And, to make a further point, it isn’t just SLC, it’s Herriman, Riverton, Sandy, Draper, etc etc. Those of who have moved from out of town and live WAY south can’t find squat. Either it isn’t there or it isn’t publicized. I read the news, watch TV and look at the internet. Hello??
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I live in and love downtown. I’m not rich, I’ve just lived in my neighborhood for 28 years (it used to be considered seedy, but no longer). I agree with “lostinutah” that more and better-publicized community events, especially free admission events, would bring people to downtown. I like the ideas of an Arts and Theater district, too. Some kind of open farmer’s market like Pike Place in Seattle would be nice. Having stores open later at night and on Sunday would help, but that won’t happen with the new LDS mall. I’m really afraid that the City Creek Center is going to be just a bland, vanilla imitation of the bland, vanilla Jordan Landing.
More community events would be great, but when I talk to my co-workers from the ‘burbs they all express major fears about driving in and parking downtown. This surprises me, because this is one of the easiest downtowns I’ve ever driven in. I don’t know how one would dispel the “scary to drive in downtown” myth. In fact, I find driving in the suburbs much more crowded and terrifying. Mass transit like TRAX is great, but many families don’t use it. Sorry! I gave more than 1 suggestion!
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
GADS I hate Jordan Landing. I wanted to…was drawn to…living in Sugarhouse when I moved here b/c it was like a lovely neighborhood I had always aspired to living in but because of the lack of transit to Utah County I bailed for the south end of the county. BAD MOVE. We use TRAX a lot considering (because I feel we SHOULD) but since we live on the west end of the valley so even going to 10000 is a pain.
The one thing I LOVE Rocky for is wanting to fight that darned Cherry Creek Mall. Not all of us want to have a “CLEANSED” version of somewhere else. I’d take what I had somewhere else. It was very safe, clean and if it wasn’t always tolerant of my values, I felt my job as a parent was to make that clear to my kids.
This honestly is not an anti-Utah rant. It’s an anti-tolerance rant…
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Greenjenni hit it on the nosie - affordable, attractive housing. And so did lostinutah: fast, convenient, relatively cheap transit. Downtown Chicago is a nightmare of traffic, but there are tons of people downtown of an evening, whether there’s a big event or not - because people live downtown. And also, because other people can easily get downtown without having to deal with driving.
Another city that’s got a much more “people on the street” vibe: Portland, Oregon. I went to school in Eugene and was always struck by how liveable downtown Portland was. They now have pretty decent light rail, which makes getting around and about easier. I also lived in Seattle, which wasn’t so much about the transit, but did have free buses downtown, in addition to a lot of affordable and not-so-affordable apartment and condo housing. I hear there’s a lot less of the affordable rentals, alas. But still: downtown Seattle is a fun place to be.
I would never think of downtown Salt Lake as a particularly fun place, even the parts that have been made over a little. Parking isn’t such a problem, and the streets are about twice as wide as Chicago’s - but there’s hardly anyone living downtown, correct?
I grew up in Sugarhouse - actually, in an area just on the edge of it - and although all the “downtown Sugarhouse” changes are kind of jarring, I have to admit it’s a lot more attractive. And other neighborhoods in Salt Lake have got more charm and character than I remember growing up.
I also remember and miss the Walker Bank sign… not all change is good.
And by the way, Holly - as a relatively new blogger, TAG!
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Main street is depressing, isn’t it? I worked there for a little over a year, and while it was exciting at first, within months the number of AVAILABLE signs in windows along main went starkly up, and the number of people on the street went starkly down. Except, of course, the number of bums. Couldn’t go to lunch without being hit up for change two or three times. Anyway, the place just continued to die.
Honestly, I can’t see things getting better around here. I don’t think the powers that be really have the right vision for making things better. A couple more malls? First of all, what was wrong with the first ones, and second of all, how about focusing on the small things first that actually make people want to go downtown? Free events. FREE PARKING? And actually advertise the events. If I didn’t read the City Weekly, I’d probably never know about what’s going on, and I actually live downtown.
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 am
I too remember Walker Bank with green for good weather and red for stormy. Lambs Cafe is still there, right? I agree with chardonnay that the loss of the Hotel Utah is a real shame, now just serving the Mormons.
Other fond memories….trying to remember how to spell …..Makeoffs with that little tea room and weekly fashion shows, Auerbachs and that endless round and round parking plaza and wonderful food. “Back in the day”….sounding oh so nostaligic and well, old.
I hadn’t realized how much downtown Salt Lake has atrophied….Stately South Temple with those lovely mansions…..Is the Brigham Street Inn still operational? I worked there as a maid while attending grad school at the U. Actually wore a little black and white outfit.
Salt Lake is a beautiful city with the Wasatch in the background. I hope it gets a makeover someday soon.
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Maybe the new mayor can have a constructive dialogue with the Church about downtown. Seems the Mormons want a `cordon sanitare` to the exclusion of everyone else. The level of paranoia seems to be rising…..what`s needed is a mayor with the skills of a child psychologist. Someone able to reason with a fixated adolescent. Mr.Anderson has made things worse.
Anyway, I remember Leyson-Pearsall…bought my first watch & engagement ring from Alan Moffat. Hope the building is still there.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
Chardonnay:
1. The Mormons DO own the place, and
2. Other opinions ARE irrelevant.
2 constants here, not changing anytime soon. It SEEMS they won’t rest until the entire periphery is a version of the same beige creativity they are foisting upon us now.
Nothing changes until there is affordable middle class housing available, not owned by The Church. I know many people who would live downtown, myself included, if there was education (and relative safety) available for the kids, housing that a regular person could afford, and WANT, and the things a family needs to buy close at hand. I’d give my left one to live in the Lower Avenues, but it’s just not practical. It’s great to see some of the old buildings changing hands (most recently the Judge Building), and one can only hope that the new owners choose to develop creative solutions to the needs there.
Besides all that, the prevailing theory in this state with regard to housing is that bigger is better, and we need about 2 acres of grass, 5 bedrooms, three cars, a boat, a three car garage, and a jungle-gym-and-trampoline, if not a pool, just to feel good about ourselves.
Random thought: upgraded entertainment options. No food courts.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
So is it just a myth that over half of the population of Salt Lake is something other than Mormon? I was under the impression that things were changing in Salt Lake with outside influences gradually moving in. Guess not. I lived in the lower Avenues many years ago. Sounds like it’s become too expensive? I recall the little T Street Market on 3rd and the polygamist home kitty-corner from that. Last time through, a couple of years ago, it looked like there were still places to move into and fix up.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
Oregon - those places are there, but they’re spendy for most folks, especially for those with young families. $375K+
You can buy a fair amount of green grass in the ‘burbs for that. But like I said, it’s a values/priorities thing as well.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Since I live in Utah County (oh the humanity! I can hear some of you saying…), I don’t get to downtown SLC very often, but I like many of the suggestions here. Several seem to have some representation in existing SLC and the plan for City Creek:
-Provide (affordable) living spaces downtown to encourage actual residency. Check (not so sure about the affordable). Two of the buildings being planned will provide several hundred condos for occupation.
-Have places like grocery stores that support downtown living. Check. Initial plans for City Creek have a ground floor grocery store, I think next to the First Security building on Main near 100 South.
It also seems to me there has been some work creating a Theater and Arts District, but I don’t know how that’s working.
They do free parking before Christmas–year-round would be great!
Publicity is a problem. I know the LDS Church sends out flyers to every congregation within shouting distance (we get them in American Fork) listing out church-sponsored recitals, concerts, performances, etc in the Tabernacle and Conference Center, even for daytime performances at City Creek park, many of which are non-denominational in content. I wonder if broader efforts about all downtown activities, disseminated to a range of community groups, would have a greater reach and still be cost-effective.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I have the smartest people posting comments. Thanks.
One thing that occurs to me is that traditional downtown SLC will eventually become rather ghettoized. That word, ghetto, is usually a negative. But perhaps planners and developers (encouraged by the rest of us–that would be, uh, voters!) should keep focusing on turning everything south of Second South and from State Street westward into bars, clubs, and nightlife.
The City Creek Center can be more about shopping and “family-style” entertainment. The chamber of commerce model for downtown seems to be built a little on this concept.
Since I’m no urban planner, I don’t know if that’s good design. But it’s similar to other large cities I’ve lived in, with specific nightlife districts that cater to people who like to spend money and stay out late.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:33 am
HERE’S TO PROGRESS…
Interesting thing is, downtown is exactly what we’ve asked for. Our codes, ordinances, zoning, etc., all tell developers and property owners exactly what to build. And that’s what we’ve done over the past 30 or so years. We’ve become our own worst enemy when it comes to creating a bustling downtown. Our downtown probably has over 75 million visitors each year (considering employees, residents, tourists, and other visitors who are here each day), and you’d never know it if you walk the streets on any given evening. Personally, I think that if you want to have an active, vibrant sort of place, then go take a few pictures of places like this that you’d really like to emulate (Seattle, Washington DC, Portland, Boulder, San Diego, Rome, Oslo, Stockholm, London are some in the U.S. and abroad that capture my fancy), describe in writing what you see, and put that into your zoning ordinance and development codes.
Now, I know as well as any that it’s not QUITE that simple, but in some ways it is. I’ve been talking about this with civic leaders for years. I got so frustrated that I ran for City Council and won a seat. Some are starting to listen. Ralph and Jenny, two of our current mayoral candidates seem to get this. The two other major candidates (a coucilman and a former councilman) in the mayor’s race don’t seem to understand it yet (of course, they also don’t see that they’re mostly responsible for the current delinquent policies—or at least for not changing them when they had the chance—since this and former city councils created these policies in the first place).
It’s time we started listening to…well…the PROFESSIONALS. I’ve found that they are full of great ideas and solutions if anyone is willing to listen…or even ask.
Housing downtown is a start. We’re starting to see some fruits of these labors. Downtown will never provide housing for every type of individual (like the masses that will always want to live in the suburbs just because they want to live in the suburbs), but we should recognize that there is a growing population (even a diverse population, including families) that do want to live downtown, and make sure we have the right choices and amenities to support this lifestyle. Even if we captured just 2% of the annual new housing market for the entire state, that’s about 1000 new residents downtown each year. Not bad by any standard. I agree with other comments that housing needs to reflect the diverse needs of residents—as reflected in choice for affordability, amenities, and mobility access.
Next we need to work on getting business that close at 5:00 pm OFF the street (or at least most of them). And the corollary to this is getting the vibrant retail businesses off of upper levels and back ON the street (a.k.a. ZCMI Center, Crossroads, Gateway and coming soon City Creek Center). Of course, what land owner wouldn’t want to capture such a large portion of the lucrative retail market, but doing so means that the market is not distributed among other downtown properties, which is not only harmful (as we’ve seen), but is also inequitable. The concentration of retail activity generators will continue to erode the vibrancy of the downtown in disturbing ways.
Next, we need to quit demolishing historic buildings while 75% of our downtown lies in fallow “grayfields” (i.e. parking lots). EVEN IF some of the older buildings that are currently on the chopping block (First Security/Deseret Building, Montgomery Ward/Bennion Jewelers, Tribune Building, etc.) are less than ideal for Class A office space, we have a lot of other needs than Class A office space. We should focus development on filling in the “gaps” where the parking lots are now to create a complete urban framework and “fabric” that lends itself to a diverse and continuous pedestrian experience.
Finally, it’s time that we treated the street—these great, wide streets that Brigham Young envisioned as public, social spaces—as just what they were intended to be. Whether you think that our wide streets are an asset or a liability, we have clear evidence that we have nothing when we allow development to turn its back to the street. Take a look at the Wells Fargo Building, One Utah Center, Gateway, First Interstate Bank, and coming soon, City Creek Center, which all treat the street as mere utility to carry the cars zooming in and out of their respective parking structures. A proper urban design element to create once again vibrant streets will require, among other things:
- Frequent doorways and penetrations that allow people the choice to permeate between building and street. This means not just one or two doorways per block, but more like a dozen entrances per block. If you don’t think it can be done, just go walk up Rio Grande Street inside the Gateway and count the entrances—they are all there. It’s done all the time, just not always in the right places);
- Windows and other openings that you can actually see into and out of. This means no mirror glass, obscure glass, or false windows, and DEFINITELY no walls with mostly no windows (which we seem to have had an increasing number of, dating back to the two shopping malls downtown);
- Floor levels inside the building that match the sidewalk outside the building (which reinforces the last two points); and
- Pedestrian amenities such as pedestrian oriented signage (blade signs), canopies and awnings (you mean there’s a way to control sunlight other than mirrors and tinted glass?).
On a happy note, many of you bloggers will be happy to note that the City Council recently approved the resurrection of the weather sign atop the Walker Center, which may soon grace the building once again.
Here’s to progress…
July 4th, 2007 at 9:27 am
SorenTex-
Glad to hear that one small note of nostalgia with the Walker weather sign. And yes, demolishing historic buildings is incredibly short sighted!!!!!
July 4th, 2007 at 9:29 am
SorenTex;
Good stuff ! Of the cities you mentioned, Oslo would be high on my list (Bergen higher). Rome is suffocating in its own litter and trash.
The new development by the Church seems to include residential areas…do you think they would tolerate diversity ? Auslanders like myself whose fealty is questionable ? I realize they have to pay lip service to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but being NM could be like gaijin in Japan.
Anyway, the Albert Speer inspired architecture can`t be helped…it is their nickel. Do wish they had aesthetic sense.
Glad the Walker weather sign is coming back !
Happy 4th to all……….
July 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Still a SoCA resident, I wouldn’t presume to tell SLC what to do. I’ve only visited your wonderful city and I will say that you seem to have a lot going for you. But I can tell you what I hate about my city and perhaps there’s a germ of an idea there.
Several years ago our area passed a slow growth initiative called SOAR. My husband and I called it the “I’ve got mine, screw you” initiative. As a result of it our school district is in declining enrollment (which means, ironically, larger classes in larger schools as the district struggles to make ends meet with many fewer children). Why? With virtually no new homes being built, the purchase price of existing homes has “soared.” Young families cannot afford to move into this city. We are becoming a huge retirement community where service industry employees drive into the city to work every day (public transit? pish and tosh.)
Even before SOAR, though, the city council put more thought and money into keeping the city pretty than into meeting the diverse needs of the community. If you’re raising kids here they’d better like sports, because youth sports is the ONLY activity for kids in this town. Does your child want to play an instrument? Sing? Act? Better be ready to lay out big bucks for private lessons; Music and theater haven’t existed in our schools for a generation. The only “culture” in our town are the occasional combos that play at the local Starbucks and the summer concert in the park series.
But we have the most gorgeous street signs (if you like massive wooden signs that take up the entire median and have -gag- amateurish flowers painted on the back.)
I guess my advice is to remember that a city is a living entity, not a movie set. The soul of that entity is the energy of the people who LIVE and WORK there (visitors may be an economic force to be considered, but as a rule I don’t think we necessarily contribute much.) As you make decisions, people (in all our diversity of age and culture) must always come first.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Downtown Salt Lake had died a few times, mostly due to past construction projects. Throughout the late sixties and early seventies, the downtown beautification part 1 and part 2 basically buried many of the small-locally owned shops under a pile of dirt. This was an effort to widen our sidewalks and remove 40 percent of the parking on main. Isn’t it great they did that for future generations and all the pedestrian traffic we have! Planners have failed to realize that local, unique destinations is what make downtowns interesting. The malls ended up monopolizing Main Street and shutting down the once bustling Broadway shopping district.
I’ve been doing research for a documentary film on the death of our Main Street as well as the similar demise of many other local communities due to the mall/ big-box/ chain store era. Sugarhouse may be the next victim of land owners catering to chain stores to maximize rent potential. I’m not in favor of socialism ideas of harsh restrictions on land owners. However, City Council Members need to work in the interests of their constituents preserving uniqueness and sense of place.
href = “http://www.utahstories.com/downTownSLC.html”> link to my work.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Downtown Salt Lake had died a few times, mostly due to past construction projects. Throughout the late sixties and early seventies, the downtown beautification part 1 and part 2 basically buried many of the small-locally owned shops under a pile of dirt. This was an effort to widen our sidewalks and remove 40 percent of the parking on main. Isn’t it great they did that for future generations and all the pedestrian traffic we have! Planners have failed to realize that local, unique destinations is what make downtowns interesting. The malls ended up monopolizing Main Street and shutting down the once bustling Broadway shopping district.
I’ve been doing research for a documentary film on the death of our Main Street as well as the similar demise of many other local communities due to the mall/ big-box/ chain store era. Sugarhouse may be the next victim of land owners catering to chain stores to maximize rent potential. I’m not in favor of socialism ideas of harsh restrictions on land owners. However, City Council Members need to work in the interests of their constituents preserving uniqueness and sense of place.
href = “http://www.utahstories.com/downTownSLC.html”> link to my work.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Boulder is a good example - I’ve seen the changes through the years there, and although some would moan about Boulder County’s restrictive building codes, they really have taken a natural resource (Boulder Creek) and run with it. They now have a network of bike/jogging paths all up and down Boulder Creek in one long parkway, and the park itself that hugs the creek has been continually upgraded with attractive features that invite people to use it and enjoy it. When we were there recently, they were in the process of building a labyryinth with community work parties.
Like much of the rest of Colorado (at least on the Front Range) there’s a whole network of trails that people actually use to get around without using cars. It’s nice to see.
Salt Lake is also blessed/cursed with a lot of creeks and streams (and the attendant spring runoff: raise your hand if you had a “It’s a Hell of a Way to Run a Desert” T-shirt). Case in point (dear to my heart): Wasatch Hollow Park. My childhood home is a block below the 16th East entrance; when I was a kick, the area was an ugly landfill, but it was a place I spent a lot of time exploring. Now it’s an attractive little neighborhood park that invites families with kids, people with dogs, and walkers/hikers (some parts of it have been left in their natural state, but cleaned up a little).
This City Creek Center - what’s planned for the outside spaces? And downtown - are there attractive places to walk and to just “be?” In addition to housing, making human spaces to move around and interact outdoors is a big part of making a downtown a liveable place to be.
And hurrah! for the Walker Bank sign. I hope they haven’t lost the little piece of paper with the key for making the proper weather signals. Wasn’t there a difference between “rain” and “snow?” Did they make it flash, in addition to changing it from a serene bluish green to an angry red?
July 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Er, that’s “kid,” not “kick.” Stupid meat-based spellchecker failed again.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am
[…] Blue: Sunny Red: Stormy mullentown » Blog Archive » If You Were the Architect […]
July 5th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Sorentex and others, what great posts! I recently read about Munich in the early 70’s creating an extensive pedestrian zone out of a busy street leading to its city hall plaza, over the vehement objections of its store owners. Now, the area is such a success that adjoining owners are clamoring to have their streets converted to pedestrian zones too.
Could we do that here, maybe building south off the church’s Main Street Plaza?
July 5th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Munich does indeed have world class outdoor cafes and pedestrian zones. The big breweries (Spaten,Dinkel Acher) sponsor most of the activity..and not just at Oktoberfest.
Maybe Anhauser-Bush would do the same for Salt Lake ?
July 5th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Holly-
Thanks for the chance to share some input. These readers are quite insightful and seem to understand the special challenges presented by our current situation downtown.
There are space limitations here, but if you would like a sense of my downtown plan, you can view my response to Pete Ashdowns Main St. question at http://peteashdown.org/journal/2007/05/22/salt-lake-mayoral-race-keith-christensen/.
In addition to my comments on Pete’s blog, I would add just a couple of items that we should remember when looking to revitalize downtown.
We must listen to downtown shop and restaurant owners. My campaign has discussed downtown at length, and one of the clearest results of our discussions was the realization that no one understands downtown like those retailers. Stephen Goldsmith, one of the most talented urban planners in America, has pointed out that each time our downtown has gone through a redevelopment plan, the retailers have always seen the weak points. They have their ears to the ground. They know what drives customers in, and what drives them away. Sam Weller’s and others, who have lived through all of the different attempts at downtown redevelopment and are still standing today, have great and unique insight. Let’s make sure we take notice of what they have to say before moving forward.
Holly, you brought up liquor laws. As you said, not a cure-all for the current situation, but I think people may find current state leadership more willing to talk about this than one might expect. We can also impact our city ordinance relating to restaurants and private clubs proximity to one another, which is archaic and is significantly negatively impacting our city. It is poorly constructed, and overly restrictive. Mayor Anderson has attempted to engage the City Council on this issue, but it appears they are uninterested. This issue is important, however, and I will proactively work with the Council to institute appropriate changes to our ordinance.
I hope this robust discussion continues not only here at Mullentown, but in coffee shops, around dinner tables, and in city hall. There is much work to be done, and with an open and honest discussion, along with leadership and vision, I am supremely confident downtown Salt Lake will reach its remarkable potential.
-Keith Christensen
www.keithformayor.com
July 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
You go, readers!
I love City Councilman (and stellar urban planner) Soren Simonsen’s post #16. Of great interest to me is the relatively small comment Soren made about using awnings and canopies at businesses to keep out hot sunlight rather than dark windows! I have to say this is one incredible, if tiny, thing I noticed on my trip to Portland, Ore. last month. Establishments seemed so…so welcoming! You could actually see inside them and take account of all the life and commerce buzzing around inside.
Night clubs were especially adept at this. You could look in and see the patrons, see the band performing and sort of decide from that brief sensory experience whether you might like to go inside or pass by. Unlike Salt Lake, the clubs were not buried in some dank basement or behind some awful black window. And they were decent bars–not strip clubs or the like.
Hey mayoral candidates: MORE AWNINGS AND CANOPIES, OK?
July 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Mr. Simonson, I know and appreciate your work - I’m a follower, and your thoughts here are particularly cogent.
I like the way Portland, some European cities, and even to some degree, Denver, has done their urban planning, and the common denominator seems to be pedestrian traffic/access.
and liquor laws that don’t originate in the 19th century. Just sayin.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
This entry on the blog has become such fun. And on such an important subject. I think we have to go back to the administration of J. Bracken Lee to find the crowds on Main St. Fact is, the freeway system and cheap land in the suburbs has given us the sprawl and empty streets we have faced for almost 50 years. Each of the mayors has tried. Garn did Main St. beautification. I helped build the downtown malls (I admit the error of them being inside malls with not much streetscape.) De Paulis did some to restore the third south area. Corradini had her innovations including light rail. And Rocky has tried very hard on many fronts.
I applaud Soren Simonsen’s excellent treatise above and believe he has found the key: DOWNTOWN HOUSING !! Much of what has gone on before has tried to lure people from the burbs coming to the city. Except for the Jazz games and some cultural events, they just don’t come often. And then only go to the Delta Center (I refuse to do new names) and home quickly in their cars.
So it seems to me that monitoring the new LDS Church plans and making sure they build some housing that won’t cause you to sell your monster home to occupy is a good step.
And, of course, to continue arts, jazz, ethnic, and other festivals to remind people there is good life downtown.
There is much more of course. Keith Christensen articulated some good ideas above. Of course, I am supporting Jenny but I greatly appreciate his comments and ask for similar ones on this blog from the other candidates.
The old gray mayor, (is better than he used to be!) Ted
July 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Hi everyone…
It’s been fun reviewing much of what has been written on this subject. I agree strongly that we need to reform our zoning, develop more housing and bring best-practices and the thoughts of architechts and planners into a better and improved downtown. We also need to embrace creativity and creative industry as a means to greater economic success and livelihood in our downtown. I’ve recently become excited about an author and economic development mind on this subject, Richard Florida. go to creativeclass.org to learn more. As a candidate for Mayor, I will soon outline some specific proposals on this subject. I’m generally optomistic about downtown’s future and if entering city hall next January, will embrace the exciting challenge of improving our downtown as a top priority.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Holly, thanks for inviting the luminaria to chime in–it’s really added to the discussion.
and chardonnay, Coors should be the sponsor, not anheuser-busch. If Mormons were beer, we’d be Coors.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
msteele;
You`re right. Adolphus Busch called his early product “dat schlop” and refused to drink it. Coors is better.
July 6th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Tuesday was my first visit to downtown SLC in nearly two years. I live on the eastbench, but I have no reason to go downtown. There is nothing there that invites me or my money. I was there to pick up my daughter from work after her car broke down.
My wife and I have favorite resturants, but they are not downtown. We prefer our private club on Highland Drive near 33rd South. I don’t need the library, since B&N is in Sugarhouse and my internet connections give me as much research ability that I need. I’m retired after years of working downtown. For clothes we go to a mall; food, gosh, we have a Smith’s 100 yards from our porch (it’s a big one with clothes, toys, shoes, office supplies, hardware, etc.), two Dans stories within walking distance. My wife and I have no reason to be downtown. There’s a coffee and bagel shop nearby, our pets’ vet is two minutes away, the wonderful Millcreek Cafe is close, etc.
Arts and entertainment? For-get-about-it. They don’t exist, not really in any attractive format downtown.
We just don’t miss downtown SLC and have no plans or intentions to spend time and money there.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
This has been a good post. The talk about family housing grabbed my attention the most. My wife & I & our 3 kids (normal, well-developed kids—it can be done!) have lived in our downtown home for 8 years. We only have a modest income, and are glad we were able to buy at a time when our house was affordable—we couldn’t afford it today! Our next-door neighbors did the same thing. We love living downtown. I ride my bike to work; my neighbor walks. Over that time, we’ve seen two scenarios repeated with plenty of other young families who would have loved to stay in the neighborhood if they could afford it: 1) they move out after a short stay in rental property, or 2) they buy a fixer-upper, fix it up, and use the profit to pay for their new house in the burbs.
Here’s my shot at a solution to encouraging families to stay downtown. Thanks to debi sharing her experience with SOAR in SoCal, we know that limiting growth doesn’t make economic sense. Neither does artificially lowering the price of housing. Affordable housing—at least, the variety I’m familiar with—only puts taxpayers’ or developers’ money in the pockets of the lucky few who get to buy in at the mandated price, and who wait the necessary year or two before selling. Instead, I suggest a different variety. Maybe this option has already been tried somewhere, or there are good reasons against it—I’m open to being educated.
For those people who really are interested in living downtown, but just can’t afford it, why not give them the option of buying a home at a discounted rate (using subsidies, or requiring developers to offer a certain number at cost, or whatever methods are used to provide affordable housing currently), and then stipulating that if they sell before 20 years, they need to sell it at the same price they paid for it. If they keep it for 20 years, they can sell it at the same 60% of market value to someone else who is willing to buy it on the same terms. That way, people will still be able to realize a profit on their investment as homeowners (assuming values keep rising), they won’t be required to pay the better half of two incomes to survive downtown, and it will encourage long-term ownership. Fewer “flippers” is a good thing for creating stable, livable neighborhoods. For example, they buy it at 60% of market value, and then sell it 20 years later at 60% of market value to someone who agrees to do the same thing. Or, if they need to move after 2 years, they can sell it for the same price they paid for it, to someone who is willing to buy it on the same terms. (If prices were to drop, they could sell it for the price they paid, or 60% of its value, whichever is less.)
A comment regarding the posts about how downtown can’t be revitalized without improving the nightlife. I disagree. My family & I, and our neighbors love walking to concerts, the opera, restaurants, movies, the library (I wish the library were open later on Friday & Saturday!) Downtown living is great the way it is. All it needs is more people. I think our biggest problem is providing places for people to live.
Not to sound snooty or unwelcoming about the last post, but downtown certainly isn’t for everyone. It’s definitely not going to make it as a retirement community.
July 6th, 2007 at 10:28 am
It seems to me that the more Un-Mormon that you make downtown the less Mormons you draw (keep) downtown. What we need to do is draw MONEY downtown. It doesn’t matter if you are white, black, red or blue or if you are Mormon, Catholic or Athiest all of your money is green and we want you to spend it downtown. Give the people what they want and they will buy it. It seems that the Mormons draw a lot of people downtown with sites and events etc…, but they don’t seem to linger enough and spend enough money. We talk a lot about Mormons needing to show diversity and acceptance and then don’t reflect it back toward them. The more we shove alcohol, bars and skin at the Mormons the less time and MONEY they will spend downtown. Surprisingly Mormons spend A LOT of money at Jordan Commons and all of these other places that there appears to be so much disdain shown for here. And it isn’t just Mormons it is everyone with “family” type values. We are trying to shove square pegs into round holes. Make Salt Lake what the consumer wants and it will bloom like a rose in the desert.
July 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I probably should pull back on writing any more on this topic on my OWN blog. But…in answer to “consumer” above, his/her comment seems to be showing the biases of the older demographic I know that mullentown draws.
Now that I’m editing City Weekly, at the ripe old age of 49, I’m learning that revitalizing downtown includes so much more than the old constraints of Mormon/non-Mormon interests. As my youthful editorial staff constantly reminds me, and as I’ve seen for myself at some of the events my newspaper sponsors, there is huge interest in night life, live music and clubs.
One of the problems with urban planning in this and most cities is that the folks with authority and power over the issues are frankly, pretty old. Any elected official or planner who has the power to make decisions about downtown’s future should work extra hard to draw in the 30 and under crowd. They have fantastic ideas, they are more unfettered by convention than the oldsters and after all, it’s going to be their city sooner or later. Shouldn’t they have a bigger say in its future?
July 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
The problem with going downtown is that it’s more expensive and time consuming than going down the street.
For those who value time and money (me), going to the store, or the park, or the festival nearest to where they live makes the most sense. Add to that the rising costs of real estate and gasoline and you’ve got a lot of people who can only afford to live further away, which just keeps them away.
So downtown’s battle has to be won by creating value, something to rival spending an hour and $$$ traveling there. It’s got to be something that we can’t get anywhere else, that we care about.
City Creek, with it’s creative design and trendy retailers seems like a pretty good start for many. Will it be enough?
July 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Regarding affordable downtown housing…yes, but make sure residents have some private outside space–a terrace,balacony–where they can grow a couple of geraniums and some herbs and where they can have a small table to eat a meal. The Brigham apts are a horrible example of downtown living–especially the north facing apartments three stories underground! Too many units in too small a space. The front one have balconies, but you can see in your neigbors’ windows–and they in yours, of course. Same thing for the interior courtyard of the 5h E. complex between 3rd and 4th S. Too close together.
I grew up in Western Europe where many apts have balconies that run the entire length of the place. People need light, air, and to feel some closeness to nature. Affordable housing shouldn’t be cheap.
Someone suggested asking Main St. businesses for their recommendation. What Main St. businesses? We’ve run most of them out of business. As to Rocky “trying,” if he’s tried and I don’t think he’s really tried anything, he’s failed miserably at this as at everything else. Main St dies under his leadership–I use the term losely here.
I don’t shop the funky Sugarhouse businesses but why, in Heaven’s name, did the city council allow 7 story buildings in that area? It will totally ruin the “square.” It will take all the light out of it, even if the developers only go 5 stories. How generous of them! By the way, I’m a conservative!
July 7th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Mr. Simonsen has some good insights, but I was dissapointed to see that he admires some of the most expensive (”expensive” in this context means cities with extremely high cost, unaffordable housing) cities in the U.S. (Boulder, Portland and San Diego) and the world (London). Why are these cities so expensive? One of the biggest reasons is that these cities have very restrictive zoning and highly regulated development procedures. There is a trade-off between highly restrictive regulations and zoning and the affordability of housing. It is a fact that places such as Houston, with much less regulation, are much more affordable than Boulder or San Diego. I’m sensing the prior sentence may elicit prejorative comments about Houston. But millions of people live there, and it is a very diverse population, so Houston must have something going for it.
How affordable will the tony condos being developed with City Creek be for immigrant families or the young people that Holly is rightly concerned about? If one wanted to assemble some modular (i.e. pre-fabricated; i.e. INEXPENSIVE) multi-family units somewhere close to downtown SLC, how easy would it be? How easy is it to open a club or restaurant downtown? What if one wanted to tear down a old building to build a modular apartment building or a new building for a nightclub? Would that be easy?
I join the many herein saying that the downtown needs more residents. To get them, they need to be able to afford to live downtown.
My suggestion is that the next mayor reduce the rules, restrictions and regulations concerning the development of SLC. To the greatest extent possible, see what the people, left to their own devices, come up with.
July 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Holly! When I graduated from the U in 1960 I got all of my new clothes for my first,real job from Adrienne and Emilie’s. So do I remember? I’ve never dressed as well since. I loved downtown and dressing up to go there in the 50s and 60s, and then we moved to California.
Want to see a beautifully planned downtown? You guys are talking the big cities and Europe, for pete’s sake! Meanwhile, the city council and some of the rest of you, need go no farther than….can you believe it….my hometown of Grand Junction, Colorado,just a few hours away.
Their downtown is one of the most beautiful you will see anywhere.
City Creek Center: Planned to “protect” the Temple, I believe and I am very angry, as a strong but independent thinking LDS. Why would Jesus Christ want a high end shopping center to honor Him?? So, I sent my ideas early on to Downtown Rising, but I think I was totally rejected. Here they are: All of downtown would benefit if CCC had the real creek surfacing, if the housing there was inexpensive enough for clerks in the stores to live there with their families, if an updated and expanded version of the Deseret Gym were built there with low membership fees for lower income people living downtown, if there were lots of free parking and bike racks, if there was a free/low cost health clinic (cooperation with IHC), in short, if the kinds of people Jesus loves and ministered to felt welcome downtown. And the air bridge above Main St. to separate the rich shoppers from the lowly unwashed is an insult to humanity in general, and to the walking public in particular.
More public transportation, more downtown housing, more trees (like Grand Junction), more encouragement of foot traffic all over downtown but free parking for those who drive, diverse shops that are not part of a “development,” all of these things would recreate the SLC many of us knew and loved.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
It’s been fun reading all the comments here — I was out of town most of last week.
Wanted to jump on the parking lots. We have way too many of them down town. As a pedestrian, the negative energy coming off them just sucks the life out me. At the same time, I don’t want to be naiive to the fact that not everyone will take alternative transportation into town. A few multi-level parking structures on the edges of downtown, near Trax stops might do the trick. These structures would have to be attractive and have street-level businesses (with the awnings — great idea) to keep up the walkability.
I would love to move my family of 4 (with a 13 y.o. and a 3 y.o.) downtown, but I’m wary of the City Creek condo development. What kinds of pressures will be on those who live there who aren’t Mormon? Will the GLBT community or other types of diversity be able to live there without discrimination and harassment? Will it be bland and ugly to live in? Will it be affordable for someone like me who is on the lower middle class scale economically?
I don’t want to be completely judgmental about the project until I’m able to see how it will all work, but I’d rather see some living spaces developed by a neutral/non-religious entity.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Online Marketing Business…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
September 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Young Lesbians Having Sex…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…
September 15th, 2007 at 2:25 am
cheap car rental in detroit…
Last minute cheap airfare cheap airfare for us domestic detroit,. Cheap car rental in detroit. Discount hotel in detroit. First class travel to detroit.. Where would you like to drop of……
October 30th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Jack…
I\’m going to look into this and let you know what I find….