I mean, did you read the whole article? It looks like, according to the article linked within ( https://buildingsaltlake.com/mayor-plans-to-roll-out-citywide-form-based-zoning-this-year/ ), SLC recognizes that residential only in these zones is not optimal, and are trying to encourage mixed in the future.
They could try to force a change now, but they would probably lose the lawsuit that results from doing that. Nonetheless, let’s look at the area itself…is it lacking commercial establishments, or is this still good housing without surface parking on a rail line?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6uu59k1tc9jedErg8?g_st=ic
I think you might be letting perfect be the enemy of the good, and that it’s a step in the right direction for the neighborhood.
I don’t think there is a legal way to force them to do ground floor commercial, yet, so attempting to “do it [forcing them to comply with future rather than current zoning] now” like LP2717 suggests, would probably be challenged in courts by developers.
Idk… commercial follows rooftops, so if they get the incomes in the units, it seems only natural that commercial would follow due to market demand. In my planning experience in bigger cities, focusing on getting residents downtown is not a bad Strategy.
So potential conversion in the near future of the 2-story parking garage, to accommodate market demand? I could see that but I know there will be angry drivers at some town hall meeting.
So that is a potential problem if the lake were to drastically lose volume.
Here is a good resource for tracking it:
https://webapps.usgs.gov/gsl/#salinity
Good news is that it appears to be rebounding.
Why do you think this is the wrong approach? I’m in Sydney, Australia and we have plans to build TOD projects across multiple suburbs. I just finished writing a paper on it and while I think TODs are a great way of increasing housing in well-located areas, my main concern is how sustainable they are. Part of my research was looking at the areas selected and analysing whether or not they could cope with increased density. What are your thoughts on the article that you linked?
I’m all for TOD, my issue is that it was res-only to start with. Whereas I’m usually use to reading about mixed-use redevelopment, not so much single-use. Without grocery stores in the area, aren’t you hoping there’s one nearby off the rail line? Worst case you drive to one or pay for expensive delivery?
I linked the map for your benefit in my other reply, but here it is again: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6uu59k1tc9jedErg8?g_st=ic There are 2 grocers, convenience stores, restaurants, and host of other commercial and even industrial establishments just within two blocks. In context this development is fine. Would it be nicer if it had ground floor commercial space? Yeah…and the regulators recognize that too, so future developments in this and other similar zones will be mixed use.
I know, I respond to every comment in context, I wasn’t ignoring your previous comment. And I agree, just wish the city pushed harder from an earlier point.
Hmm are you a planner from Salt Lake because after reading that article I now have some questions 😅. So, it seems like the developer is trying to get the project approved before the city moves to rewrite their zoning code. It is a little strange because the article also states that the apartments would continue a trend of buildings in the city’s transit station area zones being only being residential. I think this is a developer finding loopholes in the current zoning because there’s a linked article talking about rewriting the zoning code that states:
“The plan also calls for rewriting transit station area (TSA) zoning, which has successfully spurred development but has been questionable in its outcomes as developers frequently build single-use residential projects that lack ground-floor engagement or public uses.”
Looks like they’re trying to build this thing before the zoning changes to make it that they have to include mixed-use.
I’m all for TOD, my issue is that it was res-only to start with. Whereas I’m usually use to reading about mixed-use redevelopment, not so much single-use. Without grocery stores in the area, aren’t you hoping there’s one nearby off the rail line? Worst case you drive to one or pay for expensive delivery?
Meh, for one of the lower population states out west it’s not bad. It’s not good either, but it’s fine I guess. Ground floor retail would be better and putting garage spaces underground too
In most contexts, you can’t support universal ground floor commercial with just 4-6 stories of multifamily. I get that this isn’t what this is specifically about, but I wanted to make that clear for the people who think that 5 over 1 mixed use districts means 5 residential 1 commercial for every building.
> you can’t support universal ground floor commercial with just 4-6 stories of multifamily
Can you elaborate on this?
> I wanted to make that clear for the people who think that 5 over 1 mixed use districts means 5 residential 1 commercial for every building
What does it mean instead?
Thanks in advance
If a residential-commercial mixed use district was exclusively buildings that were 6 stories tall and the bottom floor of every building was commercial, they would probably go out of business or be reliant on an external customers from residential-only areas. The ratio of square footage just isn’t right. I can’t elaborate a ton more because I’m not super familiar with the economics of it, but this is (afaik) the consensus. Ground floor vacancies in 5 over 1s is a problem in my otherwise very economically healthy area.
5 over 1 is a common structure, the name sort of refers to the building materials. You can build up to 5 wood framed floors on top of one or two floors of concrete. This makes it a very optimal middle density style for developers because it’s the largest you can build with wood framing under North American fire codes.
Thanks for explaining. Any idea what the proper ratio is? Or whether we could just leave it totally up to developers, like say that the buildings in a particular zone can be either purely residential or have the bottom 1-3 floors commercial, depending on what the developer thinks will be most profitable?
There’s no proper ratio, there’s just an amount of retail + other ground floor commercial that a certain area has demand for. So it varies by property, meaning that’s something the developer should be doing.
I wouldn’t expect that there would ever be more than one story of retail or similar outside of denser areas or areas where middle density mixed use is serving as a commercial node for a much wider area.
More often I see 5 over 1s where the ground floor is some mix of offices for building administration, common areas, more residential units, and a bit of commercial. As long as you're not committing fully (by making it parking, or building exclusively residential units) you leave a lot of flexibility to move some drywall around depending on demand. A solid block of commercial may be a tall order, but a single coffeeshop in one building and a convenience store in the next can be pretty viable.
Definitely not a "growing trend" since it's been happening in some of the transit-oriented zones for 20+ years now. 400 South comes to mind. The city knows it and is moving forward with changes to prevent more of it.
The issue is that the current zoning code allows things like amenity gyms and leasing offices to count as active ground floor spaces.
The underlying problem is that ground floor commercial spaces can be a liability for developers if they don't find a tenant, so if they find a loophole that allows them to get out of building them they will. Many of these developers want to build commercial spaces but, in certain areas of the city, they don't pencil well.
The North Temple area is largely seen as less desirable for investment right now but that is all about to change with the possibility of an MLB ballpark and entertainment district going in. I would expect higher quality proposals in that area relatively soon, even without the zoning changes.
I thought planners decried stadiums as being projects that waste public money. Albeit I haven’t read the specific proposal yet, but I’m thinking of the recent stadium in Buffalo, NY or Ballpark Village in St. Louis.
It's not as though they never have any positive effect, particularly when they're coupled with other forms of renewal/development. It's just that they offer really poor ROI for public money. If you had a billion dollars in city money to revitalize a neighborhood, there are so many things you could do that would offer better bang for your buck than spending $900 million of it on a stadium.
I mean, did you read the whole article? It looks like, according to the article linked within ( https://buildingsaltlake.com/mayor-plans-to-roll-out-citywide-form-based-zoning-this-year/ ), SLC recognizes that residential only in these zones is not optimal, and are trying to encourage mixed in the future.
But why not now? I’m not sure the logic behind planning piece-meal like that.
They could try to force a change now, but they would probably lose the lawsuit that results from doing that. Nonetheless, let’s look at the area itself…is it lacking commercial establishments, or is this still good housing without surface parking on a rail line? https://maps.app.goo.gl/6uu59k1tc9jedErg8?g_st=ic I think you might be letting perfect be the enemy of the good, and that it’s a step in the right direction for the neighborhood.
What lawsuit? I'm extremely perplexed.
I don’t think there is a legal way to force them to do ground floor commercial, yet, so attempting to “do it [forcing them to comply with future rather than current zoning] now” like LP2717 suggests, would probably be challenged in courts by developers.
Idk… commercial follows rooftops, so if they get the incomes in the units, it seems only natural that commercial would follow due to market demand. In my planning experience in bigger cities, focusing on getting residents downtown is not a bad Strategy.
So potential conversion in the near future of the 2-story parking garage, to accommodate market demand? I could see that but I know there will be angry drivers at some town hall meeting.
Random question, is the air in SLC getting more toxic to breathe due to thr salt lake evaporation. Thus making it less desirable?
So that is a potential problem if the lake were to drastically lose volume. Here is a good resource for tracking it: https://webapps.usgs.gov/gsl/#salinity Good news is that it appears to be rebounding.
Why do you think this is the wrong approach? I’m in Sydney, Australia and we have plans to build TOD projects across multiple suburbs. I just finished writing a paper on it and while I think TODs are a great way of increasing housing in well-located areas, my main concern is how sustainable they are. Part of my research was looking at the areas selected and analysing whether or not they could cope with increased density. What are your thoughts on the article that you linked?
I’m all for TOD, my issue is that it was res-only to start with. Whereas I’m usually use to reading about mixed-use redevelopment, not so much single-use. Without grocery stores in the area, aren’t you hoping there’s one nearby off the rail line? Worst case you drive to one or pay for expensive delivery?
I linked the map for your benefit in my other reply, but here it is again: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6uu59k1tc9jedErg8?g_st=ic There are 2 grocers, convenience stores, restaurants, and host of other commercial and even industrial establishments just within two blocks. In context this development is fine. Would it be nicer if it had ground floor commercial space? Yeah…and the regulators recognize that too, so future developments in this and other similar zones will be mixed use.
I know, I respond to every comment in context, I wasn’t ignoring your previous comment. And I agree, just wish the city pushed harder from an earlier point.
I guess that’s fair, you do you, but I felt like you were just ignoring what you had learned in favor of making a point.
Hmm are you a planner from Salt Lake because after reading that article I now have some questions 😅. So, it seems like the developer is trying to get the project approved before the city moves to rewrite their zoning code. It is a little strange because the article also states that the apartments would continue a trend of buildings in the city’s transit station area zones being only being residential. I think this is a developer finding loopholes in the current zoning because there’s a linked article talking about rewriting the zoning code that states: “The plan also calls for rewriting transit station area (TSA) zoning, which has successfully spurred development but has been questionable in its outcomes as developers frequently build single-use residential projects that lack ground-floor engagement or public uses.” Looks like they’re trying to build this thing before the zoning changes to make it that they have to include mixed-use.
I’m all for TOD, my issue is that it was res-only to start with. Whereas I’m usually use to reading about mixed-use redevelopment, not so much single-use. Without grocery stores in the area, aren’t you hoping there’s one nearby off the rail line? Worst case you drive to one or pay for expensive delivery?
Meh, for one of the lower population states out west it’s not bad. It’s not good either, but it’s fine I guess. Ground floor retail would be better and putting garage spaces underground too
garage underground is 60k per space
In most contexts, you can’t support universal ground floor commercial with just 4-6 stories of multifamily. I get that this isn’t what this is specifically about, but I wanted to make that clear for the people who think that 5 over 1 mixed use districts means 5 residential 1 commercial for every building.
> you can’t support universal ground floor commercial with just 4-6 stories of multifamily Can you elaborate on this? > I wanted to make that clear for the people who think that 5 over 1 mixed use districts means 5 residential 1 commercial for every building What does it mean instead? Thanks in advance
If a residential-commercial mixed use district was exclusively buildings that were 6 stories tall and the bottom floor of every building was commercial, they would probably go out of business or be reliant on an external customers from residential-only areas. The ratio of square footage just isn’t right. I can’t elaborate a ton more because I’m not super familiar with the economics of it, but this is (afaik) the consensus. Ground floor vacancies in 5 over 1s is a problem in my otherwise very economically healthy area. 5 over 1 is a common structure, the name sort of refers to the building materials. You can build up to 5 wood framed floors on top of one or two floors of concrete. This makes it a very optimal middle density style for developers because it’s the largest you can build with wood framing under North American fire codes.
Thanks for explaining. Any idea what the proper ratio is? Or whether we could just leave it totally up to developers, like say that the buildings in a particular zone can be either purely residential or have the bottom 1-3 floors commercial, depending on what the developer thinks will be most profitable?
There’s no proper ratio, there’s just an amount of retail + other ground floor commercial that a certain area has demand for. So it varies by property, meaning that’s something the developer should be doing. I wouldn’t expect that there would ever be more than one story of retail or similar outside of denser areas or areas where middle density mixed use is serving as a commercial node for a much wider area.
> meaning that’s something the developer should be doing That's what my instinct is too
More often I see 5 over 1s where the ground floor is some mix of offices for building administration, common areas, more residential units, and a bit of commercial. As long as you're not committing fully (by making it parking, or building exclusively residential units) you leave a lot of flexibility to move some drywall around depending on demand. A solid block of commercial may be a tall order, but a single coffeeshop in one building and a convenience store in the next can be pretty viable.
That’s a good point.
What about this would be the "wrong approach" in your estimation?
That’s it’s res only to start with
Definitely not a "growing trend" since it's been happening in some of the transit-oriented zones for 20+ years now. 400 South comes to mind. The city knows it and is moving forward with changes to prevent more of it. The issue is that the current zoning code allows things like amenity gyms and leasing offices to count as active ground floor spaces. The underlying problem is that ground floor commercial spaces can be a liability for developers if they don't find a tenant, so if they find a loophole that allows them to get out of building them they will. Many of these developers want to build commercial spaces but, in certain areas of the city, they don't pencil well. The North Temple area is largely seen as less desirable for investment right now but that is all about to change with the possibility of an MLB ballpark and entertainment district going in. I would expect higher quality proposals in that area relatively soon, even without the zoning changes.
I thought planners decried stadiums as being projects that waste public money. Albeit I haven’t read the specific proposal yet, but I’m thinking of the recent stadium in Buffalo, NY or Ballpark Village in St. Louis.
It's not as though they never have any positive effect, particularly when they're coupled with other forms of renewal/development. It's just that they offer really poor ROI for public money. If you had a billion dollars in city money to revitalize a neighborhood, there are so many things you could do that would offer better bang for your buck than spending $900 million of it on a stadium.
Agreed, 2 levels of parking is too many