CRA reviews 'Ballpark Next' design plan; partial stadium preservation, new green space highlighted

Salt Lake City’s Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) on Sept. 9, 2025, heard a presentation of the Ballpark Next community design plan from project presenters Lauren Parisi and McKenna, who said the preferred concept preserves part of the stadium while adding new public green space, housing and community amenities.

“The future of the future Ballpark site is an iconic, exciting destination for the neighborhood, city, and region,” Lauren Parisi said, citing the plan’s vision statement developed during a citywide community visioning process.

The plan responds to community input by proposing a partial reuse of the stadium — a middle option between keeping the stadium in full use and removing it entirely — and dedicates roughly one-third of the site (about 4.8 acres) to accessible open and green space including a Creek Park and a neighborhood field. Parisi said the design also features a “lush tree canopy and water-wise landscaping” intended to reduce urban heat effects and that the CRA’s existing sustainable development policy requires buildings to be highly efficient and all-electric at minimum as the team explores net‑zero district options.

Designers told the board the concept includes a mix of housing types to support homeownership and address local housing scarcity; the presentation cited a statewide shortage of about 37,000 units and said more than 14,000 Salt Lake City households spend more than half their income on housing. The slides highlighted roughly 460 units in the plan and said building-height recommendations would range from 45 to 120 feet across most blocks, with Block D allowed up to 150 feet; a hotel block was reduced from an initial 200-foot proposal to 150 feet. The Main Street parking garage allowance remains at 85 feet and was described as accommodating about 370 stalls, though staff said some stalls may shift to other blocks as the site develops.

Several residents and board members raised concerns about the amount and character of green space and the plan’s scale and potential traffic impacts. Christina Raab, chair of the East Liberty Park Community Organization, said her group “rarely, if ever, hear[s] back” from CRA staff after outreach and asked the agency to improve data sharing and to advocate for long-term green space preservation in the Ballpark neighborhood.

Board members pressed staff on transportation and circulation along 1300 South. Kimberly Horn’s transportation study, included as appendix E, concluded a lane reduction on 1300 South is currently infeasible because it is an arterial with interstate access and would likely cause queuing and spillback. In response, staff said the plan adds wider sidewalks, landscape buffers and a raised intersection at 1300 South and Richard Street, and that “incremental changes” to balance auto efficiency and multimodal safety will be considered as redevelopment advances.

Board member Mano asked whether the neighborhood field will be open to the public. McKenna replied, “Confirmed. It will be open to the neighborhood, the public.” Staff described the field and adjacent promenade plus Creek Park as roughly 3.4 acres (about 150,000 square feet) of green space that would be accessible to residents, in contrast with portions of the existing ballpark property that are currently inaccessible.

Preservation of the site’s baseball legacy was emphasized: the plan calls for partial stadium preservation, retaining home plate, interpretive art and placards, and repurposing an etched-glass installation on the stadium towers. Staff said Cornerstone — which has been activating the stadium since the University of Utah vacated the site — has hosted events and repaired some stadium items and remains a community partner.

Board members discussed whether to adopt or endorse the plan. Staff said they have been coordinating with the city attorney’s office to draft standardized resolution language and “want to make sure we’re in alignment” before asking the board to adopt plans in the future. The board did not take a formal vote on endorsement during the Sept. 9 meeting; staff said the next procedural steps are to work through property entitlements, request a rezone, and release requests for qualifications (RFQs) for initial development areas.

Funding and timing questions remained. Multiple board members asked about the Larry H. Miller Family Foundation pledge referenced during community engagement; Parisi said financing is a near-term next step and staff will reengage the foundation. Staff repeatedly emphasized that the height allowances and other elements are guidelines and that “actual development may and most likely will vary” as projects are built.

The board’s discussion covered safety and activation tradeoffs — for example, staff said the plan intentionally distributes green space and uses mixed uses and active edges to increase “eyes on the street” for safety rather than setting aside one large, single-block park.

Staff will return with the rezone request and expected RFQs as the plan moves from concept to implementation. No formal endorsement or vote on the Ballpark Next plan occurred at the Sept. 9 meeting.