Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[taboubak]

I think the key with the Salt Lake City skyline right now is patience, as much as it kills me to say it. The truth is we are running out of room and even though there is still some salvageable land along the mountain view corridor and oquirrh mountain slopes, that will be used up fast. Utah's population growth isn't slowing down either. The wastach front already has nearly 2.6 million people and by 2065 that expected to balloon up to well over 4.5 million with 1.8 million people in Salt Lake County, 1.6 million in Utah county, and 1 million in Davis and Weber Counties. That would put the metro area above the current sizes of both the Seattle and Denver MSA. With all that growth coming urbanization will occur and the decrease in available land will cause property rates to soar and buildings will start going up rather than out. However at this time SLC is simply just following a mold of other Western cities and spreading into available space. Also I agree that the location of SLC is about a centrally located as you can get, providing a perfect meeting point between the Ogden and Provo areas. Truth is it wouldn't surprise me if in 40-50 years SLC had an iconic American skyline as our mountain backdrop is second to none. Every city urbanizes it just doesn't happen overnight.

[asies1981]

A post on The Birdie.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by asies1981

A post on The Birdie.

I wonder if any one will try to 'flip' this one in the future.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by airhero

The Birdie, 218 S 200 E (SW corner of 200 E 200 S):



There will be 2300 sq ft of retail on the corner.

Kinda hope this dies because this is one of my dream parcels for a highrise.

Agreed. This is a hard D-1 corner. Get that puppy UP dammit. In better news, three doors to the south they will likely double or triple the height of the Birdie. Is that cryptic enough?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by i-215

That was true 10-15 years ago when the job growth wasn't dominated by software. There's something weird going on, because houses in Salt Lake and Utah Counties are all $300-400k+ while I can still get a house in Weber county for under $200k.

The new office buildings are software dominated. And that shifts the center of the map away from downtown to the Silicon Slopes corridor (SoJo to Lehi). Getting a midrise office building approved is a piece of cake, especially if it is along the I-15/Frontrunner corridor. I mean, just look at all the development going up near 106th. It's a freaking edge city now.

If we had a boom in commercial banking, I could see Downtown SLC getting a lot of towers. But the boom is in software. And they've picked their place to plant in the ground and grow. And it pretty much strattles the county line.



LOL

Growth patterns change, though. Who knows - maybe in 20 years, the shift happens to the north? What I do know is I see no evidence that the growth we're seeing in the south would've had any place downtown. It's largely suburban for a reason.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Agreed. This is a hard D-1 corner. Get that puppy UP dammit. In better news, three doors to the south they will likely double or triple the height of the Birdie. Is that cryptic enough?

What are the odds that this gets rejected by the planning commission? It is going through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review currently.

With the minimum heights for D1 corner lots at 100', it would seem better for the City to reject the project. The project as is, appears close to between 65' and 70'. I would think that with demand so high, adding another 3 floors to the project should still make it pencil out. Especially since it would remove the need to go through the review process and the delays that takes.

I guess this also marks the end of easily available mid block locations for development of mid-rise buildings. Of course, this could encourage more mid block high rises due to the low rise corners. This would be the opposite of current zoning plans but hey, if the city allows it...

[grasscom]

Originally Posted by taboubak

I think the key with the Salt Lake City skyline right now is patience, as much as it kills me to say it. The truth is we are running out of room and even though there is still some salvageable land along the mountain view corridor and oquirrh mountain slopes, that will be used up fast. Utah's population growth isn't slowing down either. The wastach front already has nearly 2.6 million people and by 2065 that expected to balloon up to well over 4.5 million with 1.8 million people in Salt Lake County, 1.6 million in Utah county, and 1 million in Davis and Weber Counties. That would put the metro area above the current sizes of both the Seattle and Denver MSA. With all that growth coming urbanization will occur and the decrease in available land will cause property rates to soar and buildings will start going up rather than out. However at this time SLC is simply just following a mold of other Western cities and spreading into available space. Also I agree that the location of SLC is about a centrally located as you can get, providing a perfect meeting point between the Ogden and Provo areas. Truth is it wouldn't surprise me if in 40-50 years SLC had an iconic American skyline as our mountain backdrop is second to none. Every city urbanizes it just doesn't happen overnight.

Its hard to imagine having a premier skyline in 40-50 years, we may have a good one but by that time I feel like we will always be overshadowed by other cities that are currently much farther ahead than us. Both Seattle and Denver are projected to be over or around 5.5 million by 2050, with both of them being currently way ahead of us in development and urbanity, I just can't see us catching up, we may always be 20-30 years behind them when it comes to our downtown. And that is just an example of 2 cities that are much farther ahead than us, I didn't even mention others like Austin, Charlotte, Portland, Etc,Etc,Etc... That is a lot of cities that will probably have a much more premier/iconic skyline than us.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Agreed. This is a hard D-1 corner. Get that puppy UP dammit. In better news, three doors to the south they will likely double or triple the height of the Birdie. Is that cryptic enough?

Is this the same site Pelorus Group was going to develop before things went south for them? I heard it was going to be another Moda apartment building.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by twig

So large blocks are keeping demand low? Large blocks are not what if keeping people from creating demand to live in and work downtown to the extend to demand large buildings. Large blocks are a reason that developers use to create small less risk developments because they are far from comfortable to build taller buildings. If a developer saw such high demand then they would be a lot less reluctant to build taller buildings in the downtown area, and the large blocks would have little to do with the decision at that point. What Orlando said makes far more sense to as why high rise demand isn’t as high, why would people live downtown if most the jobs are going at the silicon slopes area? There’s the answer to your supply and demand answer. Not large blocks.
Large blocks are just another piece to the puzzle.
Every large city has obstacles to overcome.
Want to change the demand pace, then entice these large companies to move downtown instead of the burbs, and wallah! You got office space demand and you in turn start to get much more residential demand regardless of block size.

I never said large blocks keep demand low. I said taller towers come with smaller blocks. Overall demand for towers has many things driving it not just one or two, which I think you basically just acknowledge in your response. Geographical location of downtown, software related job growth, history of sprawl, political divisions and many other factors come into play.

[taboubak]

Originally Posted by grasscom

Its hard to imagine having a premier skyline in 40-50 years, we may have a good one but by that time I feel like we will always be overshadowed by other cities that are currently much farther ahead than us. Both Seattle and Denver are projected to be over or around 5.5 million by 2050, with both of them being currently way ahead of us in development and urbanity, I just can't see us catching up, we may always be 20-30 years behind them when it comes to our downtown. And that is just an example of 2 cities that are much farther ahead than us, I didn't even mention others like Austin, Charlotte, Portland, Etc,Etc,Etc... That is a lot of cities that will probably have a much more premier/iconic skyline than us.

Ya I was comparing our future size to those cities current sizes, but I am aware they will continue to be larger. As far claiming we will have a premier skyline I am not saying we will have more buildings or taller buildings then rival cities, but rather just a more appealing skyline overall. I truly think the Wasatch backdrop will make our skyline far more picturesque and if we add 20+high rises and approach the 7-800 ft mark over the next 50 years our skyline would probably be one of the most beautiful in the country.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Makid

What are the odds that this gets rejected by the planning commission? It is going through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review currently.

With the minimum heights for D1 corner lots at 100', it would seem better for the City to reject the project. The project as is, appears close to between 65' and 70'. I would think that with demand so high, adding another 3 floors to the project should still make it pencil out. Especially since it would remove the need to go through the review process and the delays that takes.

I guess this also marks the end of easily available mid block locations for development of mid-rise buildings. Of course, this could encourage more mid block high rises due to the low rise corners. This would be the opposite of current zoning plans but hey, if the city allows it...

Has the city ever rejected anything aside from making it shorter/smaller or requiring more parking of some sort?

[grasscom]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I never said large blocks keep demand low. I said taller towers come with smaller blocks. Overall demand for towers has many things driving it not just one or two, which I think you basically just acknowledge in your response. Geographical location of downtown, software related job growth, history of sprawl, political divisions and many other factors come into play.

Not to be a prick but you did say:

If the question is why we don't have taller towers the answer is simple: block size. There is a strong correlation between block size and tower height. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Denver and even Phoenix have small blocks relative to SLC and not surprisingly have taller towers.

Twig has only gone off of what you said, which is we don't have taller towers because our blocks are too big. And he is saying, no, that is not the reason why Salt Lake doesn't have taller towers up to this point. Only demand is keeping taller towers away.

He is saying that is but a very small reason that probably has not affected our skyline as much as you are saying. And by the looks of it he has people backing him up on that. He is saying Demand is keeping tall towers away, as you have weirdly agreed and disagreed with him on.

Block size is not a characteristic that plays any role with demand, but as comrade has pointed out, creates a much more awkward street presence with pedestrians.

And as available land becomes more scarce, the more towers will arise. Like someone else has noted, all smaller blocks in Salt Lake will do is create more roads up to this point, but there never really has been demand for a taller building in this city. We are lucky to have what we have currently, and its all thanks to our only real developer, the church.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by grasscom

Not to be a prick but you did say:

Twig has only gone off of what you said, which is we don't have taller towers because our blocks are too big. And he is saying, no, that is not the reason why Salt Lake doesn't have taller towers up to this point. Only demand is keeping taller towers away.

He is saying that is but a very small reason that probably has not affected our skyline as much as you are saying. And by the looks of it he has people backing him up on that. He is saying Demand is keeping tall towers away, as you have weirdly agreed and disagreed with him on.

Block size is not a characteristic that plays any role with demand, but as comrade has pointed out, creates a much more awkward street presence with pedestrians.

And as available land becomes more scarce, the more towers will arise. Like someone else has noted, all smaller blocks in Salt Lake will do is create more roads up to this point, but there never really has been demand for a taller building in this city. We are lucky to have what we have currently, and its all thanks to our only real developer, the church.

You both are missing what I said. I said large blocks keep us from having taller towers and demand is kept low in large part by downtown location. He claimed I said large blocks keep demand low, which is not what I said.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

As an aside, I think if the city, generations ago, had created large interior/ mid block pedestrian crossings with bike lanes our large blocks would be viewed much differently.

[grasscom]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

You both are missing what I said. I said large blocks keep us from having taller towers and demand is kept low in large part by downtown location. He claimed I said large blocks keep demand low, which is not what I said.

Obviously there wouldn’t be so much confusion if that were clear.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by grasscom

Obviously there wouldn’t be so much confusion if that were clear.

LOL. Copied for your benefit. Sheesh.

"If the question is why we don't have more towers downtown than 215 is spot on when he says the location of downtown is driving this issue. SLC has a downtown that is tucked away and is not centrally located, so as the suburbs developed it has relocated that power away from downtown. If your downtown is centrally located and all the suburban development radiates more or less equally from there, the city center retains is status of influence and also is not as far of a commute as the region grows. This creates a situation where company owners and executive officers, who make these decisions where to locate their offices, know they don't have to commute as far. SLC is in a place where the power center has shifted South and many of those people are living 20-50 miles away from SLC.

If the question is why we don't have taller towers the answer is simple: block size. There is a strong correlation between block size and tower height. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Denver and even Phoenix have small blocks relative to SLC and not surprisingly have taller towers."

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by i-215

That was true 10-15 years ago when the job growth wasn't dominated by software. There's something weird going on, because houses in Salt Lake and Utah Counties are all $300-400k+ while I can still get a house in Weber county for under $200k.

The new office buildings are software dominated. And that shifts the center of the map away from downtown to the Silicon Slopes corridor (SoJo to Lehi). Getting a midrise office building approved is a piece of cake, especially if it is along the I-15/Frontrunner corridor. I mean, just look at all the development going up near 106th. It's a freaking edge city now.

If we had a boom in commercial banking, I could see Downtown SLC getting a lot of towers. But the boom is in software. And they've picked their place to plant in the ground and grow. And it pretty much strattles the county line.



LOL

Job growth isn't dominated by software.

From the Deseret News:

"The largest private sector employment increases were in trade, transportation and utilities (11,600 jobs); professional and business services (9,100 jobs); and construction (7,100 jobs). The fastest employment growth occurred in construction (7.5 percent); leisure and hospitality (4.8 percent); and professional and business services (4.5 percent)."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...port-says.html

Sure that area is the center of tech Jobs but that's about it. Pick something else as your metric and it isn't the center. Entertainment, transportation, hospitality, retail, business services, etc is SLC. Wasatch Front population is probably about 4500S (Utah County is roughly equal to Davis and Weber combined).

As far as devolopment all that stuff would be pretty awful in the city. The closest thing that I can think of in SLC is the OC Tanner building (with 3-4 more floors).

It's great that the area has been able to support these tech companies but that alone doesn't make it the center of our MSA not even the most important economic area of it.

[asies1981]

Guess which city finally surpassed 200,000 people?

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Job growth isn't dominated by software.

From the Deseret News:

"The largest private sector employment increases were in trade, transportation and utilities (11,600 jobs); professional and business services (9,100 jobs); and construction (7,100 jobs). The fastest employment growth occurred in construction (7.5 percent); leisure and hospitality (4.8 percent); and professional and business services (4.5 percent)."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...port-says.html

Sure that area is the center of tech Jobs but that's about it. Pick something else as your metric and it isn't the center. Entertainment, transportation, hospitality, retail, business services, etc is SLC. Wasatch Front population is probably about 4500S (Utah County is roughly equal to Davis and Weber combined).

As far as devolopment all that stuff would be pretty awful in the city. The closest thing that I can think of in SLC is the OC Tanner building (with 3-4 more floors).

It's great that the area has been able to support these tech companies but that alone doesn't make it the center of our MSA not even the most important economic area of it.

Tech jobs provide a LOT more economic output per worker than the industries you mentioned. The software boom ("Silicon Slopes" or whatever you want to call it) is a massive driver of our economic boom at the moment. No, it's not the only thing, but it's much more significant than you're making it out to be. It's the #1 reason why Utah has one of the best economies in the country right now, and it's driving the majority of the development around Point of the Mountain, which is also where the most development is currently occurring.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Guess which city finally surpassed 200,000 people?

This isn't unexpected, though I find it interesting that the city itself is disputing the number and claiming that it's lower because it's based on building permits that had been awarded but not yet built out at the time. You would think they would want the higher number lol.

Either way, estimates are just that - estimates. We won't know for sure what the population is until 2020 - or early 2021. And it's hard to imagine it won't be over 200,000 by that time. Maybe even 210,000 if we're lucky.