HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2961  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 9:23 PM
gakidave gakidave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 5
Not downtown, but still of interest to Salt Lake City:

Quote:
(KUTV) -- United Parcel Service announced it is constructing a $275 million regional operations facility at 380 S. 6400 West in Salt Lake City's northwest quadrant.

Once complete, the facility on nearly 160 acres is said to be among the largest processing facilities in its global package network. More than 1,500 permanent employees are to be hired at the regional hub.
Given the size of it, I wonder if we'll get UPS cargo flight outside of Louisville and Ontario.

http://kutv.com/news/local/ups-to-hi...n-regional-hub
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2962  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 9:23 PM
i-215's Avatar
i-215 i-215 is offline
Traffic Engineer (EIT)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SLC/SoCal
Posts: 3,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade View Post
This would be true if we were looking at it purely from just the Salt Lake Valley perspective but that's not the case. Salt Lake City is at the near center of the Wasatch Front:



(this is a map of heroin overdoses but you get the point)

Ogden to Salt Lake City is 38.2 miles (Ogden being the general northern edge of the Wasatch Front) and Provo is 45 miles. That's pretty damn centralized.
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.

Quote:
(this is a map of heroin overdoses but you get the point)
LOL
__________________
Life is nicer at 70 miles per hour
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2963  
Old Posted May 22, 2018, 11:59 PM
taboubak taboubak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 7
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2964  
Old Posted Yesterday, 12:17 AM
asies1981 asies1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,082
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2965  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:45 AM
Ironweed Ironweed is offline
Ironweed
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by asies1981 View Post
I wonder if any one will try to 'flip' this one in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2966  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:33 AM
Marvland's Avatar
Marvland Marvland is offline
SLC Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Fairpark
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by airhero View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2967  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:20 AM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2968  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:17 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvland View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2969  
Old Posted Yesterday, 2:20 PM
grasscom grasscom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Draper Utah
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by taboubak View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2970  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:37 PM
airhero airhero is offline
Chancellor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvland View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2971  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:28 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by twig View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2972  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:09 PM
taboubak taboubak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasscom View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2973  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:02 PM
TonyAnderson's Avatar
TonyAnderson TonyAnderson is offline
.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Salt Lake City | Utah
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makid View Post
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?
__________________
Instagram | Twitter

www.UtahProjects.info
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2974  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:15 PM
grasscom grasscom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Draper Utah
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
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:
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2975  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:33 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasscom View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2976  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:40 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 177
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2977  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:50 PM
grasscom grasscom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Draper Utah
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2978  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:38 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasscom View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2979  
Old Posted Today, 1:16 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-215 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:07 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.