Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[asies1981]

Construction has started on the 4Forty7 Apartments on 100 South.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Construction has started on the 4Forty7 Apartments on 100 South.

While I was looking at the location of this project using maps, I was struck by another quirky oddity that exists from Central City to the eastern side of downtown: The number of mortuary's. There is practically one on every street corner. Each is taking up valuable development space. What are they waiting for? The local craft beer isn't that bad.

On another note, apparently the mayor isn't getting along with the council members. Two just stepped down. Couldn't stand her anymore. I'll believe in the mayor when she and the RDA department get their shiz together.

[Comrade]

Definitely a win in my book if Adams' relationship with the mayor forced her to not seek another term. She's my councilperson and I feel Amy Fowler will be a much better councilperson than Adams. So kudos to Mayor Biskupski.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Definitely a win in my book if Adams' relationship with the mayor forced her to not seek another term. She's my councilperson and I feel Amy Fowler will be a much better councilperson than Adams. So kudos to Mayor Biskupski.

What didn’t you like about Adams’ political views and/or track record?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

What didn’t you like about Adams’ political views and/or track record?

I was very disappointed with her pulling initial support for the Simpson Ave homeless shelter. I get there was community pressure but this drives home the point that has disgusted me with the whole process - the nicer areas have the clout to push back on these plans while the poorer areas are completely neutered in the discussion. I had no problem with the Simpson Ave homeless shelter proposal and felt it was a decent compromise in a very sticky situation.

The Mayor deserves some of the blame for how they rolled out the proposals but Adams didn't do one bit to alleviate concerns and instead withdrew her support of the location, only ramping up opposition. Instead of a more balanced approach, the shelters shifted to the less desirable locations of the city and valley.

Plus, frankly, I feel Fowler best represents the makeup of the neighborhood more than Adams, who won a plurality of support after the liberal candidates split the vote in the last election. Politically, I felt Fowler represented my views way more than Adams, who is a conservative, albeit not a radical and more moderate. But I feel the city council is moving in a progressive direction that will only embolden communities like SugarHouse and hopefully lead to the type of development that doesn't turn the area into another Jordan Landing.

[bob rulz]

I don't think the mayor being considered frustrating to work with and un-transparent is a win in any situation, regardless of the political beliefs of the council members. Biskupski is so far easily the worst SLC mayor of my (admittedly short) lifetime, though Salt Lake has actually had some pretty good mayors so I guess we were due for a letdown.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I don't think the mayor being considered frustrating to work with and un-transparent is a win in any situation, regardless of the political beliefs of the council members. Biskupski is so far easily the worst SLC mayor of my (admittedly short) lifetime, though Salt Lake has actually had some pretty good mayors so I guess we were due for a letdown.

I'm okay with Biskupski. I think her first year was a near-disaster but she's rebounded quite well and has done a good job in 2017. Because of this, I'll probably vote for her again if she runs for reelection. I actually feel the city is finding its footing again after the mediocrity that set in under Ralph Becker during his uninspiring, often scandal-ridden, second term.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

4 out of 7 people in Down town Salt Lake who are on the public sidewalks are panhandlers... that’s how few people we have. When I walk to the store on a Sunday it’s like the twilight zone.

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Sorry but I call bullshit. I work downtown. Yes there are a lot of panhandlers, but 4 out of 7? Give me a break.

I do like how you're using Sundays as the example though. City Creek and several other places are closed on Sunday, so of course there's going to be fewer people downtown.

Occasionally I'll read the hotel reviews on popular travel booking sites such as Travelocity. It gives you a good idea about what people from all over the country and world are thinking about, not only the particular SLC hotels and their staff, but also the surrounding vicinity, including downtown in general. The good news is that the overwhelming majority have a lot of good things to say about downtown Salt Lake City and their stay there. I was particularly surprised what people had to say about hotels like the Hampton, across from Pioneer Park. What was interesting was the reviews going back several years, and including up to around September spoke highly of hotels like Hampton and Homewood Suites, which are located just across the street from what was the concentration of the homeless issue. As expected travelers typically liked the Hotels, but commented and or complained regularly about the homeless numbers. However, that seems to have really changed lately, if their reviews are any indication. It's like the homeless comments just stopped. I'm thinking hopefully that indicates the city is finally making some positive progress with the situation.

I know there was a lot of coverage recently here in L.A. about certain West Coast city's and the overwhelming homeless issue. Particularly Downtown Portland, which is experiencing a homeless deluge, even record increases just in this past year. A lot of shops and businesses are pulling up stakes or threatening to. My Los Angeles street is Downtown Adj. Comparably much like the adj. avenues would be just north of No. Temple. I am now facing having to deal with a homeless camp starting to set up at one end of the block, where there is a large historic Cathedral type structure. I wanted to make sure they had a place to set up as long as it was kept somewhat orderly and we as a street could keep up with any trash issues. Now though it's beginning to get out of control and is expanding. Ah well, another neighborhood project to follow up on.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by delts145

...............................

Hahaha. Delts is my favorite

[delts145]

LOL...Sorry EP. I was interrupted by a phone call. Ha, I finally finished the post. Tell me if I'm right, and the lack of complaints from guests in certain hotels lately about the homeless is a sign that progress is being made.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Sure. But it's still probably unlikely to get done.

For every major project that actually gets built, there's three-plus projects that never get beyond the planning stage or are drastically downsized upon completion.

So, as much as we want these projects developed, history tells us there's a better chance nothing is built than built. In fact, when you take away LDS Church developed high-rises (like 111 South Main, which switched from Hamilton Partners to the LDS Church's City Creek Reserve), the last project fully developed was 222 South Main in 2009, nearly ten years ago. And that project's journey was long and drawn out, too, as it was initially proposed back before the Winter Olympics, the site demolished, which then had those temporary business fronts added (initially just for the Olympics...but then it went longer due to the tower taking forever to develop) and sat dormant for years until a downsized version of the tower was built (initially it was going to have residential at the top and was planned at 28 stories, I believe). Before that, it was the Grand American in 2001. So, in the last 17 years, Salt Lake City has had two high-rises built that weren't developed by the LDS Church.

In that span, we've had many proposals, some still technically in the proposal state and some (like Zion Social Hall Center or whatever it was called) completely abandoned.

The LDS Church properties count, of course, but their track record of developing actual proposals dwarfs any potential developer looking to build in Salt Lake City.

And that's why I'm skeptical of any major project. Still waiting on the 151 Tower on State Street - or at least news on it. But alas...

Yep. It's a pretty dismal statistic, but you're right.

[asies1981]

Speaking of council and the mayor, here's Building Salt Lake's most recent editorial.

[Utah_Dave]

^^^^^^

I don't think looking at downtown development through the lens of the church built this and others built that is as dire an outlook as it may look. We are still a small market and we don't have many deep pockets in the city so it's natural that most of the projects were built by the Church, with the deepest pockets. They also probably have the best feel for the need and demand in the area since they are a developer too. If the demand wasn't there it probably wouldn't have been built regardless of the church being involved. Look at them as the biggest player in town developing projects in their backyard. And I wouldn't call them anything but conservative with their projects because of their nature as a church.

I think the turning point is achievable because of the demand for housing downtown. I think 4-5 more years of solid residential growth will put into motion all sorts of possibilities. If it slows up soon then we may have plateaued for another 5 years or so and will continue to bump along slowly but steady, same old same old. But the other positive factor from what I can tell is outside interest in our city. Players from out of state could ramp things up even further and will probably need to since the church can't carry developments forever in this city. If these current proposals from out of state developers move along, that will be incredible for Salt Lake. I think the next two years will set the tone, either we are on the verge of a little boom or we have more of the same. Either way we are in good shape, it's just a matter of how excited we will be on this forum.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

^^^^^^

I don't think looking at downtown development through the lens of the church built this and others built that is as dire an outlook as it may look. We are still a small market and we don't have many deep pockets in the city so it's natural that most of the projects were built by the Church, with the deepest pockets. They also probably have the best feel for the need and demand in the area since they are a developer too. If the demand wasn't there it probably wouldn't have been built regardless of the church being involved. Look at them as the biggest player in town developing projects in their backyard. And I wouldn't call them anything but conservative with their projects because of their nature as a church.

I think the turning point is achievable because of the demand for housing downtown. I think 4-5 more years of solid residential growth will put into motion all sorts of possibilities. If it slows up soon then we may have plateaued for another 5 years or so and will continue to bump along slowly but steady, same old same old. But the other positive factor from what I can tell is outside interest in our city. Players from out of state could ramp things up even further and will probably need to since the church can't carry developments forever in this city. If these current proposals from out of state developers move along, that will be incredible for Salt Lake. I think the next two years will set the tone, either we are on the verge of a little boom or we have more of the same. Either way we are in good shape, it's just a matter of how excited we will be on this forum.

We're not a small market. Boise is a small market. We're a decent sized market with the lack of economic clout that matches our size. Salt Lake has always under-performed here. Utah, too. Just look at Fortune 500 companies by state. Utah has one. Expanding the list even further to Fortune 1,000 companies and Utah has only three, which is less than the state had in 2000.

Is it dire? I don't know. But I am disappointed Salt Lake struggles developing high-rises. Let's be honest, if you factor in the CSA, which most people here on this forum think is more a more accurate measure of a city's size, Salt Lake's skyline and development is lacking. Especially outside the LDS Church.

Hopefully that changes but Salt Lake needs to pick up its game. No excuses. All we hear is about how great the economy is here and how attractive it is to build. Okay. So, build!

[wrendog]

Actually, there are no Fortune 500 companies in the state of Utah, and 5 Fortune 1000 companies.

There are 5 Fortune 500 companies in San Antonio and development is pretty dead here. Austin is getting everything.

[Utah_Dave]

We are just a bit higher then a small market but or geographic isolation would be a negative factor leaving us dependent on local development, not too unusually but we haven’t tapped into national guys yet like other cities our size may have benefited from. I’m optimistic but I agree it’s put or shut up time in the next 5 years. The next two years I believe will be telling. All signals look good so let’s see if we have the goods yet.

[Utah_Dave]

Why do you think Austin is getting the bulk of the development and San Antonio is missing out? The cities aren't to far apart. Is it a local government thing? College variable? Is it kind of like our Lehi verses downtown dynamic? Or is it a hipster/ millennial thing? I'm very curious

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Actually, there are no Fortune 500 companies in the state of Utah, and 5 Fortune 1000 companies.

There are 5 Fortune 500 companies in San Antonio and development is pretty dead here. Austin is getting everything.

Huntsman is a fortune 500 company.

[Jiffy]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Huntsman is a fortune 500 company.

A city can’t claim a Fortune 500 company unless it’s headquarters are based in said city. Huntsman is not based in Utah. It’s headquarters are in Woodland Texas.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Jiffy

A city can’t claim a Fortune 500 company unless it’s headquarters are based in said city. Huntsman is not based in Utah. It’s headquarters are in Woodland Texas.

This line of argument makes me laugh a little. Dozens of F500 companies have major presence in Utah. Many of them have larger off-premise presences than on-premise. What a terrible gauge for the performance of our market.