HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6101  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2011, 9:22 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Projects View Post
Can I say it's at five stories now?

Wait for it... Wait for it...

The construction erection is up to the 6th floor, but it does not have 6 floors yet !


Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
A bum? What did you do?
I initiated the process of mowing down my fellow SSP member's argument instead of just respecting a differing opinion being put out there. I started hacking away at its philosophical roots in order to pare it down like I'm trained to do at school. Sometimes I bring my work home with me .


Thank you for the great updates Mr. T-Mac.
     
     
  #6102  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2011, 9:34 PM
UTPlanner's Avatar
UTPlanner UTPlanner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 914
The Odd Fellows Hall is currently owned by a private development firm. I haven't heard of their exact intentions though I know that they have been tossing around a lot of ideas. They own not only the building but an vacant parcel of property adjacent to the building.

Also they have razed several buildings on 500 South in preparation for the construction of the new Public Safety Complex.
     
     
  #6103  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2011, 11:36 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
I thought is was never sold because nobody bid high enough at auction. IIRC, the owner of the New Yorker next door was the high bidder, but because none of the bids were high enough, it was never sold. Has something changed since then?

The last I heard the first auction took place here locally, but the highest bid wasn't high enough so a second auction took place. ( I believe it was online. ) Anyway a out of state bidder bid over 1 million dollars. That's about all I know.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
     
     
  #6104  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 3:20 AM
WeST's Avatar
WeST WeST is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Murray
Posts: 340
T-mac, your City and County picture is spectacular. You should start selling prints online.
     
     
  #6105  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 3:43 AM
T-Mac's Avatar
T-Mac T-Mac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bountiful, Utah
Posts: 1,163
Thanks West. I might start doing that. I think the Utah Heritage Foundation is going to use it in their blog. I am glad that you like it.
     
     
  #6106  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 4:42 AM
utahsprinter utahsprinter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4
Thanks T-Mac. I love all your pictures. I only wish I was half as talented...well ok a quarter as talented.
     
     
  #6107  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 3:50 PM
T-Mac's Avatar
T-Mac T-Mac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bountiful, Utah
Posts: 1,163
Thanks guys. Here is another one I took on Saturday before the big storm came.

     
     
  #6108  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 4:24 PM
farmerboy's Avatar
farmerboy farmerboy is offline
farmerboy
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 307
Northwest Quadrant & Housing Market

So this Tribune article titled "Underwater mortgages rise as home prices fall" got me thinking. I'm curious how other forumers think this might relate to the development of the Northwest Quadrant. In several of the planning classes I'm currently taking Professors have mentioned it's been estimated the current stock of Single-Family homes currently built in the US is enough to supply us with demand for the next 50 years. I don't know how accurate these statistics are as you can never accurately predict the future, but as travel costs increase with the price of oil, and we see a growing rich/poor gap in the US. I would think outlying suburbs would become less desirable. I'm curious what other forumers think the effect if any and or demand for development of the NW Quadrant will be?

If the development does get built, will the cost of development be recouped with falling home prices and the cost for proposed infrastructures (parks, wetland restoration, roadways, TRAX)? I doubt the Mormon Church would undertake a project they didn't see as profitable, but it begs the question, will proposed amenities be slashed to make it profitable?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...edium=facebook
     
     
  #6109  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 4:36 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerboy View Post
In several of the planning classes I'm currently taking Professors have mentioned it's been estimated the current stock of Single-Family homes currently built in the US is enough to supply us with demand for the next 50 years.
50 Years?! That's absolutely absurd. I'm terrified to think that a planning professor would say something so completely wrong. Is this a professor at the U?
     
     
  #6110  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 4:56 PM
farmerboy's Avatar
farmerboy farmerboy is offline
farmerboy
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
50 Years?! That's absolutely absurd. I'm terrified to think that a planning professor would say something so completely wrong. Is this a professor at the U?
Why absurd? Yes at the U. To clarify he talked about single family detached housing only. Not included in estimate were the need for other housing types. (Townhomes, Condos, Apartments). I will see if I can get an article or reference from him.
     
     
  #6111  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 5:14 PM
redzeppelin redzeppelin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerboy View Post
So this Tribune article titled "Underwater mortgages rise as home prices fall" got me thinking. I'm curious how other forumers think this might relate to the development of the Northwest Quadrant. In several of the planning classes I'm currently taking Professors have mentioned it's been estimated the current stock of Single-Family homes currently built in the US is enough to supply us with demand for the next 50 years. I don't know how accurate these statistics are as you can never accurately predict the future, but as travel costs increase with the price of oil, and we see a growing rich/poor gap in the US. I would think outlying suburbs would become less desirable. I'm curious what other forumers think the effect if any and or demand for development of the NW Quadrant will be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerboy
To clarify he talked about single family detached housing only. Not included in estimate were the need for other housing types.
Sounds like he is predicting a shift toward multi-family housing. So even with population growth, the total number of single-family homes will stay flat. As I see it, the real trick is the location of the existing stock of homes. In supply and demand terms, the supply might exist, but in the wrong places. We hear about large tracts of vacant homes in shrinking Rust Belt cities and overbuilt places like Las Vegas, but that's not necessarily where the demand will be for the next 50 years. I think that single-family home construction will continue as long as the population remains mobile. Houses will be demolished in cities like Detroit and built in cities like SLC. The total inventory might hit a plateau, but construction won't stop. I've always favored preserving the NW quadrant as open space, but I can see the logic behind developing the area. It's growing on me.
     
     
  #6112  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 5:32 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerboy View Post
Why absurd? Yes at the U. To clarify he talked about single family detached housing only. Not included in estimate were the need for other housing types. (Townhomes, Condos, Apartments). I will see if I can get an article or reference from him.
Well, the current housing inventory on the market in Utah is enough to meet demand for about 8 months. To suggest that if we never built another single-family home again in the United States, we'd have enough supply to house the US population for 50 years is absurd.

Even in the past 3 years, which have been terrible for housing, the number of new single-family homes has averaged around 500,000 / year.



The problem is going to be that there is not enough housing for the population. New starts are less than half what they were 3 years ago, but the population hasn't stopped growing. By 2061, we'll be pushing 500 million. Those extra 200 million people are not going to be living exclusively in apartments and condos.

Last edited by arkhitektor; Mar 8, 2011 at 5:47 PM.
     
     
  #6113  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 5:36 PM
farmerboy's Avatar
farmerboy farmerboy is offline
farmerboy
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 307
He also noted several factors predicted to contribute to this shift.

1. Aging baby boomer populations vacating suburbs.
2. Increasing difficulty in obtaining home loans.
3. Increasing costs of transportation (oil prices/peak oil).

@redzepplin, I definitely see the Wasatch front faring better than other regions of the country, you make a good point that while average demand across the US levels out, it's a possibility that demand may still increase in some areas.

I do however see a shift as we see the increase in oil prices to locations with transportation options. The light rail extension may give the NW quadrant a leg-up in this regard.
     
     
  #6114  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 5:51 PM
farmerboy's Avatar
farmerboy farmerboy is offline
farmerboy
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
Well, the current housing inventory on the market in Utah is enough to meet demand for about 8 months. To suggest that if we never built another single-family home again in the United States, we'd have enough supply to house the US population for 50 years is absurd.
I don't think it's that absurd. There is a lot of available and or bank owned single family detached housing on the market. Also as mentioned in the article 23.1 percent of current homeowners are underwater with their payments.

Regarding the market demand in Utah. My sister has been trying to sell her home in Syracuse and has had to lower the price twice already to stay competitive with the 100's of other homes for sale in the area. She has had few interested buyers and no offers. The home has been on the market since October.
     
     
  #6115  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 6:06 PM
redzeppelin redzeppelin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 103
Here is some relevant Census data.
From 1940 to 2000, the total number of single-family detached homes in the USA and Utah, together with the percentage of the total housing market. Single-family detached homes have lost market share since 1960, but the raw numbers are growing steadily. The percentage was remakably steady from 1980-2000. The 2010 numbers will be interesting.

USA:
Year Total homes %
1940 23,730,637 63.6%
1950 29,115,698 63.3%
1960 40,103,346 68.8%
1970 44,800,684 66.2%
1980 53,595,586 61.8%
1990 60,383,409 59.0%
2000 69,865,957 60.3%

Utah:
1940 108,450 73.6%
1950 140,667 70.1%
1960 199,301 75.9%
1970 231,227 74.1%
1980 329,163 68.4%
1990 393,374 65.7%
2000 520,101 67.7%
     
     
  #6116  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 6:18 PM
farmerboy's Avatar
farmerboy farmerboy is offline
farmerboy
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 307
As I understand it, housing starts are new homes built. They are not indicative of housing sold. The chart below shows sale of newly constructed single family homes from 1960 through early 2010.

     
     
  #6117  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 8:48 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerboy View Post
I don't think it's that absurd. There is a lot of available and or bank owned single family detached housing on the market. Also as mentioned in the article 23.1 percent of current homeowners are underwater with their payments.

Regarding the market demand in Utah. My sister has been trying to sell her home in Syracuse and has had to lower the price twice already to stay competitive with the 100's of other homes for sale in the area. She has had few interested buyers and no offers. The home has been on the market since October.
It's not unreasonable for it to take longer then 5 months to sell a home in today's market. That's what the 8 month number means, that if nobody listed any new homes for sale, the existing supply of homes on the market would be gone in 8 months. You can debate the exact number of months- it's difficult to pinpoint, but to suggest that there are enough vacant single-family homes in the US today to absorb the next 50 years worth of population growth makes you (or your professor) sound like a lunatic. Do you really think it's plausible that it will take your sister until 2061 to sell her home in Syracuse?

Last edited by arkhitektor; Mar 8, 2011 at 9:07 PM.
     
     
  #6118  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 9:48 PM
farmerboy's Avatar
farmerboy farmerboy is offline
farmerboy
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
It's not unreasonable for it to take longer then 5 months to sell a home in today's market. That's what the 8 month number means, that if nobody listed any new homes for sale, the existing supply of homes on the market would be gone in 8 months. You can debate the exact number of months- it's difficult to pinpoint, but to suggest that there are enough vacant single-family homes in the US today to absorb the next 50 years worth of population growth makes you (or your professor) sound like a lunatic. Do you really think it's plausible that it will take your sister until 2061 to sell her home in Syracuse?
I did not suggest that it would take 50 years for my sister to sell her home. I stated that in 5 months of it being on the market and multiple price reductions she has yet to receive a single offer on her home.

It was not suggested that there will never be another home sold in the next 50 years, it was suggested that there is enough current inventory of detached single family homes to meet demand in the US (on average) over the next 50 years.

The facts are that the market is saturated with more single family homes than the can presently be absorbed. New home sales are at an all-time low (1960-present) and they continue to drop.

PS Instead of accusing me of being a lunatic you could provide data to support your position. Good Luck!
     
     
  #6119  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 10:20 PM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerboy View Post
I did not suggest that it would take 50 years for my sister to sell her home. I stated that in 5 months of it being on the market and multiple price reductions she has yet to receive a single offer on her home.

It was not suggested that there will never be another home sold in the next 50 years, it was suggested that there is enough current inventory of detached single family homes to meet demand in the US (on average) over the next 50 years.

The facts are that the market is saturated with more single family homes than the can presently be absorbed. New home sales are at an all-time low (1960-present) and they continue to drop.

PS Instead of accusing me of being a lunatic you could provide data to support your position. Good Luck!
If, as you suggest, there is currently enough inventory of detached single family homes to meet demand for the next 50 years, it means that some homes on the market today won't sell until 2061 because it will take that long to fill the current supply.

That position is so far from the truth that I don't know what data it will take to convince you that this is not the case.

Projecting even the low estimates for US population growth out 50 years, the country will have added nearly 200 million new residents by 2061. (There are currently around 300 million). For there to be enough single-family homes to meet demand for all that growth in existence today, you must either assume that every new resident of the United States over the next 50 years will live in an apartment or townhome, or somehow prove that over half of the current housing stock in our country is vacant and just waiting for these 200 million future residents to move in.

Last edited by arkhitektor; Mar 8, 2011 at 11:57 PM.
     
     
  #6120  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2011, 10:21 PM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Urban Planning Proselyte
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 2,233
I think suburbia may struggle for quite some time in other parts of the U.S. but Utah should be fine.

1. Baby Boomer paradigms don't apply in Utah because we have had a consistent baby boom since the Depression. Envision Utah calls our population distribution a Christmas Tree. If the rest of America was having babies like us we would not be having our current national struggles centered around paying for our current old peoples' social security.

2. Because our greatest resource is our breeding abilities, Utah does not rely heavily on out of staters moving here to keep our houses filled.

3. Large families creates square footage needs that have not yet been sufficiently accommodated (on a large enough scale) by people building apartments and condos.

I would agree that fuel prices coupled with fall of the real estate market has wounded sprawl and thrown some checks in its unrelenting progression, but it certainly isn't dead in many places and in Utah it is still a viable option in meeting many people's desires.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

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 6:57 AM.

     

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