Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

I would imagine that the City Creek Center is going to be a real guideline as to the direction things will move.

You do not want to go out and build great towers if the need is not going to be there. SLC deserves that kind of notoriety.

However, since I read the other day that 33 percent is rented. That leaves 2/3s of the space is untented.

Forget the new buildings unless there is real fill up for all of the new CCC and downtown sites.

We would all love to see a vital downtown. Now, since everything is settling in we will see just how much the need will be demonstrated. No use in having large scale products if they will not be needed. That would be like hotels in Mexico that have 9 percent occupancy. The time will come but it has to be a proven product.

CCC housing seems to be attractive to the mostly just the LDS community. I would assume there is an additional market out there looking for downtown living where the units are actually for sale (not just for lease), and are not developed by a church...

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Old&New

CCC housing seems to be attractive to the mostly just the LDS community. I would assume there is an additional market out there looking for downtown living where the units are actually for sale (not just for lease), and are not developed by a church...

I don't know about that. There have been several condo projects around SLC for years that have sat vacant.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by Old&New

CCC housing seems to be attractive to the mostly just the LDS community. I would assume there is an additional market out there looking for downtown living where the units are actually for sale (not just for lease), and are not developed by a church...

So I have a friend that bought at CCC and this whole "lease" thing isn't how most people are viewing it. The friend is a litigation attorney so she went over the documents well. What happens is when the time period is up City Creek Reserve has the ability to purchase back the condo at fair market value. So it isn't just a lease where they lose everything when the time frame is up.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by T-Stan

1. Convention Center Hotel - I think they will break ground in the next 18 months
2. UPAC Tower - Break ground in next 24 months
3. Cascade - Unless sales pick up, I don't see this happening for 5 or more years

I would also agree with that order. I think by the time we have the summers outdoor retail show this Aug. We will learn a lot more about the hotel. Where its going. What company. And hopefully a rendering or two.

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I don't know about that. There have been several condo projects around SLC for years that have sat vacant.

That's right. I appreciate your point, Old&New, but I don't think there are too many people who wouldn't purchase at City Creek due to the lease/church issue.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

So I have a friend that bought at CCC and this whole "lease" thing isn't how most people are viewing it. The friend is a litigation attorney so she went over the documents well. What happens is when the time period is up City Creek Reserve has the ability to purchase back the condo at fair market value. So it isn't just a lease where they lose everything when the time frame is up.

That's the same thing I had said, that the LDS church would have to buy back the unit.

As for the towers I agree with the order that the Hotel will come first, followed by UPAC and Cascade.

Old & New, I don't think the majority of potential buyers will care that it was developed by a church.

[Bob The Builder]

Agreed. I too think that the order will be the Hotel, UPAC and Cascade. The hotel seems to be needed the most. There is still open office and residential space to fill.

[StevenF]

I agree as well that the new towers will come in that order. But I wouldn't doubt that we could see some new apartments above 8 floors showing up in the downtown area in the same time frame. Condo's right now are slow to sell but apartments seem to be filling up as fast as they can be built.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

However, since I read the other day that 33 percent is rented. That leaves 2/3s of the space is untented.

Well, it should be pointed out that this is technically incorrect. As someone recently pointed out, City Creek's rentable units are sold out and there is a waiting list. Seasons at City Creek is nearly sold out too. City Creek's condo units are at around 33% occupancy. I don't find this all that surprising, because it seems like an urban environment like this would be more appealing to renters, young or old. The American Towers were pretty much the totality of the upscale condo market downtown until City Creek was built.. there's not a huge niche chiseled out for that, yet.

Urban planners are projecting that demand for rentable properties will increase dramatically in the coming decades. As we've seen with developments all around downtown, apartments don't have much of a problem finding occupants. If City Creek were really desperate, it could convert some of its condos to apartments. But I don't think they're that impatient.

[CountyLemonade]

I'm fine with the thirty-three percent occupancy rate, to be honest. I want that twenty-ninth-floor suite in the Promontory with the 1,900-sq-ft terrace that wraps around half the building to still be available by the time I'm wealthy enough to afford it.

[UTPlanner]

I just heard that Mecham and his group have been in the City & County Building all week getting ready to submit their plans for a building permit for their site on the corner of Highland and 2100 South. Would be great to see something happening there.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

I just heard that Mecham and his group have been in the City & County Building all week getting ready to submit their plans for a building permit for their site on the corner of Highland and 2100 South. Would be great to see something happening there.

Been hearing that for awhile now. Seems like its taking these guys forever to get the permit.

[UTPlanner]

They have been taking a long time. They still haven't submitted any building plans so they're definitely months away from a groundbreaking. Their excuse is generally that they're waiting on financing.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

This honestly means nothing.

Your sample size is way too short in duration of time and not specific enough to convey useful information.

1. Let's include Federal and State funding of state freeway and highway projects spanning from the Post War era to today (adjusting for inflation and differing labor costs; right to work states, differing seismic needs).

2. Let's take into account the booms of California and Texas and the infrastructure projects that came to respond to those booms (adjusting for inflation and differing labor costs; right to work states; differing seismic needs).

3. Let's take into consideration the percentage of how much of each state is urbanized.

4. Let's compare the state budgets of other states taken into consideration against Utah.

Nothing, eh? Maybe to you it doesn`t, but to a lot of us it is pretty meaningful how much UDOT is investing in our infrastructure in these meager times. Once you sort out what you wanted it to mean and what I intended it to mean, then we`ll continue this conversation. It means exactly what I intended it to mean. It means that Utah (UDOT specifically) will invest a record amount of money into state transportation infrastructure in 2012 - substantially more than the two largest states in the nation.

1. Sounds like a great research project! If I am just talking about 2012, why would I go back and detail a report every year over the past 8 decades? I did not say that Utah invests more per capita than the two most populous states in general, simply that it will in 2012. If it does or doesn`t in general is irrelevant to my point. Since I said UDOT would be doing the investing, that would be state money. The figures from the other states I compared where from TxDOT and Caltrans (the TX and CA state departments of transportation.) I apologize if that was left unclear in my post.

2. Once again, that would be great information to get an overall feel of the general composition of transportation infrastructure investment. I did not say anything about why UDOT will invest more than TxDOT or Caltrans in 2012, simply that it will.

3. Great idea. I don`t quite have the time (nor the patience) to develop my own algorithms to compare and contrast various states based on their urbanization. If you would like, go right ahead.

4. So the number I said was the states` transportation budget, unless you mean the entire budget. In that case, it is quite easy to infer that a state with 10 or 13 times the population of Utah must have a MUCH larger overall budget. If Utah is spending a third or half the amount of that state in transportation, that would indicate the Utah`s number represents a much greater percentage of its budget than that of CA or TX – which makes the figure all the more significant.

I honestly don`t think you understood the point I was trying to make, so go ahead and re-read my post to understand it. If you would like to bring additional data to the table to make another point, feel free.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

Nothing, eh? Maybe to you it doesn`t, but to a lot of us it is pretty meaningful how much UDOT is investing in our infrastructure in these meager times. Once you sort out what you wanted it to mean and what I intended it to mean, then we`ll continue this conversation. It means exactly what I intended it to mean. It means that Utah (UDOT specifically) will invest a record amount of money into state transportation infrastructure in 2012 - substantially more than the two largest states in the nation.

1. Sounds like a great research project! If I am just talking about 2012, why would I go back and detail a report every year over the past 8 decades? I did not say that Utah invests more per capita than the two most populous states in general, simply that it will in 2012. If it does or doesn`t in general is irrelevant to my point. Since I said UDOT would be doing the investing, that would be state money. The figures from the other states I compared where from TxDOT and Caltrans (the TX and CA state departments of transportation.) I apologize if that was left unclear in my post.

2. Once again, that would be great information to get an overall feel of the general composition of transportation infrastructure investment. I did not say anything about why UDOT will invest more than TxDOT or Caltrans in 2012, simply that it will.

3. Great idea. I don`t quite have the time (nor the patience) to develop my own algorithms to compare and contrast various states based on their urbanization. If you would like, go right ahead.

4. So the number I said was the states` transportation budget, unless you mean the entire budget. In that case, it is quite easy to infer that a state with 10 or 13 times the population of Utah must have a MUCH larger overall budget. If Utah is spending a third or half the amount of that state in transportation, that would indicate the Utah`s number represents a much greater percentage of its budget than that of CA or TX – which makes the figure all the more significant.

I honestly don`t think you understood the point I was trying to make, so go ahead and re-read my post to understand it. If you would like to bring additional data to the table to make another point, feel free.

I don't think you were trying to make a malicious point, I just think when you said this:

Just to put that $4 billion into perspective: Utah has 1/13 the population of California yet it will spend 1/3 the amount that California will on road construction projects in 2012. That means that Utah will spend $1,050/person whereas California will only spend $350/person. So Utah`s per-capita construction spending for 2012 will by 3x that of California. The next largest state, Texas, will only spend twice as much as Utah on construction despite having about 10x the population.

you actually didn't give the reader much perspective. I picture my dad in San Francicso who hates Utah reading this and using the stats to talk about how much money the feds are wasting in Utah during the Recession. I picture Utah boosters here (myself included as such) making fools of themselves dropping these numbers as if our state was really special and then finding out that it's really just par for the course of a state going through a growth spurt.

There was no malice intended on my part; I just felt like bringing the difficulty of interpreting these numbers back to earth. A stat that underdeveloped is like something Glen Beck would sling around to incite the plebs.

[Orlando]

I know this will make a lot of you insanely jealous, but I found this to be very interesting. It's about the incredible growth that Austin is having. Why are they growing so crazy, and why do we struggled to get a highrise up every 3 to 5 years? Anyways, it's insane what's going on right now: 12 highrises( 20 stories or taller) are going up in just one part of downtown Austin. Check out post #10124:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24346&page=507

and then check out the comparison from 2006 to now:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24346&page=510

I know this isn't exactly on-topic with this thread. But, it kind of puts things in to perspective. Austin is a similar size city. Why can't we grow like them?

[UTAZLoVer]

I see SLC in that type of situation in the next 10-20 years.

[Orlando]

Random question, but why hasn't Cowboy Partners built their apartment building next to Harmons yet? If there's so much demand, why haven't they jumped on to to it yet? I could easily see a 10 story apartment building there on that corner to give that end of the street more life.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I know this will make a lot of you insanely jealous, but I found this to be very interesting. It's about the incredible growth that Austin is having. Why are they growing so crazy, and why do we struggled to get a highrise up every 3 to 5 years? Anyways, it's insane what's going on right now: 12 highrises( 20 stories or taller) are going up in just one part of downtown Austin. Check out post #10124:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24346&page=507

and then check out the comparison from 2006 to now:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24346&page=510

I know this isn't exactly on-topic with this thread. But, it kind of puts things in to perspective. Austin is a similar size city. Why can't we grow like them?

This is what frustrates me. We come in 2nd after Austin in growth and jobs and yet ( as you pointed out ) they are growing like crazy with a dozen whole highrises while we added only three in the last 10 years. Sure I know that we got a few highrises these last few years also. But if we are truly one of the hottest cities right now with growth and jobs moving here then why are we not seeing more taller buildings getting built in downtown? And yes I know that alot of these companies are building in the subs. But I'm sure the same thing happens in every major metro.

And as UTAZLoVer pointed out SLC could be seeing this type of growth here in a few years time. And I have high hopes that with the +1000 room hotel, UPAC/office tower, Tower 8 and the Cascade we could be seeing more highrises popping up all within the same time frame. I know the demand is there. We just need developers and the city to work together to make the numbers work. Fact is we have far too many new tallest proposals fall though. We are still a bit behind, but we are slowly catching up to a few other cities.

2013 could be a really good year for us.

[delts145]

It's really quite simple, Austin is the Capital of Texas, and is at the center focus of a population of close to 26 million people. Like Utah, Texas is working very hard to lure business away from high tax burden States such as California, and is having great success. The difference of course is that Austin's success in many areas is magnified by it's significant in-State population support. One little example would be the construction of new Convention Hotels in Austin. The question has also been asked, why Austin now and not us too. Well, it doesn't take much of a leap to understand what numbers we're talking about just to hold a simple in-state show. I mean, Texas is virtually a country unto itself, second only to California in population. Also, Austin(I realize not by Utah standards of scenery) is by Texas standards one of the more attractive areas of the greater region. From what I'm being told, people moving from areas such as Ca. and NY. prefer the ambiance and local landscape of an Austin to Dallas.
Texans are turning their empire building interests and attention inward to Austin now, where in the past it has been more focused on cities such as Dallas and Houston for business. Like Utah and Colorado, Texas takes great pride in their Capital City. However again, Texas has a huge ready-made influence of population and land area resource to draw from.

edit: Just a thought, and I'm by no means pushing a political agenda, just a harsh reality. If Romney is elected, and a "Make the U.S. Independant" energy development agenda is pushed, we will see Utah's Capital boom like crazy. We are seeing it in all regions of Canada, and how it is affecting their highrise growth. Much of the skyline development of cities such as Calgary and Toronto is being generated either directly or indirectly by it's energy boom. Utah is the Saudi Arabia of North America, when it comes to gas and oil. Bringing the skyscapers home to SLC quickly would best be accomplished by a Washington agenda of energy independance.