[bunt_q]

Whiners. I know I explicitly said my vote had nothing to do with Salt Lake. I'd probably vote no if you set up the same poll for Denver too. Or Phoenix. Although, I do think the smaller the city, the smaller the chance.

Face it, SLC grew up half a century too late, and you missed out on the big U.S. tower-building years. We're arguably in a new reality, where employment and economic growth slog along at a few percent per year, but unless there's another revolutionary change in the economy (that starts here), the major growth years are behind us. We're a mature economy now... And guess what, it takes a big spurt of demand all at once to build a big tower. And those are rare. You're much more likely to get a series of moderate-sized, easier to finance, lower risk buildings (which is exactly what's happening here). Unless you can do it with a single (or few) major tenants, a large building just can't beat a moderately sized one out of the gates. Which is why few of them happen. It's just how development works these days. So unless you can find a company that needs 800,000 square feet, and needs it all at once, you're just whining about your bruised egos, when you should be engaging your brains instead.

Something to remember as homers blather on about generational needs for instant gratification, cities making choices in gradually stepping up tower heights, as if they have some say in the matter, etc... Developers build buildings. Banks finance them. Companies lease them. Cities only permit them, or don't. Unless all of those are neatly aligned, nothing gets built. It's not trolling to point out the difficulty in getting a signature tower built, and it has nothing to do with some vague notion of whether your city "deserves" anything.

Although, I will say, that attitude does display a certain immaturity in your city's collective mindset. It sort of reminds me of Denver 15 years ago. Word to the wise: nobody respects a whiner.