Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Wasatch_One]

I think one thing we need to consider is that new apartment buildings are, for the most part, never going to have the same attention to detail as a condo building. There are exceptions obviously, but the transient nature of renters doesn't necessarily require apartment developers to include all of the nicities of a building that people are using as their long-term primary/secondary residence.

[Old&New]

The logic you're using seems to be influenced by a negative stigma associated with renters. Recent apartment complexes have come out shoddy because of our capitalist system/culture. Cutting corners on design and using cheeper materials in the construction is a strategy to increase the bottom line, period. Many renters have lived in the same units for years and years, so just because they are renters doesn't mean they are transient.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by Old&New

The logic you're using seems to be influenced by a negative stigma associated with renters. Recent apartment complexes have come out shoddy because of our capitalist system/culture. Cutting corners on design and using cheeper materials in the construction is a strategy to increase the bottom line, period. Many renters have lived in the same units for years and years, so just because they are renters doesn't mean they are transient.

No, that is not the logic I am using nor is it a negative stigma or even about our "capitalist system/culture." It actually seems that you are attempting to insinuate that there is a negative stigma with renters.

It's called feasibility, economics and being an intelligent developer. Apartments are temporary by nature. People live in apts. usually a year at a time and may extend their lease a few times before being transferred somewhere else, building or settling down permanently in a condo/townhome. Now this isn't always the case, but I would probably safely group a good chunk of renters into this category. Location and/or price play the biggest role in someone's desire to live in an apartment.

Because of the temporary nature, people usually don't take near as good of care of an apt as they would a condo that they hold a mortgage on. Pride usually comes along with ownership, this is human nature.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

No, that is not the logic I am using nor is it a negative stigma or even about our "capitalist system/culture." It actually seems that you are attempting to insinuate that there is a negative stigma with renters.

It's called feasibility, economics and being an intelligent developer. Apartments are temporary by nature. People live in apts. usually a year at a time and may extend their lease a few times before being transferred somewhere else, building or settling down permanently in a condo/townhome. Now this isn't always the case, but I would probably safely group a good chunk of renters into this category. Location and/or price play the biggest role in someone's desire to live in an apartment.

Because of the temporary nature, people usually don't take near as good of care of an apt as they would a condo that they hold a mortgage on. Pride usually comes along with ownership, this is human nature.

One only has to grow up in a neighborhood that is anti-multi-family developments to realize there is a negative stigma associated with renters.

Apartments are not necessarily temporary by nature. Some people prefer to live in apartments their entire life. In Europe, most people rent and few people own property. In many cases these apartments are hundreds of years old.

I disagree with your assumption that renters "usually don't take near as good of care of an apt as they would a condo that they hold a mortgage on," because either way, they're the ones living there. Who would want to live in a dump? Perhaps Oscar the Grouch, but I'm pretty sure he owned that can. If things are falling apart, it's usually because the owners have neglected to provide sufficient management or do the necessary regular maintenance on the property. If the renter destroys some property, their deposit should cover it.

[Stenar]

If the Covey family had been "intelligent developers" when they built The Covey and The Hillcrest, they would've been torn down by now for shoddy workmanship. They've been solidly rented out for over 100 years now, because they built quality apartments.

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

No, that is not the logic I am using nor is it a negative stigma or even about our "capitalist system/culture." It actually seems that you are attempting to insinuate that there is a negative stigma with renters.

It's called feasibility, economics and being an intelligent developer. Apartments are temporary by nature. People live in apts. usually a year at a time and may extend their lease a few times before being transferred somewhere else, building or settling down permanently in a condo/townhome. Now this isn't always the case, but I would probably safely group a good chunk of renters into this category. Location and/or price play the biggest role in someone's desire to live in an apartment.

Because of the temporary nature, people usually don't take near as good of care of an apt as they would a condo that they hold a mortgage on. Pride usually comes along with ownership, this is human nature.

[Old&New]

What if the new Utah Performing Arts Center's proscenium looked something like this:



http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001232

or this:



http://indulgy.com/post/OTi4qXddO1/double-arch-milky-way-stars-at-arches-nationa

[Comrade]

As a kid, my parents couldn't afford buying a house of their own, so, we rented a two-story, three bedroom fourplex unit in Salt Lake City. We lived there for seven years. While some people came and went, for most my time there, the families were the same.

What I find fascinating is that there is more turnover now on my current street, where most people own their own homes, than I ever saw in the seven years I spent living on a street comprised of all rentals.

[TedBell]

I wouldn't mind renting one of these. But I don't think that option will be available in the near future.

[Merewether]

A walk on 9 th East...
The former Felt Kiwanis recreation building (Boys Club?) on 900 East just south of 400 South has a sign saying it will be an RDA transit oriented housing project to be done 2013. This is indeed just beyond the Office Max by the 9th East station. ( I assume meaning the site..hard to believe the building could be easily modified)
The new Salt Lake Clinic / IHC at 900 E 400 South may not be an architectural wonder but is respectable and definitely more street and pedestrian oriented than its predecesor to the north.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by Old&New

One only has to grow up in a neighborhood that is anti-multi-family developments to realize there is a negative stigma associated with renters.

Apartments are not necessarily temporary by nature. Some people prefer to live in apartments their entire life. In Europe, most people rent and few people own property. In many cases these apartments are hundreds of years old.

I disagree with your assumption that renters "usually don't take near as good of care of an apt as they would a condo that they hold a mortgage on," because either way, they're the ones living there. Who would want to live in a dump? Perhaps Oscar the Grouch, but I'm pretty sure he owned that can. If things are falling apart, it's usually because the owners have neglected to provide sufficient management or do the necessary regular maintenance on the property. If the renter destroys some property, their deposit should cover it.

Whatever angle you want to try and argue, apartments in our area are rarely nicer than condos for the aforementioned reasoning.

Originally Posted by Stenar

If the Covey family had been "intelligent developers" when they built The Covey and The Hillcrest, they would've been torn down by now for shoddy workmanship. They've been solidly rented out for over 100 years now, because they built quality apartments.

This is why I used such phrases as "this isn't always the case" and terms like "usually" ...Case in point, MidTown village (condo) development in Orem... horrible, horrible development in all senses of the meaning. It truly was a developer with $$ signs in his eyes.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

As a kid, my parents couldn't afford buying a house of their own, so, we rented a two-story, three bedroom fourplex unit in Salt Lake City. We lived there for seven years. While some people came and went, for most my time there, the families were the same.

What I find fascinating is that there is more turnover now on my current street, where most people own their own homes, than I ever saw in the seven years I spent living on a street comprised of all rentals.

The financial circumstances over the past 4 years have redefined what a normal housing market is. Also, as long as 7 years seems when you're younger, that wouldn't be considered long term.

[Comrade]

It would have continued long term had my grandfather not suffered a stroke.

A lot of people rent. A lot of 'em do it long term. A lot of 'em are not transients.

And I see many rentals, whether houses or complexes, that are just as nice as a great deal of condos out there.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It would have continued long term had my grandfather not suffered a stroke.

A lot of people rent. A lot of 'em do it long term. A lot of 'em are not transients.

And I see many rentals, whether houses or complexes, that are just as nice as a great deal of condos out there.

Okay, I think I have found the reason some of you are thinking I feel the renters are lower class. When I said transient, I didn't mean it ias in homeless. So let me clarify:

tran·sient/ˈtranSHənt/
Adjective: Lasting only for a short time; impermanent.
Noun: A person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time.
Synonyms: transitory - passing - fleeting - temporary - momentary

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

Okay, I think I have found the reason some of you are thinking I feel the renters are lower class. When I said transient, I didn't mean it ias in homeless. So let me clarify:

tran·sient/ˈtranSHənt/
Adjective: Lasting only for a short time; impermanent.
Noun: A person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time.
Synonyms: transitory - passing - fleeting - temporary - momentary

I know what the word transient means. I didn't have a problem with that part of it.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

Okay, I think I have found the reason some of you are thinking I feel the renters are lower class. When I said transient, I didn't mean it ias in homeless. So let me clarify:

tran·sient/ˈtranSHənt/
Adjective: Lasting only for a short time; impermanent.
Noun: A person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time.
Synonyms: transitory - passing - fleeting - temporary - momentary

Calling renters "transient" is the issue. Renters can be just as permanent as home owners, the only difference is renters are not gambling in the real-estate market or dealing with tons of debt (mortgage).

[Comrade]

Let's be honest, under that definition, most people would be considered transients. A great deal of Americans do not buy just one home ... they move around, especially the older they get. They might rent at the beginning stages of their adult life, and then buy a small home when they marry and then a bigger home when they start having a family and then, finally, they move into a retirement home when they're ready to retire. Even then, there could be multiple homes and relocations, even if they own those houses outright.

Like I said, I now live on a street where there are mostly home owners (though I think some of the houses are now rented out to students who go to the U & Westminster) and I've seen more people come and go the last eight years than I ever saw on my street with rental units growing up.

You'll actually find more and more people are renting instead of owning because it's economically smarter - at least in some cities.

But stenar is right - this is only a recently new phenomenon. A generation ago, apartments weren't done on the cheap ... but now it seems they all are and it's a disappointment. We don't put as much effort into developments anymore. Granted, there are some that just blow you away, but the shoddy nature of our building - even supposedly nice developments that aren't geared toward temporary factions - is overwhelming. We complain about blight...well this is going to bring about blight in 20 or so years.

I mean, like I said, it's not even temporary apartments we're talking about. Just go out to Midvale and Murray and parts of Sandy and Kearns and look at the tract housing that was built to own in the 70s and 80s and how ugly and rundown it looks today ... it's not nice and it's directly linked to the type of half-assed investment we're seeing today and we've been seeing the last half-century.

[delts145]

I put this on the Salt Lake City Thread, because I always have and will continue to think of my former neighborhood as part of Salt Lake City. I just wish Salt Lake was a little more aggressive about incorporating, especially South Salt Lake. I realize that Salt Lake proper is now on a trajectory for growth, but just think how much faster it would happen, if all of these disparate pieces were brought together.




Website to address idea of Millcreek city

Incorporation » Salt Lake County consultant aims to distribute neutral information.

By Mike Gorrell, The Salt Lake Tribune

Remain an unincorporated township or become a city?

To help Millcreek residents answer that question on the Nov. 6 ballot, Salt Lake County has retained an outside consultant to create a website and produce mailers that will provide information and perspectives about the incorporation proposal.

And to ensure those materials are factual and balanced, the county has brought in an incorporation supporter (Jeff Silvestrini of the Future of Millcreek Association) and an opponent (Tom Love of Protect and Preserve Our Millcreek Township) to aid the consultant, Redirect Digital and Direct Marketing, in assembling the information.

Their work is coming to fruition. The website — www.millcreekballot.com — is scheduled to debut the week after Labor Day...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54760131-78/county-millcreek-township-lake.html.csp

At a glance—

Millcreek city?

Salt Lake County’s largest township, stretching from the Jordan River to the Wasatch Mountains, Millcreek has about:

» 63,533 residents

» 27,000 households

» 42 square miles of land

» Taxable value of $4 billion, 34 percent of unincorporated county

Source » Feasibility Study for the Millcreek Township Incorporation (2011)

.

[Future Mayor]

It's not simply a matter of Salt Lake City being more aggressive, they can be as aggresive as they want and without the residents approving annexation into SLC it would never happen.

There are rules regarding annexation, SLC would have to get 51% of the property owners (acerage) to sign the annexation petition and that has to also include 33% of the value of the entire annexation area.

I worked on several annexation during my time in Payson, and those were very minimal in size compared to Millcreek, and it took a lot of time to get in front of each property owner and explain to them the taxing differences and answer a multitude of question. There were of course different circumstances regarding those annexations than there would be for this area, such as agricultural land, and water rights, but none the less it would take city staff a long time to make it happen.

[delts145]

I think a simple word for what you just described would be aggressive. Look, I have no dillusions that it's going to happen at this late date. The time for that opportunity is long gone, and politically speaking, I don't think there's much of an incentive. Hopefully, Salt Lake's future for development upward will cause it be far less stagnate with it's population growth than it has been for the last several decades.

Tell me, I know this has been discussed in the distant past, but I don't remember the figures. Including and also excluding the northwest quandrant, what is SLC's buildout projection? Are there parts out West that are empty and are yet unclaimed county, that SLC has a border access to?

[Stenar]

I agree wholeheartedly. We need to stop these piecemeal fiefdoms of little cities in the county for one thing. And for the other, I've always wished SLC would incorporate Millcreek and especially Olympus Cove.

The city could be aggressive by conducting a study which showed that their would be benefits by being a part of the city and mailing out notices of said study to residents in this area, do a lot of PR to get it on every tv news program, in every newspaper, etc. There are a lot of things SLC could do to be aggressive about this.

Originally Posted by delts145

I put this on the Salt Lake City Thread, because I always have and will continue to think of my former neighborhood as part of Salt Lake City. I just wish Salt Lake was a little more aggressive about incorporating, especially South Salt Lake. I realize that Salt Lake proper is now on a trajectory for growth, but just think how much faster it would happen, if all of these disparate pieces were brought together.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I agree wholeheartedly. We need to stop these piecemeal fiefdoms of little cities in the county for one thing. And for the other, I've always wished SLC would incorporate Millcreek and especially Olympus Cove.

The city could be aggressive by conducting a study which showed that their would be benefits by being a part of the city and mailing out notices of said study to residents in this area, do a lot of PR to get it on every tv news program, in every newspaper, etc. There are a lot of things SLC could do to be aggressive about this.

The question needs to be asked, does the city and it's leaders want to annex that area?

We as residents may want the city to do so, but the city may not want the added expenses. Purchasing of facilites now owned by the unified fire and police, purchasing county library branches, having to increase the police force and firemen, additional council members, increased street maintanance, garbage service. I have no idea if the city has done a cost benefit analysis, but I would assume that at some point they have.

I don't have a problem with these areas incorporating, it simply allows them to have more control over what happens in their neighborhoods, and I don't see that as a problem. I would assume they will stick with Unified Police, unlike Cottonwood Heights who choose to have their own.