Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[SLC Projects]

But the thing is the Suburbans are already in place. Wouldn't it be better to have those suburbans share the same city name ( Salt Lake City ) vs having dozens of names such as South Salt Lake, Cottonwood or Millcreek all over the map?
Just look at West Valley City, Utah's 2nd biggest city incorporated in 1980, but already has over 131,000 people living within city limits.

[DCRes]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

To answer somebody's earlier question about demolitions. In SLC, when applying to demolish a structure you must submit the request to demolish with a building permit for a new permitted use OR you can bond for the cost to landscape the entire site. In this case they submitted a building permit for a small office building at 360 S. West Temple.

When you say small office building, how small do you mean? If it's on the corner doesn't it have to be at least 100'? Or is it not going to be on the corner?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

But the thing is the Suburbans are already in place. Wouldn't it be better to have those suburbans share the same city name ( Salt Lake City ) vs having dozens of names such as South Salt Lake, Cottonwood or Millcreek all over the map?
Just look at West Valley City, Utah's 2nd biggest city incorporated in 1980, but already has over 131,000 people living within city limits.

It's not like West Valley was nothing prior to 1980. It was two already developed areas (Granger and Hunter - and a handful of other areas) before being incorporated. WVC had a population of 72,299 at the time of incorporation, which automatically made it the second largest city in the valley.

Even so, as I mentioned, their growth has cooled compared to where it was in the 80s after incorporation and the 90s. It's not like there is limitless land in WVC - like SLC, they too are running out of area to build.

Do we really want to suburbanize Salt Lake just to make it bigger?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I'm sorry, but that is simply ignorant research by Lego and American Girl, to simply look at the city population rather than the msa population.

As for corporate expansion and relocation decisions, they are much more thorough in their research, they always look at the entire region when making those decisions.

So while SLC may not get a retail store as soon as we'd like, the things that will truly grow the economy and the population are new occupational type jobs, corporate jobs, such as Goldman Saks.

I wouldn't have an issue with SLC pursuing the annexation of the Millcreek area, but I wouldn't put it as a priority by any means. Just because you type it on here and say that it makes sense to annex Millcreek, doesn't make it the case. The city on the other hand, the ones who would either pursue or accept an annexation petition are the only ones that know exactly how the numbers work. So we can speculate all we want about there would be this much more money and this much more population, and "there is no way it would not be beneficial to the city" We don't know that! I would venture to guess that it has been looked at in the past.

I like Comrades point, do we really want to suburbanize SLC just to increase the population? I don't.

Do we even know if residents of Millcreek want to be incorporated into Salt Lake?

[SLC Projects]

Why can't Salt Lake City do both? Both annexation and grow naturally. I'm sorry but just growing naturally when Salt Lake City only adds about 6,000-10,000 new residents every 10 years is taking too long. Not even the mass Mormon breeding can help us grow any faster then what we have already.

Just look at Oklahoma City. They annex the crap out of every city or town around them. Their population?.....City: 596,742 Metro: 1,308,123. 596,742 is about the size of Utah county. Then there's us.....Salt Lake City: 189,899 Metro: 1,145,905. Point?, Our metro and OKC's metros are not that far apart, however OKC is a heck a lot bigger then Salt Lake City. Hell even Boise, oh little brother has MORE people living in their city limits then Salt Lake. Boise: 210,145 Metro: 616,561. Their metro is tiny compare to ours, but again we come out as the smaller city.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by DCRes

When you say small office building, how small do you mean? If it's on the corner doesn't it have to be at least 100'? Or is it not going to be on the corner?

This location isn't on the corner, it is to the north of the auto repair shop. Since it isn't on the corner, expect a building of 100' or less as it sounds like they didn't request a conditional use waiver to exceed the height over the current mid-block zoning levels.

[Makid]

If we look at available land in the SL Valley already within city limits we end up with the following population growth estimates:

Sandy: 10,000
West Jordan: 15,000
South Jordan: 45,000
Draper: 15,000
Riverton: 15,000
Herriman: 25,000
Bluffdale: 10,000
West Valley: 10,000
Salt Lake City: 50,000
Unincorporated: 55,000

The above are estimates only based on single family detached housing or current zoning plans. This also doesn't count the land that may be available following a prison relocation.

Salt Lake City has nearly the most available for growth and it is all within the Northwest Quadrant.

Salt Lake City will also gain more residents within the current developed area as it is adding density with more apartment and condo projects.

At times, I do understand the desire to really allow Salt Lake to be represented correctly for its impact on the area as well as the state. Yet, if you take the other view point, think about how many people are shocked at the amazing rail transportation and ridership numbers that we have with just a small city.

Instantly adding 50,000 or more residents won't change perceptions nationally. It won't even change anything locally other than potential politics changes.

For Salt Lake to maintain their standards, I think it is best to grow the population organically over time than in an annexation process.

I think that the population of SLC is beginning to grow and will probably begin growing even faster as people want to live in a more urban environment where they don't need to drive everywhere.

While in the past the population of SLC may have grown slowly, I do feel that we are nearing the point where we may see a good 15,000 increase in population from 2010 to 2020 and if the trend continues, I would expect another 15,000 to 30,000 increase between 2020 and 2030.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Why can't Salt Lake City do both? Both annexation and grow naturally. I'm sorry but just growing naturally when Salt Lake City only adds about 6,000-10,000 new residents every 10 years is taking too long. Not even the mass Mormon breeding can help us grow any faster then what we have already.

Just look at Oklahoma City. They annex the crap out of every city or town around them. Their population?.....City: 596,742 Metro: 1,308,123. 596,742 is about the size of Utah county. Then there's us.....Salt Lake City: 189,899 Metro: 1,145,905. Point?, Our metro and OKC's metros are not that far apart, however OKC is a heck a lot bigger then Salt Lake City. Hell even Boise, oh little brother has MORE people living in their city limits then Salt Lake. Boise: 210,145 Metro: 616,561. Their metro is tiny compare to ours, but again we come out as the smaller city.

I don't want to live in a sprawling, suburban city. That's reason enough for me.

You know, I don't care if Boise has more people in its city limits. That example furthers my point - it doesn't make their city on the level of Salt Lake. They're not considered bigger than Salt Lake and inflating our numbers solely by annexing wouldn't mean we're really as big as, say, San Francisco or Boston or other cities our population would match.

I really don't think I've ever met a single person who thinks Boise is bigger than Salt Lake.

[Comrade]

I'll say one thing supportive about annexing - I wouldn't mind Salt Lake annexing the area between 900 East to 2000 East and south down to 3300 South - not because it adds to the population, but because it rounds out the city limits (especially when you consider Brickyard is technically Salt Lake City, even though the area surrounding it is mostly unincorporated Salt Lake).

This is what I mean:

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

I don't want to live in a sprawling, suburban city. That's reason enough for me.

But that's just it, you already do. Once you pass 600 S. 200 E. North Temple and about 500 W. You ARE in a suburban. Our little downtown bobble really isn't that big to begin with. About 90% of Salt Lake City IS a suburban where you need a car to get to places. Sure there's little districts like 9th and 9th and Sugar house beyond downtown, but again, even as our biggest city that has the most Urban living in the state, Salt Lake City still has the "Sprawl" of any other city overall.

So why would it make THAT much of a difference if Salt Lake were in annex say South Salt Lake or North Salt Lake? Does Salt Lake City at about 2000 South have any more to offer to the city then South Salt Lake at 2200 South? Really once you leave downtown heading south after passing 700 South all the streets look about the same.

So with that said doesn't it seem kind of silly to have all these little towns and cities that have only around 30,000 to 50,000 residents living in them all over the map? I mean really?....There's a EAST Millcreek? Didn't even know Millcreek had a "EAST". Really once a town or city has to put a "East" "West" "South" or "North" to it's name then maybe it's time to join together with the bigger city that's next to you. The same goes to "South" and "West" Jordan. Can't we just have one "Jordan" city?

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

I really don't think I've ever met a single person who thinks Boise is bigger than Salt Lake.

That's the point, people don't, so isn't it surprising that a city as small as Boise already has over 200,000 residents while here in Salt Lake we have been dreaming of hitting the big 200,000 for how long now? Embarrassing might not be the best word to use, but it is kind of embarrassing if you really think about it.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Makid

While in the past the population of SLC may have grown slowly, I do feel that we are nearing the point where we may see a good 15,000 increase in population from 2010 to 2020 and if the trend continues, I would expect another 15,000 to 30,000 increase between 2020 and 2030.

45,000 new residents in 20 years?

or

45,000+ new residents in a year or two?

South Salt Lake: 23,617
North Salt Lake: 16,322
Millcreek: 62,139 ( Millcreek alone would surpass what it could take 20 years of growing naturally )

While I do agree that we are seeing a housing building boom in downtown right now that will really help the city grow, not really sure that I want to wait another 20 years to see Salt Lake reach 235,000 or so residents. And that's in the city's best case scenario.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

But that's just it, you already do. Once you pass 600 S. 200 E. North Temple and about 500 W. You ARE in a suburban. Our little downtown bobble really isn't that big to begin with. About 90% of Salt Lake City IS a suburban where you need a car to get to places. Sure there's little districts like 9th and 9th and Sugar house beyond downtown, but again, even as our biggest city that has the most Urban living in the state, Salt Lake City still has the "Sprawl" of any other city overall.

So why would it make THAT much of a difference if Salt Lake were in annex say South Salt Lake or North Salt Lake? Does Salt Lake City at about 2000 South have any more to offer to the city then South Salt Lake at 2200 South? Really once you leave downtown heading south after passing 700 South all the streets look about the same.

I think you're confused by the definition of suburban. The comparisons you're trying to make are certainly not there. To suggest Millcreek is just as dense and walkable as Central City is ridiculous and invalidates much of what you're trying to say.

Yes, the southern end of Salt Lake City, around 2700 S, the area most associated with the borders of the city, resemble the Millcreek area. But that is only a sliver of the city's area and only resembles that way because it was developed roughly around the same time (the 40s and 50s).

That's the difference and something that you clearly aren't seeing. It makes me wonder if you even venture into the city's neighborhoods to suggest there isn't any difference between developments.

Salt Lake's grid doesn't exist at nearly the same level in Millcreek as it even does at the southern most edge of the city's borders and that means most neighborhoods are strictly subdivisions, even if they're older than what we consider subdivisions today, with limited connection to main arterial streets. Even in my neighborhood, which is not far from the city's borders, my street is still connected to a major avenue and it's not lost in a maze of other residential streets.

You can pretend that Millcreek looks exactly like every other neighborhood in SLC, sans downtown, but you wouldn't be taken seriously. Millcreek is nice - it's nicer than a lot of suburbs - but it's far more suburban than most of Salt Lake City. Which shouldn't be a surprise, considering it was developed ... as a suburb!

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

I think you're confused by the definition of suburban. The comparisons you're trying to make are certainly not there. To suggest Millcreek is just as dense and walkable as Central City is ridiculous and invalidates much of what you're trying to say.

HUH? I never did suggest that Millcreek was just as dense and walkable as the central city. Millcreek is just as much as a suburban as the other areas I brought up. That was the point. I'm not confused about anything, since I clearly do know the definition of the word "Suburban"
Your issue is that you believe that anything past 2100 South isn't good enough to be apart of Salt Lake City just because of Suburban neighborhoods. THAT'S ridiculous. Every major city in this country has parts that are suburbs. Rather we develop further west or just annex further south you'd most likely will end up with just as much suburbs in the end unless we see maybe a daybreak type of development somewhere near the airport.
I've seen plenty of neighborhoods in Salt Lake from different eras that yes some are walkable, but plenty are not. I already brought up that Salt Lake does have pockets of more urban dense neighborhoods such as Sugarhouse, the Avenues, 9th and 9th, but.....I still see plenty of big box retail strip malls, gas stations, car dealerships ( even have some of those downtown.) and other none urban developments though out Salt Lake City that if I didn't know better I couldn't tell if I was in Salt Lake or Draper. That's my point.
I see nothing wrong with annexing other suburban cities. Once these cities are apart of Salt Lake City, we could raise the standers on a lot of these areas for future development. Just think how much an area could benefit with having Mayor Becker who is a very Urban kind guy as their mayor also.
Again I see much more good out of this then bad.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

HUH? I never did suggest that Millcreek was just as dense and walkable as the central city. Millcreek is just as much as a suburban as the other areas I brought up. That was the point. I'm not confused about anything, since I clearly do know the definition of the word "Suburban"
Your issue is that you believe that anything past 2100 South isn't good enough to be apart of Salt Lake City just because of Suburban neighborhoods. THAT'S ridiculous. Every major city in this country has parts that are suburbs. Rather we develop further west or just annex further south you'd most likely will end up with just as much suburbs in the end unless we see maybe a daybreak type of development somewhere near the airport.
I've seen plenty of neighborhoods in Salt Lake from different eras that yes some are walkable, but plenty are not. I already brought up that Salt Lake does have pockets of more urban dense neighborhoods such as Sugarhouse, the Avenues, 9th and 9th, but.....I still see plenty of big box retail strip malls, gas stations, car dealerships ( even have some of those downtown.) and other none urban developments though out Salt Lake City that if I didn't know better I couldn't tell if I was in Salt Lake or Draper. That's my point.
I see nothing wrong with annexing other suburban cities. Once these cities are apart of Salt Lake City, we could raise the standers on a lot of these areas for future development. Just think how much an area could benefit with having Mayor Becker who is a very Urban kind guy as their mayor also.
Again I see much more good out of this then bad.

This is what you said:

But that's just it, you already do. Once you pass 600 S. 200 E. North Temple and about 500 W. You ARE in a suburban.

I don't think anything south or east of that is suburban. It's not New York-style urban - but it's certainly on the level of what you get in Denver, Portland and other non-major cities.

That's the point.

But beyond that, SLC already has enough area in its city proper that is suburban (no, not the area you suggested - I'm thinking the far-west, above the Avenues and to the east of Foothill)...I don't want to add more.

So, your point pretty much supports everything I said - the city should focus on developing the more suburban areas in its proper before expanding to include Millcreek and North Salt Lake. You know, the latter isn't even in the same county, right?

I do not want SLC to be more suburban than it is already. The addition of Millcreek and North Salt Lake, even more than So. Salt Lake, will do that. They're not small areas - they're not pockets of the city. They would be major neighborhoods that deviate from the Salt Lake grid (not so much South Salt Lake) and have no substantial retail center (does North Salt Lake even have a downtown?).

Frankly, I don't even know why you're clumping North Salt Lake in with Millcreek. That even makes less sense considering it's in Davis County, and not even really considered a suburb of Salt Lake (it has more in common with Bountiful than Salt Lake).

[downtownslcresident]

comrade, to be honest with you, you're driving me crazy...mostly because your arguments are obnoxious and make no sense.


Re-drawing the city lines does not change anything as it is currently at all, except perhaps the politics of the city, as has already been stated, and then SLC has more to show for its actual population.

Millcreek will still be right where it is, exactly how it is, whether it is called Salt Lake City, or its called Millcreek. Just because the area is called something different and is managed by a different set of government doesnt make the actual Salt Lake City proper any more "urban" that it would be if both areas were managed by the same government.

I guess thats the best way for me to phrase it.

i dont post often, because i just like to get on here and read what you guys all have to say. but i do get on here daily....but i couldnt just sit here and keep reading the same stupid argument by comrade....no offense.

but really...sometimes the things that people getting into these fits about on this thread are ridiculous.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

I don't think anything south or east of that is suburban. It's not New York-style urban - but it's certainly on the level of what you get in Denver, Portland and other non-major cities.

There's no way Central City is anywhere near as dense as Portland.

[Comrade]

My argument is perfectly valid. By your logic, nothing would change if Salt Lake annexed the entire Wasatch Front.

You guys still haven't provided any substantive argument on what Millcreek brings to the city - except the addition of more people. That doesn't hold water with me, because it's a superficial number and it's superficial solely because it can be manipulated through annexing. If tomorrow, Provo, Utah announced it was merging with all of Utah County - thus becoming the largest city in the state - would the dynamics of that area really change all that much? Would any of you instantly perceive Provo as the most influential city in the state because of its size?

Of course not. Anyone who thinks city population carries that much weight is just being silly. There is no point to annex Millcreek and you know how I know this? Because all your arguments basically boil down to one idea - it grows the population.

But that's not a reason. Does anyone really consider Indianapolis one of the largest cities in America? By population, at least city population, it's bigger than San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Baltimore and Washington. But only a fool would look at that and say it fit the definition of a major U.S. city. It's not. It's a city viewed roughly at the same level of little ol' Salt Lake City.

So, you might find it obnoxious, but guess what, I find the arguments you guys are pushing not only obnoxious, but naive - as if the only thing keeping SLC back is the fact they haven't annexed the hell out of their neighbors. It's ridiculous.

And again, it comes back around to the point you so easily ignore - what the hell does Millcreek bring to the area that Salt Lake already doesn't have?

More people! That's about it!

The problem is that the whole argument in support of Millcreek doesn't get beyond their current population.

1) Millcreek is already a fairly established and built-up area of the valley. Much of their growth has already existed and they only saw an increase when the entire area consolidated into the Millcreek Township - an area that includes Canyon Rim, East Millcreek, Millcreek and Mount Olympus. So, right off the bat, we're looking at a situation that Salt Lake is already seeing - namely, there isn't much space to do much of anything. Worse, Millcreek is established in a way where future, diverse and walkable development will be tough to create. All you have to do is look at a map of Millcreek to get an idea of what I'm talking about:



That's why I bring up the idea of it being suburban - because Salt Lake has enough areas in its city that are suburban without the addition of Millcreek.

2) What value, outside more residents, does Millcreek bring to the city? This is something you're all ignoring. I keep hearing it'll boost Salt Lake's population - but I'm sorry, that ain't doing it for me. At least South Salt Lake has the entire State Street development and Holladay has the old Cottonwood Mall site - there is literally hardly any open area for major redevelopment in Millcreek. There is no commercial center - the eastern side of Highland Drive, throughout a huge portion of the city, is already located in Holladay and it's not like the area over by the freeway is going to change anytime soon.

3) I asked this before, but it was ignored - but what makes you think people in Millcreek even want to live in Salt Lake City? I don't see them clamoring to be annexed into the city and they certainly haven't over the years. So, don't you think that you kinda need to find out if they want to be annexed into the city before you, you know, push your own stupid arguments? Unless you guys like shouting at the rain.

4) What makes you think the leaders of Salt Lake want Millcreek? The city could have annexed it the last couple decades and they haven't. Why? You call my arguments stupid - and yet, there has to be a reason the city isn't interested in annexing Millcreek. Do you think that reason is stupid too? Do you even think most Salt Lakers would want Millcreek annexed into the city?

What I know is that this is a debate that has divided the area. You're blind if you think it's as easy as any of you are making it out to be because it's assuming a lot of things we don't know - like whether Salt Lake wants to annex Millcreek or even Millcreek residents want to be annexed into the city. That's the irony in your comment. You call me obnoxious and you guys are advocating for something in the most simplistic way possible.

That's what is obnoxious. You're treating this whole entire debate like it's a formality - from Salt Lake even wanting to annex Millcreek, to Millcreek residents wanting to be annexed and it benefiting the city beyond our wildest dreams.

I mean, there is already a website up protesting any potential poaching of Millcreek by Salt Lake. http://futureofmillcreek.org/

Who knows where anyone stands on this issue - but it's not nearly as simple as you, or Projects, is making it out to be. It's not as simple as Salt Lake just waking up tomorrow and deciding to annex Millcreek and voila! It's a complicated issue that would require studies by the city to see if it is beneficial to annex the area.

You know, I highly doubt Mayor Becker is sitting at his computer reading this thread and thinking, "gosh, they're absolutely right! Let's annex!"

So, let's stop with the bullshit and get real for a second. This is a complicated issue. If you don't agree with me, fine, but don't act as if this is a no-brainer. If it was a no-brainer, it would've been done long ago. There is a reason Salt Lake hasn't expanded its borders all these years and it's not just because past leaders have been incompetent.

Mayor Becker said last month the city was not looking to annex. This isn't just a one-sided decision here. Millcreek would still have to vote to be annexed into Salt Lake and then Salt Lake would have to approve that move - so far, there has been little evidence, outside a petition (that anyone can do) that there is any movement on Millcreek's side. And that's where the movement will have to begin - not from Salt Lake's end.

So, if you're that adamant about Millcreek being annexed into the city, go to Millcreek, get that petition going and then see where it goes. But this argument, pretending it's a formality, does nothing to advance anything except to make for long-winded rants like this one.

If Millcreek residents wanted to be in Salt Lake, they would take the steps. So far, it appears the only movement is coming from residents wanting to be annexed into Holladay - not Salt Lake.

Why?

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Stenar

There's no way Central City is anywhere near as dense as Portland.

I guess it depends on what area of Portland you're looking at. Certainly their residential neighborhoods aren't THAT much denser than Salt Lake - since most of Portland remains single-family detached housing. I'd agree the downtown area is by far more dense, but that's because they've had a leg up on development and Salt Lake still lags behind. But from my travels, staying in a central Portland neighborhood (the area just east of the Rose Quarters), its development was similar to the area around Liberty Park.

[Comrade]

This annexing debate has been going on since the 1980s (and apparently, SLC did expand in the 80s - to include the Northwest Quadrant. So...)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=33...AAIBAJ&sjid=W4MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6930,5156857

Anyone know what "Lake Valley City" was?

[Comrade]

Okay. I found the proposed Lake Valley City. It was a proposed city of 217,000 people and would have stretched from Magna, Kearns and Herriman all the way to Holladay and Olympus Cove.

Oh man. With how upset some of you get with SLC's population, I couldn't imagine how you'd all handle Lake Valley City - which, by today, would be pushing at least 400,000 people!

You can see the map here:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EUAjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=W4MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6154%2C1159920

That would've been a disjointed mess. Kearns and Holladay in the same city? Yikes.