Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3 - Page 305

RC14 · #**6081** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPdesign

UTPlanner is Right! wow. it looks so nice too. I can't wait. Or maybe I can just to see if they'll add a few more floors. lol

except for Height, I think I like it more than the 111

http://www.dixonslc.com/?section=office

I would be very happy if they increase the hight to 20+ floors.
It's only 2 more.
...but, I'm very happy to hear about 18. This could turn out to be a great
decade for high rise construction in SLC.

tygr · #**6082** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 8:49 PM**

Salt Lake City will always be considered "smaller" because of the fact they didn't go "annexation crazy" (for useable land) like other cities did.

Another thing that uniquely affects our population density is a good portion includes undevelopable land (government owned, terrain, etc.). Salt Lake City's useable land is probably closer to 60 sq mi; geographically much smaller than most other cities (which, if adjusted, would nearly double its density).

Some comparisons: (listed in order of a city's square miles)

Los Angeles: 469 sq mi, pop. density 8,225/sq mi
MSA: 4,850 sq mi, pop. density 2,645/sq mi

New York City: 302.64 sq mi, pop. density 27,550/sq mi
MSA: 13,318 sq mi, pop. density 1,876/sq mi

Chicago: 234.0 sq mi, pop. density 11,864/sq mi
MSA: 10,874 sq mi, pop. density 1,318/sq mi

Denver: 154.9 sq mi, pop. density 4,044/sq mi
MSA: 8,414.4 sq mi, pop. density 314/sq mi

Las Vegas: 135 sq mi, pop. density 4,298/sq mi
MSA: 7,910 sq mi, pop. density 247/sq mi

Philadelphia: 134 sq mi, pop. density 11,379/sq mi
MSA: 5,118 sq mi, pop density 1,138/sq.mi

Salt Lake City: 110 sq mi, pop. density 1,666/sq mi
MSA: 9,555 sq mi, pop. density 119/sq mi
SL County: 742 sq mi, pop. density 1,396/sq mi

Boston: 90 sq mi, pop. density 12,900/sq mi
MSA: 4,674 sq mi, pop. density 947/sq mi

Washington DC: 68 sq mi, pop. density 10,528/sq mi
MSA: 5,564 sq mi, pop. density 963/sq mi

As you know, the Salt Lake MSA includes Salt Lake, Tooele and Summit counties—the latter two being geographically much larger, very rural, and mostly government owned. Our MSA will NEVER reach the density of other MSAs for this very reason.

I wonder what Utah's density would be if we excluded ALL of the government owned land in the state—since it will never be possible for it to be developed.

As you can see, it's possible to tweak any statistic to skew numbers into your favor.

On another note:

Las Vegas is only as big as it is because of ONE industry—🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. Take that away and it would be comparable to Barstow—or smaller. The tourist and convention industry would not exist as it is. If for some reason, Las Vegas were to lose 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, without question the valley would become the largest ghost town that ever existed.

What other city in the world has created such a size, and continues to exist because of only one industry?

SLC Projects · #**6083** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 9:23 PM**

EPdesign · #**6084** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 9:43 PM**

Just make it 20 stories. It's only two more floors. Just two. :-)

arkhitektor · #**6085** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tygr

What other city in the world has created such a size, and continues to exist because of only one industry?

Detroit? ....nevermind.

Stenar · #**6086** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 10:04 PM**

A major city doesn't have to be near another city to be a major city. Mexico City is one of the largest cities on earth, but it's not coexisting with other larger cities.
The entire Western United States is very spread out, that has nothing to do with the size or quality of the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brankrom

By what criteria? SLC == Boston? Philly? Boston has 3 times the population. PHI has 1.5 mil. I get it, hometown pride and all that, but SLC a "major" city? Really?

SLC is a regional center in region of nothing, it is here because those that initially settled wanted isolation. SLC has a good tourism industry, positive economic outlook, and that's about it. It's not just about population, but other cities and MSAs coexist with other larger cities and MSAs. SLC is on its own and no where near a major and relevant as any of the other cites you grouped with SLC. Outside of Utah, right or wrong, Utah is still perceived as a back woods, colloquial region ruled by Mormons.

Stenar · #**6087** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

...
Midsize: Austin, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, San Jose, Raleigh, Tampa, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Oakland.....etc.....

Austin ranked second safest major city in the U.S. | kvue.com Austin
www.kvue.com/.../Crime-stats-reveal-positive-and-negative-trends-2261...‎
Oct 2, 2013 - The FBI's Unified Crime Report found that Austin is actually the second safest major city in the U.S. It's an improvement over 2011's rank of third.

wrendog · #**6088** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 10:52 PM**

Photoshop time! Someone add the new state street tower to the skyline!

ToysNoiz · #**6089** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tygr

Salt Lake City will always be considered "smaller" because of the fact they didn't go "annexation crazy" (for useable land) like other cities did.

Another thing that uniquely affects our population density is a good portion includes undevelopable land (government owned, terrain, etc.). Salt Lake City's useable land is probably closer to 60 sq mi; geographically much smaller than most other cities (which, if adjusted, would nearly double its density).

Some comparisons: (listed in order of a city's square miles)

Los Angeles: 469 sq mi, pop. density 8,225/sq mi
MSA: 4,850 sq mi, pop. density 2,645/sq mi

New York City: 302.64 sq mi, pop. density 27,550/sq mi
MSA: 13,318 sq mi, pop. density 1,876/sq mi

Chicago: 234.0 sq mi, pop. density 11,864/sq mi
MSA: 10,874 sq mi, pop. density 1,318/sq mi

Denver: 154.9 sq mi, pop. density 4,044/sq mi
MSA: 8,414.4 sq mi, pop. density 314/sq mi

Las Vegas: 135 sq mi, pop. density 4,298/sq mi
MSA: 7,910 sq mi, pop. density 247/sq mi

Philadelphia: 134 sq mi, pop. density 11,379/sq mi
MSA: 5,118 sq mi, pop density 1,138/sq.mi

Salt Lake City: 110 sq mi, pop. density 1,666/sq mi
MSA: 9,555 sq mi, pop. density 119/sq mi
SL County: 742 sq mi, pop. density 1,396/sq mi

Boston: 90 sq mi, pop. density 12,900/sq mi
MSA: 4,674 sq mi, pop. density 947/sq mi

Washington DC: 68 sq mi, pop. density 10,528/sq mi
MSA: 5,564 sq mi, pop. density 963/sq mi

As you know, the Salt Lake MSA includes Salt Lake, Tooele and Summit counties—the latter two being geographically much larger, very rural, and mostly government owned. Our MSA will NEVER reach the density of other MSAs for this very reason.

I wonder what Utah's density would be if we excluded ALL of the government owned land in the state—since it will never be possible for it to be developed.

Hell, I should write up something to the state to exclude government land from the MSA. When I look at a map of our MSA, I see tiny Salt Lake county, and then huge Tooele and Summit counties grouped in. "Population density 1,666 per square mile" makes SLC sound unfairly small.

ToysNoiz · #**6090** Posted **Jan 16, 2014, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

Photoshop time! Someone add the new state street tower to the skyline!

Will do.

Plaid Shirts · #**6091** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 3:50 AM**

It's a damn shame that over time, older style buildings have been torn down in SLC to either be replaced with a new building or those awful parking lots.

Can you imagine what SLC's downtown would be like if it still had all of those old style buildings? I think it would be really cool and feel very dense. Kind of like Portland, OR. I also think that there needs to be a lot more trees in downtown SLC.

Random thought...

ToysNoiz · #**6092** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 4:45 AM**

EPdesign · #**6093** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 5:49 AM**

ToysNoiz. That is freaking awesome. Do one with the 111 and 151 in it please :-D

RC14 · #**6094** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 6:20 AM**

I think it would be really cool if we can see tower cranes for these two towers, the CCH and the cascade in the skyline all at the same time.

ajiuO · #**6095** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 8:46 AM**

151 is one of the more exciting projects as far as I'm concerned. I have felt for years that the section of state street between 100s & 200s is the most boring part of down town.

I still wish they could get more density on the ground area between all of the building.. Maybe some retail space.. But this is much better then the huge gap that is there right now!

Hopefully the other side of the street comes together as well..

A few other things that I think would help that general area..
- The att building would be turned in to a department store.
- The southwest corner of 100s & state should be demolished and replaced with something more interesting... Possibly a high-rise.
- The northwest corner of 200s & State needs a high-rise.

Zionide · #**6096** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 9:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

Hell, I should write up something to the state to exclude government land from the MSA. When I look at a map of our MSA, I see tiny Salt Lake county, and then huge Tooele and Summit counties grouped in. "Population density 1,666 per square mile" makes SLC sound unfairly small.

The state doesn't determine MSAs; the feds do. And many people at the state, county, and city levels along the Wasatch Front have tried for many years to get the feds to make our MSA the major Wasatch Front counties (SL, Utah, Davis, and Weber), to no avail. Our MSA is absurd: the federal disaster plan for this area requires Summit, Tooele, and SL counties to share FEMA resources... because that's more efficient than letting Bountiful work with SLC?

brankrom · #**6097** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stenar

A major city doesn't have to be near another city to be a major city. Mexico City is one of the largest cities on earth, but it's not coexisting with other larger cities.
The entire Western United States is very spread out, that has nothing to do with the size or quality of the city.

I guess I haven't traveled south of the border, but I have travel around the US extensively and SLC is decidedly not a major city in line with Boston and Philadelphia which was the point. Mexico City is an ancient city predating anything else on the continent.

However I have often wondered why growth in SLC didn't match pace with Denver and the front range.

delts145 · #**6098** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 3:32 PM**

For much of the past 14 years the Wasatch Front has been outpacing the Front Range. Not by a lot, because both are experiencing top ten growth. Recent posted articles have pointed this out. That said, the Wasatch Front has some catching up to do to match Denver's post War II CSA growth. This catching up could happen though in our life time, in part due to the probable hyper growth of the Southern Metro. Right now the greater connected Denver CSA population sits at around 3-3.1 million, while the Wasatch Front sits at around 2.35 million. While this is still a gap, it's not nearly as big as it use to be.

It will be interesting to see how the current political turmoil and battles between Denver and it's State populace affects it's future growth. Many would say that Denver's pendulum is swinging too far in one direction. This next decade should be an interesting one for both The Wasatch and The Front Range.

I agree with the rest of you, I love that new proposed tower on State. Seems like Downtown Salt Lake is shaping up for a much faster pace of tower development this coming decade.

DCRes · #**6099** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 4:04 PM**

I think that the increased height of 151 will have the greatest skyline impact when looking at downtown from directly west. That is the angle where 'the gap' is most pronounced. 111 will help with the gap, but it is still on a corner so the gap will still be there. I was doubtful that we would ever get a midblock tower with enough height to fill in the gap, but this just might do it.

ToysNoiz, while we are putting in photoshop requests, could you do one from the west with 111 and 151?

Also, i think you put 111 in this picture a while back, could you put 151 in it also?

Comrade · #**6100** Posted **Jan 17, 2014, 5:57 PM**

Salt Lake City is a growing area with a bright future. But I think, beyond our borders, no one would compare it to the likes of Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia or other cities that have, recently, or in the recent past, been designated 'major U.S. cities'.

That doesn't mean you won't find a study or a ranking that clumps SLC in with, say, Denver, but on the whole, it's a tad much to compare us to 'em. Like I said in another post, comparing Denver to Salt Lake is like comparing Salt Lake to Boise. That's about the gap between us and them right now - though, like the gap between Boise and SLC, it's narrowing every year.

I still maintain Salt Lake is on the level of Memphis, Nashville, Charlotte, Austin and Portland than, say, San Francisco, Miami, Boston and Minneapolis.

BUT - if we are a major U.S. city, our skyline really 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for one.