Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[rds70]

Originally Posted by delts145

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 don't usually post in the Salt Lake thread, but I thought I would try to add some facts. While I didn't research back 14 years, I did compare CSA growth from 2010-2012 for Denver and SLC. 2012 is the latest data available from the Census Bureau. During that time The Denver CSA grew by 4%, while the SLC CSA grew by 3.45%. So, Denver is still outpacing Salt Lake in growth.

Don't get me wrong, I love Salt Lake and have lived there twice in my life, but facts are facts.

Also, I'm not sure what political turmoil you are talking about. Is it about the rural vote not liking liberal metro Denver? If so, that was trumped up by a few politicians and is not a widespread belief. Look at the votes for secession last year. Only two counties voted for it, with only about 10,000 people in those counties combined.

When it comes to economic development however, everyone in the state knows that Denver is where the money comes from and to a large extent where the jobs go. Every politician is on the same page about supporting Denver's economic growth.

BTW, I really like the design of 151 S State. I hope it gets built.

[Stenar]

Chicago is another city that is not coexisting with other cities. St. Louis and Indianapolis are pretty far, at least ⅔ the distance of Denver and SLC.

Originally Posted by brankrom

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.

[Stenar]

2.35m compared to Denver's 3.1m is not that big of a difference.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

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.

[tygr]

I've created a spreadsheet comparison of how we rank based on government defined metro areas. I've included metro populations, metro areas (square miles of land), and metro densities (P/A=D).

There are three pages to the PDF below; 1. rank by population, 2. rank by area, and 3. rank by density. I've created two "mock" metros based on different geographical boundaries.

• Salt Lake (includes Salt Lake MSA, Ogden-Clearfield MSA, Provo-Orem MSA, Heber Micro; this is what the government views as our "metro.")
• Wasatch Front (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah counties)
• Wasatch Front Adjusted (estimated based on removing primarily undevelopable land—federal ownership, mountainous, etc.)

PDF—Metros of the United States

Because "Salt Lake" is defined as it is, our density places us at #49 of the 50 (only Las Vegas has lower density) largest metros due to having the fourth largest amount of land in our metro area; below Las Vegas, Inland Empire (Riverside, Calif.) and Sacramento.

If "Wasatch Front" was our defined metro, we consistently fall at #35 in population, #34 in area, and #29 in density; not much of a change.

If "Wasatch Front Adjusted" was our defined metro, we come in at #5 below Boston and Washington and above Philidelphia and Detroit.

This shows the disadvantage states have where metro areas contain extremely high amounts of federally controlled land).

Now, only if we can get the government to redefine our metro area... or, at least get companies to quit glossing over us because we're "too small of a market."

[EPdesign]

What I would also like to see Downtown, are buildings that aren't just N,S,E,W. Put two at and Angle.

[ctobsl]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

What I would also like to see Downtown, are buildings that aren't just N,S,E,W. Put two at and Angle.

I agree...!

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by tygr

If "Wasatch Front Adjusted" was our defined metro, we come in at #5 below Boston and Washington and above Philidelphia and Detroit.

This shows the disadvantage states have where metro areas contain extremely high amounts of federally controlled land).

Now, only if we can get the government to redefine our metro area... or, at least get companies to quit glossing over us because we're "too small of a market."

I was up last night trying to sort this out. I'm glad you did, you went much farther and explained it far better than I would have. #5 is pretty impressive. I didn't think we'd rank that high. Let's get this Wasatch Front metro done so we don't keep getting glossed over and mocked.

NOW!

[Plaid Shirts]

Some of you are insane, and have no idea what you're talking about. I'll clarify for everyone...

Again, the way I look at city rankings, like I said, are by tourism, airport system, and business HQ. But I think the biggest factor is the tourism and the way the city is known around the world.

Some of you have stated that Vegas and Seattle do not belong high up on city rankings. I have been around the world and work and study within the travel industry to know that Vegas is a booming tourist city that captures a ton of national and international traffic. Just look at the Las Vegas McCarran Airport. They have non-stop flights to places like Switzerland, France, South Korea, Canada, Panama, Germany, U.K., Mexico, Netherlands, etc. Las Vegas is one of the most known and popular places around the world. I'm not calling anyone out, but if you were to step outside of the Utah bubble, you would see and understand how popular Vegas is to people across the U.S. and the world.

As for Seattle, they are experiencing a boom in international tourism, especially from the Chinese. Seattle's airport has non-stop flights to places such as Dubai, France, Hong Kong, South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Iceland, Mexico, Canada, Germany, U.K., Netherlands, etc. Seattle is one of the most modern, hip, and beautiful cities in the U.S.

Some of the companies headquartered in Seattle are one's that are known around the world... Starbucks, Safeco, Amazon, R.E.I., Nordstrom, Costco, Top Pot, Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, T-Mobile USA, Tommy Bahama, Seattle's Best Coffee, Zumiez, RealNetworks, Boeing (Chicago HQ, but big presence is Seattle area still), etc.

Seattle has a MLB and NFL team. Also their MLS team, Sounders FC, is worth more than half of the NHL teams. Also you have UW that is just north of downtown. How many big major cities can say they have a major university in their city? Only a few...Atlanta (Georgia Tech), Los Angeles (UCLA & USC), and Miami (The U) come to mind.

So when you take into account tourism, airport system, and business HQ's, that's why I put Seattle and Vegas in the same rankings such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, DC, Boston, San Francisco, and Miami.

Salt Lake City is the HQ's for Zion's Bank and the Mormon Church, as far as known businesses/organizations go. SLC does have the seasonal skiing tourism industry. But again, SLC is with cities like Austin, Raleigh, & Sacramento.

New York, Chicago, and LA are in their own league, no debating that.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

Some of you are insane, and have no idea what you're talking about. I'll clarify for everyone...

Again, the way I look at city rankings, like I said, are by tourism, airport system, and business HQ. But I think the biggest factor is the tourism and the way the city is known around the world.

Some of you have stated that Vegas and Seattle do not belong high up on city rankings. I have been around the world and work and study within the travel industry to know that Vegas is a booming tourist city that captures a ton of national and international traffic. Just look at the Las Vegas McCarran Airport. They have non-stop flights to places like Switzerland, France, South Korea, Canada, Panama, Germany, U.K., Mexico, Netherlands, etc. Las Vegas is one of the most known and popular places around the world. I'm not calling anyone out, but if you were to step outside of the Utah bubble, you would see and understand how popular Vegas is to people across the U.S. and the world.

As for Seattle, they are experiencing a boom in international tourism, especially from the Chinese. Seattle's airport has non-stop flights to places such as Dubai, France, Hong Kong, South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Iceland, Mexico, Canada, Germany, U.K., Netherlands, etc. Seattle is one of the most modern, hip, and beautiful cities in the U.S.

Some of the companies headquartered in Seattle are one's that are known around the world... Starbucks, Safeco, Amazon, R.E.I., Nordstrom, Costco, Top Pot, Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, T-Mobile USA, Tommy Bahama, Seattle's Best Coffee, Zumiez, RealNetworks, Boeing (Chicago HQ, but big presence is Seattle area still), etc.

Seattle has a MLB and NFL team. Also their MLS team, Sounders FC, is worth more than half of the NHL teams. Also you have UW that is just north of downtown. How many big major cities can say they have a major university in their city? Only a few...Atlanta (Georgia Tech), Los Angeles (UCLA & USC), and Miami (The U) come to mind.

So when you take into account tourism, airport system, and business HQ's, that's why I put Seattle and Vegas in the same rankings such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, DC, Boston, San Francisco, and Miami.

Salt Lake City is the HQ's for Zion's Bank and the Mormon Church, as far as known businesses/organizations go. SLC does have the seasonal skiing tourism industry. But again, SLC is with cities like Austin, Raleigh, & Sacramento.

New York, Chicago, and LA are in their own league, no debating that.

Well, if we are basing it on tourism and being known around the world, then Orlando belongs in the top of the top because that's where a LOT of people go from Europe and other parts of the world because of all the theme parks. Yet I don't see it on your list....

This whole debate is rather ridiculous because no matter what anyone says pretty much everyone is right because they are using their criteria and not someone else's.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

Some of you have stated that Vegas and Seattle do not belong high up on city rankings. I have been around the world and work and study within the travel industry to know that Vegas is a booming tourist city that captures a ton of national and international traffic.

I definitely consider Seattle a major city. I don't think that is true about Vegas.
Las Vegas is significant and well known but so is Bermuda. They have no major sports teams (correct me if I'm wrong), and they are only big because of one industry. I think Vegas, like SLC, will become a major city and long before we do but they are not yet.

[Stenar]

According to Wikipedia, our CSA is #24 in size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Combined_Statistical_Areas

Originally Posted by tygr

I've created a spreadsheet comparison of how we rank based on government defined metro areas. I've included metro populations, metro areas (square miles of land), and metro densities (P/A=D).

There are three pages to the PDF below; 1. rank by population, 2. rank by area, and 3. rank by density. I've created two "mock" metros based on different geographical boundaries.

• Salt Lake (includes Salt Lake MSA, Ogden-Clearfield MSA, Provo-Orem MSA, Heber Micro; this is what the government views as our "metro.")
• Wasatch Front (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah counties)
• Wasatch Front Adjusted (estimated based on removing primarily undevelopable land—federal ownership, mountainous, etc.)

PDF—Metros of the United States

Because "Salt Lake" is defined as it is, our density places us at #49 of the 50 (only Las Vegas has lower density) largest metros due to having the fourth largest amount of land in our metro area; below Las Vegas, Inland Empire (Riverside, Calif.) and Sacramento.

If "Wasatch Front" was our defined metro, we consistently fall at #35 in population, #34 in area, and #29 in density; not much of a change.

If "Wasatch Front Adjusted" was our defined metro, we come in at #5 below Boston and Washington and above Philidelphia and Detroit.

This shows the disadvantage states have where metro areas contain extremely high amounts of federally controlled land).

Now, only if we can get the government to redefine our metro area... or, at least get companies to quit glossing over us because we're "too small of a market."

[mobius42]

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

Some of you are insane, and have no idea what you're talking about. I'll clarify for everyone...

Again, the way I look at city rankings, like I said, are by tourism, airport system, and business HQ. But I think the biggest factor is the tourism and the way the city is known around the world.

Some of you have stated that Vegas and Seattle do not belong high up on city rankings. I have been around the world and work and study within the travel industry to know that Vegas is a booming tourist city that captures a ton of national and international traffic. Just look at the Las Vegas McCarran Airport. They have non-stop flights to places like Switzerland, France, South Korea, Canada, Panama, Germany, U.K., Mexico, Netherlands, etc. Las Vegas is one of the most known and popular places around the world. I'm not calling anyone out, but if you were to step outside of the Utah bubble, you would see and understand how popular Vegas is to people across the U.S. and the world.

As for Seattle, they are experiencing a boom in international tourism, especially from the Chinese. Seattle's airport has non-stop flights to places such as Dubai, France, Hong Kong, South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Iceland, Mexico, Canada, Germany, U.K., Netherlands, etc. Seattle is one of the most modern, hip, and beautiful cities in the U.S.

Some of the companies headquartered in Seattle are one's that are known around the world... Starbucks, Safeco, Amazon, R.E.I., Nordstrom, Costco, Top Pot, Microsoft, Alaska Airlines, T-Mobile USA, Tommy Bahama, Seattle's Best Coffee, Zumiez, RealNetworks, Boeing (Chicago HQ, but big presence is Seattle area still), etc.

Seattle has a MLB and NFL team. Also their MLS team, Sounders FC, is worth more than half of the NHL teams. Also you have UW that is just north of downtown. How many big major cities can say they have a major university in their city? Only a few...Atlanta (Georgia Tech), Los Angeles (UCLA & USC), and Miami (The U) come to mind.

So when you take into account tourism, airport system, and business HQ's, that's why I put Seattle and Vegas in the same rankings such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, DC, Boston, San Francisco, and Miami.

Salt Lake City is the HQ's for Zion's Bank and the Mormon Church, as far as known businesses/organizations go. SLC does have the seasonal skiing tourism industry. But again, SLC is with cities like Austin, Raleigh, & Sacramento.

New York, Chicago, and LA are in their own league, no debating that.

I agree with you about Seattle. Still not seeing Vegas though. Vegas has a population actually slightly smaller than the Wasatch Front and probably the least diverse economy for a metropolitan area in the United States (except maybe Detroit). Vegas is just a big adult amusement park. Not a LARGE major as you described. Popularity of the city as a vacation stop seems to be your only real criteria for ranking Vegas so high.

[tygr]

The point in showing statistics about population size, area, and density is to show that if only the "real metro" area of Utah's population is taken into consideration, Utah is more densly populated than companies will ever see based on the structure of how the official numbers are presented.

It is very possible that the "rural" appearance of our numbers (as they are officially defined) has kept us from being seriously considered by large companies for expansion.

Sure, we have decent population numbers in our counties, but due to their large geographical boundaries, the density drops in half or less. This unintentionally makes us appear rural. Combine that with extremely large counties with very rural populations in the official definition and we have no chance.

It is extremely likely that Utah is on the leading edge of a boom. Companies are starting to realize that we have a lot more to offer than the "numbers" they saw on paper. Goldman Sachs, eBay, Adobe, etc. are just the beginning. Most of the "new to Utah" retailers that never considered us are seeing numbers they never thought possible in Utah.

In our "real metro" area (the 1,400 sq mi of service area UTA covers), we've got a very close to great transit system (light rail: 45 mi; commuter rail: 88 mi), a mostly recently rebuilt freeway system with up to six lanes each direction and one of the nation's longest dedicated HOV lane, four universities with combined enrollment over 115,000—just to name a few strengths.

[Comrade]

This really is kind of a ridiculous debate because I'm pretty sure most people, beyond the shadows of the Wasatch Mountains, would never classify SLC as a major city.

We have elements of a major city, to be sure, but we're not one. We're not on the level of Atlanta or Dallas or Boston. We're just not. Maybe in 25-50 years - but not in 2014. Definitely not in 2014.

We're a decent mid-major city with a lot of potential and certainly a driving force to get there. But Salt Lake isn't even the regional center - as that goes to both Phoenix and Denver.

[ToysNoiz]

Alright, so what are some other reasons why SLC isn't a real city? All I've really heard is that there aren't a shitload of HQ's and sports teams.

If the population definition is adjusted, then more corporations will come here, therefore there can be more sports teams.

[delts145]

And exactly what are you defining as the region?

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

This really is kind of a ridiculous debate because I'm pretty sure most people, beyond the shadows of the Wasatch Mountains, would never classify SLC as a major city.

We have elements of a major city, to be sure, but we're not one. We're not on the level of Atlanta or Dallas or Boston. We're just not. Maybe in 25-50 years - but not in 2014. Definitely not in 2014.

We're a decent mid-major city with a lot of potential and certainly a driving force to get there. But Salt Lake isn't even the regional center - as that goes to both Phoenix and Denver.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by delts145

And exactly what are you defining as the region?

Based on the fact that he stated we are behind Denver and Phoenix in the region, I assume he just means mountain west (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico)

[Plaid Shirts]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

This really is kind of a ridiculous debate because I'm pretty sure most people, beyond the shadows of the Wasatch Mountains, would never classify SLC as a major city.

Exactly.

I think a lot of you people who haven't spent a lot of time outside of Utah or the western U.S. would find it shocking that many people don't know where Utah is, let alone Salt Lake City. A lot times, many people haven't even heard of Salt Lake City.

Some people across the U.S. still think everyone here has tons of wives or that we're behind 10-15 years in all aspects of the rest of the country.

When I was living in San Antonio last year, a lot of people didn't even know where Utah was. I also dealt with a lot of international tourist down there. To the international tourist, the U.S. to them is New York City, DC, Florida, Chicago, Texas, and California, and just a lot of open space in between.

It is what it is.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

Exactly.

I think a lot of you people who haven't spent a lot of time outside of Utah or the western U.S. would find it shocking that many people don't know where Utah is, let alone Salt Lake City. A lot times, many people haven't even heard of Salt Lake City.

Some people across the U.S. still think everyone here has tons of wives or that we're behind 10-15 years in all aspects of the rest of the country.

When I was living in San Antonio last year, a lot of people didn't even know where Utah was. I also dealt with a lot of international tourist down there. To the international tourist, the U.S. to them is New York City, DC, Florida, Chicago, Texas, and California, and just a lot of open space in between.

It is what it is.

I have to agree. It's like asking me about the Grand Rapids Metro Area. It is 52 on the list on Wiki I saw, and the Salt Lake Metro is 50. I had no idea where that is? and if it wasn't for the fact that it said Michigan I would have thought it was in Idaho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

Alright, so what are some other reasons why SLC isn't a real city? All I've really heard is that there aren't a shitload of HQ's and sports teams.

If the population definition is adjusted, then more corporations will come here, therefore there can be more sports teams.

I never said Salt Lake wasn't a real city. I said it wasn't a major city.

Here's a question: Why is Salt Lake City as important, or major, as Atlanta?

For all the people who keep suggesting Salt Lake is as major as Denver or Boston or Seattle, none have offered up a reason why. Then they dismiss any of the many reasons they're not - regional importance, media market, size, economic impact, sports impact - as trivial.

Salt Lake is a good mid-sized city growing into a major one. But it's totally absurd to suggest we're as major as Seattle or Atlanta - or even Miami.