Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[ToysNoiz]

The empty areas between the airport, and the mountains should not be part of the city.

Which suburbs should be included with SLC?

[jubguy3]

I included WVC, SSL, taylorsville, Murray, part of the unincorporated County, Midvale, cwh, Holladay, and maybe NSL

[brankrom]

Not sure there is any advantage to SLC annexing the hinterlands of second circle suburbia. What could SSL or Holladay offer SLC besides population? SLC IMO is almost an optimally sized city as far a delivering services goes, and yet still there are vastly under-served areas of the city such as Glendale and many of the areas south of 2100 and 2700 South. Further we live in a state and county that consistently votes anti government and anti services why would I want to put the services I enjoy and pay for at risk? Why would I as a SLC resident want to dilute my blue liberal haven with the sheer nuttery of teabag suburbia? Most of the areas that would likely be annexed are 1950s subdivisions that were built without sidewalks and adequate infrastructure, there's no industrial sections to increase a tax base and no compelling reason to even entertain annexation. Further I don't think tea bag suburbia would agree to annexation. SLC might just be a city of 211,000 but unless there's some compelling reason I'm missing I'm not understanding the desire to annex. Is population for populations sake really that big of a deal? I suppose it could be argued that companies look at city size as a determining factor for expansion. But to me, there are far more important issues that would prevent a company from looking at SLC for expansion, not the least of which is the nutty colloquial population, poor air quality, uber-conservative politics and general xenophobic population.

[UTPlanner]

It is a goal of SLC to increase its population within its existing boundaries and it will continue to grow. I think that city officials are open to annexing areas of the unincorporated county that are interested but those residents would have to take the lead. Until neighborhoods come together and petition the city, it will never happen. It's a tough sell as the city's tax rate is higher than the unincorporated county's. I agree that the city provides a higher level of service but it's still going to be a hard sell especially to the elderly/senior residents of Millcreek.

Further, no incorporated cities are going to unincorporate and become part of SLC in the near future. Small town politicians, fire chiefs, police chiefs, planning directors, etc. enjoy the power that they hold and will not give it up easily. Look how difficult it has been for the Unified Fire/Police to expand and that is only one city service. It may make more sense on paper for cities in SL County to combine but politically it would be a nightmare.

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by brankrom

Not sure there is any advantage to SLC annexing the hinterlands of second circle suburbia. What could SSL or Holladay offer SLC besides population? SLC IMO is almost an optimally sized city as far a delivering services goes, and yet still there are vastly under-served areas of the city such as Glendale and many of the areas south of 2100 and 2700 South. Further we live in a state and county that consistently votes anti government and anti services why would I want to put the services I enjoy and pay for at risk? Why would I as a SLC resident want to dilute my blue liberal haven with the sheer nuttery of teabag suburbia? Most of the areas that would likely be annexed are 1950s subdivisions that were built without sidewalks and adequate infrastructure, there's no industrial sections to increase a tax base and no compelling reason to even entertain annexation. Further I don't think tea bag suburbia would agree to annexation. SLC might just be a city of 211,000 but unless there's some compelling reason I'm missing I'm not understanding the desire to annex. Is population for populations sake really that big of a deal? I suppose it could be argued that companies look at city size as a determining factor for expansion. But to me, there are far more important issues that would prevent a company from looking at SLC for expansion, not the least of which is the nutty colloquial population, poor air quality, uber-conservative politics and general xenophobic population.

Agreed completely.

[Ironweed]

Doubling the population, mostly along the Wasatch Front, will require serious urbanization. I would prefer to see most of that happening in Downtown SL. I am afraid what we will have is more like Southern California. Unless there is some serious effort from planning commissions and citizens alike, the livability in this area will decline dramatically.

[asies1981]

Millennials are opting for downtown and urban lifestyles and that can be seen even here in Salt Lake. While there will be a lot of growth in the suburbs, there will be growth in SLC as well. We should pass the 200,000 mark in the next few years. There are a few thousand residential units under construction or nearing construction in the city right now. As the region grows, Salt Lake City will become more dense as we build up not out.

[asies1981]

Speaking of growth, here is today's post on work in Marmalade.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Doubling the population, mostly along the Wasatch Front, will require serious urbanization. I would prefer to see most of that happening in Downtown SL. I am afraid what we will have is more like Southern California. Unless there is some serious effort from planning commissions and citizens alike, the livability in this area will decline dramatically.

Natural boundaries (mountains and lakes) will force the Wasatch Front to urbanize by default. Salt Lake County really doesn't have all that much more open land to build on. Mainly on the west side as even the southern end of the valley is filling up rapidly.

N. Utah County (Saratoga, W. Lehi, Thxgiving Pt & Timpanogos Hwy corridor) will probably be built out within the next decade. We're already seeing a lot more multi-unit housing popping up, not just in the city cores, but all over suburbia.

We as a metro are inherently different than many sprawling cities across the midwest and west. Most of these cities are not limited by physical, natural boundaries (even Denver and Boise can sprawl out waaaaay more than us here).

Could we have done better to this point? Yeah, but which city isn't in that situation. Are we as bad off as most areas? IMO, for metros that have seen most of their growth post WW2 like SLC, I think we're doing fine. And with FrontRunner and Trax as the backbone for the entire CSA, we're going to see (and already are) a more urban mindset with all future development.

[Ironweed]

By the way asies1981, I am very impressed by your blog website. Excellent job! Very informative!

[bflatflat9]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

By the way asies1981, I am very impressed by your blog website. Excellent job! Very informative!

Here, here. I'll take the liberty and just say "from us all".

[StevenF]

Thing is we are going to see more "urban" centers in the future partly due to TRAX, valley getting less land and Millennials and empty nesters looking for that kind of living. I personally think that having 4-5 urban centers outside of SLC across the valley can be a good thing as it builds a community center in areas that are getting built out now. This has the potential to reduce commute times for some people. Just look at today SLC is not being left out in the cold for once in 25-30 years and is getting its share of the pie.

Referring to sprawl you can always look to Atlanta and Phoenix if you really want an idea of bad growth.

[jubguy3]

I want a responsible city to assume planning for irresponsible places like ones under the MAG and Washington County so we don't end up with SoCal. Also once the wasatch front is built out in 50 years we will see two things : major growth of mountainous counties and Toelle / Juab counties, and we will see St. George / Santa Clara / Red Cliffs grow and grow and grow.

[StevenF]

Sounds like we should do the taboo word on capital hill and say Urban Growth Boundaries.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by StevenF

Thing is we are going to see more "urban" centers in the future partly due to TRAX, valley getting less land and Millennials and empty nesters looking for that kind of living. I personally think that having 4-5 urban centers outside of SLC across the valley can be a good thing as it builds a community center in areas that are getting built out now. This has the potential to reduce commute times for some people. Just look at today SLC is not being left out in the cold for once in 25-30 years and is getting its share of the pie.

Referring to sprawl you can always look to Atlanta and Phoenix if you really want an idea of bad growth.

I'd have to disagree. I don't want urban centers in suburban cities. It just takes away from SLC.

[EPdesign]

If any of you are interested in seeing what it is like on the inside of the Hope Gallery of Fine Art on 151 south Main Street...It is for sale. Asking price $3,995,000 MLS #1214087. Really interesting what they did with the Vaults.

[jubguy3]

I'm not sure if this a new thing or not but the nordstrom is lit up purple... It looks pretty cool.

[UV4EVER]

One thing I've notice that has helped people decide to move to Saratoga/Eagle Mountain is the USDA home loan program. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USDA_home_loan) Funny how this seems to go against the USDA's mission in that its actually eating away at farmland in many areas. I wonder if the state could set up a program to help people get loans in downtown and other designated urban areas. If Utah could offer first time homebuyers 8-10k grants for purchasing a home/condo/apt/etc in downtown SLC, Provo, or Ogden, that could really help spur purchases and reduce sprawl. Most of the urban options seem to be higher end and don't have incentives.

[Future Mayor]

The thing that will halt uncontrolled sprawl the most is pain, pain in the pocket book, and in the loss of time. That pain could come from multiple places, price of a gallon of gas, price of healthcare as a result of increasing amounts of pollution harming the body, and the true price of infrastructure, or loss of time due to a very long commute.

New homes in slaces like Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain don't pay true impact fees, they pay whatever the city feels they should pay. The impact to development in those areas isn't simply getting the water, electric and sewer to the homes in the new subdivisions, the true impact fees should reflect what it will cost for neighboring cities to upgrade their streets, their police, their loss of tranquility as a result of an increase in traffic due to the new places.

This should be the case in all new development. The question of what impact will this have on existing roads, well beyond the end of the cul-de-sac, and how much will that cost per house being built.

As for loss of time, the building of more highways and adding more lanes to existing highways is simply a mirage, and in the long run does nothing to improve commute times. More highways and more lanes give people a sense of better access, allowing them to move further out from the existing population base. The end result is that the additional lanes added to a highway result in the highway being just as congested as it was prior to expansion, usually in about 5 years.

It's the avoidance of pain that will see a better development pattern emerge.

While I don't want to see major "downtowns" sprout up along the Trax and FrontRunner corridor, I think town centers are a good thing. Providing opportunities for transit usage to get to and from work is a good thing, no matter where they are located. Salt Lake City is the heart of the region and downtown will continue to grow, vertically. As has been the case with Goldman, many companies want to be located around other similar companies, in a dense urban core, where talent and individuals can coordinate and interact with one another in a close proximity. This is the Sandy's "Proscenium" never materialized because it takes an organic growth to create a downtown, and why I don't see the new downtown Draper every happening. Town Centers on the other hand can occur more easily as creating a couple of small office buildings, some residential and some retail can easily be done by one or two developers with a vision.

Regarding the annexation issue, I don't see any need for SLC to actively annex surrounding burbs, and as has already been said, most of those burbs aren't going to give up control. The only reason that could come to be is if a particular city simply didn't have the right tax structure or tax base to run the city effectively, and were on the verge of defaulting. In that case that city may turn to a neighboring city and ask to be annexed in, allowing for it's citizens to now be managed and represented by the large city, and the larger city may consider it, if the default of the neighbor could have a negative effect on the larger city. So unless SSL suddenly goes in the crapper, financially, I don't see it happening.

SLC can't simply go out and annex any unincorporated county that tickles it's fancy. There is a major process to annexation, one key is that the land has to be contiguous to the current boundary of SLC. There are certain percentages of land acreage and land value that have to approve the annexation, as well as issues such as public utilities and many many other things. As the destination city, SLC has no serious interest in annexation of surrounding areas, because they aren't being negatively effected by those surrounding communities. I can go on, and on regarding the complexities of annexation, as I have dealt with this issue in a professional capacity, slightly different situation as I dealt with more rural annexations, but most of the concepts still apply.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

I'd have to disagree. I don't want urban centers in suburban cities. It just takes away from SLC.

But not having urban centers in the suburbs would just force longer commute times and continued car usage, since people will just continue to commute downtown.

Building up town centers to a certain level won't take away from downtown at all, in fact it would likely improve downtown. Nobody is saying we should suddenly start building skyscrapers in Sandy, just that concentrated urban cores in major suburban focal points are an overlooked aspect to reigning in sprawl.

West Valley City and Daybreak are doing a decent job of this, and the Murray/Taylorsville area is looking ever-so-slightly more urban, but otherwise it's still been a colossal failure around the county. That said, Salt Lake County is still much better than many other cities.