Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4 - Page 89

delts145 · #**1761** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 1:32 PM**

Deleted

ctobsl · #**1762** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 8:36 PM**

.

Comrade · #**1763** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 9:00 PM**

I keep hearing how SLC is one big boom town and yet, compared to other boom towns, we're just not seeing it in any type of significant development - specifically in terms of residential. Most boom towns are going vertical, especially downtown, and we're just not doing it. If it wasn't for the LDS Church, and their creation of the CCC, downtown Salt Lake's most significant development between the completion of the Gateway and today would be a medium-sized office tower on State Street. Okay, that'll change with the completion of the broadway theater - and then, hopefully, the convention center - but that doesn't really undermine my point.

For all the benefits of having one of the strongest economies in the country and a booming population - we really aren't seeing any significant changes downtown compared to other cities whose skylines have radically changed the last 15 years.

Yes, you're right delts, that could change. But just professing it will change on some forum doesn't mean much. Until it does - until SLC actually breaks that 420 height ceiling they've been sitting at for over 40 years, I'll remain skeptical. With good reason.

eagleye1144 · #**1764** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 9:40 PM**

delts145,

If your post had Morgan Freeman and some background music in it, my computer might have exploded

Jdawgboy · #**1765** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LumberJack

With the exception of Austin's and OKC's tower (which sticks out like a sore thumb), all these other signature towers are located in very large cities. I hope SLC never gets a "signature tower", because I think it would stick out terribly in the skyline like the Devon Energy Tower in OKC does. Hopefully SLC can develope more of an urban feel and density feel on the streets throughout all downtown SLC.

Hi.

I wouldn't say the Austonian sticks out like a sore thumb. It's definitely the tallest but it doesn't overwhelm the skyline. Austin's tallest is 683' with its second tallest at 581 feet. Compared to OKC's 844 footer with their next tallest being at 500' spot on. Austin has two towers in the 500 foot range and multiple 400 footers (plus several currently under construction). OKC has 3 I think in that range. So when looking at both skylines, the Devon tower definitely sticks out in relation to it's skyline compared to the Austonian in relation to Austin's.

SLC could get a signature tower that doesn't overwhelm it's skyline.

delts145 · #**1766** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 11:19 PM**

I would love to have a few 🞵🞵🞵🞵 tallest towers in Salt Lake like the Austonian. Though, I think one would have to be pretty jaded to somehow think that The Wasatch Front will never evolve into those type of tower projects. It will over time, just as L.A. has. However, and I know I'm stating the obvious, Austin will never be in the same universe as The Wasatch when it comes to its spectacular setting, and the endless variety of outdoor activity it provides.

Ironweed · #**1767** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 11:32 PM**

My question then is with all the good things projected for Salt Lake City in the future, why in the name of all that is holy would the building commission downsize a projected convention hotel?

Of course everything is hearsay at this point. But if that is true, and Salt Lake is the booming metro everyone says it is, It makes absolutely no sense to downsize a convention hotel. Do officials believe all the good words about SLC are nothing but hype? Please someone educate me on what I am missing here!

LumberJack · #**1768** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 11:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Hi.

I wouldn't say the Austonian sticks out like a sore thumb. It's definitely the tallest but it doesn't overwhelm the skyline. Austin's tallest is 683' with its second tallest at 581 feet. Compared to OKC's 844 footer with their next tallest being at 500' spot on. Austin has two towers in the 500 foot range and multiple 400 footers (plus several currently under construction). OKC has 3 I think in that range. So when looking at both skylines, the Devon tower definitely sticks out in relation to it's skyline compared to the Austonian in relation to Austin's.

SLC could get a signature tower that doesn't overwhelm it's skyline.

I meant that only the Devon Tower stuck out, not The Austonian. I love The Austonian and frankly everything that's going on down in Austin. I probably should've been more specific, haha. I was in Austin a year ago and now it looks like a lot more has changed in that short period of time. Exciting times down in Austin.

Delts, I also agree with you about the similarities between the Los Angeles area and wasatch front.

wrendog · #**1769** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 11:44 PM**

I'm incredibly jealous of Austin for both SLC and San Antonio.

Austin is really looking good and there are cranes galore at all times.

SLCdude · #**1770** Posted **Jan 23, 2015, 11:55 PM**

Shogun is now Yellowfin.

Photos: me

Comrade · #**1771** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrendog

I'm incredibly jealous of Austin for both SLC and San Antonio.

Austin is really looking good and there are cranes galore at all times.

When I joined SSP so many years ago, SLC and Austin had comparable skylines. Then it just took off. THAT is a real boom town. SLC might be booming in some areas - but it's not booming in the areas needed to expand the skyline.

brankrom · #**1772** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 12:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLCdude

Shogun is now Yellowfin.

Photos: me

What a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 frontage treatment...a lot of those buildings on that stretch look too third world and the alley behind is even worse. Atlantic Cafe, Robins nest and Bodega and even the magazine store look okay but the Yellow fin sushi and whiskey street look like 🞵🞵🞵🞵 IMO. Look at what the french bakery did a couple of blocks to the north and then look at this....

Of course Shogun was nothing to look at either...

airhero · #**1773** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironweed

My question then is with all the good things projected for Salt Lake City in the future, why in the name of all that is holy would the building commission downsize a projected convention hotel?

Of course everything is hearsay at this point. But if that is true, and Salt Lake is the booming metro everyone says it is, It makes absolutely no sense to downsize a convention hotel. Do officials believe all the good words about SLC are nothing but hype? Please someone educate me on what I am missing here!

You're not missing anything. Salt Lake is growing at a sustainable rate, which is great. Sustainable is good news. But it's not booming. And even if it were booming, it's still currently a small city. 1000-1200 rooms was always too much. Portland's convention center hotel proposal stands at 600 rooms. I don't think Salt Lake, being significantly smaller than Portland, is in need of twice as many rooms. 800 is still a good deal for us. I think city and county officials were ambitious and tried to make the case for something bigger, based on a huge projected growth of conventions in Salt Lake if a cch gets built, but now I think they're admitting to themselves that the smart decision is to construct the convention center hotel with the current market and recent growth in mind. It's not getting built based on projections which may or may not be accurate. If projections of a large increase in conventions is accurate, perhaps we'll get another hotel next to the convention center in the near future.

Also, if the convention center is going to be a wide building (which it probably will be), I am thankful that it won't be a new tallest. Especially if it's on South Temple and 300 West (THAT would stick out like a sore thumb)

Makid · #**1774** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by airhero

You're not missing anything. Salt Lake is growing at a sustainable rate, which is great. Sustainable is good news. But it's not booming. And even if it were booming, it's still currently a small city. 1000-1200 rooms was always too much. Portland's convention center hotel proposal stands at 600 rooms. I don't think Salt Lake, being significantly smaller than Portland, is in need of twice as many rooms. 800 is still a good deal for us. I think city and county officials were ambitious and tried to make the case for something bigger, based on a huge projected growth of conventions in Salt Lake if a cch gets built, but now I think they're admitting to themselves that the smart decision is to construct the convention center hotel with the current market and recent growth in mind. It's not getting built based on projections which may or may not be accurate. If projections of a large increase in conventions is accurate, perhaps we'll get another hotel next to the convention center in the near future.

Also, if the convention center is going to be a wide building (which it probably will be), I am thankful that it won't be a new tallest. Especially if it's on South Temple and 300 West (THAT would stick out like a sore thumb)

One thing to remember though is that a CCH doesn't go by the size of the city but rather the size of the Convention Center. This is because 95% of the CCH occupancy is directly tied to convention delegates rather than just city tourists.

Portland for example has a convention center that is 1/3 to 1/2 smaller than the SPCC. Salt Lake already has more hotel rooms in the the downtown area than many cities larger than Salt Lake. This is due to the Convention Center.

There was an occupancy report that was just released that showed for all of 2014, Salt Lake area hotels had occupancy levels over 71%. 70% is the threshold for hoteliers to begin looking at adding additional rooms without public funds.

Conservative projections show that with a 1000 room CCH, occupancy rates will be at 72% in less than 5 years. Without a CCH they will be at 76% in 5 years and no new hotels.

I can say that there is a push to get as close to 1000 rooms as possible for the CCH currently going on. Whether it is successful or not remains to be seen.

Excluding the CCH, there is already the planned hotel expansion for the new Holiday Inn Express (ex Shilo) that would add another 300 or so rooms (estimated by me).

That hotel was planned with the knowledge of the CCH coming with an estimated 1000 rooms. If the CCH is officially scaled back to 800 rooms, this means that there would be possibly 200 rooms that could be picked up in another hotel just using the known plans.

This is why I was a bit surprised to hear about the reduction in rooms for the CCH.

Now, I am still expecting 800 rooms in the CCH but I am hopeful that the drive for 1000 rooms succeeds.

airhero · #**1775** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 4:47 AM**

I'm glad you responded Makid because I was just spewing out nonfacts. You have a good grasp of what's going on. I do wonder though how large the cch's are in cities with convention centers similar in size to the Salt Palace.

Comrade · #**1776** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 5:22 AM**

SLC is booming in the sense the area is seeing an expansion of its population. But it's a completely different pattern than what other western boomtowns are seeing. Utah's population isn't growing due to inward migration - as is the case in, say, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado and Nevada - but because of a high birthrate. In fact, Utah as a whole has a relatively mediocre level of inward migration.

So, I really think that's why we don't experience the same benefits of other boom towns. Our population is growing internally, which is nice, but it also continues to be extremely young and monolithic. Until that changes...

jubguy3 · #**1777** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade

SLC is booming in the sense the area is seeing an expansion of its population. But it's a completely different pattern than what other western boomtowns are seeing. Utah's population isn't growing due to inward migration - as is the case in, say, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado and Nevada - but because of a high birthrate. In fact, Utah as a whole has a relatively mediocre level of inward migration.

So, I really think that's why we don't experience the same benefits of other boom towns. Our population is growing internally, which is nice, but it also continues to be extremely young and monolithic. Until that changes...

Fun fact: by 2060 Washington County / Red Cliffs will have a population of ~550,000, Utah County will have a population of 1.4 million, and SLCo will have a population of 1.85 million.

Say goodbye to reasonable politics... We all know where the babies are coming from.

EDIT: (Kinda) source, looks like my #s were a little wrong: http://gomb.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/08/Subcounty-Pop-Projections-2013.xlsx

http://gomb.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/08/Households-by-Area.xlsx

You will see that they have stopped considering utah county as part of the Wasatch front... But SLCo, DvCo, y WCo will comprise the same population as Utah right now. Utah county, and its surroundings now going through puberty and renamed to "Mountainland" (how do they pull these names out of their 🞵🞵🞵 so spontaneously?) will have a population of 1.6 million people, with 1.4 in UTCo. God help us. At least we get Ogden, ogden is cooler.

This is the 1776th reply. america

Makid · #**1778** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 2:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by airhero

I'm glad you responded Makid because I was just spewing out nonfacts. You have a good grasp of what's going on. I do wonder though how large the cch's are in cities with convention centers similar in size to the Salt Palace.

No worries Airhero, looking around at CCHs at similar sized convention centers they range from 900 to 1200 rooms.

One thing that should be noted, if the CCH is built with a direct connection to the Convention Center (not across the street), the meeting space should be considered as expansion space for the Convention Center as it will be controlled by the County and booked through SMG (County authorized manager).

An additional 80,000 sq ft (800 rooms) to 100,000 sq ft (1,000 rooms) would move the SPCC up a couple of levels in space, passing Denver and San Diego in total space (Exhibit space + Meeting space only) but still behind them for exhibit space (50,000 sq ft behind Denver and 100,000 sq ft behind San Diego). We currently have more meeting space than either Denver and San Diego (their Ballrooms are larger but even counting Ballrooms the SPCC still has more meeting space than either Denver or San Diego).

The reason for the meeting space is that there are a lot of conventions that have smaller trade shows but have many break out sessions. These conventions currently pass SLC by due to the lack of a large scale CCH. SLC has also been told that if they get a large CCH, they will also receive larger conventions from the group that owns Outdoor Retailer, as they love the location of SLC.

They would move these conventions from Las Vegas and bring them here.

Now, regarding the boom...As Comrade stated, Utah as a whole is booming in birth rates. These won't have an affect on anything on than homes for 15 to 20 years. The only way we would be able to have a more visible construction boom in commercial and housing is with migration to SLC. For this to happen, we would need major corporate expansions or relocations. Currently we are seeing smaller corporate expansions (few hundred at a time or a couple of thousand over 5 years). We would need the highest values in a shorter time frame.

I think we are getting there but without a larger push, it will still be a few years (5-7) before it will be visible on a large scale. We will see if we are increasing faster once 111 is complete. If 151 starts either before 111 is complete or right after, it will signal that we are on the next phase of the boom. If there is even a 3 year gap between the completion of 111 and the start of 151, this shows we are getting there but haven't yet hit the growth threshold for it to be classified as a boom as it could just be natural growth.

delts145 · #**1779** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 2:58 PM**

Careful there Makid. You're well rounded perspective might be a bit jarring to those that feel compelled to constantly shout that the glass is 90% empty. If it weren't for the many forum members like yourself, I would have vacated this site years ago.

One point or question really. I assume by lack of commercial boom you mean towers? There definitely seems to be a major rush of luxurious commercial campuses like Adobe, Omniture, Xactware, and the list goes on to be quite long. Also, commercial/retail sq. ft. expansion along the Wasatch has been very impressive.

Like I was previously stating (perhaps wasting my valuable time) The Wasatch is expanding at a rate in sectors that much resembles the historic type of expansion of Los Angeles. The good news is that The Wasatch has the advantage of hard lessons learned from L.A., and is now focusing more on the benefits of a vibrant downtown, urban cores, and mass transit, much as is happening in Los Angeles.

delts145 · #**1780** Posted **Jan 24, 2015, 3:16 PM**

I think the look and feel of the Japanese Bistro's new front is a major improvement over the old look. Particularly, that tacky, out of place stone at the base. The only thing needed to complete this look, would be to apply a coat of the appropriate palette of paint to the frames of those large windows. The naked aluminum feel is almost always cheap looking on this type of vintage structure.
I'm sure if one of you guys with the good taste level and positive charm approached the owners, they would be willing to provide the paint, and let you class it up a bit. It wouldn't be a big job, and could make a significant difference. I do that kind of thing all the time, with almost always a very positive outcome.