Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[brankrom]

The Abravanel project looked about the same as it has looked for months. I can't believe it is taking so long to do this largely superficial makeover. Maybe the workers are splitting their time with LaPorte.

[scottharding]

Yeah, they've torn it up to dirt and now it hasn't changed in months. There is a sign on the fence that says "coming Spring 2015). They're not gonna make it.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by scottharding

Yeah, they've torn it up to dirt and now it hasn't changed in months. There is a sign on the fence that says "coming Spring 2015). They're not gonna make it.

I agree that this project is taking way to long... With that said I think they just took the forms off of all of the concrete walls... It should be mainly landscaping that is left.

This should have been about a 4-6 week project... I think it will be close to a 9 month project by the time it's done... Ridiculous.

[Marvland]

Deleted

[asies1981]

Under Current bar is set to open to next week.

[asies1981]

Article on the population estimates released today. The news is mixed for Salt Lake.

[Comrade]

That's one of the concerns I had with the growth pattern of Utah. With it being so internal, cities like SLC, which don't necessarily cater to larger families, will be at a disadvantage in growth - as it's pretty much been, minus the 90s, since suburban flight took over in the 1960s. The reality is that there just isn't enough internal growth, people from the suburbs moving back into the city, to sustain the exodus of those who are looking to raise a family with a bigger yard and bigger house - let alone the population dying off.

It's not a surprise that the suburbs still remain the fastest growing area solely because it's the type of dynamic that draws Utah's growing population - which is almost entirely due to its high birthrate. But as SLC, which has become less LDS over the years, departs from the average growth pattern of the state, it will certainly be impacted more negatively without migration from outside communities.

So, the city needs to find a way to draw a wider, more diverse (not just ethnically, but within age and family) population or we'll see our growth tap out just as it did 50 years ago.

[delts145]

Very much agree with what your saying Comrade about larger families. It's frustrating, especially with Salt Lake and Ogden having been so stagnant in growth now for all these decades. At least for Salt Lake City, I do think as Isaac pointed out, we will begin to see some significant positive growth from the apartment boom. There's still a lot of room for creating a much denser Salt Lake City, and there's also a lot of singles in the metro who would like to take advantage of living downtown or centrally located. Also, the Wasatch Front will have more than it's fair share of seniors looking for attractive apartment style living close in to the city. Streets like North Temple, 400 S. and so many more corridors could hold thousands of new residents, if Salt Lake will focus on making them attractive, vibrant urban thoroughfares.

I don't know how much Salt Lake City will ever be able to capture a significant amount of it's greater metro large families. The more dense and attractive SLC becomes, the more expensive it will be for families to live there. What is happening in SLC is also happening here in L.A. Even neighborhoods with a plentiful amounts of single family residential such as Sugar House or the Avenues are becoming very cost prohibitive for larger families below a substantial income. Salt Lake City's primary growth will come from a substantial amount of singles, dinks and seniors.

I doubt Salt Lake City will ever be aggressive with annexing additional unincorporated areas. However, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Salt Lake has a lot of ridiculously underutilized land area. I do wish though that Provo and Ogden would be more proactive in annexing while the ability to do so still exists. If the political will existed, I'm sure Provo, Ogden city leaders could come up with some sort of annexation plan. Perhaps it's too late, and it will never happen with the historical cores to reach out and grow their land base. Perhaps, only cities like Lehi and Eagle Mtn. where a lot of empty cheap land still exists, can be aggressive about vast tracts of annexation.

Future Mayor or anyone in the know. What is the status of all of that empty land to the south of Provo. Areas such as Benjamin, Lake Shore, etc., or even over on the West side of Utah Lake. Those are huge future growth areas. Are they already spoken for by cities like Spanish Fork and Payson? Does a Provo, which is now so hemmed in have a chance of land annexation if the will existed?

It seems to me that a St. George will easily become the future largest city proper in population in Utah if current annexation trends continue.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by brankrom

The Abravanel project looked about the same as it has looked for months. I can't believe it is taking so long to do this largely superficial makeover. Maybe the workers are splitting their time with LaPorte.

Originally Posted by scottharding

Yeah, they've torn it up to dirt and now it hasn't changed in months. There is a sign on the fence that says "coming Spring 2015). They're not gonna make it.

I assumed the funds were already in place for this. Must be some kind of problem with the paver materials?

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I agree that this project is taking way to long... With that said I think they just took the forms off of all of the concrete walls... It should be mainly landscaping that is left.

This should have been about a 4-6 week project... I think it will be close to a 9 month project by the time it's done... Ridiculous.

It's been too wet and muddy to do too much concrete work. Maybe that's what's been stopping them. That doesn't explain why it's taken 9 months, but it could be why little is happening right now...

[UtahMan]

Completely agree with Comrade that Salt Lake needs to draw a wider, more diverse population.

Personally I'm one of the big-family Mormon types who insists on living in SL proper even if housing costs take up my whole income, but most other biggish families don't seem to feel that way.

Salt Lake proper has a huge number of quality, single-family homes in nice neighborhoods which instead of being owned by families, are rented out to singles and college students. Every time this happens, there is one less family living in town. The singles who rent these homes would probably prefer living in downtown apartments (less maintenance, greater walkability) but they end up renting whatever is available.

As our stock of high-density apartments increases, the city should encourage landlords of single-family rentals to put them up on the market, allowing more families to move back into the City and the singles to stay in the city, only now in higher-density areas.

[scottharding]

Anyone heard of the City View on 7th? I've not heard of it, but I drove by the site on 7th East yesterday, and there's construction going on and a sign up for it.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by scottharding

Anyone heard of the City View on 7th? I've not heard of it, but I drove by the site on 7th East yesterday, and there's construction going on and a sign up for it.

It will be condos.

[s.p.hansen]

I'll just add my support of Comrade's concern. Very well said. I'm however very hopeful for the future. Demographic changes are never instant and people who push that are kinda like peak oil people. We aren't gonna wake up to a bunch of dead old people downtown and no one to replace them. The majority of people in Utah still want suburban life, even millennials (which goes against national trends).

SLC has always taken in those who stand out or are singled out in the over all East Idaho to Southern Utah area. And as our overall population goes up so will the number of gays, quirky people, skyscraper nerds, etc. You will also see an expanding student and administration population at the UofU which will fill needs. The story of downtown SLC will be as it has been since we first reversed its population decline, one of slow and steady improvement.

If you look at how much money we have dumped into long distance transit and freeway expansion, we have really opened the doors to very low resistance growth in sprawl. Utah Valley will without a doubt double in population in 20 years and be the center of growth in this state for some time, but we have maxed out I-15's potential for added capacity. Things are going to slow down each succeeding year. Salt Lake County throwing its weight around for long distance transit has already diminished and an emphasis on making SLC a better city for short distance transit has surpassed it in focus. Salt Lake City will continue to morph into a very bike friendly and pedestrian friendly city. The contrast between it and the suburbs will become clearer. If SLC can also invest in more things to do downtown (e.g. Twilight Concert series, art show), it will be a place people want to commute to and eventually want to live so they don't have to commute to it. But we're also seeing this in place making; older neighborhoods getting local shops, restaurants, bars. This is an anti strip mall alternative that attracts a certain Utahan who wants to live close to amenities but wants it in different format than living above a mall or walking through a parking lot. From Sugar House to the giant cemetery you have this belt of renewal (with local small scale shops, restaurants, and bars). It stretches further West in parts near downtown and tappers very quickly after one hits 4th south to a thinner area near Sugar House. Over the next 20 years we will see it stretch into Granary and even across I-15 into Rose Park and Glendale.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, we're on the right track and we need to calm our tits.

[Makid]

I agree with everyone. While the estimate had SLC loosing population for 2014, it is still on the upward swing and I do think that with the current projects as well as those that are planned (both commercial and residential), SLC will be at or near the 200K mark by the 2020 census.

Contrary to others, I think that SLC is seeing the Millennial population increase that other cities are. This is one aspect that is fueling the current apartment boom. SLC is seeing it a bit slower currently but that is due to the demographics of the state. The LDS Mission does slow this down by 2 years on average.

I think the biggest issue holding back an even bigger increase in population is the cost of housing. This will help take care of itself as more housing options are added to the market.

Lastly, as more entertainment options come online as well as local transit options increase in SLC, this will encourage more people to move downtown. We knew that City Creek would be the tipping point and it was, now every project that is added be it the UPAC, Streetcar, 111, 151, theater district, or even Pioneer Park upgrades, do compound this increase as downtown and the surrounding areas become even more desirable place to live for those that have shunned city life in the past.

[Stenar]

The majority of the new construction out in the South Valley is in townhouses, condos and apartments, though, so the suburbs aren't just growing because of people who want big houses and big yards.

An anecdotal point, two of my two millennial nephews bought townhouses in Riverton this year to be near their parents.

Originally Posted by Comrade

That's one of the concerns I had with the growth pattern of Utah. With it being so internal, cities like SLC, which don't necessarily cater to larger families, will be at a disadvantage in growth - as it's pretty much been, minus the 90s, since suburban flight took over in the 1960s. The reality is that there just isn't enough internal growth, people from the suburbs moving back into the city, to sustain the exodus of those who are looking to raise a family with a bigger yard and bigger house - let alone the population dying off.

It's not a surprise that the suburbs still remain the fastest growing area solely because it's the type of dynamic that draws Utah's growing population - which is almost entirely due to its high birthrate. But as SLC, which has become less LDS over the years, departs from the average growth pattern of the state, it will certainly be impacted more negatively without migration from outside communities.

So, the city needs to find a way to draw a wider, more diverse (not just ethnically, but within age and family) population or we'll see our growth tap out just as it did 50 years ago.

[Comrade]

Well it's not just people leaving for bigger homes and yards. That's part of the problem, but it's also much cheaper to buy a town house in South Jordan than it is in SugarHouse. That, too, plays a role, but again it's a direct result of Utah's continued demographic makeup - families are inherently going to look for the more affordable option.

I'd also say that while there has been a push for smarter growth, I'm not sure a majority of the development in the South Valley is town homes, apartments and condos. There's a lot of single-family detached housing going up in a smattering of new subdivisions and it continues to be the driving force for much of the growth.

Salt Lake is always going to be at a disadvantage to these trends because it is more expensive to own a home here. There are exceptions, but most of the affordable housing is located in areas that have the perception of being seedy or undesirable to a lot of Utahns - even if that isn't truly the case.

But look at it this way - in West Jordan, according to the 2010 Census, 23% of its housing was rentals. In SLC, that number was 51.6 - a majority of Salt Lake's housing is rental. Only 48% of the city, in 2010, owned their property.

That's typical, though, for the urban center of a metro. Denver is basically 50/50 - but Denver also fuels its growth from outside sources.

With internal growth, every city is basically competing for the same demographic. People aren't moving from Pennsylvania to Salt Lake City - they're deciding whether to move from West Valley to either Salt Lake or West Jordan or Holladay.

Hopefully, though, with more push for urban living, both in SLC and out in the burbs, the mindset will change and we'll see a bigger push back into the city as it becomes the norm, once again, which it kinda sorta has across the west. But right now, the demographics in Utah still heavily favor suburban growth as most are still stuck in a suburban mindset. The added largeness of Utah families only amplifies this issue, since it's cheaper to raise a family in the South Valley than Salt Lake City - unless, again, you look at those urban central, and westside neighborhoods, that aren't as desirable as a suburban subdivision.

[Marvland]

Why is everybody so sad around here? Have any of you been downtown in the last year? It's getting pretty badass. Residential population isn't everything. Attractions and culture make stuff happen. Sure we won't see stacked highrise rental product for a while, but not much of that is being built anywhere. There is a HUGE amount of new residential/pipeline right on the periphery of CBD. Downtown has broken out of its "ghost town" phase. A billion in retail sales CBD. Raw population numbers are deceiving sometimes and the official church membership numbers are really deceiving. They show a 60-40 Mo to Nomo population. That is nowhere near reality. A bunch of us heathens are still on the church rolls and they do very much like to count us. I would say 85-15 or even 90-10 downtown and surrounding is closer to reality. Even then, there is a very progressive younger generation of Mormons who like to eat out, enjoy the arts and want culture in their lives.

There has been a sneaky demographic shift. We haven't added much population but we have added high quality (ie highly educated, high income) population. So what if we've don't show a massive bulk explosion like Denver. The vast majority of their bulk population growth is in ugly, terrible, endless sprawl.

Salt Lake is fine.

[Comrade]

I'm not sad at all. I just don't buy into the 'everything is awesome' mentality of some here. You do that and you settle and I don't want to settle. I'd rather SLC get to the root of why it's again starting to see its population slip. Maybe it's anomaly - maybe it's not. But ultimately, as I've said for a while now, I think Utah's growth patterns are less sustainable and I'd like to figure out how that can change.

We're in the heart of one of the fastest growing regions in the country and our state seems to struggle attracting outsiders. I'd like to fix that. I think being a destination state/city would certainly benefit Utah and SLC over just getting our population growth from our large families.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I'd also say that while there has been a push for smarter growth, I'm not sure a majority of the development in the South Valley is town homes, apartments and condos. There's a lot of single-family detached housing going up in a smattering of new subdivisions and it continues to be the driving force for much of the growth.

While there is an explosion in dense, multi-family development going on in theses areas, even the single-family houses going up are much smaller in land area than your traditional sprawl. If you drive through western West Jordan, South Jordan, Harriman, Riverton you will see houses being built very close together. I have noticed several types of development: traditional multi-family communities (3-5 floors), smaller attached single family (condos, town homes, etc.), densley-packed but detached single-family (shared driveways, very little yard), then traditional neighborhoods. Neighborhoods being built in the traditional style are very few and far between. Pretty much all of the development going on around my grandparents home are the previous 3 types. They often complain about how "ugly" they find the new development and how little yard they have. Daybreak has really started a new trend in that direction of development. If you came out to where my grandparents live (about 4 miles from Daybreak), you would be very hard-pressed to find the traditional sprawl under construction. It almost appears the old style of sprawl has fallen completely out of fashion in the area. It really isn't even that new of a trend anymore. It has been shifting over the past 10 years to the point now where virtualy all new developments I see going up are denser than the traditional suburbia sprawl.