Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[(Eco)nomy_404]

While population came to a grinding hault in SLC this past year, it was actually sluggish across the state. If you look at the historical data for the state and CSA, you will see that growth has slowed across the region to a fresh new low for the decade. As it has been said that a rising tide lifts all boats, the opposite could be said for a sinking tide. I am mildly surprised that SLC has still not been able to buck the trend of lackluster growth with all the new growth going on down town. Honestly, SLC is doing all the right things and doesn't leave much to be criticized. It has invested (or coordinated investment) in mixed-use development, office towers, high-density residential, cultural/entertainment hubs, transportation, etc. I do agree that increased development oriented to larger families would be beneficial (not just down town, but across the city). I think the main reason SLC struggles to grow compared to its high-growth suburbs is that it tends to attract singles and young couples that only stay for a short time before settling down elsewhere to raise a family. These people are hard to hold onto. Families, on the other hand, tend to stick around for decades rather than just a few years. Overall, though, I think it was mainly the reduced flow from the state-wide population growth faucet that hampered SLC's growth this past year. Maybe the effects of all the recent development on the population growth trend are still in the pipeline and will be seen in the coming years. I really hope we can get that growth rate north of 1%.

SLC Historical Pop Growth Trend:

2010: 186,505
2011: 188.091 (+1,586, +0.09%)
2012: 189,462 (+1,371, +0.07%)
2013: 191,180 (+1,718, +0.09%)
2014: 190,884 (-296, -0.02%)

SLC CSA Historical Pop Growth Trend:

2010: 2,281,007
2011: 2,315,764 (+34,757, +1.52%)
2012: 2,350,048 (+34,284, +1.48%)
2013: 2,391,091 (+41,043, +1.75%)
2014: 2,423,912 (+32,821, +1.37%)

Utah Historical Pop Growth Trend:

2010: 2,774,346
2011: 2,815,324 (+40,978, +1.48%)
2012: 2,855,194 (+39,870, +1.42%)
2013: 2,902,787 (+47,593, +1.67%)
2014: 2,942,902 (+40,115, +1.38%)

What I do find rather puzzling is that last year was such a landmark year for growth across the city, CSA, and state (the high so far for the decade). Then it just plunged this year to a new low. I'm still scratching my head as to how it went from the highest to lowest rate in just one year's time.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by 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.

The hard economic data says 'everything is awesome'. There are a handful of places in the country with our metrics, if that. I could really care less about external population growth. As I've said many times, I'll take quality over quantity.

[Wasatch_One]

I wouldn't freak out until we see a trend forming (and I'll guarantee it's not).

A single data point does not a trend make. Honestly, I'd love to see us not grow so fast because with explosive growth comes serious challenges (traffic, pollution, lack of water, increased cost, crime and a whole long list items).

I travel for work often and enjoy many of the cities I visit, but at the end of a trip, there's no better feeling than sitting in an airplane seat knowing you'll be touching down in SLC at the end of the flight.

We are the envy of many similar sized cities and much more livable than many much larger cities. We have our own identity and I don't understand why we should try and be like other cities when we've created a pretty awesome metro to this point.

Here is a pretty interesting NY Times graphic showing that Utah (as a whole) is about as far away from the "hardest places to live" as you can get. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot...d-keywords=WCARETARG&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Marvland

The hard economic data says 'everything is awesome'. There are a handful of places in the country with our metrics, if that. I could really care less about external population growth. As I've said many times, I'll take quality over quantity.

That is such a short-sighted view and one that I hope city leaders don't share or we're setting ourselves up for a gigantic failure down the line. Complete internal growth is absolutely not sustainable and is not the blueprint I want from this state. There's a reason, despite having one of the hottest job markets in the country, Utah is still limited on complete economic development. You don't find it the least bit interesting that, even though we've got the best economy in the country, that downtown still struggles in consistent, urban commercial development?

Look at it this way - how many commercial towers have gone up downtown without the assistance of another major development acting as a catalyst in the last ten years? Really, though, since the completion of the Wells Fargo Center and the Beneficial Financial Group Tower, we've seen two commercial towers rise - and one, 111 Main, is entirely linked to the new broadway theater. Without it, and I suspect there is no tower.

Salt Lake is not acting like a boom town. It's got a great economy, and quick growth, but boom towns don't develop at this slow of pace - that's the exact opposite of what a boom town is. And considering we're in a region where growth is crazy impressive, the fact things have stagnated should be alarming because all it takes is for that birth rate to dip a bit and then the growth slows, jobs vanish and Utah is not nearly as impressive as we all want it to be.

There's also a huge disconnect between what a lot of people on this forum talk about and what they actually want. Every few months we open discussion to Salt Lake potentially supporting a NFL or NHL or MLB team, and there's a reason Salt Lake isn't really considered, beyond maybe the NHL, as a truly viable city for relocation - despite the fact similar cities like San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas, Austin ... and even Oklahoma City, are all mentioned in countless articles.

It's because we lack the outside appeal that directly draws people to relocating. We're also a state that lacks the financial backing that makes expansion into this market lucrative. We don't have the millionaires or billionaires needed to back the needed support for luxury boxes and finances that make a huge sports team work. We're not a poor state, but we're also not a wealthy one, either.

We also talk about perception when it comes to the size of Salt Lake. It's funny how people get caught up in the rankings of population and then dismiss population figures - it's quality over quantity. But that's a false premise, really, because, believe it or not, you can have both.

Finally, as I look at that map from the NY Times Wasatch posted, it also indicates Wyoming, probably even more than Utah, is one of the least hardest places to live. So, that don't impress me much (it also shows SF and other California counties as overall better places to live than Salt Lake).

I look at it this way - as a state, we should strive to have a healthy balance of both internal and external growth. It's the most healthiest approach to sustainable living. Just my view, tho.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Really, Utah's internal population growth is a very unique asset that few other places in the developed world has. Population is in decline across Europe, Asia, and is even now creeping into N. America. The U.S. population has already stagnated (the only reason we are still growing is because of net immigration inflows.) Over the decades, Utah's internal growth rate has been a buffer to economic downturns or times of annemic national growth. I do agree with Comrade that we shouldn't rely on it, but we mustn't get caught up on one down year. Even though SLC loses a lot of its resident population to the sorounding CSA, it does not hamper development growth in the CBD. Over 2 million people can easily hop on a train and get to the CBD within an hour. That facilitates continued growth down town. Once again, we shouldn't rely on that fact, but we can certainly apreciate it as a lifeline. I would rather have internal growth over external if I had to chose, but we should certainly work to have both. Utah's predominantly Mormon population acts as a demographic insurance that won't be changing anytime soon that I can see. We are fortunate to have that buffer.

The reason I am not terribly worried about SLC is because it is doing all the right things to attract more outsiders to live in the CBD that it wasn't doing the last time its population growth stagnated. When you look at the recently completed projects, ongoing consturction, and projects in the pipeline, it is unlikely SLC's dip in population growth will be sustained. Obviously, this last year was far from ideal, but it wasn't the end of the world. If state and CSA growth were to signigicantly drop, I would be much more concerned. But 1.4% growth on a down year is actually still pretty high compared nationally. And if SLC loses a few basis points one year, its not the end of the world. I will be far more anxious for next year's figures, though. I really hope this was just a blip.

[wrendog]

On a totally unrelated note, I am heading to Dubai this weekend. For a skyscraper nerd like myself, this makes me very excited.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I look at it this way - as a state, we should strive to have a healthy balance of both internal and external growth. It's the most healthiest approach to sustainable living. Just my view, tho.

I agree with you on that. It's just that raw population gains do not tell the whole story. An example: North Dakota leads the nation in population growth for the last decade and I don't think anybody would argue that they have a better place to live. I'll take Goldman, Adobe, Proctor & Gamble, Ebay, Intel/Micron and Oracle. That is quality right there.

CBD shows 15% YOY increase in retail sales for four years straight. There is not another CBD that can say that. Add in the increase in tech, financial, hospitality/recreation (our resorts are changing in a way that is unique in snowsports history), our improvements in transit, our ready supply of new, successful start-ups, our educated workforce, our natural resources, etc. That's a very wide, diverse base that will see us on a steady upward trajectory for decades. I'm not interested in booms. Booms go bust. See; Vegas, Las.

[Comrade]

I guess the problem is that when your population gains are almost entirely tied to birthrate, you're seeing an increase in population that literally has little substantial value to the community. It's not tax paying, established career people moving to Utah to take up the jobs, invest in the communities, buy a house and revive a neighborhood - it's another child being born. In fact, that type of growth puts more strain on the community as a whole - as a younger population takes up a lot of resources without much reinvestment in the community. We already see this with our school system, as Utah has some of the largest class sizes in the country. To our credit, we do a good job with the limitations we have, but it's always been a ticking time bomb of sorts.

Moreover, I wonder if Utah's unemployment rate is artificially low because a huge chunk of its population is actually not even counted among the workforce - either because they're in college, too young or too old to work.

What I mean by that is we've probably got a high percentage of our population, maybe even comparable to some of those states struggling, not employed due to the demographic breakdown of the state. In the 2013 estimates, 31% of the state's population was under the age of 18. In a state like New York, though, with a higher unemployment rate, that number is ten-points lower. Couple that with Utah's senior population, which has a lesser amount of workers (65 years or older) and 41% of our population is likely yet to join the workforce or have retired from it.

Six-points higher than a state like New York, which has a much older population than Utah.

I think that continues to play a role and why, with our economic expansion, we've not seen substantial development downtown that you'd expect from such a hotbed economy. That isn't to say our economy isn't good - I think it is - it's just again, we're looking at a huge amount of our population who's not invested in that growth yet. That doesn't account for the amount of people who leave the state when they are of legal age - either to attend college or relocate for a job.

In 2014, Utah's total net population migration was just 4,230. That is a low number.

Like I said in another post, all it takes is a shift in mentality, smaller families, and Utah instantly finds itself in the position of so many rust belt states - losing population or growing only marginally. We've got to find a way to attract outsiders, and I'm hopeful we'll get there - especially with emphasis on the tech industry. But I've also been hoping for that to transpire since the 2002 Winter Olympics and it doesn't seem to be happening. There is no reason Utah can't be growing like the rest of the west - which is attracting a great deal of outsiders. The bottom line, I'd rather our population growth come from the college graduate relocating from Michigan than the mom in Provo having three kids in a five year span - kids that, for 18 years, only bring indirect investment (food consumption, clothing and what not) while also draining resources without a proper counter balance.

Just my take, tho.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That is such a short-sighted view and one that I hope city leaders don't share or we're setting ourselves up for a gigantic failure down the line. Complete internal growth is absolutely not sustainable and is not the blueprint I want from this state. There's a reason, despite having one of the hottest job markets in the country, Utah is still limited on complete economic development. You don't find it the least bit interesting that, even though we've got the best economy in the country, that downtown still struggles in consistent, urban commercial development?

Look at it this way - how many commercial towers have gone up downtown without the assistance of another major development acting as a catalyst in the last ten years? Really, though, since the completion of the Wells Fargo Center and the Beneficial Financial Group Tower, we've seen two commercial towers rise - and one, 111 Main, is entirely linked to the new broadway theater. Without it, and I suspect there is no tower.

Salt Lake is not acting like a boom town. It's got a great economy, and quick growth, but boom towns don't develop at this slow of pace - that's the exact opposite of what a boom town is. And considering we're in a region where growth is crazy impressive, the fact things have stagnated should be alarming because all it takes is for that birth rate to dip a bit and then the growth slows, jobs vanish and Utah is not nearly as impressive as we all want it to be.

There's also a huge disconnect between what a lot of people on this forum talk about and what they actually want. Every few months we open discussion to Salt Lake potentially supporting a NFL or NHL or MLB team, and there's a reason Salt Lake isn't really considered, beyond maybe the NHL, as a truly viable city for relocation - despite the fact similar cities like San Antonio, Portland, Las Vegas, Austin ... and even Oklahoma City, are all mentioned in countless articles.

It's because we lack the outside appeal that directly draws people to relocating. We're also a state that lacks the financial backing that makes expansion into this market lucrative. We don't have the millionaires or billionaires needed to back the needed support for luxury boxes and finances that make a huge sports team work. We're not a poor state, but we're also not a wealthy one, either.

We also talk about perception when it comes to the size of Salt Lake. It's funny how people get caught up in the rankings of population and then dismiss population figures - it's quality over quantity. But that's a false premise, really, because, believe it or not, you can have both.

Finally, as I look at that map from the NY Times Wasatch posted, it also indicates Wyoming, probably even more than Utah, is one of the least hardest places to live. So, that don't impress me much (it also shows SF and other California counties as overall better places to live than Salt Lake).

I look at it this way - as a state, we should strive to have a healthy balance of both internal and external growth. It's the most healthiest approach to sustainable living. Just my view, tho.

There's actually quite a lot of rich people in this area for the size of it. There's the Huntsmans, Romneys, Millers, etc. then there's the new billionaires from tech like Pedersen and James Johnson. There's a lot more money here than you're giving it credit for. I believe the silicon slopes was third or fourth in the nation for investment outside of like Silicon valley, NYC, and L.A.

There's not a bunch of professional teams because it's not really that large an area yet. Having two professional teams (MLS, NBA) isn't bad at all for this stage in population. Austin and Vegas have none. OKC and San Antonio have one. Portland has two (NBA and MLS as well) and their metro size is 2.3million, which is double Salt Lake's (though about on par with Wasatch Front population)

Also these population trends for the decade are all estimates until 2020.

[San Diego-Honolulu]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

There's not a bunch of professional teams because it's not really that large an area yet. Having two professional teams (MLS, NBA) isn't bad at all for this stage in population. Austin and Vegas have none. OKC and San Antonio have one. Portland has two (NBA and MLS as well) and their metro size is 2.3million, which is double Salt Lake's (though about on par with Wasatch Front population)

Also these population trends for the decade are all estimates until 2020.

Salt Lake City will never get an MLB or NFL team. It is what it is. Salt Lake isn't a hockey town so probably no NHL as well. Having an MLS team in the Salt Lake area though is big, especially now that soccer is fastly growing in popularity here in the States. MLS is getting new clubs in LA, Atlanta, Miami, and Minneapolis. It is also seriously looking into expanding into San Antonio, St. Louis, Sacramento, and Austin as well. You have clubs that are almost on par with some Euro clubs (not because of talent but whether it's because of deep pockets, large fan base, atmosphere of game day, stadium, or all combined) such as Seattle, NYCFC, Orlando City, Portland, LA Galaxy, Toronto, New York Red Bulls, and Sporting KC. Exciting times right now and in the future for MLS soccer. Salt Lake should be happy they have a club.

[Comrade]

Utah ranks right in the middle nationally in millionaires per capita - which takes into account size of state.

But none of that changes the fact SLC is way behind a great deal of other cities when it comes to expansion potential - and will only still have one of the four major league teams for the foreseeable feature. So, possibly, twenty or so years from now.

[Ironweed]

I am with Comrade 1000%. Utah needs a an influx of new blood. There is clear evidence of inbreeding in Utah, and a limited gene pool is never a good thing.

[Comrade]

Well I don't know about that...

[s.p.hansen]

[Boiseguy]

downtown salt lake city needs to do one of two things.. clean up downtown and get rid of all the panhandling and militant "homeless" or reinvent itself to be a regionally unique and eclectic place to work play and live… right now it fails on both counts.. one can stomach a bit of grit and it can even be a bit endearing in a setting that is fun, engaging and inspiring… sugarhouse is where this is happening.. but the city needs to work on attracting THAT downtown… Don't forget empty nesters and baby boomers downsizing from the suburbs… what does downtown offer THIS demographic that would draw them to sell the 3000sqft house in south jordan and move to the city???? there's a lot of different options for salt lake City… relying on a huge push to attract families could prove failure, because lets face it.. most families want that picket fence and yard…

[delts145]

S.P, What's going on in this photo? Isn't that the 151 Tower area?

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Marvland

The hard economic data says 'everything is awesome'. There are a handful of places in the country with our metrics, if that. I could really care less about external population growth. As I've said many times, I'll take quality over quantity.

I agree with your optimism Marvland. At the same time I'm sure you would also agree that there are certain challenges, as with any fast growing metro, that must also be addressed. That said, it has been the primary goal by Wasatch Metro leaders to first and foremost provide quality training and jobs for it's burgeoning internal youth market, those exiting high school/college and entering the job market. While I agree with the basic premise that the Wasatch must value the growth of incoming migration, it has always been the focus first to serve the job demands of it's internal growth. There has and will continue to be a premium placed on providing increased options for the yearly emergence of thousands of native youth, many of which would like to settle along the Wasatch.

The comparative quality of this native youthful supply of new graduates that the Wasatch keeps pumping out is after all the major factor in what has been attracting the national attention. That attention has resulted in the relocations and regional expansions of many quality firms. No longer is it a given that a high tech or any firms native birth is guaranteed to subsequently sell and relocate to another region. The hyper expansion of many a locally created firm now attracts massive outside investment, and usually not only remains in place locally, but is expanding at a very impressive rate. The Wasatch is now at the top of many prestigious lists as a top consideration for future relocation and or at least major expansion.

It's kind of ironic in a sense. As conservative as the Wasatch Front is thought to be, I often think that in many respects it's among the most socialist/group think metros in the nation. The quasi socialist way of often accomplishing challenges I think will carry the Wasatch brilliantly forward throughout this coming century. I know this train of thought about the Wasatch Metro has often been pointed out to me by secular, progressive intellectuals here in Los Angeles.

[ctobsl]

Originally Posted by delts145

S.P, What's going on in this photo? Isn't that the 151 Tower area?

I believe this is where some apartments are going.
The 151 is just a little more to the Left in that photo or North...

[delts145]

Oh okay, Thanks Ctobsl. By the way, are you thinking of giving us another one of your fantastic walking photo tours in the near future? I always look forward to those.

[San Diego-Honolulu]

Random thought I have had and I thought I would share it. This is simply my opinion, whether you agree with it or not, I don't care.

So I have come to realization that the Wasatch Front area is similar to So Cal, specifically the metro area of L.A., more then anyone has ever realized. Everything from the freeway set-up, airports, geography (with the exception of the Pacific Ocean, the beaches, and climate, OBVIOUSLY), demographic layout, etc. Now I will elaborate. You have to remember with this comparison, it is similar, but the Wasatch Front is on a much smaller scale, hopefully that makes sense.

The So Cal area is so spread out from San Clemente up to the San Fernado Valley and all the way over to the Inland Empire. It reminds me how spread out the Wasatch Front is in layout. Everything from the Cottonwood Heights/Sandy area all the way down to the American Fork area is similar in demographics and geography to the areas that include Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport, Laguna Beach, and all the way to San Clemente. Cottonwood Heights and Sandy especially have a similar feel to Yorba Linda and Diamond Bar.

When it comes to airports, the Salt Lake airport serves the main Salt Lake metro area similar to how LAX is the main airport and how it serves most of the area. LAX still grabs the catchment areas of Orange County, San Fernado Valley, and the Inland Empire, but the Orange County airport serves that area similar to how the Provo airport is the commercial airport in the southern portion of the Wasatch Front. The Ogden airport reminds me of the Burbank airport. Like the Burbank airport, the Ogden airport is the smallest of the metro areas commercial airports, and they both serve as the commercial airport to the northen part of the metro area. The San Fernado Valley area is nice, but it's not as nice as the Orange County area, simliar to how the Davis-Weber area is to Utah County. Currently, there are five airlines that fly between Salt Lake and LAX, they are Alaska, American, Delta, Southwest, and United (I think that is one of the highest number of airline carriers flying between two airports in the US). Allegiant Air flies between Provo and LAX. JetBlue and Delta fly between Salt Lake and Long Beach. Delta also has nonstop flights from Salt Lake to the other LA area airports of Ontario, Burbank, and Orange County.

If you have ever driven on the freeways throughout the Inland Empire and all through the LA area, especially in Rancho Cucamongo, Ontario, and Corona, and down to Orange County, the freeway system, the feel, and layout is very similar to driving on the 15 in the suburbs of the Wasatch Front. They both have a similar express lanes, and even the signage on the freeways and sound walls (if that makes sense) next to the freeways are similar in style. Also when driving on the freeways in So Cal and the Wasatch Front, it feels as if the suburbs go on forever.

Where the University of Utah is located reminds me of the area of where UCLA is located. UCLA is a little higher in elevation than LA, similar to how the U of Utah is to Salt Lake City. They both offer great views of their cities that they are located in. UCLA is very close to the nice LA neighborhoods of Beverly Hills and Bel-Air, similar to how Utah is close to the Avenues neighborhood. Both universities are up against the mountain side as well.

On an extremely smaller scale, downtown LA and Salt Lake City have similar feels as well. I don't know how to describe this comparison in words, you just have to experience it in person to know what I am referring to. Some of the shopping centers in the Wasatch Front area have a very similar So Cal feel to them as well, espcially the Gateway (when it was in its prime), Fashion Place mall, the District in South Jordan, and that shopping center in Draper.

The west side of the Salt Lake valley area that is Magna, West Valley, Kearns, and Taylorsville, feels similar in demographics to the ares of Long Beach, Inglewood, Gardena, Hawthorne, and Carson. This area of So Cal might have a lower income rate and more diversity but I think this area of the Salt Lake valley offers the closest feel to this area of LA.

There is also a decent size of mormons and their temples in each area as well. Hopefully parts of this comparison made sense to some of you. Mahalo.