Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by delts145

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.

I completely agree with you on the internal growth engin being a very possitive factor. I really struggle to see negatives to Utah's internal, native growth. The only drawbacks are temporary until they graduate college and enter the workforce. You hit the nail right on the head that it is exactly this dynamic that caused so many firms to expand/relocate here. Fidelity has 10+ stories of office space in Utah and Goldman has more than double that. Those are the two largest brokerage firms in the world that together preside over $3 trillion in assets under management. Having worked for Fidelity, I have heard first-hand from the local pioneers to the execs from HQ in Boston why they chose to make such a large presence in Utah. It was the large, young, educated tallent pool. And they came to town over 30 years ago! They even expanded to a satelite office in Utah County to tap the BYU/UVU tallent pool that they struggled to get to commute to SLC. I atteneded a conference at Goldman where the guy said Utah is most unique in that you don't have to teach people how to work. In most places, it's not enough to train someone how to do their job, you have to train them to put forth some effort and work. At Goldman, where putting in long hours of productive work is very highly valued, that was a big plus. E*Trade's 6-story Sandy location is one of just three worldwide sites that services its clients. They like it in Utah because people will always come to work - even during the worst weather or the Super Bowl. I attribute this to the young workforce that is still in that college mindset. Then there is the storng pressence that JP Morgan, Wells Fargo Advisors, TD, NY Life, Morgan Stanley, etc, etc have here. Utah has become a little slice of Wall St. in the rockies. That's just in my field - then you look at high-tech and health care and you'll see Utah has become a hotbed for many industries. Having a young population creates this dynamic.

I would much rather have a young population than an old one and internal growth than external. Babbies don't stay that way forever. Mormons have been cranking out the kids for more than a century, and I really don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. It would certainly be nice to rev up our net in-migration flows, but it's not the end of the world if we are internally driven. The reason other rust-belt states have died demographically is because they didn't have an internal growth engine. Once unemployment went up and industries left town, so did the population growth. For us, we have a lifeline of internal growth in meager times. Then we can stack on top of that inmigration when it comes.

And you are certainly correct in your assesment of the Utah brand of conservatism. While Utah is more uniformly conservative than most other states, the general pollitical atmosphere is far less radicallized than in the Tea Party-ravaged south and midwest. While I do not always agree with American conservatism, I feel like Utah honestly tries to make things work and not just push a special interest-driven agenda like so many other states. My mom lived in CO Springs where they had to fight the conservatives hand and fist just to keep the lights on at night and resurface the streets during the years after the recession since they refused to raise taxes. Sure they have low taxes, but it comes at the cost of crappy roads and virtually no viable mass transit options. The metro is 50% larger than the Prorem metro, which is light years ahead of the Springs in its 12-lane, well-paved freeway, intricate bus system, and rail transit link to SLC. I love how ambitious Utah is in smart development and expanding all transportation options even if it means raising taxes. It truley pained my soul to see all the squandered development potential in the Springs. Even in Utah's "sprawl", you can access public transport and drive on good roads. If you want to see true sprawl with 100% car centricity and horrendously delapidated transportation infrastructure, go to the Springs. It will make your heart stop.

[Comrade]

I already pointed out the negatives. For one, much of our growth is fueled by babies, who, for pretty much eighteen years, won't directly impact Utah's economy. They'll exhaust our system, continue to overcrowd our schools, drain much of our resources and bring little in terms of economic viability to the equation - or economic growth, for that matter.

Much of Utah's population is not of working age and I think that plays a role in its lower unemployment rate - there just isn't a good amount of the population who's in the position to work - either because they're too young, too old or a full-time college student.

We're also in the position that if, one day, the dynamics shift away from larger families, our growth stagnates. Moreover, the type of growth fuels the suburban mindset that continues to grip this state - larger families needing bigger homes in suburban neighborhoods. While there has been a push toward urban living in SLC, it's still limited in scope compared to many cities and it's why places like Portland can see high-rise residential development consistently and Salt Lake is still stuck developing mostly low-rise residential. Larger families are not interested in living downtown. The thing is, with Utah's population, the general population who IS interested living downtown in most every other community outside the state, typically the 20-somethings, are already getting married fresh out of college (if not while attending college) and starting their own families and looking to relocate to suburban neighborhoods throughout the valley.

To me, those are plenty solid negatives and something we're missing out on because we're not bringing in the outside population that is different than the local trend. So, the growth patterns continue to be the same. It's not a surprise, then, that some of the fastest growing communities in Utah are suburban and sprawl-oriented.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Much of Utah's population is not of working age and I think that plays a role in its lower unemployment rate - there just isn't a good amount of the population who's in the position to work ....

..While there has been a push toward urban living in SLC, it's still limited in scope compared to many cities and it's why places like Portland can see high-rise residential development consistently and Salt Lake is still stuck developing mostly low-rise residential.

You've made that demographic point about unemployment numbers a few times and I can't make sense of it. Are you arguing that underage people should be counted in official numbers? Meaning young people are in reality looking for jobs but not finding them? I would think the impact of young people failing to find work mowing laws would be of negligible importance. Alas I am not a statistics dude..

I will say that unemployment numbers are notoriously unreliable. The ever-moving statistical models have made it a joke. So if we extrapolate that nationally, we know that people who are no longer looking for work don't count as unemployed, hence a sub 6% national unemployment rate and a 45 year low workforce participation rate. So if we applied consistent modeling, we'd see much worse number across the nation, not just Utah. But alas, we have the numbers we have and Utah is at the top.

On the high-rise thing, Portland has four high rise residential towers and so do we. The absolute vast majority of high density residential across all markets is mid to low-rise right now. I illustrated why a few pages ago. DC, LA, Portland, Seattle, Austin etc. they are all bitching about the same pattern of multifamily rental product that we are. Fire rated wood on PT deck is good for six-seven stories. Period. Developers don't want a two year entitlement calendar because everybody know interest rates are artificially and historically low. What goes down must come up as they say about rates. That pushes people to go for more easily achievable densities that require less 3rd party study, civic work and capital investment. More importantly, they can build, stabilize and refi into a HUD 221(d)4 loan and book it under 3% and scrub some equity out in a compressed timeframe and get while the getting is good. All before somebody who is responsible gets their hands on the Fed.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by billbillbillbill

My guess is food and beverage.

Or Fresh Biscuits. Whichever you choose.

[Comrade]

No - I'm saying that because Utah has a huge younger population, and a larger college-aged population, than most every other state that the total population who's actually working is probably far lower than most every state. It has nothing to do with saying they should be included, but if you look at the national numbers there's a reason the total amount of people in the workforce is at its lowest point in a long, long time - there's less people eligible, per the government, for unemployment benefits and therefore aren't counted.

That's a huge difference from the start - as the pool of potential employees is much smaller in Utah than, say, New York, whose population, on the whole, has a higher percentage of people that could be counted as unemployed.

Beyond that, though, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from Portland, but it's clear you're under counting a great deal of their residential high-rises.

Here's a good link - and notice how many towers are significantly newer than SLC's:

http://www.highrises.com/portland/idx/

SLC can't even come close to comparing to that.

Bottom line: You said there are no negatives to Utah's growth patterns. I pointed out already there are - from the growth trends to unbalanced population growth that can put a strain on resources, schooling and in return offer in little of tax revenue, which means we also have to find shortcuts to raise revenue - while Utah offers a flat tax rate of 5%, it also gains a huge amount of its tax dollars from sin taxes - like on alcohol (minus wine, oddly), cigarettes and others. Utah ranks 13th nationally on taxing booze the hardest - more inline with the religious, ultra-conservative south than the free-spirit, lax-tax west (to put that into perspective,Colorado is 46th, Wyoming 50th, Nevada 35th, Idaho 38th, California 29th) - only New Mexico is comparable to Utah in that regard.

We also have a sales tax that's higher than 23 other states, a gas tax that's only 23rd lowest, a cigarette tax rate that is above the national average and definitely above the western average ($1.70 in Utah, compared to 84 cents in Colorado, 80 cents in Nevada, 57 cents in Idaho, 60 cents in Wyoming, $1.66 in New Mexico, $2.00 in Arizona, 87 cents in California) - while also having a fairly high spirits tax.

I get to a lot of people this is no big deal, since these are bad things (minus gas) and taxing them goes to pay for good causes. Except it's unbalanced and geared toward non-Mormons in a state that prides itself on embracing the conservative notion of lower taxes. That adds up for people, granted unhealthy people - but that's not the point here.

Even still, Utah has some of the lowest per pupil spending in the country because of its larger class sizes. I said that, for how awful are spending on education is, our numbers are still pretty impressive - but it doesn't change that there's still a developing issue here, both in class size and spending.

It's also not a coincidence, despite how good we've done, that lately Utah has dipped to 26th nationally in graduate rate - despite being 1st nationally in 2004. Still above the national average - but with where we were? It's definitely discouraging, even if the numbers have improved a bit over the course of the last couple years (problem is, they've improved across the board, so, it's not like the state is making up ground).

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone, when you get down to the raw numbers, believes Utah's growth is better as being fully internal than a rate that is growing from people actually moving from OTHER STATES here - for many reasons. It's not bad if it's also mixed with external growth and that just isn't happening. The better question, tho, is why, despite being in the hottest economic region in the country, and having a great jobs market, do people avoid Utah like the plague?

I think that question is damning enough to suggest these numbers are not good. But that's just me.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone, when you get down to the raw numbers, believes Utah's growth is better as being fully internal than a rate that is growing from people actually moving from OTHER STATES here - for many reasons. It's not bad if it's also mixed with external growth and that just isn't happening. The better question, tho, is why, despite being in the hottest economic region in the country, and having a great jobs market, do people avoid Utah like the plague?

I think that question is damning enough to suggest these numbers are not good. But that's just me.

I agree with this. The biggest thing going against Utah and Salt Lake City directly is implied perception.

By this I mean there are 2 components:

First is the population numbers. Because of the way that the city is broken down, it is classified as smaller than it really is. This is mostly due to how MSAs are calculated but by having Davis County not being counted directly in the Salt Lake MSA, it makes it feel smaller on paper than it really is.

By this, I mean look at the numbers and then look at Google Maps for SLC. Google Maps doesn't do County breakdowns easily so this means that if you look at SLC and see the built environment, you will see that it is very sprawly for an area of just over 1.2 Million people.

Even for those that use the CSA numbers, while better, most won't use them for company relocations and growth because most CSA #'s show relative size more for sports than employment and development (Residential and Commercial development).

Secondly, in Utah particularly, there is what I call a persecution complex. For this, look at how many comments there are from people just replying "If you don't like the way it is, just move." This single comment creates a divisive culture. With Utah already being cliquish to begin with (many LDS only interact with other LDS people and rarely talk with their non-LDS neighbors).

This creates a barrier for people that want to move to the area as they feel they will not be welcomed. This can be seen on many relocation sites where comments are allowed. People state they are looking to move to the State and others state if you aren't LDS, you won't be welcomed.

These comments are slowly changing but only in relation to Salt Lake City itself and not the surrounding area. So, this may be lessening overtime but who knows how long until the perception is mostly gone.

Lastly, the numbers do show that Salt Lake is growing and there is some confirmation of this outside of the "Low Rise" apartments being built. This is seen in the number of Hotels that are going through the processes (even with a CCH in process as well).

This is because the numbers are showing that Salt Lake needs additional hotel rooms. As I have posted previously, with hotel occupancy rates over 75% consistently with very frequent spikes over 95%, this would lead to additional hotels.

Hotels look at occupancy rates to see what the market can bear. Most consider a 70% average occupancy rate to be full. This means that consistent occupancy rates over 70% means additional rooms are needed.

With occupancy rates over 75% within the Convention Center district, this area will see additional hotels above the CCH, which we are already seeing. The 2 hotels directly south of the ESA, planned hotel around the former Shilo, upcoming Gallivan hotel (in progress) and the hotel to be included with the AUC. All of these are within 2 blocks of the Convention Center and are in addition to the CCH. All of these developers know that the CCH is happening and they are still going through the process on adding additional rooms.

This is what I was referring to previously about the CCH being a catalyst for additional conventions which leads to additional hotels.

These additional hotels will help to push for additional convention space and growth. This means that as these hotels come online, Salt Lake will become an increasingly larger player for more and larger conventions and conferences. This will push the need for additional meeting and exhibit spaces. This expansion is already on the planning table but not for a few years, unless additional large conventions begin to book or skip over Salt Lake due to lack of space.

Right now, only Outdoor Retailer is bursting the Convention Center and pushing for growth. There are a few other conventions that are pushing the limits of the convention center but aren't there yet (they need more rooms than convention space still).

There are a couple of conventions that will be coming in the next couple of years as well as others that will come once the CCH has started construction that will increase the pressure to expand the Convention Center.

What this is getting to is that this growth is tied to the overall growth of Salt Lake City. As we add additional activity in a single sector, it does expand to other sectors.

As we add Residential, it brings Entertainment, Retail (more than 9-5) and then Commercial.

As we add Commercial, it brings Retail, Hotels and some Entertainment).

As we add Hotels, it brings Retail, Entertainment and most importantly free taxes (meaning tax revenue on from non-residents) which helps to increase budgets to improve general facilities and area (beautification/transit).

As we add Transit/Area Beautification, we increase both Residential and Commercial options.

Salt Lake had been at a tipping point for a while. It started to move over into the growth range with Trax. From that point forward, everything has compounded the push for growth in Salt Lake. Even though the compounding amount may have been slight, it still had an effect.

All of that to get us to where we are today with multiple projects either currently being in construction or in the various levels of planning.

While we may not look like a standard boom town (Austin), we are still growing but in a more sustainable way (based on actual numbers not speculation).

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Comrade

these are bad things (minus gas)

No, gas is a bad thing. I know many people who are addicted to gas, and it is just so sad. Without gas they start to go through withdraws and become shut-ins in their own houses, unable to go anywhere or do anything, even simple things like going to buy groceries. And even when they have gas they always complain and whine about how much it costs, which makes them very unpleasant people to be around. And it isn't even the gas-users I mind so much, it is the second-hand gas fumes that really make me mad. These fumes continually make Salt Lake City's air the worst in the nation and shorten the lives of everyone who lives here by a few years - even non-gas users like me!
I completely support raising the sin-tax on gasoline - and if you know what's good for you, the public, our city, and the environment, you will too!
I still am completely baffled by how our inconsistent law makers can ban smoking in public, but still allow people to burn heaps of gasoline outside where it causes so much serious harm to people and the environment.

[/quasi-humorous environmental plug]

[goldcntry]

[T-Stan]

Originally Posted by Makid

Secondly, in Utah particularly, there is what I call a persecution complex. For this, look at how many comments there are from people just replying "If you don't like the way it is, just move." This single comment creates a divisive culture. With Utah already being cliquish to begin with (many LDS only interact with other LDS people and rarely talk with their non-LDS neighbors).

This creates a barrier for people that want to move to the area as they feel they will not be welcomed. This can be seen on many relocation sites where comments are allowed. People state they are looking to move to the State and others state if you aren't LDS, you won't be welcomed.

I don't want to turn this into a LDS vs Non LDS discussion, but I think there is more to unifying neighborhoods than the LDS/Non LDS issue. Overall, I think people have become more private, especially in the Suburbs where they can open their garage door, drive in and close it without talking to anyone.
I have lived in a somewhat-planned neighborhood in North Salt Lake for the past 8 years. When we first moved in, the neighborhood was mostly young, Mormon couples that were just starting families. There were kids running all over the neighborhood. Over time, people have come and gone. Some of the homes were purchased by investment companies that now rent out some of the homes. My street is probably now 50% Mormon.

It seems like people have become increasingly private. This doesn't go along with the LDS/non-LDS lines. Some of the people we see the most in our neighborhood are not Mormon, whereas some of the most active Mormons that we know are never outside and are not social at all. A few years ago, we had multiple street parties each year, however nobody wants to do them any more.

I would guess that this is happening in a lot of other areas as well. It would be great to see our neighborhood get back to where we had dozens of families (of all religions and backgrounds) out in the street enjoying time with each other, but it will take a lot of work.

[EPdesign]

....

[Makid]

Originally Posted by T-Stan

I don't want to turn this into a LDS vs Non LDS discussion, but I think there is more to unifying neighborhoods than the LDS/Non LDS issue. Overall, I think people have become more private, especially in the Suburbs where they can open their garage door, drive in and close it without talking to anyone.
I have lived in a somewhat-planned neighborhood in North Salt Lake for the past 8 years. When we first moved in, the neighborhood was mostly young, Mormon couples that were just starting families. There were kids running all over the neighborhood. Over time, people have come and gone. Some of the homes were purchased by investment companies that now rent out some of the homes. My street is probably now 50% Mormon.

It seems like people have become increasingly private. This doesn't go along with the LDS/non-LDS lines. Some of the people we see the most in our neighborhood are not Mormon, whereas some of the most active Mormons that we know are never outside and are not social at all. A few years ago, we had multiple street parties each year, however nobody wants to do them any more.

I would guess that this is happening in a lot of other areas as well. It would be great to see our neighborhood get back to where we had dozens of families (of all religions and backgrounds) out in the street enjoying time with each other, but it will take a lot of work.

This is the problem though. as Salt Lake City becomes more accepting of people of all backgrounds, the suburbs are becoming more isolated and less tolerant of others, including their neighbors. This is what leads to the comments about leaving if you don't like it.

I wasn't meaning to turn this into an LDS/Non-LDS discussion. That was just a description of the cliques that have formed at the macro level. There are many micro levels that cause even more problems.

For many micro level examples, look at the HOA system. Generally, they are accepting of everyone until 1 person does something they don't approve of. Then the HOA will go after the person and depending on how things progress, they can even take the offending persons home away from them. This is in effect the literal view of "If you don't like it, Leave."

You can also look at Utah County, there are those that support BRT between Orem and Provo and there are others (generally living in other cities) that want nothing to do with it and think that it is bad.

Lastly, you can look at the 9th and 9th neighborhood. Some love the new development and others feel that it will create a parking problem.

There are points to both sides of every issue, but without an open dialog or at least being open to discussions, all it will do is cause people to become more isolated and afraid of anything new or different than they expect.

Basically, what we need to have happen is for everyone to realize that for the economy to grow faster, a focus needs to be placed on downtown SLC and it should be encouraged to grow in all aspects. The various suburbs should stop trying to take companies out of Salt Lake City but should rather work to get them to expand, either in the city or additional locations within their borders. They should not be working to get them to move though.

The same can be said of sports teams. If they are all focused, they can create an energy that radiates to all cities rather than separating them out and only having energy for a couple of blocks (if you are lucky).

This change will happen. It may happen sooner than later due to water issues but it will happen. We should work to encourage this to happen as well. Both on macro and micro levels.

[Comrade]

It also goes back to the point I was trying to make, though maybe not as eloquently as I had hoped - the lack of any external growth means Utah's population is still built around big families. I don't have a problem with that if it's mixed in with external growth, as well, but it's swamping that external growth - which, let's be honest, is pretty damn abysmal for being where we're located. Big families don't want to live downtown. Big families can't necessarily afford to live in Sugar House or the Avenues. Big families, especially white, middle class ones, aren't ready to invest in breaking down the stigma of living in Rose Park or Glendale.

So, what do they do? They move south to the suburbs, which, while improving in urban development, still lags considerably behind and the emphasis, again, continues to be sprawl - more freeways, more cars, more shopping centers, more subdivisions. Salt Lake County is better - but you get out into Davis and Weber and Utah and it's almost entirely unchecked growth. That's where people want to move to now, and as the Wasatch Front becomes one, continued stretch of development, it's easier to do so. 30 years ago, only a smattering people lived in the south-west part of the valley - now it's one of the fastest growing areas in the state.

Downtown growth, typically, at least across the nation, is fueled by younger adults - individuals between college and marriage. They're generally educated, white and urban. These people exist in Salt Lake - but the younger population is still heavily LDS and family oriented, which is great, until you realize there's little in the way of balancing that population like in other cities. So, what happens is that we put a ceiling on that type of growth - as the younger LDS population is getting married at the time these young professionals are interested in moving downtown to rent out a loft or live in a condo. So, they graduate from college, marry and, because they're generally not economically well off (fresh out of college), they move to the suburbs where it's far more affordable.

If people here want downtown to continue growing its population, and really turning into an urban center where there's activity 24/7, or at least most the time, then having that external growth is a must. It won't happen if all our growth is internal because I think, on the whole, much of that internal growth is very like-minded in the way it thinks - from marriage to family size to location.

It's also why Salt Lake has to walk a balancing line as a non-Mormon city in a sea of Mormonism. Much of its growth in the 90s came from non-Mormons moving back to the city - after decades of Mormon families either being priced out or crimed (heh, new word) out to the suburbs. Salt Lake's overall Mormon population probably dropped in the 90s and 00s, despite the city actually increasing its overall population.

There is not an infinite amount of people to draw from when you're limiting yourself just to inside the borders of Utah. So, if growth slows, it's very possible that growth is slowing because those who want to live in SLC have already moved here and there isn't a next wave, unfortunately, that can bump the population. Let's be honest, SLC's population, while definitely in the positive the last twenty years, experienced its largest increase in the 1990s. That growth already had stagnated a bit in the 00s and now it's continued into the 10s.

In the 1990s, SLC grew by 13.6%.
In the 2000s, SLC grew by 2.6%.
In the 2013 estimate, SLC grew by 2.5%.

The fact SLC isn't remotely near the level of growth it experienced in the 90s is expected to an extent due to its limited borders, but also alarming as the city builds more urban developments that makes up for the limits placed by the city limits.

My guess, based on the total slowdown of growth, that in five years, SLC will probably see an even smaller growth rate than in the 00s. If that's the case, then yes, there is a problem here - especially with how much emphasis the city has placed on city living.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Let's be honest, SLC's population, while definitely in the positive the last twenty years, experienced its largest increase in the 1990s. That growth already had stagnated a bit in the 00s and now it's continued into the 10s.

In the 1990s, SLC grew by 13.6%.
In the 2000s, SLC grew by 2.6%.
In the 2013 estimate, SLC grew by 2.5%.

You need to keep in mind that the growth experienced in the 90's hardly anything to do with new development, and was mostly the population just filling up residential that had become vacant since the 60's. Now that the population has reached it's mid century peak, there is much less empty available residential space lying around. New population must come from new development. The 90's was not growth, it was the population refilling what had been lost. NOW is when we are seeing actual growth.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

You need to keep in mind that the growth experienced in the 90's hardly anything to do with new development, and was mostly the population just filling up residential that had become vacant since the 60's. Now that the population has reached it's mid century peak, there is much less empty available residential space lying around. New population must come from new development. The 90's was not growth, it was the population refilling what had been lost. NOW is when we are seeing actual growth.

It was definitely a mix. There's no way Salt Lake City was that vacant in the 1980s - as would be required to make up the growth patterns you're suggesting. In fact, in the 1990 Census, Salt Lake City had 73,762 housing units - in 2000, it had jumped to 77,054. Not a huge increase - but a larger increase than from what was reported a decade earlier (in the 1980 Census, it was 72,831 units and 65,664 in the 1970 Census).

In the 2010 Census, the total housing units is 80,724 - an increase of 3,670 new units from 2000. Compare that to the jump seen between 1990 and 2000, where it was 3,292 - which is very similar. So, yes, the difference was that more people moved into vacant units - but there was still development. Moreover, that doesn't change the fact demand was much higher in the 90s than it is today. Even if a bulk of the growth came from people moving into vacant homes, it still proves that there was demand for that - as well as demand for new units. People in and people out is still essentially the same dynamic here regardless of what type of building they're moving into.

In the 2010 Census, the percentage of vacant housing was about 8% - back in 2000, it was 7%. So, there was actually an increase in total vacant units between the decades. But that's still a pretty significant amount of units (5,593) that were unoccupied in 2010. So, the drop we've seen can't solely be tied to what you're saying - there are other factors at play here. If the demand was as high as it was in the 90s, not only would we see a larger amount of new development (and not just equal to what we saw in the 90s), the total vacancy rate would not marginally go up. I mean, I concede much of the growth came from housing units being occupied in the 90s (I can't find the percentage of vacant housing in the 1990 Census - just the raw numbers of total housing), but if we reached our peak in that regard, and demand remained at the same level, certainly the total units being developed would be bigger than what we experienced in the 90s, which also had to compete with vacant housing being occupied as well - which meant double the options for residents?

Just my take...

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

You need to keep in mind that the growth experienced in the 90's hardly anything to do with new development, and was mostly the population just filling up residential that had become vacant since the 60's. Now that the population has reached it's mid century peak, there is much less empty available residential space lying around. New population must come from new development. The 90's was not growth, it was the population refilling what had been lost. NOW is when we are seeing actual growth.

I think there's something to that logic. I also think it has to do with the actual housing stalk/availability and price. As the years went by, you could buy more raw square footage for less in the burbs. That focus on square footage is gone now and a real movement towards urban living is afoot. For many reasons these trends don't show a net growth curve downtown yet. That will change as the 3k units in the pipeline come online. But equating a net population drop without deeper analysis is a fools errand. We have gained a bunch of young professionals and lost some people. The net number doesn't tell us much. Who did we lose? Who did we gain? Capital investment and spending is a better measure than raw population data and there's a good chunk of change trading hands.

One major challenge that we're not really talking about is the fact that three families and the RDA of Salt Lake City control vast swaths of the remaining developable land in the inner core. I firmly believe that is a major impediment to vertical growth in SLC.

[Comrade]

It's not bingo, tho. I just proved that demand was higher in the 90s - as the total new units built was basically equal to what we saw in the 00s and that was coupled with established housing filling up more. There is little question that demand in the 90s to live in SLC was much greater than it is today. If demand were equal to that level, or exceeding it, it's very unlikely the total units constructed between 2000 and 2010 would pretty much mirror the total units constructed between 1990 and 2000 where those units had to compete with homes already built that might've been vacant a decade prior.

So, there is definitely ample evidence demand has decreased greatly over the last decade. It's because we're not seeing near the level of new residents. It doesn't even matter if SLC isn't going vertical, those apartments and condos still cater to the minority of Utah's overall population - both young and adult. Most families are not going to move into an apartment complex downtown - most families are not going to be able to afford a condo in downtown SLC. Those types of developments are fueled by younger professionals and our younger professionals are dramatically different than most states since we have a very young population that also marries young and starts their families young.

The only place Utah's demographics play into the development, which is similar for every state, is retired couples looking to move into a downtown condo. But are they enough to totally fuel an increase needed to keep up with the potential of people moving out?

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I already pointed out the negatives. For one, much of our growth is fueled by babies, who, for pretty much eighteen years, won't directly impact Utah's economy. They'll exhaust our system, continue to overcrowd our schools, drain much of our resources and bring little in terms of economic viability to the equation - or economic growth, for that matter.

Much of Utah's population is not of working age and I think that plays a role in its lower unemployment rate - there just isn't a good amount of the population who's in the position to work - either because they're too young, too old or a full-time college student.

We're also in the position that if, one day, the dynamics shift away from larger families, our growth stagnates. Moreover, the type of growth fuels the suburban mindset that continues to grip this state - larger families needing bigger homes in suburban neighborhoods. While there has been a push toward urban living in SLC, it's still limited in scope compared to many cities and it's why places like Portland can see high-rise residential development consistently and Salt Lake is still stuck developing mostly low-rise residential. Larger families are not interested in living downtown. The thing is, with Utah's population, the general population who IS interested living downtown in most every other community outside the state, typically the 20-somethings, are already getting married fresh out of college (if not while attending college) and starting their own families and looking to relocate to suburban neighborhoods throughout the valley.

To me, those are plenty solid negatives and something we're missing out on because we're not bringing in the outside population that is different than the local trend. So, the growth patterns continue to be the same. It's not a surprise, then, that some of the fastest growing communities in Utah are suburban and sprawl-oriented.

I understood your points you made and I rebutted them. I struggle to see your negatives truley as negatives for me. So Utah has more daycares than bars. I could see how this could be a problem to some, but not to the majority of those who live here. A young population is far more advantageous in the long run in my opinion. Being that Utah has a higher income per capita than the national average, I would hardly agree that the babies are sapping economic resources, only diverting them to other industires. The population here spends its money differently than other places, but not any less. Lots of babbies are a boon to some industries, not so much to others. Babbies can actually generate quite a bit of economic activity when you think about everything that goes into home building to house them: construction, electricians, plumbers, window installers, landscaping, roofing, flooring, etc, etc. According to one study done by the Nat'll Association of Homebuilders, construction of 100 single-family homes generates $32.3 million in tax revenue and supports 394 jobs. 100 rental units, on the other hand, only generate $13.9 million in tax revenues and 161 jobs (so, less than half). Median household income in UT is higher than the national average and the number of college grads is also higher. At 62.5%, Utah's employment-to-population ratio is also "significantly above" the national average of 58.4% (meaning Utah has more people working to support its population).

NAHB Housing Study: http://www.nahb.org/~/media/Sites/NAHB/L...1-REPORT_local_20150318115955.ashx?la=en

Employment-to-pop ratio by state: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20120301.htm

Census Stats (including household income and college grads):http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49000.html

I would be far more concerned about the fickle nature of external growth-driven societies than internal ones. I can think of at least a dozen states that did not have the internal dynamic and died as soon as the industry-lead boom busted. I don't see Mormon culture busting in the next few years. What you're talking about would take decades of shifting values/norms. An external growth-driven society can change in just a few years. Utah has a long, steady tradition of growing internally. Yes, it is always posisble that may change, but not very probable given its history. The demographics in SLC are simply apples to oranges when compared to Portland. Portland isn't the motherland of a major religion that is very family-oriented, nor is it hardly religious at all in general compared to other places. What happened there was a result of its own cultural norms. Utah's norms are much different.

I think we can agree that a good mix of both is optimal, we just clash on which is more important. I am perfectly happy with Utah's inherent internal growth engine. It would be greater with more external growth, of course. However, I would not give up the internal growth dynamic for anything. I also agree with you that suburban growth must be done in a smart way with appropriate lot size and density requirements along with green space and mass transit. Utah has made good progress, but still has a lot to be done to improve. I would take our lot the way it is, though. We have it better than many other places.

[StevenF]

I haven't posted on this topic of internal and external population growth discussion but figured I throw in my thought that I have had in my head since this started. Lets just say, "what if" the reason why we don't see as much external grown is because of our large young population. When a company moves or starts up an office in a new state, that company usually needs to transfer a good amount of its workforce to the new location. Here in Utah, because of so many universities and our young population, they just have to move enough to train people here and hire within the state.

I guess we should look at our growth for population percentage and job growth percentage and compare it to other states and see if there really has been a need for a huge amount of external influx of people to fill the jobs that are created.

Comrade, I totally understand your point of seeing a larger external growth but I don't see that happening unless our job growth outpaces our current internal growth we have in this state.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

So, there is definitely ample evidence demand has decreased greatly over the last decade.

Tell that to all those fools building THOUSANDS of new apartment units in SLC.

Originally Posted by Comrade

. It's not bingo, tho. I just proved that demand was higher in the 90s - as the total new units built was basically equal to what we saw in the 00s and that was coupled with established housing filling up more.

Sorry, I had edited out the Bingo thing after reading the statement more carefully.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

I The demographics in SLC are simply apples to oranges when compared to Portland. Portland isn't the motherland of a major religion that is very family-oriented, nor is it hardly religious at all in general compared to other places. What happened there was a result of its own cultural norms. Utah's norms are much different.

I like your overall message but have to disagree on this. I like to joke that SLC is like Portland but with good looking women and less pretensions. The reality is that while Church HQ is downtown, the majority of Mormons fled a long time ago. But you really can't paint a brush one way or another across the Wasatch as Salt Lake, Ogden, Provo, Park City and West Valley etc are completely different from each other. That's really one of the things that I love about our state.

I think all of the chatter about the "predominant culture" is mostly poppycock and counterproductive. It really creates an imaginary "us and them" mentality on both sides. Even worse, it's friggin' old, tired and boring. I know I'm sick of it. I am a 20 year bar guy and I have devout Mormon friends who like to be near theater, artisan food and culture and don't have kids or massive families. That issue is one that has come up at general conference a few times. Mormons aren't marrying as young or having as many children, so even the "predominant culture" is changing rapidly.