Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

It seems gentrification has more to do with the type of people who live in a neighborhood vs what is built there. If a group of people have pride in ownership, work to up keep there houses and yards, remodel run down homes, the result is gentrification. A nice building being built there is a result of gentrification already happening in that neighborhood. It's too late for that area. I wish Ogden would gentrify a little. Lol.

Lots of working class neighborhoods have homes just as you describe. But I think you just proved why gentrification can be a problem unwittingly, of course. When neighborhoods gentrify, it prices out a good amount of people who could've afforded living there at one time - a lot of minorities and working class whites. That leads to two things 1) they continue to bolt for the suburbs, where it's cheaper to actually live in a house or 2) they rent, which takes away the pride of owning a house.

It's not ghettos that are being gentrified. It's neighborhoods that may have pockets of run down homes, but on the whole, aren't bad neighborhoods.

We talk about how there's not affordable housing in SLC and how it's not affordable to raise a family - and then wonder why. Well this is why. There's nothing bad about a city offering diverse economic housing. Unfortunately, what happens is that these once diverse neighborhoods, like SugarHouse, which has historically been a mix of working class/middle class homes, slowly start losing those working class residents as it becomes more and more expensive to own property in the neighborhood as the suburban Yuppies looking for the city experience move in.

Then those priced out folks, many who want to buy a new home in Salt Lake, are forced to move to the suburbs or are segregated from the rest of the city as they move further west to areas that haven't been gentrified just yet.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Well we did have a library developed by Moshe Safdie. That's pretty solid.

Oops. How could I forget about the library? I love the library!

As for gentrification, I certainly agree that the people who live in the neighborhood should have a meaningful say in what is able to be built in their neighborhood. Even for the Trolley Square project, which I like. It must be terrible to be priced out of your own home; the fact the people are already nervous about this should say something about the status quo in our city/country/planet ect.

But this does bring up the question of how can a city grow while taking gentrification seriously?

[airhero]

Regarding gentrification, it's bad, but it's a far more common topic than it is an actual occurrence, at least when it comes to displacing long-time residents, especially in a place like Salt Lake. I would agree that gentrification is not much of an issue with this particular development, especially in the neighborhood in question, which I assume is predominantly white professionals already. Listen to the residents but in my opinion a gentrification argument won't go far.

[delts145]

I hope you and others will do that Sean. I know if I were there I would.

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I think ill show up and counter their points. Parking lots are not something to protect unless it's against parks...

[Utah_Dave]

Gentrification is a tough issue to tackle or solve. I think we will see a lot more of this come up as our population explodes of the next few decades.

[Future Mayor]

Gentrification can be a very sharp double edged sword. Gentrification can bring a lot of new housing opportunities to neighborhoods, can bring local businesses, and jobs, which for the most part is a good thing, the more people that are around, the more retail and other opportunities that come to the area. Which provide options for local residents, creating a more walkable community.

I agree with the parking lots are not under privileged people, and any time a parking lot can be redeveloped into housing is a good thing. I can see why some of the neighbors would be concerned, as more middle class and upper middle class people move into the new Trolley Square apartments, the overall demand in the neighborhood will increase, and those renting homes or apartments can be priced out, as landlords raise their rents due to higher demand. Those who own however, there only concern should be the increase in property value, which would raise their tax bill, but it would take years and no increase in wages to "force" them out of their homes due to increases in value.

The thing that the city needs to do is to require all new development to have a percentage of affordable units, based on the area median income. Some people may freak out and say, I don't want some really poor person living in my neighborhood. Essentially 80% or 50% of the area median income in Central City is going to be different than 80% or 50% of the area median income in the Avenues. It needs to be based off neighborhood census tract information, to best evaluate what the AMI is. I would estimate that if the 80% or 50% AMI threshold is at or above the Median Income of the City, or if the target price is more than 30%(target housing costs) of the median income of the city, that the Affordable percentage could possibly be eliminated.

Trolley Square is doing ok, but it could be doing much better. It is no longer the regional destination that it once was, back in the 80's and 90's. It needs to be a neighborhood destination and in order to thrive as a neighborhood destination it needs more population.

The reality of the area is this, Values in Central City are already climbing at a very steady pace (so if you're looking to move to Central City, call me before prices go up even more. Yes shameless plug) Values are going to increase no matter if this development happens or not. This could actually delay the increase in some existing rental prices as more supply comes into the neighborhood.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

It seems gentrification has more to do with the type of people who live in a neighborhood vs what is built there. If a group of people have pride in ownership, work to up keep there houses and yards, remodel run down homes, the result is gentrification. A nice building being built there is a result of gentrification already happening in that neighborhood. It's too late for that area. I wish Ogden would gentrify a little. Lol.

Excellent points Utah_Dave. If I remember correctly that has already been happening all around Trolley Square for many years now. This is particularly true in the neighborhoods on the immediate east side of 700E. I was very impressed with what many of the new home owners had done with their lovely, but often deteriorating historic homes. Many had been brought back to their once charming pristine condition. I doubt that property owners in the area will have many arguments regarding this development, because as property owners they want to see the value of their neighborhood remain at least stable or move upward, not declining.

I know that here in my historic Downtown Los Angeles neighborhood, just the act of me cleaning the neighborhood streets, met with some resistance. There were those who resented the act because it represented a type of coming gentrification in their minds. However, the property owners of all ethnicities loved me for it. Because of it, the entire neighborhood has made a lot of progress over the past two years. Now, there are many who get out every week and make sure things are kept tidy, instead of letting it get out of control and waiting weeks for the city to deal with it.

Trolley Square is a unique situation. People cannot have their cake and eat it too. In other words, renters cannot live next to such a beautiful historic and important jewel, and expect the new owners to allow it to continue to languish as it has for years because of underdevelopment. Finally, someone comes up with a plan to give Trolley Square a worthy development. I enthusiastically applaud them.

Are we also so PC about the Hardware Station development? I mean, let's just drop the Hardware plan. We surely don't want the rents in that neighborhood to rise. There are plenty of areas in Salt Lake where citizens and elected officials can guide the redevelopment of neighborhoods in a sensible and affordable working class manner. This, without nixing well executed, beautiful endeavors like Hardware and Trolley Square.

Hardware and Trolley Square plans are not the same as some of the — coming out of Sugar House recently. That's a whole different topic for discussion.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That's some flawed logic right there. Gentrification isn't just bulldozing current housing for new housing. It's changing the dynamics of a neighborhood so that it becomes unaffordable for the type of people who already live there. Just look at what's happening in huge areas of San Francisco.

Gentrification is happening in San Francisco because they haven't built enough new housing units. Residents have blocked them.

These protestations about the Trolley Square development sound a lot more like home owners trying to further gentrify their neighborhood than renters trying to prevent it. The neighborhood and the city as a whole is already gentrifying. Largely because the surrounding metro is adding housing at a much faster rate than SLC proper.

[delts145]

I'm just reading your last post Future Mayor, Excellent points all!

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Gentrification is happening in San Francisco because they haven't built enough new housing units. Residents have blocked them.

These protestations about the Trolley Square development sound a lot more like home owners trying to further gentrify their neighborhood than renters trying to prevent it. The neighborhood and the city as a whole is already gentrifying. Largely because the surrounding metro is adding housing at a much faster rate than SLC proper.

Bingo. NIMBYism at its worst. Build it and get over it. We're not talking about South Temple (one of the greatest streets in America) here. I can't stand that precious garbage. Most of them railing about "greedy developers". Of course, their own houses where built by fair trade magic faeries.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The thing that the city needs to do is to require all new development to have a percentage of affordable units, based on the area median income. Some people may freak out and say, I don't want some really poor person living in my neighborhood. Essentially 80% or 50% of the area median income in Central City is going to be different than 80% or 50% of the area median income in the Avenues. It needs to be based off neighborhood census tract information, to best evaluate what the AMI is. I would estimate that if the 80% or 50% AMI threshold is at or above the Median Income of the City, or if the target price is more than 30%(target housing costs) of the median income of the city, that the Affordable percentage could possibly be eliminated.

I disagree. What you are referring to is "Inclusionary Zoning" where affordable units are mandated, which, as has been documented by housing economists for decades, actually repels development and decreases housing stock artificially, thereby increasing prices. Low density zoning requirements are actually the the bane of low income housing and it's a fact that the stricter the land use ordinance, the more expensive housing is.
HERE IS A GOOD PRIMER

[Future Mayor]

While it can increase development costs slightly, at a 10% or 20% low income requirement the increase per unit price and to the ROI is negligibly. That "increase in development costs" can be off set with Low Income housing tax credits, and through city incentives as well.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Bingo. NIMBYism at its worst. Build it and get over it. We're not talking about South Temple (one of the greatest streets in America) here. I can't stand that precious garbage. Most of them railing about "greedy developers". Of course, their own houses where built by fair trade magic faeries.



I disagree. What you are referring to is "Inclusionary Zoning" where affordable units are mandated, which, as has been documented by housing economists for decades, actually repels development and decreases housing stock artificially, thereby increasing prices. Low density zoning requirements are actually the the bane of low income housing and it's a fact that the stricter the land use ordinance, the more expensive housing is.
HERE IS A GOOD PRIMER

I definitely believe incentives work better than mandates. Perhaps if the city ends the impact fee moratorium they could continue to waive the fee for developments that have a given percentage of low income housing units.

[Future Mayor]

Revised townhouse proposal for Townes at 7th, 323 and 325 South 7th East. This project is going to Planning Commission for a Planned Development Approval.

http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2016/00140.pdf

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Comrade

No. That's exactly what it does. Gentrification has its benefits - but it also prices out a great deal of the established neighborhood.

While Gentrification can displace people, in a neighborhood like Central City, building restrictions can actually be what prices out people. Just look at San Francisco to see what limiting density in high demand neighborhoods does to the cost of housing.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Gentrification is happening in San Francisco because they haven't built enough new housing units. Residents have blocked them.

These protestations about the Trolley Square development sound a lot more like home owners trying to further gentrify their neighborhood than renters trying to prevent it. The neighborhood and the city as a whole is already gentrifying. Largely because the surrounding metro is adding housing at a much faster rate than SLC proper.

I should have made sure to read every response before I replied. I think we can find a balance to density but too much restriction and only the rich will get to enjoy Salt Lake.

[asies1981]

Post of the popup parks on Main Street.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

*Waits for much delayed convention center hotel announcement...*

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

*Waits for much delayed convention center hotel announcement...*

I haven't heard anything lately. This isn't because there isn't news but rather I wasn't able to attend any of the meetings when this would have been discussed.

Hopefully there will be an announcement soon or at least some official news.

All I have are rumors and I won't post them as I don't know what may be real and what isn't and I would hate to give false information.

[Utah_Dave]

HEY MAKID!!! Please post some rumors about the hotel and any other developments you may know about. If you don't, we are going to go on and on and on about Gentrification! Please help us! Just emphasize the part about rumor. We won't hold it against you. It will make for good discussion. Thank you sir

[delts145]

Yeah Makid, share some gossip. We won't hold it against you. Ha, I would love to hear some of the rumors...