Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Orlando]

Oh, I hope they go above the 375' mark. That design is so squat, and it will bury Abravanel Hall. And, Design Review will only help to give us the best building for the city. I'm surprised they don't already have to go through Design Review regardless.

[Future Mayor]

Could they possibly do the minimum of 800 rooms under the 375' threshold? Yes, they could, but all indications suggest they are shooting for much closer to the 1,000 to 1,200 with the possibly addition of some condo units as well. Not to mention that obviously both the north and south site proposals came in over the 375' threshold, if that wasn't the case there would have been absolutely NO reason to even approach the city to change the allowable height on the block. If both those proposals came in based on the massing plan there would have be no need for the request.

If the model above is the 800 room massing then I estimate it sits around 325'. From a previous calculation I did several years ago, the average hotel floor height is around 13', which accounts for lobby, meeting room and guest rooms. I based this off many SLC hotels, of varying heights.

If they go for even the 1,000 rooms based on that same massing, it would would add for more floors of guest rooms, that would put the building at 29 floors 377', 1,200 rooms adds 9 floors, taking it to 34, 442'.


I guess I can sort of, but not really, understand the pessimism from many of the forumers, but come on people. Is every glass in your life half empty? Developments take time, there are a lot of moving parts that need to be brought together. The initial proposal is just that, initial. The developer has an idea of the number of rooms, the partners involved and who they think will invest in and finance the project. Even cut and dry developments that seem like they should be a piece of cake usually run into a couple of snags along the way. So considering this will be the largest hotel in the state, it will be connected to a county facility, it will be displacing another facility, it is being built on county owned land which is being provided at no charge, will involve State, County and City money, and requires a worthwhile design, there are a lot of things to hammer out.

[asies1981]

Busy day for downtown Salt Lake. The Downtown Alliance announced plans for a revised Downtown Rising and the Downtown Plan goes before the City Council tonight.

[Future Mayor]

Man, I could digest that plan for days.

So far this is what has stuck out to me.
-34% of developable land is either undeveloped or under developed.
-27% of developable land is surface parking
-24% is tax exempt. A lot of people complain that the church owns so much land that is tax exempt. Honestly who cares, the fact that we have more surface parking than tax exempt is ridiculous.

-3 dwelling units per acre. I wonder what that number was before Regent and 99 West went up?

-The plan anticipates about a 25% increase in workers. According to CBRE in 2016 there was 7,072,606 leasable square feet in the CBD, and another 3,571,530 in the CBD/Periphery. 10,644,136 sf total. If office space reflects anticipated workers that is the addition of 1,768,151 sf in the CBD, 892,882 in the periphery, and 2,661,034 total. THAT'S SIX MORE 111'S!!!!! That's a substantial amount of square footage to be added. Yes some will be shorter, but I guarantee that several will be taller.

- The addition of 15,000 more residents, up from 5,000 today. That leads to some serious vibrancy, as well as 24/7 activity, more retail, more restaurants and more bars/restaurants. SLC is fairly vibrant right now, less so on week nights, but not dead. Now triple the residents in the overall footprint and you've got yourself some nice activity.

- They are a huge focus on creating more mid-block connections.

- I would like to know how they define low-rise and mid-rise thought. I'm assuming by the recent Central 9th RDA requirements that they look at low-rise as nothing more than 3 stories.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Could they possibly do the minimum of 800 rooms under the 375' threshold? Yes, they could, but all indications suggest they are shooting for much closer to the 1,000 to 1,200 with the possibly addition of some condo units as well. Not to mention that obviously both the north and south site proposals came in over the 375' threshold, if that wasn't the case there would have been absolutely NO reason to even approach the city to change the allowable height on the block. If both those proposals came in based on the massing plan there would have be no need for the request.

If the model above is the 800 room massing then I estimate it sits around 325'. From a previous calculation I did several years ago, the average hotel floor height is around 13', which accounts for lobby, meeting room and guest rooms. I based this off many SLC hotels, of varying heights.

If they go for even the 1,000 rooms based on that same massing, it would would add for more floors of guest rooms, that would put the building at 29 floors 377', 1,200 rooms adds 9 floors, taking it to 34, 442'.


I guess I can sort of, but not really, understand the pessimism from many of the forumers, but come on people. Is every glass in your life half empty? Developments take time, there are a lot of moving parts that need to be brought together. The initial proposal is just that, initial. The developer has an idea of the number of rooms, the partners involved and who they think will invest in and finance the project. Even cut and dry developments that seem like they should be a piece of cake usually run into a couple of snags along the way. So considering this will be the largest hotel in the state, it will be connected to a county facility, it will be displacing another facility, it is being built on county owned land which is being provided at no charge, will involve State, County and City money, and requires a worthwhile design, there are a lot of things to hammer out.

Did I miss something?

I thought the D-4 was zoned 75' w/out review or up to 120' w/review. They can't build a 175' building without a zoning change. The change they are considering would allow for up to 375' without review or above 375' with review. So... if they wanted to build higher than 120' and less than 375' they would still have reason to request a zoning change.

[Future Mayor]

I believe the zone change has already been approved.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I believe the zone change has already been approved.

I thought that it was approved by the planning commission(not yet changed) and they sent their recommendation to the city council.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I thought that it was approved by the planning commission(not yet changed) and they sent their recommendation to the city council.

That is correct, but they aren't waiting until the receive a zone change application, The public hearing is on May 24th and City Council will vote on it June 7th. It wasn't the county or the developer that initiated the amendment to the zone though, it was City initiated, Mayor Becker.

[Comrade]

How about instead of revising and re-releasing their ultimate vision for downtown, the city actually follows through with it? We've had visions for downtown since the 1960s that have amounted to little.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

That is correct, but they aren't waiting until the receive a zone change application, The public hearing is on May 24th and City Council will vote on it June 7th. It wasn't the county or the developer that initiated the amendment to the zone though, it was City initiated, Mayor Becker.

Right. So what you're saying is that the city has done it's job(and in all likelihood will approve the amendment) so if we end up with a stubby wall I shouldn't be disappointed with the city officials but rather the county officials(my original position).

[Utah_Dave]

I like how they are focused on a tech sector. I still would like to see a large scale gym. Who pays for it or develops is another story. I do believe the key to Salt lake is the residential growth. With that many people added to the city they will need to plan ahead some basic logistics like grocery stores and the like. Otherwise people will still be using cars for short trips which would be a negative. Get the people walking on the streets and you are in business. I wonder if there are any studies that would pertain to this matter that kinda spell out how close stores and the like need to be to residence for it to be a successful walkable downtown area?

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Well except the metric that would be most important to many of us on this thread - and that's commercial development.

For being at the heart of such a surging economy, SLC sure isn't seeing it trickle down toward bigger development. At least, not at the rate of many other cities - San Diego included.

We are only "lagging" if you only consider strictly SLC CBD commercial development. We are on the cusp of changing that (patience). We are popping along a 75 mile spine of continuous commercial development and it's not going to stop for twenty years. Which is one contributing factor to our slower CBD development pattern. We actually have a lot in common with Phoenix that way. Tempe and Scottsdale are cooking and downtown is just picking up down there. So I'll stand by what I said.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Marvland

We are only "lagging" if you only consider strictly SLC CBD commercial development. We are on the cusp of changing that (patience). We are popping along a 75 mile spine of continuous commercial development and it's not going to stop for twenty years. Which is one contributing factor to our slower CBD development pattern. We actually have a lot in common with Phoenix that way. Tempe and Scottsdale are cooking and downtown is just picking up down there. So I'll stand by what I said.

Economic growth is not unlimited. It's going to slow at some point. It always does. Then we'll have to wait for everything to start once again and the cycle will be the same - suburbs will grow like weeds and downtown will crawl.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I like how they are focused on a tech sector. I still would like to see a large scale gym. Who pays for it or develops is another story. I do believe the key to Salt lake is the residential growth. With that many people added to the city they will need to plan ahead some basic logistics like grocery stores and the like. Otherwise people will still be using cars for short trips which would be a negative. Get the people walking on the streets and you are in business. I wonder if there are any studies that would pertain to this matter that kinda spell out how close stores and the like need to be to residence for it to be a successful walkable downtown area?

The downtown plan highlighted the fact that there is currently only one full service grocery store in downtown. The stores will follow the roof tops, that is the case with all retail development, the residents have to get there first before the retail moves in. While yes another full service grocery store in the downtown area will be nice, I think a large portion of that need can be serviced by smaller stores. For instance, one Alta Gateway and 400 West apartments are completed, the homeless shelters are dispersed, and Hardware Station is built, The Gateway will be a prime location for a smaller, full service grocery store. Not a quick-e-mart, but a smaller version of a Smiths or Fresh Market, or even a Trader Joes. I also expect that in this build out to 20,000 downtown residents that we'll see another grocery store somewhere in the Depot/Granary district, along with a couple of smaller ones through out the area.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Economic growth is not unlimited. It's going to slow at some point. It always does. Then we'll have to wait for everything to start once again and the cycle will be the same - suburbs will grow like weeds and downtown will crawl.

The suburbs never stopped growing like weeds. Only a portion of the growth has been transferred to SLC. The shrinking supply of available land and water and the ever growing commute has made this happen. These pressures are not going to ease in the future, they will only become more pronounced. The suburbs will continue to grow at an insane rate but they still won't be able to absorb the population bomb that is hitting the Wasatch on their own. Further there is no replacement for downtown, despite the grandiose plans of small time mayors there isn't going to be one. Even if 100% of the residential growth occurs in the suburbs it will still cause an increased demand for commercial growth downtown.

SLC is set to grow, the demographics spell it out. I can't see a reasonable scenario where that doesn't happen.

[Highrise_Mike]

No two metros are exactly alike but we can look at the overall trend in other metro areas that have seen a shift of residents to the city centers and increased development in downtown areas.

We can clearly see that happening in Salt Lake right now with all of the multi-family housing projects popping up. Just as FM said, the residents come first and then we will see more retail and grocery stores, etc. come when there are enough roof tops to support it. I think once there are more residents downtown that there will be more demand for office space downtown as well. It would happen over time and we are in the phase of increasing the amount of housing.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade

How about instead of revising and re-releasing their ultimate vision for downtown, the city actually follows through with it? We've had visions for downtown since the 1960s that have amounted to little.

Actually, a large number of items in the 1960s plan were accomplished.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Actually, a large number of items in the 1960s plan were accomplished.

Yup you're right, the majority of the 1967 Second Century Plan has already come about.

Not to mention, the last downtown master plan was adopted in 1995. Do we really want to continue to implement goals from 21 years ago, like the city strongly endorsing a light rail system into downtown from the southern suburbs? Wouldn't you rather have an updated vision, particularly considering downtown has changed drastically in the last 21 years?

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Man, I could digest that plan for days.

So far this is what has stuck out to me.
-34% of developable land is either undeveloped or under developed.
-27% of developable land is surface parking
-24% is tax exempt. A lot of people complain that the church owns so much land that is tax exempt. Honestly who cares, the fact that we have more surface parking than tax exempt is ridiculous.

-3 dwelling units per acre. I wonder what that number was before Regent and 99 West went up?

-The plan anticipates about a 25% increase in workers. According to CBRE in 2016 there was 7,072,606 leasable square feet in the CBD, and another 3,571,530 in the CBD/Periphery. 10,644,136 sf total. If office space reflects anticipated workers that is the addition of 1,768,151 sf in the CBD, 892,882 in the periphery, and 2,661,034 total. THAT'S SIX MORE 111'S!!!!! That's a substantial amount of square footage to be added. Yes some will be shorter, but I guarantee that several will be taller.

- The addition of 15,000 more residents, up from 5,000 today. That leads to some serious vibrancy, as well as 24/7 activity, more retail, more restaurants and more bars/restaurants. SLC is fairly vibrant right now, less so on week nights, but not dead. Now triple the residents in the overall footprint and you've got yourself some nice activity.

- They are a huge focus on creating more mid-block connections.

- I would like to know how they define low-rise and mid-rise thought. I'm assuming by the recent Central 9th RDA requirements that they look at low-rise as nothing more than 3 stories.

The biggest issue with that amount of tax-exempt land is that that effectively raises the amount of taxes the other 3/4 of landowners have to pay in order to sustain municipal costs like administration and infrastructure (among other things). Does Salt Lake have a PILOT agreement with the LDS?

The other thing I noticed is the 3 dwelling units/acre metric. That's really low by the standards of other cities. I'm pretty sure most of SLC's peer regions by population -- Denver, Kansas City, and the like -- have a higher DU/acre count. Combine that with the amount of land being used for surface parking (which is high but surprisingly in-line with peers) and you have all the ingredients in place to drive lots more downtown residential growth.

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The downtown plan highlighted the fact that there is currently only one full service grocery store in downtown. The stores will follow the roof tops, that is the case with all retail development, the residents have to get there first before the retail moves in. While yes another full service grocery store in the downtown area will be nice, I think a large portion of that need can be serviced by smaller stores. For instance, one Alta Gateway and 400 West apartments are completed, the homeless shelters are dispersed, and Hardware Station is built, The Gateway will be a prime location for a smaller, full service grocery store. Not a quick-e-mart, but a smaller version of a Smiths or Fresh Market, or even a Trader Joes. I also expect that in this build out to 20,000 downtown residents that we'll see another grocery store somewhere in the Depot/Granary district, along with a couple of smaller ones through out the area.

I was thinking of a grocery market, and maybe a restaurant or two incorporated into the bottom of a residential building, similar to the Aris Market Square in Houston. I think a market or store would have a hard time making it work with a stand alone building. Particularly if land is expensive and harder to come by as we get built out. It will be interesting to see how things play out and what unique and innovative ideas developers can come up with. If the economy stays on track I think Salt Lake is in for an interesting phase in its development. I'm excited to watch.