Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Utah_Dave]

Where do you play kickball? On a regular baseball or softball field? That brings back some good memories!

[DCRes]

This is opening up next week in the old Bayleaf space. I know how you guys love blade signs. I got an email today (I signed up for the mailing list a while back) saying that there is a soft opening today and tomorrow, which is free if you have the email.

[IMG] by , on Flickr[/IMG]

[Future Mayor]

It's a group called Beehive Sports and Social Club. This year the Thursday league plays at Rosewood Park, which I had no idea existed, and Wednesday plays at Liberty. They used to play on the diamonds at Sunnyside, but as the league got bigger they just play on the grass and paint the lines for the diamond.


As for Mollie and Ollie you're right DCRes, I do love me some blade signs. I really like the modern store front in the existing old building. I think it has a nice presence on Main.

As I was walking down State on Saturday I noticed that the old retail space, 372 S, north of Jackalope is being remodeled. They have stepped back the front and added garage style doors. I am assuming it's going to be a restaurant. I'll try to snap a picture in the next day or two.

[i-215]

Moreover, the growth has slowed a bit since the 1990s.

I can vouch for that. I grew up in Magna. Back in the 90s there was a new tract of houses going up somewhere every month. West Valley City is now almost built out. They are even doing (gasp!) compact development near 2700 South and 5600 West because the city is running low on develop-able land.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by i-215

I can vouch for that. I grew up in Magna. Back in the 90s there was a new tract of houses going up somewhere every month. West Valley City is now almost built out. They are even doing (gasp!) compact development near 2700 South and 5600 West because the city is running low on develop-able land.

The first dense, townhouse development at 2700 S 5600 W was built 18 years ago.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Construction growth is not necessarily a good tell on whether a city is growing at a large pace or not. I mentioned this about a year ago in a post. According to Census data, between 1970 and 1980, Salt Lake City added 7,167 housing units. That's actually more units than the city saw built between 2000 and 2010 - though, I'll concede many of those units were most likely suburban housing built on the city's west side as opposed to downtown condos/apartments.

Still, Salt Lake expanded its units in a decade where the population went from 175,885 in 1970 to 163,034 in 1980 - which was the overall largest percentage population decrease the city has ever experienced.

So, despite the city building new units, its population actually contracted significantly. Much of this construction was due to population not necessarily moving into the city - but just relocating to other areas of the city.

In the 1970s and 80s, Salt Lake saw its population shift away from the older, more established eastern neighborhoods to the far-flung suburban neighborhoods of western Salt Lake City (Rose Park, around Redwood Road). Also, as we've already established in this thread multiple times, Utah's growth isn't really coming from outside people moving into the state - it's coming from internal factors. It's entirely possible we're seeing another similar shift the city experienced in the latter part of the 20th Century - people already in the city relocating to other areas in the city.

Salt Lakers could be moving from, say, Central City to downtown or from Liberty Wells to Sugar House or Rose Park to Marmalade.

This goes back to the point I've made a dozen times on this forum - Utah's growth patterns hamper Salt Lake City overall. The dynamics of this state's population, which include young, growing families, don't favor Salt Lake City. Since there is such a push to start a family at a young age with the LDS faith, it's economically impractical to buy a small condo in downtown Salt Lake City. What happens is that many of these individuals either graduate, or return from their mission, marry, start their family and go where the affordable houses are - namely out in the suburbs, especially the far suburbs toward the south-end of the valley.

Salt Lake can't compete with that because it grew up in an era where houses were much smaller, and the houses that are big enough for a family are just too expensive for a young, growing family. The current development is also not favorable to families.

So, while Utah is a young state, its young is much different than the young of, say, Colorado. That's the rub. Salt Lake only appeals to a small group in the Utah demographic pool - either the elderly looking to retire to a condo downtown, non-Mormons or immigrants, who probably can't afford to live downtown. But LDS families? They exist in Salt Lake, but as the stats prove, they're an increasingly smaller number as those families relocate to other communities.

I know tons of single Mormons who live in SLC. They like living by Temple Square, or go to BYU Salt Lake, etc. I read recently 37% of Westminister was mormon. Not to mention most LDS missionaries go and serve in urban areas and end up having a thing for those type of areas because of it.

You act like people not wanting to live in the city is a Utah / Mormon thing. But it's every single area in the entire United States. Have you seen Atlanta, Phoenix, or the entire state of Texas? The majority of Americans seem to gravitate to a suburban life, and many places more so than occurs in Utah.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

I know tons of single Mormons who live in SLC. They like living by Temple Square, or go to BYU Salt Lake, etc. I read recently 37% of Westminister was mormon. Not to mention most LDS missionaries go and serve in urban areas and end up having a thing for those type of areas because of it.

You act like people not wanting to live in the city is a Utah / Mormon thing. But it's every single area in the entire United States. Have you seen Atlanta, Phoenix, or the entire state of Texas? The majority of Americans seem to gravitate to a suburban life, and many places more so than occurs in Utah.

Anyone can find the exception to the rule. That doesn't prove squat, though, really. The facts belie your point. Since the 1960s, Salt Lake's LDS population has decreased at a relatively solid rate. Much of this is because LDS folks have relocated to the suburbs and it's not a coincidence the fastest growing areas of the state remain heavily populated by Mormons. Utah as a whole has even slowed the trend of becoming less Mormon, seeing a slight increase after a decade and a half of decline. Only in Salt Lake County has the LDS population continued an overall decline - but it remains very high in Utah County (was 83% in 2000 and an estimated 82% in 2014). Salt Lake County is becoming less Mormon, but how much of that is due to the county becoming more ethnically diverse? I don't know - but it's a good thing to look at. My guess is that the county as a whole is getting less white, which is playing a role in it becoming less Mormon.

As for your comment about other cities - you've got a point, to an extent. Places Phoenix continue to be suburban in nature. Even still, SLC's population percentage change in 2010 was just 2.6%. Compare that to other cities and it lags considerably:

Denver: 8.2%
Portland: 10.3%
Boise: 10.7%
Phoenix: 9.4%
Las Vegas: 22%
San Francisco: 3.7%
Seattle: 8.0%
San Diego: 6.9%

Salt Lake City has experienced the least amount of growth of pretty much any of the major cities out west. Is some of that due to SLC's limited land area? Sure - but that's not an overall valid excuse because most these cities aren't expanding their borders. They're just building up. Salt Lake isn't really building up. We're becoming more urban from what we were - but not entirely urban compared to a great deal of the other cities in our region (minus, say, Boise, Vegas and Phoenix).

The difference, I believe, continues to be the demographics we're working with locally. LDS people are not moving to SLC in droves. In fact, the city probably is losing Mormons every year (it's harder to peg the LDS population at the city level, but it's clear to anyone in SLC that the city is less Mormon than it was even 10 years ago - and 10 years before that). That leaves non-Mormons and ethnic families, like Mexicans, Somalians and other non-English background groups. The latter folks aren't clamoring to move into downtown Salt Lake. But they make up a bulk of the growth.

In the 2000 Census, white alone made up 79% of the overall Salt Lake population. In 2010, it was 75%. In the 2000 Census, Hispanic or Latino made up 18% of the population - in 2010 it was 22%. Salt Lake added 4,184 people between the 2000 and 2010 Census. The white population, however, went from 144,383 in 2000 to 140,080 in 2010. So, the city actually lost 4,303 people who consider themselves white. Basically, while SLC grew in the 00s, it was not because white people were moving to the city. It was almost all non-white growth that drove the population increase. That's unusual for most cities not located in, say, the rust belt. Take Portland, Oregon, where the white population increased by 32,000 between 2000-2010. In Denver, it increased by 52,400.

The big question is what it'll be like in 2020. IF the trend continues, Salt Lake should be roughly 71% white and 26% Hispanic or Latino.

We'll see. But those demographics as a whole probably explain why the city isn't growing at the rate many of us want.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The first dense, townhouse development at 2700 S 5600 W was built 18 years ago.

True. I remember when they built those. But the development to the east is HUGE. A lot of compact development there.

[asies1981]

Post on the SLCC expansion by the airport. That area is becoming quite the industrial hub.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Anyone can find the exception to the rule. That doesn't prove squat, though, really. The facts belie your point. Since the 1960s, Salt Lake's LDS population has decreased at a relatively solid rate. Much of this is because LDS folks have relocated to the suburbs and it's not a coincidence the fastest growing areas of the state remain heavily populated by Mormons. Utah as a whole has even slowed the trend of becoming less Mormon, seeing a slight increase after a decade and a half of decline. Only in Salt Lake County has the LDS population continued an overall decline - but it remains very high in Utah County (was 83% in 2000 and an estimated 82% in 2014). Salt Lake County is becoming less Mormon, but how much of that is due to the county becoming more ethnically diverse? I don't know - but it's a good thing to look at. My guess is that the county as a whole is getting less white, which is playing a role in it becoming less Mormon.

As for your comment about other cities - you've got a point, to an extent. Places Phoenix continue to be suburban in nature. Even still, SLC's population percentage change in 2010 was just 2.6%. Compare that to other cities and it lags considerably:

Denver: 8.2%
Portland: 10.3%
Boise: 10.7%
Phoenix: 9.4%
Las Vegas: 22%
San Francisco: 3.7%
Seattle: 8.0%
San Diego: 6.9%

Salt Lake City has experienced the least amount of growth of pretty much any of the major cities out west. Is some of that due to SLC's limited land area? Sure - but that's not an overall valid excuse because most these cities aren't expanding their borders. They're just building up. Salt Lake isn't really building up. We're becoming more urban from what we were - but not entirely urban compared to a great deal of the other cities in our region (minus, say, Boise, Vegas and Phoenix).

The difference, I believe, continues to be the demographics we're working with locally. LDS people are not moving to SLC in droves. In fact, the city probably is losing Mormons every year (it's harder to peg the LDS population at the city level, but it's clear to anyone in SLC that the city is less Mormon than it was even 10 years ago - and 10 years before that). That leaves non-Mormons and ethnic families, like Mexicans, Somalians and other non-English background groups. The latter folks aren't clamoring to move into downtown Salt Lake. But they make up a bulk of the growth.

In the 2000 Census, white alone made up 79% of the overall Salt Lake population. In 2010, it was 75%. In the 2000 Census, Hispanic or Latino made up 18% of the population - in 2010 it was 22%. Salt Lake added 4,184 people between the 2000 and 2010 Census. The white population, however, went from 144,383 in 2000 to 140,080 in 2010. So, the city actually lost 4,303 people who consider themselves white. Basically, while SLC grew in the 00s, it was not because white people were moving to the city. It was almost all non-white growth that drove the population increase. That's unusual for most cities not located in, say, the rust belt. Take Portland, Oregon, where the white population increased by 32,000 between 2000-2010. In Denver, it increased by 52,400.

The big question is what it'll be like in 2020. IF the trend continues, Salt Lake should be roughly 71% white and 26% Hispanic or Latino.

We'll see. But those demographics as a whole probably explain why the city isn't growing at the rate many of us want.

Most of the 2000-2010 city growth was through natural increase and post 2010 growth includes more people relocating to the city from elsewhere. The westside is gentrifying, a lot of same-sex couple that are now marrying and having children are moving to Rose Park and Glendale instead of moving to the suburbs. I also think the 2010-2015 numbers won't be necessarily repeated for 2016-2020 and we will see a faster growth rate. The number of units under construction and soon to be under construction is more than what was built between 10-15. I think we will start to see larger gains leading up to 2020 census. Also, we are starting to see more "family friendly" multifamily developments coming up, with multiple townhome projects under and soon to be under construction. Central Ninth alone is going to have close to 50 townhome/cottage home type developments built in the next few years. Just as with singles, there are few housing options in the city right now, home prices are high and supply is low as that changes I think we will see more families move to the city. Salt Lake is a safe space for families outside of the Utah bubble and with more housing options I think we'll see more move here.

[JMK]

Photo update

9th east lofts
http://www.buildingsaltlake.com/workforce-housing-coming-to-400-south-corridor/




Liberty Boulevard Apartments (wonder bread building is gone!)
http://www.buildingsaltlake.com/large-mixed-use-project-coming-to-400-south/



University of Utah scoreboard (this thing is massive)

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by asies1981

Most of the 2000-2010 city growth was through natural increase and post 2010 growth includes more people relocating to the city from elsewhere. The westside is gentrifying, a lot of same-sex couple that are now marrying and having children are moving to Rose Park and Glendale instead of moving to the suburbs. I also think the 2010-2015 numbers won't be necessarily repeated for 2016-2020 and we will see a faster growth rate. The number of units under construction and soon to be under construction is more than what was built between 10-15. I think we will start to see larger gains leading up to 2020 census. Also, we are starting to see more "family friendly" multifamily developments coming up, with multiple townhome projects under and soon to be under construction. Central Ninth alone is going to have close to 50 townhome/cottage home type developments built in the next few years. Just as with singles, there are few housing options in the city right now, home prices are high and supply is low as that changes I think we will see more families move to the city. Salt Lake is a safe space for families outside of the Utah bubble and with more housing options I think we'll see more move here.

I'm going by what is known. Unfortunately, nothing you stated about the growth patterns can be proven since they either haven't happened or the numbers haven't been released. What we know is that SLC's growth the first half of this decade is only marginally better than last decade and the trend actually doesn't indicate, right now, that'll it see a surge in the next half of the decade. Even if it does, while it'll best the 00s in overall growth, it'll be well behind the boom Salt Lake saw in the 90s.

Even then, 66% of minorities fueled Salt Lake County's growth in 2014. Hard to think Salt Lake is an outlier there being the most diverse city in the county.

I still believe, based on the last decade-plus worth of trends, that Salt Lake's growth is fueled mostly by minorities and non-Mormons. However, those non-Mormons aren't replacing the white LDS folks who've either died or moved out of the city at near the same rate.

[asies1981]

City Council approved the zoning change for the convention center hotel but set a height limit.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I'm going by what is known. Unfortunately, nothing you stated about the growth patterns can be proven since they either haven't happened or the numbers haven't been released. What we know is that SLC's growth the first half of this decade is only marginally better than last decade and the trend actually doesn't indicate, right now, that'll it see a surge in the next half of the decade. Even if it does, while it'll best the 00s in overall growth, it'll be well behind the boom Salt Lake saw in the 90s.

Even then, 66% of minorities fueled Salt Lake County's growth in 2014. Hard to think Salt Lake is an outlier there being the most diverse city in the county.

I still believe, based on the last decade-plus worth of trends, that Salt Lake's growth is fueled mostly by minorities and non-Mormons. However, those non-Mormons aren't replacing the white LDS folks who've either died or moved out of the city at near the same rate.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you are saying, I was just saying that I think we'll see growth in the city across all demographics.

[ctobsl]

Originally Posted by asies1981

City Council approved the zoning change for the convention center hotel but set a height limit.

Wow, what a disappointment! Another stub and a wall for the downtown.

[wrendog]

Wow. Thanks for nothing, council. 375 feet???? Lame.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by ctobsl

Wow, what a disappointment! Another stub and a wall for the downtown.

It appears the city is really dedicated to the tallest buildings being exclusively between West Temple and 200 East (although 375 feet would make the convention center hotel the fourth tallest)

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by asies1981

I wasn't disagreeing with what you are saying, I was just saying that I think we'll see growth in the city across all demographics.

Maybe - but there is no guarantee and it would require Salt Lake bucking 15 years of recent trends.

[Comrade]

The worst thing ever was the idea of unlimited height. It scared a bunch of backwards-minded people into thinking the skyscraper could be 1,000 feet tall. In reality, the limit should've been set at like 600 feet or something.

[EPdesign]

Wait. The article end abruptly. Narrower building..and....they said?