Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[Mountain man]

Well this showed who the mature formers are who agree and accept that there is a problem and it obviously showed the immature formers who fight and argue everything in sight even on stuff that wasn't even the point of the original post. It really makes me happy that you guys set me strait that if your city annexed a bunch of counties your city would be huge and for thanks for reminding me that Salt Lake was incredibly close to the mountians! It really bothered me that being there almost every other month I couldn't notice where they were! Maybe stenar and delta should really go back and read the past several pages and ask yourselves what outside readers perception of them is and then read my original post. I could care less how close you are to the mountains or even what your population is.

[delts145]

Here are the facts of 20 pages before your post. Denver is either simply mentioned in passing, with no specific opinion or most often is complimented for something. Reviewing the twenty earlier pages, I imagine we could go back another twenty or fifty pages and find little to nothing about Denver, particularly that is negative toward Denver. If anything, and as you suggest going back several pages, it would seem that Wasatch Front forumers are overly impatient with their own local development, even as fast and furious as the numbers and stats are proving historical construction levels. I think that most outsiders will agree that local forum members might be a little too impatient and overly angst with their own community. Let's just be positive and call it being passionate about making things better.

Mountain Man, Of the 400 posts before your own post, there was only one brief mention of Denver as not being outdoor friendly. There was no elaboration or overkill, just a brief mention. There are opinions in the couple of pages before your post that Salt Lake City is a better fit for the OR., but it was not expressed in an un thoughtful or overtly negative tone. This opinion about the OR convention in particular stems specifically from the location of the downtown convention centers, where the OR would be held. Specifically, the time that it takes to travel from the host site to the many typically scheduled outdoor activities, and return back to the host site(downtown convention facility and hotels) is extremely critical. I'm sure Denver will offer many ideas in resolving this all important issue. We'll just have to see how it turns out for this specific type of convention. The big advantage that Denver has right now is that it's Convention Center Hotel is up and running. Salt Lake City forum members are rightfully frustrated with the seeming bureaucracy of getting its own Convention Hotel underway.

Frankly, when it came down to actually reading the posts that mention Denver, I was surprised at how complimentary many were.

I'm sure you didn't mean for your post to sound as it did. Honestly though, in spite of your professed love of the place, you expressed a lot of very negative and inaccurate generalizations. Far more in your one post than the previous 20 pages and 400 posts combined. Again, I'm sure unintentional, but you seriously only created your own proverbial "Tempest in a Teapot". The written word presented in the previous 400 posts bears this out as a fact.

The facts would tell us that Salt Lake/Wasatch Front forumers go much easier, and are far more flattering toward Denver than they are their own Metro.

Please return often now that you've posted for the first few times, and are often in the Salt Lake City area. Let us know where you would like to see changes and improvements made. Hopefully, you will eventually settle in the Salt Lake City area, and take up the passionate fight in making Salt Lake City an even more fantastic world destination in the upcoming future.

Denver References in the previous 20 pages and 400 posts:

Originally Posted by EPdesign

You guys. I loved Denver. First. You can't even begin to compare. The way each city is growing is completely different because of the geographical features. I say it reminds me of LA. Speaking of which, They do have low rise wood construction apartments going up everywhere like in Los Angeles and Salt Lake. So Salt Lake is on track on that end. What I do miss is being on the East or west side and being able to see the entire valley so I'm happy to see that again. You don't get that easily here. Salt lake is going to be soo different because it is surrounded by mountains it's going to be a city like no other. I might not get to see it in my lifetime but all the bickering we get into about how unique or un-unique salt lake is, sounds trivial when you realize how unique it is destined to become. When you're not there you realize how different and beautiful and considerably well thought out it actually is. I love it out here in Denver as I'm hoping to move out here permanently but it's not like living in that valley. Oh...I will say..I like the way the Wasatch mountains are so close to the city

Originally Posted by airportvids

Well Denver just became even better while we became worse. Outdoor Retailers taking their show to Denver. We can thank our worthless city and county leaders for sitting on their asses all these years while we really needed a CCH. Just one more thing added to the long list of what Denver has that we don't have.

Originally Posted by San Diego-Honolulu

The Outdoor Retailer show is heading to Denver...

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44381102&nid=148&title=outdoor-retailer-takes-show-to-denver

Originally Posted by Makid

The CCH was never for OR.

Without OR, the need is more pressing for the CCH than before. Without it, we won't get bigger conventions nor a big industry trade show.

OR would have stayed had the Governor rejected the bill calling for the monuments to be rescinded.

Also, OR would have been roughly $90 Million a year from the $45 Million they were at.

Lastly, the location of the summer show hasn't been stated yet so it isn't certain that Denver will get that one. The Summer show is the one that needed another 300,000+ sq ft of exhibit space to have everything in a single location. They used the whole Salt Palace plus 1 and a half 200,000 sq ft tents.

I think Summer is going to head to Las Vegas or Orlando. I would be shocked if they picked another location though.

Originally Posted by Marvland

I am pissed off at the governor and our laughislature for fifty thousand reasons including the OR/Bears Ears debacle. Im also pisssed at the OR folks hurting their most ardent, liberal advocates the most: the food and beverage and hospitality industry. An enterprising group of souls should organize another trade show and focus on cottage brands, high tech outdoor applications and less of the hypocritical Vietnam sweatshop garbage that REI, TNF and Patagonia shovels out. A little birdie told me that the hundreds of Utah based exhibitors are pissed off too and that some things are in the works. We shall see.

Denver, being really a plains city, is a surprising choice. Despite all the hype, it is the least outdoor friendly major city in the West other than LA. On a 20 inch powder day, I'll be sitting on the Eagle Express chair at Soli with a beer in my hand three hours before those jack wads even get a sniff of the mountain air. And dont be fooled, they will all still come to Utah and poop in our canyons, pee in our rivers and give us their money anyway. Screwem. We don't need them any more than we need those retarded grandstanders on Capitol Hill. We lost the show so we need to get another one and we need to build the CCH yesterday.

Originally Posted by airhero

Not sure why some of you always feel the need to rip on Denver. It's a great city and is not as far from the mountains as some of you make it out to be. Apart from Salt Lake, there is no city with nearly as many hiking and skiing options close to the city core. As far as ski resorts near Denver, there is no city in the US with good skiing closer to it's city center, other than Salt Lake.

So I agree that from an outdoors standpoint Salt Lake is clearly the best fit for OR and that some of the big retailers that forced OR out of Salt Lake put politics before reason (like our state leaders). But let's face it, OR is going to like Denver. There's plenty of opportunity to get out without having to deal with the crazy politics that come with Utah.

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

I do agree with you that it's not particularly fair to rip on other cities, but I do also think Denver is a bit overhyped from an outdoor recreational standpoint. There are actually several cities with ski resorts clustered closer than Denver: Reno-Tahoe-Carson City CSA has a good half dozen within an hour, the Spokane-Coeur d'Alene-WA-ID CSA has several just a comfortable 30-90 min away. Portland and Seattle have resorts within an hour or two.

I think people like to put Denver on a pedestal because it's basically a Midwestern city that happens to be relatively close to mountainous areas for outdoor recreation, so there's that contrast of living on the plains with easy access to the mountains. It's certainly not what some people make it. I think it's mainly people from the East who like to ooh and ahh over Denver, where most westerners think "it's alright, but nothing you can't get in [insert other Western city name here]"

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Denver has done a better job branding itself over the years and without much effort from what I can tell. When I'm back east it seams Utah and Salt Lake City are kind of new arrivals to the national scene in terms what people know about this state. I've had many people say they thought Utah was relatively flat with few mountains and they were surprised Utah received the Winter Olympics just before 2002. These were people from New York so they don't think much of Utah anyway . But they have a pretty good idea about Denver. The beer commercials over the last 3-4 decades are basically free advertising for the state of Colorado. There needs to be a focus not only on our national parks advertising and tourism promotions for the big five national parks, but also of our easy access to mountain living and recreation and budding metropolitan feel. Utah has some pretty big hurdles to over come in terms of the national cool factor but I tell you this, many areas of the East are dead and we have so much more opportunity economically here. We just need to improve our branding and I think it will go along way just like the big 5 tourism push did. Utah is more well known but the stigma still remains I do think we are moving in the right direction for the most part though. But not because there is a coherent message that I've seen. One more thing that really irritates me was Governor Herbert negotiating style and effort with the OR. From the recordings of the negotiations/demands of the OR, I didn't get a sense he cared much and he pretty much gave up from what I was hearing. I'm sure there is more too it but it wasn't a good effort from what I could tell. Time to learn a lesson.

Originally Posted by airportvids

The sad reality is that we just can't compete with Denver. They have basically everything while we are just one NBA team away from being Boise.

.

[wrendog]

Guys. Just move on. Petty arguments are seriously boring.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I just looked up the land area for the largest 307 cities in the U.S. SLC has one of the smaller areas and although we have approx. 110 square miles, we're really only using about 40 square miles.

Here's a neat map I made a little while ago:



The yellow is uninhabited area. The black includes mostly industrial and airfield, areas where there isn't a residential population. The green encompasses commercial/mixed-use/residential/educational uses. Google maps measures these areas as the following:

Yellow: 47.0 sq mi 42%
Black: 33.3 sq mi 29.8%
Green: 31.4 sq mi 28.1%

So effectively, only about a quarter (less than 30 sq mi of its 110) of Salt Lake's area has a resident population, which is comparatively a small amount. I haven't gone through the trouble of doing the measurements for other cities, but you can eyeball it with city boundaries.

In Austin, for example, easily more than 60% (or more than 160 sq mi) of its area (270 sq mi) is dedicated to residential use, much of which is spread out residential area.

Clearly Austin can claim it is bigger than Salt Lake in other ways (and rightfully so), but city proper population even when paired with city area offers little in the way of useful comparison.

Like I always say, nobody thinks Fresno is bigger than Miami. Yet I've heard people claim Albuquerque and Boise and Colorado Springs are bigger than Salt Lake, basing it on nothing other than city proper population.

I don't think being a small city is a bad thing, but ignorance bothers me, which is why I'm still going on about this.

[delts145]

I appreciate your post Airhero. It's a very interesting group of stats. Hey, whatever works for Salt Lake City is fine. Like Scott, I personally would like to see Salt Lake City work toward bringing a couple of areas under the same city proper umbrella, especially South Salt Lake. Anyway, SLC is definitely headed in the right direction, and doing it very quickly it would seem.

[scottharding]

Originally Posted by delts145

I appreciate your post Airhero. It's a very interesting group of stats. Hey, whatever works for Salt Lake City is fine. Like Scott, I personally would like to see Salt Lake City work toward bringing a couple of areas under the same city proper umbrella, especially South Salt Lake. Anyway, SLC is definitely headed in the right direction, and doing it very quickly it would seem.

Yeah, I think in the case of South Salt Lake it would be mutually beneficial. So it wouldn't be just annexing for numbers sake.

[The ATX]

Anybody with any common sense about cities knows that MSA population is the only apples to apples population measurement that matters. I wouldn't worry about city proper population.

[Utah_Dave]

So by my rough calculations the population density of the actual residential areas of Salt Lake is about 6,250 residents per square mile.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

So by my rough calculations the population density of the actual residential areas of Salt Lake is about 6,250 residents per square mile.

This is the only thing about the skewed land area of Salt Lake City that annoys me ...we get inaccurate density counts. 1,678 per sq mi according to the 2010 census. 6,250 would actually be quite impressive putting us ahead of places like Pittsburgh, Detroit, and St. Louis. Though it's possible their land area may have some issues as well.

[Comrade]

We do get inaccurate density counts - more so than many similar sized cities. Problem is, you can't correct is and then compare the numbers to other cities since every city, especially many western cities, have uninhabited land within their limits. It's why density figures on a city-wide level are pretty inconclusive.

Phoenix is in a similar boat. The Phoenix Sonoran Preserve is included in the city's limits. That thing is huge.

You'd get a more accurate reading looking at average neighborhoods within a city and going from there.

East Central has a population density of 7,108. SugarHouse is 3,632. Liberty Wells is 4,673. Rose Park 1,612. Fairpark (which is probably the best representation of a west side neighborhood since Rose Park and Glendale stretch far west) is 3,034.

I'd say East Central is probably Salt Lake's most densest (readable density) neighborhood. Central City would be considered, but it also includes a lot of businesses. The Avenues could also be considered up there but because they stretch well into the hills, it wouldn't be a good representation of its total figures.

The most similar neighborhood to Salt Lake's East Central neighborhood in Denver would probably be Central-East Denver. That has a population density of 6,620. But it's also a much larger neighborhood than Salt Lake's East Central.

Salt Lake and Denver have similar population densities in terms of developed area - for the most part. I mean, they're similar in the sense both cities were developed around the same time and while the architectural styles are different, unlike, say, Phoenix or Vegas, or even Boise, a bulk of the city's populated area developed before the automobile.

In the 2015 mid-Census, 56% of Salt Lake's housing was built before 1960. 31% was built before 1940. For Denver, 43% of the city's housing units were built before 1960. That number seems to favor Salt Lake, however, unlike Denver, Salt Lake saw only marginal residential development for a prolonged period of time. 13% of Denver's housing was built between 2000 and 2009. For Salt Lake? 6.3%. Salt Lake actually didn't see a huge surge in housing construction between 1990 and 2000, even though the city gained a huge chunk of its lost population back. It was just people moving into old housing that had already existed.

Because of this, both Denver and Salt Lake will have similar neighborhood styles. Older. Mostly brick. Walkable. Dense-ish for a western city. Boise, on the other hand? Only 27% of their housing was constructed before 1970. 6.7% before 1940 - 24% fewer than Salt Lake.

The difference is that Denver has gone vertical for their residential in many ways. Salt Lake still hasn't. Salt Lake continues to build smaller units and that will impact density. Denver's inner-city areas are very comparable to Salt Lake when you look at historical housing, either apartments or duplexes or detached houses, as 46% of Denver's population lives in a 1-unit, detached house and it's 48% for Salt Lake (compare that to Boise, where 65.3% of their population lives in a 1-unit detached house). That means, for both Salt Lake and Denver, a majority of the city either lives in apartments, condominiums, row houses or townhouses.

However, as I mentioned, Denver has gone vertical. Salt Lake hasn't. Where Denver DOES exceed Salt Lake in terms of population density is the neighborhoods directly next to downtown. Denver's Capitol Hill neighborhood has a population density of 17,486. There is no area in Salt Lake, outside maybe a Census designated tract of a condo tower downtown, that remotely comes close to that - and that's with a neighborhood population of 21,045.

There's no area of Salt Lake that rivals this. It's more similar to Boise in that regard than it is Denver or Portland or Seattle. Hopefully that will change but there's really no part of Salt Lake right now, outside maybe Main Street, that feels like a big city. Some like that. I know that's a big draw. But when I go to Seattle or Portland (and I'm assuming Denver, since I've never been), you step in certain neighborhoods and it just feels like you're in a big city.

Salt Lake is a biggish city. But it often feels like Toledo or Dayton, Ohio. Not in terms of economically questionable area, or crime or abandonment, mind you. But a city with a pretty solid housing stock, sizable neighborhoods ... but nothing big about it. Thing is, Salt Lake *IS* bigger than Akron and Toledo. They're closer to Columbus and Cincinnati than they are those other two Ohio cities. I just don't know if it feels as big as Cincinnati or Columbus, though.

Hopefully, as I said, that changes and we start growing upward. A handful of 10-20 story towers east of downtown, between 300 East and 1300 East, would do wonders in creating that big city vibe. Not so sure you'll get that vibe with a cluster of four-story condos, tho.

Finally - yeesh. How sad is it for development when we've got nothing to talk about but density numbers? Blah.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade

...
However, as I mentioned, Denver has gone vertical. Salt Lake hasn't. Where Denver DOES exceed Salt Lake in terms of population density is the neighborhoods directly next to downtown. Denver's Capitol Hill neighborhood has a population density of 17,486. There is no area in Salt Lake, outside maybe a Census-designated tract of a condo tower downtown, that remotely comes close to that—and that's with a neighborhood population of 21,045.

There's no area of Salt Lake that rivals this. It's more similar to Boise in that regard than it is Denver or Portland or Seattle....

Source: socialexplorer.com

[Utah_Dave]

4th south holds some promise, as well as some nearby streets to extend the city center east ward. You have down town to the West and the UofU to the east. It would seem like a flurry of activity and nightlife mixed with dense residential is inevitable......

Not to harp on our culture too much but it would be really interesting to see how Salt Lake would have developed in an alternate universe where the only change between the two were that drinking wasn't shunned by the LDS. Perhaps it would be awesome and perhaps there would be gangs of crazy drunk white people harassing the non LDS folks.

Lol, it has been fun watching this city really grow over the last several decades though

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Source: socialexplorer.com

Thanks for illustrating my point. I kinda figured there'd be a Census tract that rivaled Denver's Capitol Hill (and those cluster of apartment buildings would fit that) - but on the whole, there is no single defined neighborhood that comes close. At best, we have a smattering of blocks that can fit that range. But then, if you're going to extend it to tracts, you've got tracts in Denver's Capitol Hill that come in at 25,445, 21,722 and 22,746. Salt Lake (and maybe all of Utah, for that matter), has one Census tract of over 15,000 per square mile. Kinda crazy.

That's Salt Lake's next big step, IMO, and one thing that holds it back in the perception game. It also will help grow the city's skyline to boot!

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Denver has done a better job branding itself over the years and without much effort from what I can tell. When I'm back east it seams Utah and Salt Lake City are kind of new arrivals to the national scene in terms what people know about this state....The beer commercials over the last 3-4 decades are basically free advertising for the state of Colorado. There needs to be a focus not only on our national parks advertising and tourism promotions for the big five national parks, but also of our easy access to mountain living and recreation and budding metropolitan feel...We just need to improve our branding and I think it will go along way just like the big 5 tourism push did.

I've seen advertisements for UT in the U.K. and Switzerland (billboard and magazine). Here in the Carolinas, I've seen the "Big 5" commercials you referenced. The 3 states that really push ads here are Michigan's "Pure Michigan" campaign, UT's "BIG 5", and CA's "Living the Dream." Every now and then we'll get an oddball like Mississippi or an occasional FL or NY commercial. But MI, UT, and CA seem to be the only ones with a concerted effort on a consistent basis (at least from what I can tell in the year I've been here). That's my anecdotal experience for what it's worth..

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Mountain man

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary bashing on Denver on this forum (and it's not just recently.)

It often makes you guys look very jealous of Denver and attempt to prop yourselves up on a pedi stool you have to tear down Denver. I understand being upset about loosing the outdoor event, but holy crap you guys are making yourselves look pathetic.

First, let me be the first to tell you how to spell "pedestal" (not "pedi stool"). I promise my intent here is not to make fun of you. I get that you've probably never seen the word written out before. Now you know.

I can only speak for myself in regards to your comment. Being that I was the last to post on the Denver subject, I take it my comment prompted your rant (your word, not mine). To clarify, I have lived in CO and UT (among other places) and I currently live in the Carolinas. I'd hardly consider myself "jealous" of Denver. I'm speaking to my experience having lived in both places. Given that I now live in neither would indicate that I'm not beholden to either one. My preference would be UT on the state level and SLC from a geographic perspective. As far as the urban scene, Denver clearly beats SLC. From what I understand, many of our forumers live outside of UT.

I will freely admit to being a bit negative on one comment where I mentioned the general state politics of CO, which was based on my experience living there. The ultra-liberal and far-right elements both irritated me, which was my point. I think that comes from the geographical nature of putting the agrarian East in the same state as the urban and mountainous West. Probably could have left this post out of the discussion in retrospect. I do stand by what I said, just maybe should have said it on a different platform.

Originally Posted by Mountain man

So apparently being 30 minutes closer to the mountians automatically makes a city better? So because Denver is slightly farther away from the mountians than Salt Lake than means it's a city worth bashing and a city not worthy of the outdoor event?

Colorado as a whole dwarfs Utah in outdoor recreation. The whole state of Utah is desert except right around Salt Lake. Colorado has more than half a state of mountians with thousands of more and higher peaks than Utah and they are much more green and filled with trees than any mountians or mountian towns ive seen in Utah.

1) SLC is IN the mountains, where Denver is BY the mountains. Parts of downtown SLC are literally built on the slopes of the Rockies: The Avenues, Capitol Hill, Marmalade, Federal Heights, etc. City Creek Canyon is accessed in downtown. There are several other canyons a mere 10-20 min away. The Great Salt Lake is 20 min away while the Salt Flats are barely an hour. The proximity is frankly beyond compare. 2) The "desert" at which you sneer is actually one of the major draws to the state. UT has the alpine landscape of CO PLUS the red rocks, dunes, flats, etc. It's this diversity many enjoy about the state. 3) Peak elevation is not discernible to the climber. Whether it's 13'k, 14'k, or even 16'k really only makes a difference in a mathematical sense to say you've been to a certain elevation. If this were a relevant "draw factor" for the masses, there would be much "better" places in and out of the country than CO. 4) You should drive up Little Cottonwood Canyon, American Fork Canyon, the Alpine Loop behind Timpanogos, or virtually anywhere in the Uintas and tell me if CO is "much more green and filled with trees" than that.

Originally Posted by Mountain man

Clearly a lot of you have missed the point of my post. And regarding the msa, I understand the population as a whole metropolitan area is over 2 million, but honestly what is the point of all that if most of the metros population lives almost an hour away from your city core? (Talking about Utah valley and Ogden areas). That's basically a smaller version of Phoenix. But my point wasn't to point out whatever the population is, I'm saying you got to stop pointing your finger at Denver and saying everything that is wrong with that place when instead you should clean up whatever is wrong with your own cities. Every city is flawed, even Salt Lake. But there is no need to bash on other cities to try and make your city look and sound better.

Umm...you brought up the population thing...completely and entirely on your own, unprovoked. Those who commented where simply correcting your false claim of SLC "struggling" because it "doesn't even have 200k."

Regardless of what your point was, your misunderstanding of the demographics of the Wasatch Front were rightfully corrected. The only thing I'd add to what my fellow forumers mentioned is that there are now over 2.5 million people less than an hour from the SLC core. The northernmost point of the CSA is 40 min by car (according to Google) while the southernmost is 55 min away. Note, those are the extreme fringes. The bulk of that population lives within 30 min.

Trust me, many a forumer has complained of SLC's and UT's shortcomings around these parts (myself included).

Originally Posted by Mountain man

Well this showed who the mature formers are who agree and accept that there is a problem and it obviously showed the immature formers who fight and argue everything in sight even on stuff that wasn't even the point of the original post. I could care less how close you are to the mountains or even what your population is.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't realize how immature this comment sounded when you wrote it. Forumers challenging your points don't exhibit a lack of maturity on their part. I'd say the dialogue here has been pretty professional on this topic. I really don't think people hate CO or Denver like you think they do. You can take our comments negatively, or you can take the opportunity to correct some of your inaccurate assumptions and perceptions of UT.

[Mountain man]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

First, let me be the first to tell you how to spell "pedestal" (not "pedi stool"). I promise my intent here is not to make fun of you. I get that you've probably never seen the word written out before. Now you know.

I can only speak for myself in regards to your comment. Being that I was the last to post on the Denver subject, I take it my comment prompted your rant (your word, not mine). To clarify, I have lived in CO and UT (among other places) and I currently live in the Carolinas. I'd hardly consider myself "jealous" of Denver. I'm speaking to my experience having lived in both places. Given that I now live in neither would indicate that I'm not beholden to either one. My preference would be UT on the state level and SLC from a geographic perspective. As far as the urban scene, Denver clearly beats SLC. From what I understand, many of our forumers live outside of UT.

I will freely admit to being a bit negative on one comment where I mentioned the general state politics of CO, which was based on my experience living there. The ultra-liberal and far-right elements both irritated me, which was my point. I think that comes from the geographical nature of putting the agrarian East in the same state as the urban and mountainous West. Probably could have left this post out of the discussion in retrospect. I do stand by what I said, just maybe should have said it on a different platform.



1) SLC is IN the mountains, where Denver is BY the mountains. Parts of downtown SLC are literally built on the slopes of the Rockies: The Avenues, Capitol Hill, Marmalade, Federal Heights, etc. City Creek Canyon is accessed in downtown. There are several other canyons a mere 10-20 min away. The Great Salt Lake is 20 min away while the Salt Flats are barely an hour. The proximity is frankly beyond compare. 2) The "desert" at which you sneer is actually one of the major draws to the state. UT has the alpine landscape of CO PLUS the red rocks, dunes, flats, etc. It's this diversity many enjoy about the state. 3) Peak elevation is not discernible to the climber. Whether it's 13'k, 14'k, or even 16'k really only makes a difference in a mathematical sense to say you've been to a certain elevation. If this were a relevant "draw factor" for the masses, there would be much "better" places in and out of the country than CO. 4) You should drive up Little Cottonwood Canyon, American Fork Canyon, the Alpine Loop behind Timpanogos, or virtually anywhere in the Uintas and tell me if CO is "much more green and filled with trees" than that.



Umm...you brought up the population thing...completely and entirely on your own, unprovoked. Those who commented where simply correcting your false claim of SLC "struggling" because it "doesn't even have 200k."

Regardless of what your point was, your misunderstanding of the demographics of the Wasatch Front were rightfully corrected. The only thing I'd add to what my fellow forumers mentioned is that there are now over 2.5 million people less than an hour from the SLC core. The northernmost point of the CSA is 40 min by car (according to Google) while the southernmost is 55 min away. Note, those are the extreme fringes. The bulk of that population lives within 30 min.

Trust me, many a forumer has complained of SLC's and UT's shortcomings around these parts (myself included).



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't realize how immature this comment sounded when you wrote it. Forumers challenging your points don't exhibit a lack of maturity on their part. I'd say the dialogue here has been pretty professional on this topic. I really don't think people hate CO or Denver like you think they do. You can take our comments negatively, or you can take the opportunity to correct some of your inaccurate assumptions and perceptions of UT.

I do apologize for my last comment, I was just getting frustrated that it seemed so many were blowing off my initial point and trying to prove other things that really didn't matter, and to the reason I brought the population thing up, please let me clarify why I even brought that up. I now realize I probably should have explained why I brought it up better, and remember that I love Salt Lake City and would absolutely love to live there. But when I said Denver was a world class city and Salt Lake is struggling to even get 200k, I meant it as I believe that's why a lot of times Salt Lake doesn't get the respect it deserves, I believe from a national perspective that because it's core city is so small is viewed more as just a suburb than the real urban center. I mean look at St Louis, the city itself is pretty small, with a very comparable metro. But from a national perspective it gets a lot more respect as a large city. And like I said from the beginning, because Salt Lake is in the mountians I do believe it is a better fit for the outdoor retailer, I was just defending Denver also and explaining why it wasn't a bad fit for them either. Again I do apologize for keeping my rant going, it was just frustrating me that people kept telling me how close the mountians are to Salt Lake and what the Msa is, and I already understood all that and it felt as if they were missing my point. I do however stand by my original post, from an outside perspective for almost a year this thread often has the ora of 'Denver gets everything while we get nothing, so here is everything wrong with Denver and why it doesn't deserve this/them.' I hope there is no hard feelings I was just pointing out an observation I've been noticing for about the past year I've been reading this page and felt it was nessassary to speak up. And I would love to see Salt Lake take a lot of the same nessassary steps as Denver and other cities have taken to get a lot of the same events and developments.

(Also note: I do realize there tends to be a lot of trolls on this forum and please know I am very causious about making any assumptions based off them and any reaction coming from them.)

And as for the pedi file thing, haha it was pretty funny, my spell check changed it to that so I was under the impression it was correct!

[delts145]

Definitely no hard feelings. Speaking for myself, and I'm sure most others, it would be great if you would now post regularly. While the Wasatch Front is moving in the right direction for the most part, there's always room for improvement. There are many lurkers on this thread, who are also movers and shakers/actual developers and city planners. They might not actually post, but suggestions are often taken very seriously, and can and do result in being added to the mix of change and real progress.

[EPdesign]

You're all nerds. I love it.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Little Cottonwood Canyon, Sundance/Aspen Grove area, Mt. Timpanogos, Slate Canyon, Rock Canyon: 20-60 min from downtown SLC





































Salt Flats: 60-70 min from downtown SLC







Zion National Park, Fantasy Canyon: 2-4 hrs from SLC











No photo gallery of UT would be complete without good ol' I-15 traffic!

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Why is this discussion happening yet again? Geez, people on here bruise easier than an overripe tomato. Let it rest. You're making the forum look bad and giving salt lake a bad name. People don't come here to see a dick waving contest.

Stop. Please.