Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 4

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

To be fair, SLC is not quite as small as Columbia development wise. I'd say it's somewhere between the two. It is closer to Columbia, though, when it should be closer to Charlotte. For reference, the SLC CSA has a population of 2.51 million and its tallest tower is 420 ft. SLC's highest tower would be Charlotte's 15th if located there. Charlotte already has 6 towers over 500 ft. For me, it's not so much impatience as it is a desire for SLC to at least get on the same level as some of its peers' skylines.

Originally Posted by wrendog

Just for fun:

SLC vs Columbia SC

Buildings > 300 feet: Columbia = 3, SLC = 12
Buildings > 200 feet: Columbia = 15, SLC = 27

They really aren't that close just based on those numbers

It would appear you missed my point. I wasn't using Columbia as a direct comparison, more as a range.

Buildings > 300 feet: SLC = 12, Charlotte = 28
Buildings > 200 feet: SLC = 27, Charlotte = 50+

I stand by my comparison. SLC is definitely closer to Columbia than it is to CLT, when it ought to be closer to CLT than Columbia. That was my point.

If you want another example, look at KC. Roughly the same CSA pop as SLC, but the tallest tower in SLC would be KC's 8th tallest. Looking around at its peers, SLC just seems to be a bit stubbier to me. All it needs is a handful of 400-ft towers and maybe one 500 or 600 footer. I'm hopeful we're within a decade of that. It just feels like SLC is on the cusp of a pop in high-rise construction, but it keeps getting delayed.

[StevenF]

Salt Lakes CSA doesn't have a nice circular metro around it since the Wasatch Mountains drive it to the north and south. Instead the Wasatch Range has 2 other cities Ogden and Provo that developed their own cores to some extent, which splits some of that away from SLC. I believe that is part of Salt Lake Cities problem. Wide streets also add in another reason since buildings can be wider while land is relatively cheap.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

It would appear you missed my point. I wasn't using Columbia as a direct comparison, more as a range.

Buildings > 300 feet: SLC = 12, Charlotte = 28
Buildings > 200 feet: SLC = 27, Charlotte = 50+

I stand by my comparison. SLC is definitely closer to Columbia than it is to CLT, when it ought to be closer to CLT than Columbia. That was my point.

If you want another example, look at KC. Roughly the same CSA pop as SLC, but the tallest tower in SLC would be KC's 8th tallest. Looking around at its peers, SLC just seems to be a bit stubbier to me. All it needs is a handful of 400-ft towers and maybe one 500 or 600 footer. I'm hopeful we're within a decade of that. It just feels like SLC is on the cusp of a pop in high-rise construction, but it keeps getting delayed.

No, I got your point and I did see your qualifying paragraph. My comparison was just for fun and my statement was more for my benefit. I'm in full agreement that SLC is not where it should be in terms of towers.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by StevenF

Salt Lakes CSA doesn't have a nice circular metro around it since the Wasatch Mountains drive it to the north and south. Instead the Wasatch Range has 2 other cities Ogden and Provo that developed their own cores to some extent, which splits some of that away from SLC. I believe that is part of Salt Lake Cities problem. Wide streets also add in another reason since buildings can be wider while land is relatively cheap.

I think this is a key point. I noticed everyone is using the Salt Lake City CSA population figure of 2.5 million for this skyline analysis. But that figure includes stand-alone cities like Ogden and Provo that have their own central business districts. It doesn't seem to me that the populations of the Ogden and Provo MSAs really contribute much to the demand for skyscrapers in downtown SLC.

If you use the Salt Lake City MSA population of 1.2 million and compare your skyline to other cities with a similar population, I'm sure SLC would be looking pretty good. If the SLC metro were more circular and the 2.5 million population consisted of mostly contiguous bedroom-community suburbs in concentric rings around the core city, that would be one thing. But the 2.5 million stretches over 120 miles of linear valleys and corridors highly constrained by topography that separates a majority of that population from being proximate to downtown SLC.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think this is a key point. I noticed everyone is using the Salt Lake City CSA population figure of 2.5 million for this skyline analysis. But that figure includes stand-alone cities like Ogden and Provo that have their own central business districts. It doesn't seem to me that the populations of the Ogden and Provo MSAs really contribute much to the demand for skyscrapers in downtown SLC.

If you use the Salt Lake City MSA population of 1.2 million and compare your skyline to other cities with a similar population, I'm sure SLC would be looking pretty good. If the SLC metro were more circular and the 2.5 million population consisted of mostly contiguous bedroom-community suburbs in concentric rings around the core city, that would be one thing. But the 2.5 million stretches over 120 miles of linear valleys and corridors highly constrained by topography that separates a majority of that population from being proximate to downtown SLC.

Because it's silly to suggest Salt Lake has more in common as a region with Hartford, Grand Rapids, Birmingham and Tucson (metros roughly the same size as Salt Lake's) than they do Portland, Charlotte, Sacramento and Pittsburgh.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Because it's silly to suggest Salt Lake has more in common as a region with Hartford, Grand Rapids, Birmingham and Tucson (metros roughly the same size as Salt Lake's) than they do Portland, Charlotte, Sacramento and Pittsburgh.

Agreed, which is why the truth is probably somewhere in between. How much above 1.2 million (but below 2.5 million) do you think represents the population that would influence the demand for skyscrapers in downtown SLC?

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think this is a key point. I noticed everyone is using the Salt Lake City CSA population figure of 2.5 million for this skyline analysis. But that figure includes stand-alone cities like Ogden and Provo that have their own central business districts. It doesn't seem to me that the populations of the Ogden and Provo MSAs really contribute much to the demand for skyscrapers in downtown SLC.

If you use the Salt Lake City MSA population of 1.2 million and compare your skyline to other cities with a similar population, I'm sure SLC would be looking pretty good. If the SLC metro were more circular and the 2.5 million population consisted of mostly contiguous bedroom-community suburbs in concentric rings around the core city, that would be one thing. But the 2.5 million stretches over 120 miles of linear valleys and corridors highly constrained by topography that separates a majority of that population from being proximate to downtown SLC.

It's interesting. Provo and Ogden's city populations might not contribute, but most of their suburbs that form their MSAs are arguably Salt Lake's suburbs as well. Ogden to Provo is just 80 miles, with SLC firmly in the center. And both those cities are on the edge of their MSAs.

I think the skyscraper thing is a result of large blocks allowing more horizontal buildings than straight vertical. And suburbs building a lot of office space. Im hopeful that trend can't continue long term though...

[FullCircle]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

It's interesting. Provo and Ogden's city populations might not contribute, but most of their suburbs that form their MSAs are arguably Salt Lake's suburbs as well. Ogden to Provo is just 80 miles, with SLC firmly in the center. And both those cities are on the edge of their MSAs.

I think the skyscraper thing is a result of large blocks allowing more horizontal buildings than straight vertical. And suburbs building a lot of office space. Im hopeful that trend can't continue long term though...

Agreed. I feel like Davis county is more tied to SLC than it is to Ogden, and northern Utah county is as well, though maybe to a lesser extent. Weber county is more tied to Ogden for sure, as is southern Utah county to Provo. So overall I'd probably split the difference, and say the population that "should" contribute to SLC's skyline is maybe 1.8ish million.
Also agreed on large city blocks resulting in wider buildings, though that really isn't a cause, as people could build narrow tall buildings if they chose to, it's just more of an allowance.

[GrandTeton]

It's always surprising to me that given Salt Lake's topography, it isn't as dense as you'd expect. Are Brigham City and Nephi expected to explode with growth in the future?

[Mountain man]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

It's interesting. Provo and Ogden's city populations might not contribute, but most of their suburbs that form their MSAs are arguably Salt Lake's suburbs as well. Ogden to Provo is just 80 miles, with SLC firmly in the center. And both those cities are on the edge of their MSAs.

I think the skyscraper thing is a result of large blocks allowing more horizontal buildings than straight vertical. And suburbs building a lot of office space. Im hopeful that trend can't continue long term though...

I think a lot of it is cultural, Utah is a big family state. If not the biggest. Families tend not to want to live in urban communities, which makes it hard to build a lot of condos and apartments in the downtown area. It almost seems as if a lot of families are almost scared of 'the big city' or very intimidated by it. Especially in a community like Salt Lake where its just one very sprawled out metropolis with no big urban center. The biggest growth in urban centers currently seem to be dominated by millennials. But one huge problem Utah has is the 'big city' seems to be so foreign to the majority of millennials being raised in Utah. They were raised in a sprawled out community and that's all they know and change can be intimidating. Then you have most of the major colleges in Utah are so far from downtown it's not even feasible for college students to live downtown.
And back to the families it almost seems as if most parents typically don't like taking their kids to downtowns because they are much busier and sometimes tend to have more crime. Now Salt Lake has a temple square and that seems to be almost the only place downtown families tend to like to gather there. And a mall. And let's face it, most people in Utah aren't going downtown for a bar.

Now as to the whole Provo/Ogden thing, I think them being so far away does play a huge role in why there aren't much towers downtown. Why would any business owner put an office downtown if they live in Provo or Ogden. No sensible person is going to drive 45 minutes downtown and back every day, and that's without traffic, it can be well over an hour if there is. So that's why I believe there are more office buildings being built in other cities just like the much hated Sandy. And if Provo or Ogden are much closer to where I live than downtown then I'm going to put my office in the closest one.
Question, does Salt Lake have any incentives for companies to want to move downtown?
The problem to me is that Salt Lake is just to far for most people to want to drive and the front runner takes so long as well. So why would most companies want to move downtown?

So all in all I can see exactly why there isn't a demand for taller buildings.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think this is a key point. I noticed everyone is using the Salt Lake City CSA population figure of 2.5 million for this skyline analysis. But that figure includes stand-alone cities like Ogden and Provo that have their own central business districts. It doesn't seem to me that the populations of the Ogden and Provo MSAs really contribute much to the demand for skyscrapers in downtown SLC.

If you use the Salt Lake City MSA population of 1.2 million and compare your skyline to other cities with a similar population, I'm sure SLC would be looking pretty good. If the SLC metro were more circular and the 2.5 million population consisted of mostly contiguous bedroom-community suburbs in concentric rings around the core city, that would be one thing. But the 2.5 million stretches over 120 miles of linear valleys and corridors highly constrained by topography that separates a majority of that population from being proximate to downtown SLC.

You would include most of it. Over half of Davis County's workforce commutes to SLC, around a quarter of Utah county's do. Minimum you would include Utah, Davis, Tooelle, Summit, and Salt Lake county. You should probably include Weber. You would not include Box Elder, Wasatch, cache, etc.

So... 2-2.3 million.

[ucsbgaucho]

SLC is pretty similar to every other major city. Downtowns have never been and will never be family-oriented when it comes to residential units. Any major city's downtown condo skyscrapers are populated by business-minded singles, couples, and wealthy retirees. Utah is no different in this regard. Who would want to raise a family of any size in a 23rd-story apartment? Not many.

Taller buildings are also built to afford better views with limited space. Look at coastal cities like San Diego, Vancouver, Miami, and SF, where the view is what you buy in to for the most part. These cities have 500 ft+ residential towers. Plus, knowing San Diego at least from experience, the increased vitality of it's downtown has attracted residents way more recently. There's so much to do in downtown SD, with easy access to tons of restaurants, bars, shopping, grocery, etc.

At least we aren't Phoenix, which I just saw pass Philly as the #5 most populated city in the country, and doesn't have a single 500-foot building. San Diego has plenty at #8 but bc of the proximity of the airport and landing path, 500 feet is the limit. Without that limit SD would def have some taller ones.

I think the future will be the de-centralization of cities more and more, especially in places like Utah where land is plentiful. Geography is usually the catalyst in going vertical, just ask SF and NYC. It's why LA doesn't have as impressive a skyline either in it's main downtown, take a look farther down Wilshire and Century City to see more skyscrapers that didn't have to be put in downtown LA.

With the tech concentration here, and the younger workforce, they don't care about office views and the prestige of towering over the city. They want workout rooms and free food truck Fridays and a jogging track, etc. That stuff requires land space so tech companies are building where land is cheaper, again decentralizing the historical "core" of business in most cities.

Originally Posted by Mountain man

I think a lot of it is cultural, Utah is a big family state. If not the biggest. Families tend not to want to live in urban communities, which makes it hard to build a lot of condos and apartments in the downtown area. It almost seems as if a lot of families are almost scared of 'the big city' or very intimidated by it. Especially in a community like Salt Lake where its just one very sprawled out metropolis with no big urban center. The biggest growth in urban centers currently seem to be dominated by millennials. But one huge problem Utah has is the 'big city' seems to be so foreign to the majority of millennials being raised in Utah. They were raised in a sprawled out community and that's all they know and change can be intimidating. Then you have most of the major colleges in Utah are so far from downtown it's not even feasible for college students to live downtown.
And back to the families it almost seems as if most parents typically don't like taking their kids to downtowns because they are much busier and sometimes tend to have more crime. Now Salt Lake has a temple square and that seems to be almost the only place downtown families tend to like to gather there. And a mall. And let's face it, most people in Utah aren't going downtown for a bar.

Now as to the whole Provo/Ogden thing, I think them being so far away does play a huge role in why there aren't much towers downtown. Why would any business owner put an office downtown if they live in Provo or Ogden. No sensible person is going to drive 45 minutes downtown and back every day, and that's without traffic, it can be well over an hour if there is. So that's why I believe there are more office buildings being built in other cities just like the much hated Sandy. And if Provo or Ogden are much closer to where I live than downtown then I'm going to put my office in the closest one.
Question, does Salt Lake have any incentives for companies to want to move downtown?
The problem to me is that Salt Lake is just to far for most people to want to drive and the front runner takes so long as well. So why would most companies want to move downtown?

So all in all I can see exactly why there isn't a demand for taller buildings.

[Utah_Dave]

I would also argue that our isolation in the mountain west limits the number of developers for any given project for our region. Most of the projects built here seem to be more conservative, meaning the developments tend to be scaled down as opposed to being over built. It's good to see developers from outside the state taking some interest in building down town. Some of these new proposals may be good litmus tests for even bigger projects if they turn out to be successful. I've said it before and I'm sure it's been said by others here. The height of skyscrapers has just as much to do about image and status as it does with being a fiscally sound development. I have no data to back up this claim, just observations of projects across the country and the world. Oklahoma City's skyscraper and the one posted by EP of a building outside of Houstons core are easy examples. I'm hoping as the core of downtown becomes more alive with activities and population growth that this could spur some developments that reach for the sky, literally. there are a lot of unique circumstances that we need to overcome but the overall vibe is very positive for downtown

[Liberty Wellsian]

I think the big thing is that the composition of our population is such an outlier that you have to adjust for it. The median age in Utah just barely reached 30. A decade ago it was 27. Office buildings are for working adults that probably have a college education. I'm not sure what the average age is for students to complete their bachelor's but let's say that most that do get it done within 5 years of graduating high school (I bet not). So we remove everybody under the age of 23-24 as they just aren't old enough to even be considered. When the median age is 30 or 27, as it was not so long ago, you have removed a sizable chunk of the demand.

[JMK]

Liberty Boulevard Apartments

[Meliorem]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

SLC is pretty similar to every other major city. Downtowns have never been and will never be family-oriented when it comes to residential units. Any major city's downtown condo skyscrapers are populated by business-minded singles, couples, and wealthy retirees. Utah is no different in this regard. Who would want to raise a family of any size in a 23rd-story apartment? Not many.

Taller buildings are also built to afford better views with limited space. Look at coastal cities like San Diego, Vancouver, Miami, and SF, where the view is what you buy in to for the most part. These cities have 500 ft+ residential towers. Plus, knowing San Diego at least from experience, the increased vitality of it's downtown has attracted residents way more recently. There's so much to do in downtown SD, with easy access to tons of restaurants, bars, shopping, grocery, etc.

At least we aren't Phoenix, which I just saw pass Philly as the #5 most populated city in the country, and doesn't have a single 500-foot building. San Diego has plenty at #8 but bc of the proximity of the airport and landing path, 500 feet is the limit. Without that limit SD would def have some taller ones.

I think the future will be the de-centralization of cities more and more, especially in places like Utah where land is plentiful. Geography is usually the catalyst in going vertical, just ask SF and NYC. It's why LA doesn't have as impressive a skyline either in it's main downtown, take a look farther down Wilshire and Century City to see more skyscrapers that didn't have to be put in downtown LA.

With the tech concentration here, and the younger workforce, they don't care about office views and the prestige of towering over the city. They want workout rooms and free food truck Fridays and a jogging track, etc. That stuff requires land space so tech companies are building where land is cheaper, again decentralizing the historical "core" of business in most cities.

That's not saying much and in reality, Phoenix is not anywhere close to Philadelphia which is one of the most densely populated cities in the country.

Pound for pound, the table would look a lot different and have cities like San Francisco, Seattle and Denver rounding out top ten. In fact, all three are bigger than Phoenix. The fourth most populous city in the country, Houston, has a population of 2,303,482 living within a total (land) area of 639.1 sq mi, whereas Denver (19th) passed 2.5 million (2010; 2,374,203) in a similarly sized land area (668 sq mi). They encompass the entire land of IAH (10,000+ acres) and DIA (33,500+ acres), respectively. Phoenix uses up 516.7 sq mi. to reach its 2016 census estimate of 1,615,017 inhabitants.

A more precise and interesting comparison is to be had when you compare the urban areas of all cities.. that is, continuously built up areas.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by Mountain man

I think a lot of it is cultural, Utah is a big family state. If not the biggest. Families tend not to want to live in urban communities, which makes it hard to build a lot of condos and apartments in the downtown area. It almost seems as if a lot of families are almost scared of 'the big city' or very intimidated by it. Especially in a community like Salt Lake where its just one very sprawled out metropolis with no big urban center. The biggest growth in urban centers currently seem to be dominated by millennials. But one huge problem Utah has is the 'big city' seems to be so foreign to the majority of millennials being raised in Utah. They were raised in a sprawled out community and that's all they know and change can be intimidating. Then you have most of the major colleges in Utah are so far from downtown it's not even feasible for college students to live downtown.
And back to the families it almost seems as if most parents typically don't like taking their kids to downtowns because they are much busier and sometimes tend to have more crime. Now Salt Lake has a temple square and that seems to be almost the only place downtown families tend to like to gather there. And a mall. And let's face it, most people in Utah aren't going downtown for a bar.

Now as to the whole Provo/Ogden thing, I think them being so far away does play a huge role in why there aren't much towers downtown. Why would any business owner put an office downtown if they live in Provo or Ogden. No sensible person is going to drive 45 minutes downtown and back every day, and that's without traffic, it can be well over an hour if there is. So that's why I believe there are more office buildings being built in other cities just like the much hated Sandy. And if Provo or Ogden are much closer to where I live than downtown then I'm going to put my office in the closest one.
Question, does Salt Lake have any incentives for companies to want to move downtown?
The problem to me is that Salt Lake is just to far for most people to want to drive and the front runner takes so long as well. So why would most companies want to move downtown?

So all in all I can see exactly why there isn't a demand for taller buildings.

This is Truth spoken. It is also a pathetic and embarrassing indictment on the native population. The natives say they want pollution and traffic reduction, but they'll leave it to the other guy to take action.

The very fact the Wasatch Front is geographically​ squeezed should require vertical construction. This area is past the tipping point. I can see this region becoming unliveable very quickly, unless dramatic changes are made immediately.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

This is Truth spoken. It is also a pathetic and embarrassing indictment on the native population. The natives say they want pollution and traffic reduction, but they'll leave it to the other guy to take action.

The very fact the Wasatch Front is geographically​ squeezed should require vertical construction. This area is past the tipping point. I can see this region becoming unliveable very quickly, unless dramatic changes are made immediately.

I think we've hit the tipping point. Yes, there will still be sprawl as people who have to have new homes will go to southern and western Utah County, or fill out the edges of Weber County, or go to Tooele, or some other far-off edge. But that's not enough to accommodate 50,000 new people every year. Housing and apartment prices are sky high because of high demand / limited land. This will force infill and vertical development.

The thing the suburbs are doing well right now is building office space. But they're doing much less in terms of residential. This is helping SLC. It can already being seen with 2,300 people added from July 2015 - July 2016, and thousands of units under construction since then. There's about 20 larger residential construction projects currently rising in SLC. That's a pretty crazy number and I don't really expect a slow down unless the suburbs suddenly became infill crazy.

[TonyAnderson]

This is very good news. SLC had the third-highest job growth for larger metros (over 1mill). The metro added about 22,800 jobs, compared to Provo MSA (9,600) and the Ogden MSA (8,800). That's not bad considering the Provo MSA added close to the same amount of people as Salt Lake. Also interesting, St George added 3,200 jobs, the third-highest rate of all metros in the entire country.

St. George has nation’s third fastest job growth rate
By LEE DAVIDSON | The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published May 31 2017 12:21PM

In the Salt Lake City metro area, the job growth rate was 3.3 percent — adding 22,800 jobs over that past year.

The only large metro areas — with at least 1 million residents — that had higher rates were Orlando, Fla., up 3.6 percent, and Nashville, Tenn., up 3.5 percent. Tied with Salt Lake City at 3.3 percent were Atlanta and Las Vegas.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5349995-155/st-george-has-nations-3rd-fastest

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

It's always surprising to me that given Salt Lake's topography, it isn't as dense as you'd expect. Are Brigham City and Nephi expected to explode with growth in the future?

Much of that is due to Salt Lake being a relatively small region up until the creation of the automobile - when its population really began to explode. Because of this, much of the valley is suburban sprawl, as that's when a whole host of the larger communities came of age. Places like Salt Lake, and even Midvale, were generally built out by the time the 1950s rolled around and the country turned toward the automobile. Not surprisingly, these areas, the older bedroom communities on the east side of the valley, are also the most dense.

Here's a look at Salt Lake County's population over the years:

1900: 77,725
1910: 131,426
1920: 159,282
1930: 194,102
1940: 211,623
1950: 274,895

So, at the beginning of the automotive boom, Salt Lake County had roughly 274,900 people living in its borders.

By 1980, 30 years later, that population had more than doubled.

For 50 years, Salt Lake City saw its population increase by 'only' 200,000. In the 50 years after, they gained 623,492 people - most of which lived in suburban sprawl.

Look at it this way: In 1950, Salt Lake City made up 66% of Salt Lake County's population. In 2010, it made up just 18% of Salt Lake County's population.