Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[ajiuO]

I don’t think the fact that the church built them has anything to do with it... it’s not like they own it any more once it’s sold... although they do have the option to buy it back in 99 years... haha.

Another issue with thoes condos is their pet policy. When I went to the open house there were actually a lot of people turned off by the fact that they would not allow cats or even small dogs. I might have considered taking a 1 bed unit that they had for a good price if not for the pet thing.

[Utah_Dave]

^^^^

My guess would be that the 99 west building is priced high and is geared towards the 60 and older crowd that have money. The religious factor is there in terms of who you want your neighbors to be, not to mention that the mall is closed on Sundays. I had Grandparents that lived in the Terrace falls condo and it was heavily LDS. It felt like you were going to an LDS stake meeting when I was going in there. The pool was rarely used and it felt wrong to use it! There is an aura to a heavily LDS condo building, neighborhood, or community. It doesn’t feel very inclusive to outsiders. I’m sure you know what I mean, kind of stuffy. Anyway, that’s probably how I would describe the 99 west building and others like it without actually having been inside it. I would be surprised to find out I’m wrong but that would be a good thing.

Just an opinion, I’m not attacking anyone here.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

^^^^

My guess would be that the 99 west building is priced high and is geared towards the 60 and older crowd that have money. The religious factor is there in terms of who you want your neighbors to be, not to mention that the mall is closed on Sundays. I had Grandparents that lived in the Terrace falls condo and it was heavily LDS. It felt like you were going to an LDS stake meeting when I was going in there. The pool was rarely used and it felt wrong to use it! There is an aura to a heavily LDS condo building, neighborhood, or community. It doesn’t feel very inclusive to outsiders. I’m sure you know what I mean, kind of stuffy. Anyway, that’s probably how I would describe the 99 west building and others like it without actually having been inside it. I would be surprised to find out I’m wrong but that would be a good thing.

Just an opinion, I’m not attacking anyone here.

This seems like a duh. I am 90% certainty at 99 west is 90% old Mormon people. If you are both old and mormon, sweet. If not then not.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

Is there anything materially different from owning a Mormon owned condo versus any other? Is it more you think people don’t want to be associated with
the organization? I find the price argument more persuasive than who the owner is. Now that I think about it I remember reading an article in 2016 that put the blame on financing. It said banks don’t want to lend for the construction of these projects nor to finance the purchase of the units by individuals.

Not really any different at all. No offense meant (I come from legit Mormon stock) but I know there is a little bit of a stigma. I know the main sales agent and it's real. It is less of an issue in Richards Court. The design of 99 W. is really plain. Lots of muted flesh-tones, Richards has some pop. We need more pop. Kids don't want dick colored buildings so much any more. A really cool tower would fill up quick. Rent's are approaching a point where steel-framed buildings make some sense. I think a mixed-use tower with a mix of owner-condo "Residences At", hospitality and rental would kill it here. I think Held will be first. The most encouraging thing is now, instead of inexperienced pie-in-the-sky developers (Air Tower, Regent Hotel, the Logue mess) we now have real players. Held, Patrinely etc build things. "Air Center Tower" was a land flip. Now it will be built.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Not really any different at all. No offense meant (I come from legit Mormon stock) but I know there is a little bit of a stigma. I know the main sales agent and it's real. It is less of an issue in Richards Court. The design of 99 W. is really plain. Lots of muted flesh-tones, Richards has some pop. We need more pop. Kids don't want dick colored buildings so much any more. A really cool tower would fill up quick. Rent's are approaching a point where steel-framed buildings make some sense. I think a mixed-use tower with a mix of owner-condo "Residences At", hospitality and rental would kill it here. I think Held will be first. The most encouraging thing is now, instead of inexperienced pie-in-the-sky developers (Air Tower, Regent Hotel, the Logue mess) we now have real players. Held, Patrinely etc build things. "Air Center Tower" was a land flip. Now it will be built.

I hope you are right and those National developers’ projects come to fruition. I love the idea of local developers, but clearly local builders have some real blind spots that outsiders hopefully can show the way for the local guys. I am very excited for the Held property.

[Viperlord]

In response to all of the talk about the lack of condominiums being built in the market vs the abundance of apartments/rentals.....

I thought that I would provide an insider view from the design industry.

The Condo Market has been hindered by a few things recently. The biggest thing is due to the liability and insurance markets.

This article from Colorado points out a lot of the same reason why condos aren't being built anymore like they used to.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/2...k-to-colorado/

From the article: "In Denver, the market remains quiet for condo projects overall. Housing director Rick Padilla said there are 1,254 condo and townhome units in the city’s pipeline. Many are higher-end projects, such as the ones going in next to Union Station, that are profitable enough to absorb the risks and potential costs associated with construction defects lawsuits.

The insurance is too high. This is due in part to the "ambulance chaser" attorneys who have made an industry for themselves by approaching existing HOAs and convincing them to file lawsuit against contractors for "poor craftsmanship" in the work on the project.

My firm was dragged into many of these insane lawsuits on Condo projects that we worked on over the past 5-7 years. The sad thing is that the buildings were failing due to lack of adequate upkeep and routine maintenance (which was not performed properly by the HOA). The thing that is even worse is that my firm's involvement in the project was for survey work (platting and mapping) and had nothing to do with the buildings themselves. However, when these attorneys do their lawsuits they drag anyone who was involved in the project into the lawsuit. The sprinkler installers were involved, the company providing the windows was involved. Heck, even the company who provided the marketing materials for the condo development's website was thrown in.

The bottom line is that there is no mercy or logical thinking when it comes to these lawsuits.

One of the questions that insurance companies ask when my company applies for liability insurance is "do you do work on condominium projects, and if so how much?" The insurance companies charge higher rates to the firms who work on condominium projects. These higher rates and the higher probability of being sued have made it to the point where many design firms won't touch condominium projects, and if they do work on them, they charge a lot higher fee to account for the high possibility of being drug into some insane lawsuit.

So, there you have it, that is essentially, what killed the condo market.

I hear it all the time from the multifamily developers who come into our office with projects. "Why would I pay more money for insurance on a condo project, and take on more liability, which would result in a lower return on my investment, when I can build a rental multifamily project for the same price, and not have to worry about paying higher insurance, and risk the higher likelihood of being sued".

[Viperlord]

I was looking through the Salt Lake County Recorder's office documents and as of February 6th 2018, The local Dees Inc company is no longer the owner of the Carl's Jr site on 200 South and State Street. The property was sold to an out-of-state investment company located in Boston Massachusetts.

I've shared this information with Isaac & Buildingsaltlake, who will be doing some additional research into this and reporting back as soon as they find any additional information and/or has anything that they can publicly share.

Also, yes, I will also say what the others are saying about the 151 boyer tower. The tower in it's commercial form is dead. Instead a residential tower will be taking its place. From what I've heard the tower will be approx. (24 stories). rumor has it that the tower will be designed by an out-of-state architect, and that the developer is also from out of state.

and on another note... not sure if this was mentioned or not..... the 250 east tower (Century link tower, and the large call data center across the street) has been sold to Unico Properties. Unico is based out of Seattle Washington. This marks another SLC office building that Unico has added to it's portfolio. Unico purchased the Boston building from Hamilton Partners a few years back.

http://www.comre.com/news/250-tower-...he-first-time/

Talking with a commercial real estate agent recently who is involved in the Patrinely Towers on 600 South Main street. I asked him if they had thought of taking the two 10-story towers and combining them together to make one larger tower. He responded that they had toyed with that exact same thought a bit, but most likely would stick with 10 stories for their first tower on main street, and then possibly add additional floors into the tower on west temple depending on market demand.

This same agent also has about 3 different clients who are interested in purchasing the "state street RDA mess". These firms have talked about removing what is currently there and starting from scratch. They hope that they may be able to talk the city into zoning changes to allow for more density and height to accommodate more units on site. The extra units will be needed to make the project pencil out financially, especially due to the added costs of removing the steel and concrete from the old failed project. He said that the developers would be shooting for a 20 story tower with around 300 units.

Word on the street is that the former sears site on 700 south and state has attracted quite a few interested developers. One such firm is the SALT developers, the same firm who is doing the Hardware Station apartments, and the project to the north of them. If they acquire the property, they would do a similar mid-rise style type development on the site.

[ctobsl]

Thanks for the info Viperlord, it sounds like quite a few projects to look forward to.

[FullCircle]

Very interesting, Viperlord; it seems frivolous lawsuits and insurance issues are causing issues in yet another field I wasn't aware of.
I was going to add a thought to the lack of condo construction topic. My wife works for a company that has been hiring lots of people from out of state; computer programmers, data scientists, managers, etc. so highly educated, skilled workers, many of them coming from the Bay area, Boston, New Jersey, and other cities. When they move here most of them are buying large single family homes, many out in the suburbs. One might think that coming from cities they would want a more urban lifestyle, but it seems like part of what attracts people here is the ability to afford a big house in the suburbs with a "reasonable" commute. As much as I hate traffic and think it has gotten much worse in the past decade or so, it's still not nearly as bad as it is in many metros. We talk about how Utah has a suburban culture (greatly influenced by religion and big families), which is true, and that may also be influencing who is attracted to relocate here from out of state, even if they aren't part of that culture. Just a thought, and some of the transplants are living in the city, but it struck me after seeing where many of them are choosing to live.

[airhero]

Nice info Viperlord. Hope good things can materialize from all this activity.

Originally Posted by Viperlord

This same agent also has about 3 different clients who are interested in purchasing the "state street RDA mess". These firms have talked about removing what is currently there and starting from scratch. They hope that they may be able to talk the city into zoning changes to allow for more density and height to accommodate more units on site. The extra units will be needed to make the project pencil out financially, especially due to the added costs of removing the steel and concrete from the old failed project. He said that the developers would be shooting for a 20 story tower with around 300 units.

I'm confused about two things.

One, while I think it is great that developers are wanting to purchase this parcel, remove the mess, and develop something tall, I'm scratching my head wondering why developers would want to take on that kind of project in the first place. Why would they not choose instead to develop on an empty parcel in downtown to avoid having to deal with the extra costs of removing an existing steel structure?

Two, why would they need a zoning change? It's in the D-1 zone. Can't they build as tall as they want with a CBSDR? Are they wanting a zoning change that would allow them to avoid a design review altogether?

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by FullCircle

Very interesting, Viperlord; it seems frivolous lawsuits and insurance issues are causing issues in yet another field I wasn't aware of.
I was going to add a thought to the lack of condo construction topic. My wife works for a company that has been hiring lots of people from out of state; computer programmers, data scientists, managers, etc. so highly educated, skilled workers, many of them coming from the Bay area, Boston, New Jersey, and other cities. When they move here most of them are buying large single family homes, many out in the suburbs. One might think that coming from cities they would want a more urban lifestyle, but it seems like part of what attracts people here is the ability to afford a big house in the suburbs with a "reasonable" commute. As much as I hate traffic and think it has gotten much worse in the past decade or so, it's still not nearly as bad as it is in many metros. We talk about how Utah has a suburban culture (greatly influenced by religion and big families), which is true, and that may also be influencing who is attracted to relocate here from out of state, even if they aren't part of that culture. Just a thought, and some of the transplants are living in the city, but it struck me after seeing where many of them are choosing to live.

This is very interesting. Most of the people that I know who are very staunch suburbanites are not LDS or have big families. Most of them would fall under the category or DINKS or DINKS plus one or two kids, but they love their suburban lifestyle. The culture may have been driven by religion and family size originally, but I think that decoupled long ago and now it is a independent attribute of our local culture. Those people love their house because it has room for their camping trailer, ATV's, truck, and all the other items that fit better with single family living. I bring this up because the people who are happy suburbanites because of lifestyle or cultural influences are much more likely to be converted to urban lifestyle than those who's lifestyle is informed by faith.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by airhero

Nice info Viperlord. Hope good things can materialize from all this activity.



I'm confused about two things.

One, while I think it is great that developers are wanting to purchase this parcel, remove the mess, and develop something tall, I'm scratching my head wondering why developers would want to take on that kind of project in the first place. Why would they not choose instead to develop on an empty parcel in downtown to avoid having to deal with the extra costs of removing an existing steel structure?

Two, why would they need a zoning change? It's in the D-1 zone. Can't they build as tall as they want with a CBSDR? Are they wanting a zoning change that would allow them to avoid a design review altogether?

I would assume because 1) it's an available location looking for active development and 2) it's a great location, centrally-located and near just about everything of interest.

And I thought D-1 zones that allow for unlimited height with a CBSDR were only on the corners of blocks? Or am I mistaken in that?

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

In response to all of the talk about the lack of condominiums being built in the market vs the abundance of apartments/rentals.....

I thought that I would provide an insider view from the design industry.

The Condo Market has been hindered by a few things recently. The biggest thing is due to the liability and insurance markets.

This article from Colorado points out a lot of the same reason why condos aren't being built anymore like they used to.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/2...k-to-colorado/

From the article: "In Denver, the market remains quiet for condo projects overall. Housing director Rick Padilla said there are 1,254 condo and townhome units in the city’s pipeline. Many are higher-end projects, such as the ones going in next to Union Station, that are profitable enough to absorb the risks and potential costs associated with construction defects lawsuits.

The insurance is too high. This is due in part to the "ambulance chaser" attorneys who have made an industry for themselves by approaching existing HOAs and convincing them to file lawsuit against contractors for "poor craftsmanship" in the work on the project.

My firm was dragged into many of these insane lawsuits on Condo projects that we worked on over the past 5-7 years. The sad thing is that the buildings were failing due to lack of adequate upkeep and routine maintenance (which was not performed properly by the HOA). The thing that is even worse is that my firm's involvement in the project was for survey work (platting and mapping) and had nothing to do with the buildings themselves. However, when these attorneys do their lawsuits they drag anyone who was involved in the project into the lawsuit. The sprinkler installers were involved, the company providing the windows was involved. Heck, even the company who provided the marketing materials for the condo development's website was thrown in.

The bottom line is that there is no mercy or logical thinking when it comes to these lawsuits.

One of the questions that insurance companies ask when my company applies for liability insurance is "do you do work on condominium projects, and if so how much?" The insurance companies charge higher rates to the firms who work on condominium projects. These higher rates and the higher probability of being sued have made it to the point where many design firms won't touch condominium projects, and if they do work on them, they charge a lot higher fee to account for the high possibility of being drug into some insane lawsuit.

So, there you have it, that is essentially, what killed the condo market.

I hear it all the time from the multifamily developers who come into our office with projects. "Why would I pay more money for insurance on a condo project, and take on more liability, which would result in a lower return on my investment, when I can build a rental multifamily project for the same price, and not have to worry about paying higher insurance, and risk the higher likelihood of being sued".

This is a tough topic because there definitely should be robust legal recourse for homeowners who have been wronged by negligent actions from a builder, but I have little love for the ambulance chasing attorneys and the massive financial costs they cause for the rest of us. I don't know much about this area, but I am familiar with attempts at tort reform within the health care space and it may have similarities. Basically the argument comes down to how much liability can a person or institution potentially incur. Many states put caps on financial payouts particularly for "pain and suffering". Perhaps creating a organization that gives a certificate for meeting high standards of quality which insurance companies could use as a justification for rating lower?

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

I was looking through the Salt Lake County Recorder's office documents and as of February 6th 2018, The local Dees Inc company is no longer the owner of the Carl's Jr site on 200 South and State Street. The property was sold to an out-of-state investment company located in Boston Massachusetts.

I've shared this information with Isaac & Buildingsaltlake, who will be doing some additional research into this and reporting back as soon as they find any additional information and/or has anything that they can publicly share.

Ooooh this is very exciting news. Every time I walk past that Carl's Jr I shake my head. Such a great location being wasted.

Word on the street is that the former sears site on 700 south and state has attracted quite a few interested developers. One such firm is the SALT developers, the same firm who is doing the Hardware Station apartments, and the project to the north of them. If they acquire the property, they would do a similar mid-rise style type development on the site.

I'm just hoping for some outside-the-box thinking on that one. It's such a huge block...I want it to be more than just a giant residential development. I'm fine with the Hardware Station development because it's on the periphery of downtown and is adding a huge influx of people that are close enough to downtown to enjoy the downtown lifestyle. But Sears is another prime location with a LOT of potential for added vibrancy.

[ajiuO]

I don’t blame the HOAs for suing the building contractors... A lot of the work quality going on now days is absolute shit.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I would assume because 1) it's an available location looking for active development and 2) it's a great location, centrally-located and near just about everything of interest.

And I thought D-1 zones that allow for unlimited height with a CBSDR were only on the corners of blocks? Or am I mistaken in that?

You are correct, it is only on the corners. If I recall correctly something like 200 or 225 feet in the center of the block.

[Makid]

Within the D-1 zone, Midblock buildings are upto 100' as right. It is unlimited with conditional use permit and design review.

I can understand a developer wanting to avoid the review. Look at 151. It was denied a few times because of a box design. Most residential buildings would be boxy by nature to maximize available space without needing to charge more.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

I was looking through the Salt Lake County Recorder's office documents and as of February 6th 2018, The local Dees Inc company is no longer the owner of the Carl's Jr site on 200 South and State Street. The property was sold to an out-of-state investment company located in Boston Massachusetts.

I've shared this information with Isaac & Buildingsaltlake, who will be doing some additional research into this and reporting back as soon as they find any additional information and/or has anything that they can publicly share.

Also, yes, I will also say what the others are saying about the 151 boyer tower. The tower in it's commercial form is dead. Instead a residential tower will be taking its place. From what I've heard the tower will be approx. (24 stories). rumor has it that the tower will be designed by an out-of-state architect, and that the developer is also from out of state.

and on another note... not sure if this was mentioned or not..... the 250 east tower (Century link tower, and the large call data center across the street) has been sold to Unico Properties. Unico is based out of Seattle Washington. This marks another SLC office building that Unico has added to it's portfolio. Unico purchased the Boston building from Hamilton Partners a few years back.

http://www.comre.com/news/250-tower-...he-first-time/

Talking with a commercial real estate agent recently who is involved in the Patrinely Towers on 600 South Main street. I asked him if they had thought of taking the two 10-story towers and combining them together to make one larger tower. He responded that they had toyed with that exact same thought a bit, but most likely would stick with 10 stories for their first tower on main street, and then possibly add additional floors into the tower on west temple depending on market demand.

This same agent also has about 3 different clients who are interested in purchasing the "state street RDA mess". These firms have talked about removing what is currently there and starting from scratch. They hope that they may be able to talk the city into zoning changes to allow for more density and height to accommodate more units on site. The extra units will be needed to make the project pencil out financially, especially due to the added costs of removing the steel and concrete from the old failed project. He said that the developers would be shooting for a 20 story tower with around 300 units.

Word on the street is that the former sears site on 700 south and state has attracted quite a few interested developers. One such firm is the SALT developers, the same firm who is doing the Hardware Station apartments, and the project to the north of them. If they acquire the property, they would do a similar mid-rise style type development on the site.

It is an exciting time to be in Salt Lake!

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by asies1981

It is an exciting time to be in Salt Lake!

So what it sounds like is we are planned to get two Regent Street Condo sized towers on state? Nice.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by asies1981

It is an exciting time to be in Salt Lake!

It may just be me but I am feeling that there is some extra meaning to this, especially with regards to the Carl's Jr. lot...