Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[airhero]

It's all a moot point since this will never happen but some statistics about the above city using the latest data I could find:

Area: 219.6 sq mi
Population: 704,831 (19th in the US, just ahead of Denver and just behind Seattle)

Currently:

Area: 110.4 sq mi
Population: 200,544 (116th in the US, ahead of Amarillo, TX and behind Aurora, IL)

I think a much greater possibility would be SLC+WVC+Magna+SSL:

Area: 160.2 sq mi
Population: 389,121 (51st in the US ahead of Cleveland and behind Wichita)

But even that is on the fringes of realism.

[GrandTeton]

I've always wondered why Salt Lake City's density is nothing to write home about, considering that it's geography would suggest otherwise.

It's very strange that West Jordan and Sandy are leaps and bounds more dense than SLC.

Anyway, are there any development news/photos?

[berger4]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

I've always wondered why Salt Lake City's density is nothing to write home about, considering that it's geography would suggest otherwise.

It's very strange that West Jordan and Sandy are leaps and bounds more dense than SLC.

Anyway, are there any development news/photos?

I don't respond here alot I'm a huge lurker, but I think I can answer this. A large portion of Salt Lake City limits include mountains, the airport, industry, and marshlands that cannot be developed. The parts of the city that are populated are more dense then the suburbs, but the amount of land that is not populated decreases the overall density of the city.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

I've always wondered why Salt Lake City's density is nothing to write home about, considering that it's geography would suggest otherwise.

It's very strange that West Jordan and Sandy are leaps and bounds more dense than SLC.

Anyway, are there any development news/photos?

Yes. It's been quite active recently. Though, these debates sometimes swallow up development news and photos. Start here http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=228783&page=222 and move through the next few pages and you'll see some interesting new developments.

[Blah_Amazing]

So I was on the Lowe Property Group website (developers of the recently discussed 6th and Main project) and I noticed they changed a few things on their planned projects. Interestingly, many of their URL addresses remain the same, even though the projects' names have been changed.

https://www.loweprop.com/fairmont-lofts
The 'Fairmont Lofts' project in Sugarhouse has been renamed 'Dixon Place' and there is an updated rendering.

https://www.loweprop.com/dixon-lofts
What had originally been their 'Dixon Lofts' project in Sugarhouse (on the site of the now cancelled Dixon Building (office building)) is now called 'Sugar Alley.'

https://www.loweprop.com/copy-of-6th-main
They also appear to be planning a large housing/ mixed-use project along 500 S near Pioneer Park called 'A&Z.'

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

It's very strange that West Jordan and Sandy are leaps and bounds more dense than SLC.

Not sure where you get your information. But yeah. That's not a thing.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

So I was on the Lowe Property Group website (developers of the recently discussed 6th and Main project) and I noticed they changed a few things on their planned projects. Interestingly, many of their URL addresses remain the same, even though the projects' names have been changed.

https://www.loweprop.com/fairmont-lofts
The 'Fairmont Lofts' project in Sugarhouse has been renamed 'Dixon Place' and there is an updated rendering.

https://www.loweprop.com/dixon-lofts
What had originally been their 'Dixon Lofts' project in Sugarhouse (on the site of the now cancelled Dixon Building (office building)) is now called 'Sugar Alley.'

https://www.loweprop.com/copy-of-6th-main
They also appear to be planning a large housing/ mixed-use project along 500 S near Pioneer Park called 'A&Z.'

Dixon Place


5th South and 4th West: This will be great infill. That stretch of 5th south is so embarrasing.

[UV4EVER]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Not sure where you get your information. But yeah. That's not a thing.

Unfortunately it actually is a thing. It's as real as SLC being a city of just over 200k people (also very unfortunate.) SLC has a density of about 1,700 people per square mile while West Jordan and Sandy are around 3,400 and 4,200 respectively. It has to do with the large amounts of uninhabited land which is a part of SLC proper (airport and industrial land on the west side, foothills and canyons, etc).

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by UV4EVER

Unfortunately it actually is a thing. It's as real as SLC being a city of just over 200k people (also very unfortunate.) SLC has a density of about 1,700 people per square mile while West Jordan and Sandy are around 3,400 and 4,200 respectively. It has to do with the large amounts of uninhabited land which is a part of SLC proper (airport and industrial land on the west side, foothills and canyons, etc).

The overall citywide density is lower because of the NW Quadrant, etc., but the actual neighborhoods are not less dense than the suburbs. They're far more dense. SLC is actually "leaps and bounds" more dense than the suburbs.

[UV4EVER]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The overall citywide density is lower because of the NW Quadrant, etc., but the actual neighborhoods are not less dense than the suburbs. They're far more dense. SLC is actually "leaps and bounds" more dense than the suburbs.

Totally understand and agree but overall city-wide density is what was being discussed. Unfortunately that is the most readily-available, widely-cited and commonly-compared data, just like city-proper population data rather than population numbers which would include suburbs which are natural outgrowths.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by UV4EVER

Totally understand and agree but overall city-wide density is what was being discussed. Unfortunately that is the most readily-available, widely-cited and commonly-compared data, just like city-proper population data rather than population numbers which would include suburbs which are natural outgrowths.

No it isn't. Density data by Census tract is publicly available(the most populous along the Wasatch Front are in SLC proper).

As far as most often compared that also isn't true. Depending on the industry/application a number of different metrics are used. Media markets, Metropolitan amd combined statistical areas, census tracts, amd sometimes even local government jurisdictions(cities). You picked a poor category to derive the data from for the question you were trying to answer(which cities on the WF have higher densities) and failed to correct for clear anomalies(National Forest within a cities border for one). That mistake is why you came up with a false conclusion.

In the future remember that if you come to a counter intuitive answer it is more likely than not that you made a mistake. Not always but most often. Recheck the data you are pulling from and reexamine your process.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

I've always wondered why Salt Lake City's density is nothing to write home about, considering that it's geography would suggest otherwise.

It's very strange that West Jordan and Sandy are leaps and bounds more dense than SLC.

Anyway, are there any development news/photos?

How much more dense is WJ and Sandy??? LOL.

As an aside (because I found this image that included Charlotte), Charlotte is the 17th largest city by population, but it's far less dense than SLC.

[GrandTeton]

Originally Posted by Stenar

How much more dense is WJ and Sandy??? LOL.

As an aside (because I found this image that included Charlotte), Charlotte is the 17th largest city by population, but it's far less dense than SLC.

Sure, individual neighborhoods in SLC are more dense than West Jordan and Sandy, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that in SLC's 110 square miles, the density is only 1,700 people per square mile. You can base it off census tracts all you want, but the average of all paints the whole picture.

And by the way, Charlotte has 2,400 people per square mile. Boise is more dense than both Charlotte and SLC.

As a side note, I suggest that a new thread for SLC be created for "Off Topic Discussion" because going through pages and pages of discussions that have nothing to do with Salt Lake development is incredibly annoying.

[tchild2]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

The problem I have with Lehi is it’s not dense at all and only makes the geography situation worse. That area is a bottle neck and we are adding fuel to the fire. It’s poor planning overall because each city is a separate entity and there’s no way to plan the Wasatch front from a big picture perspective. This is probably one of the few benefits of merging the smaller cities together. I have no doubts the transit problems can be overcome but it will be very expensive and we will always be behind the curve. We have the space for the companies and people to live downtown. It’s unfortunate SLC is losing such a large percentage of the growth to the south end of the valley. There will be a turning point and things will shift back north. I gotta be honest, I don’t understand the appeal of the Lehi area at all as a place to live. I believe professionals would much prefer the SLC market as a place to live over Lehi. Just my opinion really. Sun crest is nice and the Alpine area too but the options are limited. If I was a SLC mayor I would look for creative ways to better the city in ways that could attracted people to want to live downtown. We need a cool factor.

Our company moved into the Thanksgiving point area in 2006, before much was there. We chose Lehi because we are a payroll company and the location offered us both quick and easy access to Utah and Salt Lake County. I agree that Lehi is not someplace I would want to live and it has become a congested nightmare. I live further south in Lindon. My commute is 15 minutes, even with bad traffic. I used to commute to Salt Lake and my commute was well over an hour with traffic.

The Benefit of Lehi or Draper (and now Pleasant Grove) is that the 500K residents of Utah county can commute to a location relatively close to where they live: Alpine, PG, Orem, AF, Provo, and do not have to make a laborious daily travel to Downtown SLC. Until there is adequate and efficient mass transit, this benefit will not change and building will continue. Now, P.G. is developing just like Lehi (mini-Lehi). I don't necessarily like the aesthetics of the development, but I understand why it is happening as it is.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Dixon Place


5th South and 4th West: This will be great infill. That stretch of 5th south is so embarrasing.

Nice! 500s and 600s are so trashy looking between I15 and 300W. I hope another development pops up directly across the street from that. I would also like to see PCA and the other factory across from Maverik go. 600s needs a lot of work as well. I thought the city was going to make the ugly billboards on 600 come down, but I haven’t heard anything in a while... one of them literally looks like it’s about to fall over. I’m surprised the city doesn’t make them take it down for safety.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

Sure, individual neighborhoods in SLC are more dense than West Jordan and Sandy, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that in SLC's 110 square miles, the density is only 1,700 people per square mile. You can base it off census tracts all you want, but the average of all paints the whole picture.

And by the way, Charlotte has 2,400 people per square mile. Boise is more dense than both Charlotte and SLC.

As a side note, I suggest that a new thread for SLC be created for "Off Topic Discussion" because going through pages and pages of discussions that have nothing to do with Salt Lake development is incredibly annoying.

I didn't want to continue this discussion because we've had it before, but it's extremely ill advised to use total population divided by total geographic area of the city to measure its density, which is where your data is coming from. There's an entire canyon within SLC boundaries. Population 0. And it will always be uninhabited, because it's open space, and therefore will always deflate Salt Lake's density calculation. There is a bunch of uninhabited land in the northwest quadrant, much of which will always remain uninhabited because of preservation reasons. Charlotte doesn't have that, Boise has that but it's much less than what's in SLC boundaries.

The second thing is, like every other city in the US, Salt Lake has industrial areas that are separate from residential areas. But a much higher percentage of SLC's land is dedicated to industrial use than probably any other city in Utah and almost any major city in the US.

I made a map of this a while ago and shared it, yellow is open space on the fringes, black is industrial/airport, green is residential/commercial/parks:



Go to Google Maps and click on any city name in satellite view (to view the boundaries of the city) and you'll see virtually no city has as much open space or industrial space as a percentage of their land. Sandy has very little industrial or open space on the fringes. If Little Cottonwood Canyon happened to be in Sandy City boundaries, much like City Creek Canyon is in SLC boundaries, it would drag the density down. The effective density of the actual area where people live would be much higher than that deflated density would show. West Jordan has some open space out west but that's quickly getting developed.

So no, the average over the entire city area does not paint the whole picture. In fact it doesn't really tell you anything. It does matter what the density in individual neighborhoods is because the denser neighborhoods you see above are where people actually live. The effective density of the green areas above is about 6500 people/sq mi. I reckon if you remove airport/industrial/open space in Charlotte density would be about 3000 people/sq mi, possibly even less

[GrandTeton]

So if what you're saying is true, why does Salt Lake's skyline and urban form not reflect a city with 7,000 people per square mile? Sure the NW Quadrant drags down the density to 1,700 people per square mile as the city's average. You can't cherry pick which areas to use to calculate density. It doesn't work that way. The industrial areas are part of Salt Lake. Period. This isn't personal, nor is it an attack against Salt Lake.

This gets back to my original question, considering Salt Lake's geography, why isn't it MORE dense?

Originally Posted by airhero

I didn't want to continue this discussion because we've had it before, but it's extremely ill advised to use total population divided by total geographic area of the city to measure its density, which is where your data is coming from. There's an entire canyon within SLC boundaries. Population 0. And it will always be uninhabited, because it's open space, and therefore will always deflate Salt Lake's density calculation. There is a bunch of uninhabited land in the northwest quadrant, much of which will always remain uninhabited because of preservation reasons. Charlotte doesn't have that, Boise has that but it's much less than what's in SLC boundaries.

The second thing is, like every other city in the US, Salt Lake has industrial areas that are separate from residential areas. But a much higher percentage of SLC's land is dedicated to industrial use than probably any other city in Utah and almost any major city in the US.

I made a map of this a while ago and shared it, yellow is open space on the fringes, black is industrial/airport, green is residential/commercial/parks:

Go to Google Maps and click on any city name in satellite view (to view the boundaries of the city) and you'll see virtually no city has as much open space or industrial space as a percentage of their land. Sandy has very little industrial or open space on the fringes. If Little Cottonwood Canyon happened to be in Sandy City boundaries, much like City Creek Canyon is in SLC boundaries, it would drag the density down. The effective density of the actual area where people live would be much higher than that deflated density would show. West Jordan has some open space out west but that's quickly getting developed.

So no, the average over the entire city area does not paint the whole picture. In fact it doesn't really tell you anything. It does matter what the density in individual neighborhoods is because the denser neighborhoods you see above are where people actually live. The effective density of the green areas above is about 7000 people/sq mi. I reckon if you remove airport/industrial/open space in Charlotte dnesity would be about 3000 people/sq mi, possibly even less

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

Sure, individual neighborhoods in SLC are more dense than West Jordan and Sandy, but that still doesn't make up for the fact that in SLC's 110 square miles, the density is only 1,700 people per square mile. You can base it off census tracts all you want, but the average of all paints the whole picture.

And by the way, Charlotte has 2,400 people per square mile. Boise is more dense than both Charlotte and SLC.

As a side note, I suggest that a new thread for SLC be created for "Off Topic Discussion" because going through pages and pages of discussions that have nothing to do with Salt Lake development is incredibly annoying.

Are you dense? Someone already told you why Salt Lake City's numbers are skewed - a huge chunk of the city's land area encompasses uninhabitable land. Most cities are built out to their limits. Salt Lake isn't to the east and the west, as the city limits include a large area of undeveloped land to the west and mountains to the east.



That's more than half the city proper without any residential development (the two highlighted areas). How many other cities you're comparing Salt Lake to can say over half their city limits are undeveloped? And you're suggesting that shouldn't be factored into Salt Lake's density figures ... implying that the city is more suburban than its suburbs? C'mon now. If you're not going to bring a serious argument, or discussion, to this thread, please see yourself out. We're not here to take subtle jabs from people who think they're being cute by insinuating Salt Lake isn't as dense as its suburbs.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by GrandTeton

So if what you're saying is true, why does Salt Lake's skyline and urban form not reflect a city with 7,000 people per square mile? Sure the NW Quadrant drags down the density to 1,700 people per square mile as the city's average. You can't cherry pick which areas to use to calculate density. It doesn't work that way. The industrial areas are part of Salt Lake. Period. This isn't personal, nor is it an attack against Salt Lake.

This gets back to my original question, considering Salt Lake's geography, why isn't it MORE dense?

Let's agree to disagree. If you want to continue discussion I think that new thread is a good idea.

[Old&New]

Ok, wanted to bump this again to get more constructive feedback from you all.

Originally Posted by Old&New

Actually, this would be pretty cool. Not only would this thrust theater be a great interactive theater space for plays, but it would be a catalyst to restore the Pantages theater into a more viable space, giving all three theaters additional flex support space, and could provide additional auditorium space for lectures during large conventions. And yes, eventually Zion's Bank wants to build its own tower here.



Thrust Theater:



• Video Link


Pantages Theater:

http://rustinjessen.com/wordpress/utah-pantages-theater/


Capitol Theater:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dionnemusic/21694814746