Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

And a gym

I think dicks would have made an awesome gym sort of place... they could have had rock climbing and all kinds of cool stuff. But the mall is turning it in to offices... what an inspiring thing to do with the best space that the mall has to offer.

Gateway actually does have a gym though FYI... it’s kind of hidden behind a hair place though.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I think dicks would have made an awesome gym sort of place... they could have had rock climbing and all kinds of cool stuff. But the mall is turning it in to offices... what an inspiring thing to do with the best space that the mall has to offer.

Gateway actually does have a gym though FYI... it’s kind of hidden behind a hair place though.

Yeah. I've been to it. Second floor by the escalators. I actually like busy gyms. And I agree about the Dicks space. It'll be sweet office space for those working there. But total potential for a top notch gym.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

I went from feeling safe walking home from gateway at midnight to not feeling comfortable walking there in the middle of the day... in less then a year.

[Stenar]

The last few times I've been downtown, I have been pleasantly surprised at how many people were out walking around; a LOT of them.

Originally Posted by FullCircle

Last Sunday evening I took a drive around downtown, then through Sugarhouse on my way home. The west side of downtown definitely has a lot of construction going on, with 4th West/Hardware village, an apartment building just across the tracks from it, the building on the northwest corner of 3rd west and north temple, The building on 3rd west and Pierpont, the hotel and apartment building on 2nd south and between 2nd and 3rd west, etc. However, there really weren't many people out and about on the streets, except homeless/druggies/panhandlers. I guess my feeling was, well, with all this construction going on, much of it residential, I'm sure foot traffic and vibrancy will increase soon. But then I think back 12+ years, and how we've been saying the same thing the whole time; "with Westgate lofts, Broadway park, etc, there will be more residents and vibrancy in the area..." Obviously, things are moving in a positive direction, but it still feels like an inflection point hasn't been hit yet; and I'll go ahead and punch this horse, though it's covered in flies and I can't detect a heartbeat, I do think it has a lot to do with the drug/panhandling problems. My wife and I rarely go downtown, mostly because she feels uncomfortable there. Sure, there are lots of positive happy people around, but they feel outnumbered by the negative.
After checking out downtown I drove through Sugarhouse, and there were lots of people out walking, biking, and dining outside. It felt much more vibrant, active, and happy, hence that's where my wife and I tend to go. Of course, there is some of the negative element there, but it's proportionally much less than downtown, so the good sort of overwhelms the bad and it isn't scary or uncomfortable. I don't know what the proportion needs to be for downtown to turn a corner, but I feel it hasn't been reached yet.
People often talk about it, and I agree there is an absolute density level that needs to be reached for a city to have enough people around to feel vibrant, and downtown probably isn't at that level yet either, but I also feel like the proportion I've been talking about is important too. And yes, I'm over simplifying; there aren't just two kinds of people downtown, but when I walk a block and pass three people, two of which ask me for money and one is sitting in the bushes with a needle, it's hard for me to have a positive experience and want to come back.
For the record, I used to go downtown quite a bit when I was single, as the negative elements didn't bother me so much, but I'm a guy and feel fairly confident most places I go. Also, the problems really do seem worse now than they did ten years ago, but maybe that's just my perception.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

...

But seriously, I get what you are saying about having kids and avoiding areas populated with people experiencing homelessness. I'm sure if I had kids I would probably not want them around that kind of stuff. However, I would say that city's in general aren't really family friendly if we are being honest. People who populate an urban core are young single people who don't have to worry about their kids. And those people should be tough enough to walk by some homeless people without feeling like the world is going to end. If they can't, they probably should just not live in city. I still maintain the west side is dead because of it's lack of things to do.

I'm guessing you've never been to any urban cores if you really believe that. There are people with families in every urban core in America. Cities wouldn't exist if they were only filled with young people.

[Jiffy]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I'm guessing you've never been to any urban cores if you really believe that. There are people with families in every urban core in America. Cities wouldn't exist if they were only filled with young people.

With Salt Lake having temple square I would imagine Salt Lake would have even more families than your typical city.

[Ironweed]

As a fan and former resident of Chicago, I can assure you that there are numerous families with children who live near or in downtown. Yes, Chicago's south side (outside of downtown) is not a good place to be right now, but parts of it are amazing. The people I know that live there with their children enjoy the dynamic urban environment. The mindset is very different than Utah, whose families many times are only a generation off the farm. Urban living for Utahans is very foreign. They seem to want big trucks, a big yard, and large home. The math doesn't work for the future. Things will need to change dramatically here, or this place will become a dumpster.

I still insist that for a CSA the size of the Wasatch, that downtown SLC is amazingly small. It is way behind in its development. I do like some of the residential projects going in. Although they are quite small as well, relative to demand.

[bob rulz]

I too dislike the narrative that cities can't and shouldn't attract families. That's the reason there's miles and miles of McMansion neighborhoods all over America.

[Stenar]

According to the U.S. Census, 60% of NYC households are family households, which includes married couples without children. 30% of all households have children under 18. 11% of households are over the age of 65. So, young single people are a minority.

[delts145]

Stenar, When you refer to NYC, I imagine your including all boroughs. Are the stats also referring to the greater CSA? People not completely familiar with New York often only think of it as Manhattan, even though they know there are a number of boroughs such as Brooklyn.

[ThePusherMan]

Well not very many Utah families would live in New York. If Utah families are avoiding downtown because of one block in the Rio Grande area then they probably need to toughen up. Those families in New York you are talking about have kids the ride the subway by themselves good luck seeing that kind of behavior from Utah families.

[Comrade]

Salt Lake's problem isn't families in the general sense. It's Utah families. Mormons have larger families and because of that, they require bigger homes. It's not economically feasible for many Mormons to live in the city because the bigger houses are way more expensive than anything you'd find in the suburbs and even if you downsize, what goes for $300,000 in Salt Lake would be much smaller than what goes for $300,000 in Herriman.

It's why Salt Lake, unlike many western cities, saw white flight in levels similar to rust belt cities in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Mormon families found areas of the valley where they could build bigger houses for cheaper prices to maintain their larger families.

Utah is far and away #1 in household size - as well as family size.

There's a reason I harp on out of state migration into Utah. The more diverse the state becomes in this regard, the more we'll see a push for consistent downtown development and living. We've done a great job with the resources we have, but even right now, a huge majority of this state does not want to live in Salt Lake, and especially not downtown.

It's also a reason why a big chunk of Salt Lake's growth continues to be non-white.

In the 2010 Census, Salt Lake's white population was 153,027.
In the 2015 Census estimate, Salt Lake's white population was 144,339.

So, the Census is estimating SLC saw a net loss of white people between 2010 and 2015. This is just an estimate, so, it can change in the official numbers they release in 2020, but it shows one thing - almost all of Salt Lake's population growth is being spurred by non-whites.

I would be surprised if many other western cities were actually seeing a LOSS in white population. They might be seeing a loss in the overall percentage of their white population but that's probably being offset by minorities out-pacing the white population in either births or migration into the area.

Conversely, in 2010's Census, SLC's Hispanic/Latino population was 39,533.
In the 2015 Census estimate, SLC's Hispanic/Latino population was 39,262.

So, even there, the estimate shows a slight decline in Hispanics living in the city. So, where's a bulk of the growth coming from?

1) Asians - Salt Lake's Asian population in the 2010 Census was 8,904. In the 2015 estimate, it was 12,870. An estimated increase of 3,966. Not a HUGE increase in overall numbers but their percentage went from 4.8% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2015's estimates.

2) Some Other Race - Whatever is included in Some Other Race, it's impacting Salt Lake's total demographics. In 2010's Census, Salt Lake's Some Other Race population was 13,707 (7.4%). In 2015's estimates, it was 12.3% - a solid increase.

Some other race could include Arabs, Iranians and other ethnicities not officially considered a race. So, that's a bit of a gray area.

What isn't is the major shift in Salt Lake's demographics just in that five year estimate.

Here's 2010's demographic percentage:

White: 82.9%
Hispanic/Latino: 21.4%
Some Other Race: 7.4%
Asian: 4.8%
Black: 3.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 1.9%
American Indian: 1.5%

2015's estimates:

White: 75.7%
Hispanic/Latino: 20.6%
Some Other Race: 12.3%
Asian: 6.7%
Black: 3.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 2.8%
American Indian: 2.1%

So, the biggest change has come from 'Some other race'. That could just be people not feeling they want to be attached to labels like white or black. Problem is, we don't know the exact breakdown of that and while these are estimates, it shows Salt Lake's Hispanic population has plateaued potentially, the white population is declining and the black population, not surprisingly, is getting smaller.

We can't change the way Utah families think. We can try to bring in the type of population that WOULD live downtown, tho. Maybe an increased Asian population will help there.

[bob rulz]

Salt Lake City being less white? Good. Let's encourage our diversity.

I wonder if that "some other race" also includes "two or more races"? Interracial marriage is becoming increasingly common. Again, a win for diversity.

[Stenar]

Mormons don't have THAT many kids any more.

“If we look back a generation, or maybe two generations ago, women in Utah—families in Utah—were routinely having four or five kids; now families are having two kids, slightly more than two kids on average,” Perlich said.

http://fox13now.com/2016/01/10/despi...ate-in-nation/

Utah households average 3.14 people. The national average is 2.64. Sure, Utah's households are larger, but not THAT much larger.

Originally Posted by Comrade

Salt Lake's problem isn't families in the general sense. It's Utah families. Mormons have larger families and because of that, they require bigger homes. It's not economically feasible for many Mormons to live in the city because the bigger houses are way more expensive than anything you'd find in the suburbs and even if you downsize, what goes for $300,000 in Salt Lake would be much smaller than what goes for $300,000 in Herriman.

It's why Salt Lake, unlike many western cities, saw white flight in levels similar to rust belt cities in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Mormon families found areas of the valley where they could build bigger houses for cheaper prices to maintain their larger families.

Utah is far and away #1 in household size - as well as family size.

There's a reason I harp on out of state migration into Utah. The more diverse the state becomes in this regard, the more we'll see a push for consistent downtown development and living. We've done a great job with the resources we have, but even right now, a huge majority of this state does not want to live in Salt Lake, and especially not downtown.

It's also a reason why a big chunk of Salt Lake's growth continues to be non-white.

In the 2010 Census, Salt Lake's white population was 153,027.
In the 2015 Census estimate, Salt Lake's white population was 144,339.

So, the Census is estimating SLC saw a net loss of white people between 2010 and 2015. This is just an estimate, so, it can change in the official numbers they release in 2020, but it shows one thing - almost all of Salt Lake's population growth is being spurred by non-whites.

I would be surprised if many other western cities were actually seeing a LOSS in white population. They might be seeing a loss in the overall percentage of their white population but that's probably being offset by minorities out-pacing the white population in either births or migration into the area.

Conversely, in 2010's Census, SLC's Hispanic/Latino population was 39,533.
In the 2015 Census estimate, SLC's Hispanic/Latino population was 39,262.

So, even there, the estimate shows a slight decline in Hispanics living in the city. So, where's a bulk of the growth coming from?

1) Asians - Salt Lake's Asian population in the 2010 Census was 8,904. In the 2015 estimate, it was 12,870. An estimated increase of 3,966. Not a HUGE increase in overall numbers but their percentage went from 4.8% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2015's estimates.

2) Some Other Race - Whatever is included in Some Other Race, it's impacting Salt Lake's total demographics. In 2010's Census, Salt Lake's Some Other Race population was 13,707 (7.4%). In 2015's estimates, it was 12.3% - a solid increase.

Some other race could include Arabs, Iranians and other ethnicities not officially considered a race. So, that's a bit of a gray area.

What isn't is the major shift in Salt Lake's demographics just in that five year estimate.

Here's 2010's demographic percentage:

White: 82.9%
Hispanic/Latino: 21.4%
Some Other Race: 7.4%
Asian: 4.8%
Black: 3.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 1.9%
American Indian: 1.5%

2015's estimates:

White: 75.7%
Hispanic/Latino: 20.6%
Some Other Race: 12.3%
Asian: 6.7%
Black: 3.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 2.8%
American Indian: 2.1%

So, the biggest change has come from 'Some other race'. That could just be people not feeling they want to be attached to labels like white or black. Problem is, we don't know the exact breakdown of that and while these are estimates, it shows Salt Lake's Hispanic population has plateaued potentially, the white population is declining and the black population, not surprisingly, is getting smaller.

We can't change the way Utah families think. We can try to bring in the type of population that WOULD live downtown, tho. Maybe an increased Asian population will help there.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Salt Lake's problem isn't families in the general sense. It's Utah families. Mormons have larger families and because of that, they require bigger homes. It's not economically feasible for many Mormons to live in the city because the bigger houses are way more expensive than anything you'd find in the suburbs and even if you downsize, what goes for $300,000 in Salt Lake would be much smaller than what goes for $300,000 in Herriman.

It's why Salt Lake, unlike many western cities, saw white flight in levels similar to rust belt cities in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Mormon families found areas of the valley where they could build bigger houses for cheaper prices to maintain their larger families.

Utah is far and away #1 in household size - as well as family size.

There's a reason I harp on out of state migration into Utah. The more diverse the state becomes in this regard, the more we'll see a push for consistent downtown development and living. We've done a great job with the resources we have, but even right now, a huge majority of this state does not want to live in Salt Lake, and especially not downtown.

It's also a reason why a big chunk of Salt Lake's growth continues to be non-white.

In the 2010 Census, Salt Lake's white population was 153,027.
In the 2015 Census estimate, Salt Lake's white population was 144,339.

So, the Census is estimating SLC saw a net loss of white people between 2010 and 2015. This is just an estimate, so, it can change in the official numbers they release in 2020, but it shows one thing - almost all of Salt Lake's population growth is being spurred by non-whites.

I would be surprised if many other western cities were actually seeing a LOSS in white population. They might be seeing a loss in the overall percentage of their white population but that's probably being offset by minorities out-pacing the white population in either births or migration into the area.

Conversely, in 2010's Census, SLC's Hispanic/Latino population was 39,533.
In the 2015 Census estimate, SLC's Hispanic/Latino population was 39,262.

So, even there, the estimate shows a slight decline in Hispanics living in the city. So, where's a bulk of the growth coming from?

1) Asians - Salt Lake's Asian population in the 2010 Census was 8,904. In the 2015 estimate, it was 12,870. An estimated increase of 3,966. Not a HUGE increase in overall numbers but their percentage went from 4.8% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2015's estimates.

2) Some Other Race - Whatever is included in Some Other Race, it's impacting Salt Lake's total demographics. In 2010's Census, Salt Lake's Some Other Race population was 13,707 (7.4%). In 2015's estimates, it was 12.3% - a solid increase.

Some other race could include Arabs, Iranians and other ethnicities not officially considered a race. So, that's a bit of a gray area.

What isn't is the major shift in Salt Lake's demographics just in that five year estimate.

Here's 2010's demographic percentage:

White: 82.9%
Hispanic/Latino: 21.4%
Some Other Race: 7.4%
Asian: 4.8%
Black: 3.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 1.9%
American Indian: 1.5%

2015's estimates:

White: 75.7%
Hispanic/Latino: 20.6%
Some Other Race: 12.3%
Asian: 6.7%
Black: 3.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 2.8%
American Indian: 2.1%

So, the biggest change has come from 'Some other race'. That could just be people not feeling they want to be attached to labels like white or black. Problem is, we don't know the exact breakdown of that and while these are estimates, it shows Salt Lake's Hispanic population has plateaued potentially, the white population is declining and the black population, not surprisingly, is getting smaller.

We can't change the way Utah families think. We can try to bring in the type of population that WOULD live downtown, tho. Maybe an increased Asian population will help there.

I am surprised that SLC lost white population as it is in one of the few metros where white people still give birth above replacement rate. I would not be surprised at all if other cities lost white population as the National birthrate for white women is like 1.7 (around 2.1 is replacement rate).

While the numbers are interesting I suspect that if we could delve depper into them we would find much more liberal reasons for the decrease (and a regrettable American history of race categorization ). After all SLC is far and away the most liberal city in the state . I would suspect that mixed race marriages/births has more to do with the decrease than white flight does.

[flyinpenguin]

Originally Posted by DCRes

I heard a rumor that a small Harmon's is going in the retail space at the 4th West apartments. This came from someone who lives in Rose Park, who heard it from a construction worker. I don't know if it is true or not, but thought I would pass it on.

My official sources tell me that this is not accurate. The developers of 4th West apartments approached them early on, and they declined.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Mormons don't have THAT many kids any more.

“If we look back a generation, or maybe two generations ago, women in Utah—families in Utah—were routinely having four or five kids; now families are having two kids, slightly more than two kids on average,” Perlich said.

http://fox13now.com/2016/01/10/despi...ate-in-nation/

Utah households average 3.14 people. The national average is 2.64. Sure, Utah's households are larger, but not THAT much larger.

Well you know how stats work. Household size is going to be skewed heavily in averages by one or two-person households where there is no family (such as students, single people, elderly and those who've just started families). But that stat proves my point - there is a HUGE gap between Utah and the national average. Utah leads the country in household size at 3.14, which, yeah, on its face looks small, but the gap between Utah and the rest of the nation is, in fact, statistically a pretty large margin.

Utah also held a ten-point gap in households with children (43.3%) compared to the national average (33.4). Utah was also 50th in the country in percentage of people living alone (18.7%).

It's just not true to say this isn't a factor. It absolutely IS a factor.

Mormons might not be having 10 kids anymore - but they're still having two-plus children and certainly outpace any national average in that regard. THIS does impact growth downtown and within the city. It's not only WHY Salt Lake continues to lose its white population - but why the city is becoming even less LDS despite Utah's LDS population remaining stagnant across the state (and growing in Utah County). Even in Salt Lake County, which is seeing population surges, the percent of the county that is LDS remains only .6% smaller than it was in 2010 - a far smaller decrease compared to the point between 2000-2010.

What does that mean? Salt Lake County is becoming more diverse but well behind that of Salt Lake City, whose LDS population, I'd wager, is far more smaller today compared to 2010 than just a bit more than a half-percent. There is a reason for that. LDS families don't want to live anywhere in Salt Lake - not the east-side, which has bigger houses and the illusion of safer streets than the cheaper west side, and definitely not downtown.

The population growth Salt Lake is experiencing is more minority-driven. Either by more Asians, as I pointed out, or as bob rulz pointed out, mixed residents who don't identify as white or Hispanic or black.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I am surprised that SLC lost white population as it is in one of the few metros where white people still give birth above replacement rate. I would not be surprised at all if other cities lost white population as the National birthrate for white women is like 1.7 (around 2.1 is replacement rate).

While the numbers are interesting I suspect that if we could delve depper into them we would find much more liberal reasons for the decrease (and a regrettable American history of race categorization ). After all SLC is far and away the most liberal city in the state . I would suspect that mixed race marriages/births has more to do with the decrease than white flight does.

I would guess the metro differs greatly compared to Salt Lake's overall numbers. So, not too much a surprise.

As for other cities, it's possible some southern cities and rust belt cities continue to lose white people - but not in the west.

Denver's white population in 2010 was 435,783. In the 2015 estimate, it's 512,807 - an increase of 77,024. In fact, Denver's total white population in the 2015 estimate is 78.9% - whiter than Salt Lake's white population and a 3.5% increase over their 2010 numbers. Like Salt Lake, but more significantly, their Hispanic/Latino population decreased.

On a more local level, let's look at West Valley City - a city with similar diversity as Salt Lake City (at least in race):

In 2010's estimates, WVC's white population was 101,763. In the 2015 estimate, it's 90,932 - a decrease of 10,831, which is actually a bigger percentage decrease than Salt Lake City. Where WVC differs from Salt Lake is that its Hispanic population is now 50,900, which is up from 38,458 in 2010. So, WVC went from 24.7% Hispanic to 38.1% - making it, most likely, Utah's most diverse larger city (white is now 68% of the total population).

But then you've got places like Provo, where the white population went 93,851 in 2010 to 101,758 in 2015 (an increase of 7,907), while its Hispanic population did see an increase from 16,143 to 19,976. But the white population increased to 88.2% of the overall percentage.

So, let's also take a look at South Jordan, as its one of the fastest growing cities in the state. In 2010, its white population was 43,175 and in the 2015 estimate, it's 58,056. That's a sizable increase for the city.

What I believe this shows is that places like Salt Lake & WVC are losing white people to the suburbs and the faster growing areas of the state. Since it's not a stretch to suggest that a huge percentage of the white population in Utah is LDS, this is probably being fueled by LDS families leaving these cities. In Salt Lake's case, the white population in/out tilts heavily toward the out. So, while 1,000 new whites might have moved in from, say, another state, 3,000 more left in that same time period.

It'll be interesting to see how this reflects in the 2020 Census.

I SHOULD POINT OUT: While I say these are Census stats - the truth is, the estimates I used, from 2010 & 2015, which are pulled from the Census, are in fact from the American Community Survey. To keep it consistent, I did not compare the 2015 American Community Survey numbers to the official 2010 Census numbers. These are rolling estimates, done yearly, by the Census between each decennial census. So, these numbers might not fully reflect in the 2020 Census but because they're consistent within their own estimates, it's a more accurate approach than comparing the 2010 numbers to these estimates. If that makes sense.

For full disclosure, here is the difference between the official decennial Census in 2010 and the ACS estimates for Salt Lake City:

Total population: 184,488 (ACS), 186,440 (Census Official)
White population: 149,424 (ACS), 140,080 (Census Official)
White percentage: 81.0% (ACS), 75.1% (Census Official)
Hispanic or Latino population: 39,533 (ACS), 41,637 (Census Official)
Hispanic or Latino percentage: 21.4% (ACS), 22.3 (Census)

You can see there are discrepancies. These are the yearly estimates we all use to show Salt Lake's growth (the ACS). So, these numbers HAVE been used here. One thing is clear - the ACS was more bullish on Salt Lake's white population in 2010 than the official numbers. If that continues this go around, SLC's white population may be even smaller than the 2015 ACS estimates. Or it'll be a reversal and the Census' official numbers will be more favorable to the white population. The ACS numbers were also not too far off the Census official numbers (off by just 1,952).

Either way, we've got three years before we officially find out.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Well you know how stats work. Household size is going to be skewed heavily in averages by one or two-person households where there is no family (such as students, single people, elderly and those who've just started families). But that stat proves my point - there is a HUGE gap between Utah and the national average. Utah leads the country in household size at 3.14, which, yeah, on its face looks small, but the gap between Utah and the rest of the nation is, in fact, statistically a pretty large margin.

Utah also held a ten-point gap in households with children (43.3%) compared to the national average (33.4). Utah was also 50th in the country in percentage of people living alone (18.7%).

It's just not true to say this isn't a factor. It absolutely IS a factor.

Mormons might not be having 10 kids anymore - but they're still having two-plus children and certainly outpace any national average in that regard. THIS does impact growth downtown and within the city. It's not only WHY Salt Lake continues to lose its white population - but why the city is becoming even less LDS despite Utah's LDS population remaining stagnant across the state (and growing in Utah County). Even in Salt Lake County, which is seeing population surges, the percent of the county that is LDS remains only .6% smaller than it was in 2010 - a far smaller decrease compared to the point between 2000-2010.

What does that mean? Salt Lake County is becoming more diverse but well behind that of Salt Lake City, whose LDS population, I'd wager, is far more smaller today compared to 2010 than just a bit more than a half-percent. There is a reason for that. LDS families don't want to live anywhere in Salt Lake - not the east-side, which has bigger houses and the illusion of safer streets than the cheaper west side, and definitely not downtown.

The population growth Salt Lake is experiencing is more minority-driven. Either by more Asians, as I pointed out, or as bob rulz pointed out, mixed residents who don't identify as white or Hispanic or black.



I would guess the metro differs greatly compared to Salt Lake's overall numbers. So, not too much a surprise.

As for other cities, it's possible some southern cities and rust belt cities continue to lose white people - but not in the west.

Denver's white population in 2010 was 435,783. In the 2015 estimate, it's 512,807 - an increase of 77,024. In fact, Denver's total white population in the 2015 estimate is 78.9% - whiter than Salt Lake's white population and a 3.5% increase over their 2010 numbers. Like Salt Lake, but more significantly, their Hispanic/Latino population decreased.

On a more local level, let's look at West Valley City - a city with similar diversity as Salt Lake City (at least in race):

In 2010's estimates, WVC's white population was 101,763. In the 2015 estimate, it's 90,932 - a decrease of 10,831, which is actually a bigger percentage decrease than Salt Lake City. Where WVC differs from Salt Lake is that its Hispanic population is now 50,900, which is up from 38,458 in 2010. So, WVC went from 24.7% Hispanic to 38.1% - making it, most likely, Utah's most diverse larger city (white is now 68% of the total population).

But then you've got places like Provo, where the white population went 93,851 in 2010 to 101,758 in 2015 (an increase of 7,907), while its Hispanic population did see an increase from 16,143 to 19,976. But the white population increased to 88.2% of the overall percentage.

So, let's also take a look at South Jordan, as its one of the fastest growing cities in the state. In 2010, its white population was 43,175 and in the 2015 estimate, it's 58,056. That's a sizable increase for the city.

What I believe this shows is that places like Salt Lake & WVC are losing white people to the suburbs and the faster growing areas of the state. Since it's not a stretch to suggest that a huge percentage of the white population in Utah is LDS, this is probably being fueled by LDS families leaving these cities. In Salt Lake's case, the white population in/out tilts heavily toward the out. So, while 1,000 new whites might have moved in from, say, another state, 3,000 more left in that same time period.

It'll be interesting to see how this reflects in the 2020 Census.

I SHOULD POINT OUT: While I say these are Census stats - the truth is, the estimates I used, from 2010 & 2015, which are pulled from the Census, are in fact from the American Community Survey. To keep it consistent, I did not compare the 2015 American Community Survey numbers to the official 2010 Census numbers. These are rolling estimates, done yearly, by the Census between each decennial census. So, these numbers might not fully reflect in the 2020 Census but because they're consistent within their own estimates, it's a more accurate approach than comparing the 2010 numbers to these estimates. If that makes sense.

For full disclosure, here is the difference between the official decennial Census in 2010 and the ACS estimates for Salt Lake City:

Total population: 184,488 (ACS), 186,440 (Census Official)
White population: 149,424 (ACS), 140,080 (Census Official)
White percentage: 81.0% (ACS), 75.1% (Census Official)
Hispanic or Latino population: 39,533 (ACS), 41,637 (Census Official)
Hispanic or Latino percentage: 21.4% (ACS), 22.3 (Census)

You can see there are discrepancies. These are the yearly estimates we all use to show Salt Lake's growth (the ACS). So, these numbers HAVE been used here. One thing is clear - the ACS was more bullish on Salt Lake's white population in 2010 than the official numbers. If that continues this go around, SLC's white population may be even smaller than the 2015 ACS estimates. Or it'll be a reversal and the Census' official numbers will be more favorable to the white population. The ACS numbers were also not too far off the Census official numbers (off by just 1,952).

Either way, we've got three years before we officially find out.

Let's look at my family for example. I was the oldest of six children. We had two white parents. As of now my siblings and myself have collectively 7 children which is above replacement rate and we are still growing. Three of the seven children would not be categorized as white because they have a parent that isn't White. We categorize people as all white or not white. Further most of the growth that is yet happen will be minority not white as our youngest sibling who has yet to have children his fiance is also not white. So even though we are having children above replacement rate we are having white children below replacement rate. I think this trend can be Illustrated if you look at Race by age group. Despite Salt Lake City being over 75% wine less than half of its school-age children are white.

Further we have to consider that not too long ago 90% of this city was white. If someone is to sell a home in the city there is a very good chance that that person is white but the buyer could be of any race.

You are characterizing it as if white people are leaving Salt Lake City because they're afraid of all the not white people. That has happened in America's history but it isn't what is happening in Salt Lake City right now. I own a home in Salt Lake City and have considered leaving not because of my neighbors but because of the value of my home. I don't want to live in the suburbs but my home is worth double what I owe. I love my neighborhood I love the convenience I love the diversity but I could put a lot in my pocket if I were to move.

If I were to sell my home,as a white person, it would be for financial considerations not racial ones. Still the person who would buy my home is much more likely to be a minority race than I am.

To be perfectly honest this city is way softer and more family friendly than it was 10 years ago. There is a popular trope about minorities and crime but really we are seeing the exact opposite of that happening in Salt Lake City. Our city is becoming more diverse and much safer. We are replacing rundown properties full of white heroin Junkies with well-to-do people of many different races. Rising property values are encouraging the owners of properties who the vast majority of them are white to sell to new buyers who aren't ubiquitously White.

As a person who has lived in this city and watched it happen I really got to call b******* on the way you're interpreting the data.

[bob rulz]

I don't think Comrade was implying that White people are leaving Salt Lake because they're scared of minorities, I think he was implying that Mormons are leaving Salt Lake because they don't want to live there (for various reasons) and most Mormons are White.

Personally I would say it has more to do with the fact that Salt Lake is getting more expensive and big suburban houses are still pretty cheap, and they want those bigger, cheaper houses for their bigger families.

I think politics could factor into it too though - Salt Lake being a liberal oasis in the middle of red country.

[Comrade]

Ironically, the entire county has worse crime today than ten years ago (less than 20 years ago, tho). Salt Lake had more murders last year than any recent year and there have been a string of homicides throughout the valley. But no, that wasn't my point in regards to the white population leaving.

I think they're leaving because of economic reasons. It's more affordable to live in West Jordan than Salt Lake City. My house, in the SugarHouse neighborhood, is 1,222 square feet and estimated at $457,254. A similar priced house in South Jordan is 3,326 feet. And my house is old as fuck with a lot of problems. It's not even that nice.

I don't know, beyond pricing, why white people are leaving the city. I doubt it's because they're scared of minorities or feel less safe. But there's a reason.

This isn't really new, either. Salt Lake City saw a net decrease of 3,853 in white population between 2000 and 2010. In fact, as far as I can tell, Salt Lake has continually lost more whites than they gained since the 1960s. The difference is the slowdown in that loss during the 90s, and the continued increase in the minority population.

Which takes me back to my guess. There just isn't enough white people moving into the city to offset those who are dying or relocating to other areas of the state (or even outside Utah). It's not necessarily white people moving out of the city that's impacting it - it's just there isn't a whole helluva lot of whites moving in. That is probably a direct result of pricing. Since Utah continues to be heavily LDS, and the LDS Church puts emphasis on family, it puts the city at a disadvantage. It really does.

Stenar said the size of Mormon families aren't as big, and as much an issue today, as 30 years ago. True. But when you couple their larger families with the fact most LDS folk marry in their 20s (decidedly so when compared to other major religions) and start their family at a younger age, the problem magnifies. Most major downtowns have a higher percentage of younger and college-educated residents than the outer cities and suburbs. Thing is, that population demographic in Utah is already settling down compared to, say, people in California. Utah has the nation's youngest average age at marriage by at least three years.

Salt Lake will always be playing at a disadvantage because of the makeup of Utah's overall population. Until that changes, it'll continue to impact the flow of the city because most cities thrive on the type of population Utah is not. Hell, if I was starting a family, it would make sense to move to South Jordan. You get a bigger house, which is also newer, for a lot cheaper than a similarly priced house in Salt Lake. It wouldn't necessarily make sense to move downtown, tho, and live in a one bedroom condo. So, Salt Lake continues to be a destination city for non-Mormons, ethnics and maybe Mormons who are okay not settling down and getting married - or elderly Mormons who, after living their whole lives in Sandy, decide to retire to a condo at the Regent. But because Utah's overall population growth is limited beyond birthrate, those numbers aren't as high as maybe we'd need to make up the difference.