Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[delts145]

One of the interesting stats regarding this new center and the new center in Denver is that they are both roughly the same sq. ft. size. However, the Salt Lake City Center will be hiring 1500 to start, while Denver will be hiring 1000. Is this because the Salt Lake Center will be covering a much larger multi-state region while Denver will be dealing more specifically with in state Colorado for the most part?

Originally Posted by JMK

With operations to begin in weeks, Amazon shows off new distribution center


https://www.ksl.com/article/46375515/wit...amazon-shows-off-new-distribution-center

[grasscom]

Originally Posted by delts145

One of the interesting stats regarding this new center and the new center in Denver is that they are both roughly the same sq. ft. size. However, the Salt Lake City Center will be hiring 1500 to start, while Denver will be hiring 1000. Is this because the Salt Lake Center will be covering a much larger region vs. Denver, which will be dealing more specifically with Colorado specifically for the most part?

Doesn't Denver also have more of these facilities with Amazon? I mean they have 2 huge ones I can think off of the top of my head, one in Aurora and another in Thornton.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by delts145

One of the interesting stats regarding this new center and the new center in Denver is that they are both roughly the same sq. ft. size. However, the Salt Lake City Center will be hiring 1500 to start, while Denver will be hiring 1000. Is this because the Salt Lake Center will be covering a much larger multi-state region while Denver will be dealing more specifically with in state Colorado for the most part?

There are two Amazon fulfillment centers in Denver. The one that opened in May employs 1,000 and is focused on larger items apparently with 1M sq ft of space and far less automation. There's another one that seems to be an exact copy of the one in SLC (855K sq ft, 1,500 employees, and a shit ton of robots) that is scheduled to open later this year. So it seems like the capacity of the closely matched fulfillment centers is the same.

Does SLC also have a Sortation Center for Amazon? This was the first facility that went in Denver and was then followed by the two distribution centers. They are smaller, <500K sq ft, but seems to increasingly co-located with a distribution center.

[Dallas Snob]

This string of posts that Salt lake is being constantly compared to other cities is kind of rediculous and so far from what this string is for. For instance, there was a recent post about Dallas, stating that nothing had been built in years...FACT based on the skyscraper diagram. Oh my god, I don't know where to begin. Dallas is currently the 2nd city (behind new york) with the most construction spend in the USA. There have been consistently over FORTY CRANES up in the CBD and Uptown every year for the past 10 years...almost all of them highrises of 20 stories or more. There are currently 2 forty plus story towers under construction downtown.

Just please stop making strange comments without backing up claims with FACTS NOT BASED on the skyscraper city diagrams! Many of them are horrifically outdated and for some reason illustrators only create what they are interested in. Apparently Dallas is not one of those interests.

Thank you, and good night.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/city-wa...potential-changes-to-inland-port-zoning/

I wonder how long she will be complaining about this? Yes her and the city got steamrolled and yes there should have been a more deliberate process, but it happened. If it occurred because of SLC's byzantine and many time feckless government (this is my guess) then use this as feedback that the system is in need of improvement. Unfortunately, I expect she will just keep stomping her feet and complaining.

“My Administration will explore every possible opportunity to protect the city’s interests and our Constitutional authority over how land is developed in our jurisdiction,” said Mayor Biskupski in a statement. “While we are being forced to expend tremendous effort and time to meet this arbitrary deadline, the troubling fact remains even our updated regulations can be overturned by the Inland Port Authority Board at any time.”

“While we continue to explore our legal options, it is important that we update our zoning in the impacted areas to ensure our values are clearly defined prior to any significant action taken by the unelected Inland Port Authority Board,” said Mayor Biskupski in a statement.

Additionally: I would be naive to think this wasn't also just a raw political power play because the state knew most of SLC are Democrats and wont be voting for them either way.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/city-wa...potential-changes-to-inland-port-zoning/

I wonder how long she will be complaining about this? Yes her and the city got steamrolled and yes there should have been a more deliberate process, but it happened. If it occurred because of SLC's byzantine and many time feckless government (this is my guess) then use this as feedback that the system is in need of improvement. Unfortunately, I expect she will just keep stomping her feet and complaining.

“My Administration will explore every possible opportunity to protect the city’s interests and our Constitutional authority over how land is developed in our jurisdiction,” said Mayor Biskupski in a statement. “While we are being forced to expend tremendous effort and time to meet this arbitrary deadline, the troubling fact remains even our updated regulations can be overturned by the Inland Port Authority Board at any time.”

“While we continue to explore our legal options, it is important that we update our zoning in the impacted areas to ensure our values are clearly defined prior to any significant action taken by the unelected Inland Port Authority Board,” said Mayor Biskupski in a statement.

Additionally: I would be naive to think this wasn't also just a raw political power play because the state knew most of SLC are Democrats and wont be voting for them either way.

I do agree with you about the Inland Port. But I think it was wrong of her to not join the City Council in the discussions with the Governor and the State Legislature in the refinements to the port that came in the form of the bill of the special session. That bill ended up giving Salt Lake City between 80% and 90% of what they wanted. It didn't give them everything, like the money for schools up front, nor the guaranteed environmental storage protection. But it did still guarantee that any coal would be covered in transit to and from and within the port.

The Wet Lands are removed from the Port, the Airport is removed from the port. Any currently developed or in development land is removed from the port and port control. It also removes it from the taxable control of the port if they want to expand. That also means when Stadler Rail wants to expand, it means the Port Authority won't get any money since it is an expansion and would go through SLC.

Additionally, service contracts will guarantee that Fire, Transportation, Police, Water, etc. will still get roughly their expected share of revenue from new developments within the Port area.

The best part of the deal is that State money and Port Money (tax increment from first 25 years only) will be used to supply infrastructure to support the port and new businesses. This includes additional ROW for new rail lines needed to support the port.

Union Pacific is looking at expanding their current port area along 5600 West.

Also, there are rumored to be at least 2 large companies seeking to move or create large operations within the port area. A finance committee is needed for the Port Authority to begin the process of working on incentives in conjunction with GOED and possibly SLC's department of economic development.

If things do move quickly and start to fill up, I would expect interest from other railroad companies to increase as they would want to look at accessing the market as Union Pacific has near total control of the Inland Port area currently.

Once deals start and buildings are built, the chances of a lawsuit by the Mayor get lower and lower as she would be fighting the number 1 item she campaigned on, Jobs (economy). Fighting against something she has wanted to bring to the City would really doom her re-election campaign.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Nevermind. I should have known better than to even mention the H or RG words.

Thanks for the pictures Utah Dave!

Seriously though this is an issue that the state needs to take control of and responsibility for. SLC proper and its 200K residents cannot possibly manage the homeless population of a CSA of 2.4 million people. Further it is political suicide for any Mayor outside of SLC to do much of anything to address the issue.

Until the state gets involved in a big way we won't solve anything. We will just chase them from one neighborhood to another.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by grasscom

You might as well have added the fact that the OR is bigger and better in Denver and also enticing large companies to move their headquarters there...

Sundance/Silicon Slopes is already twice the size of OR and the outdoor industry is TANKING. Do you have any idea how catastrophic a year-over-year
6% decline in hard goods sales is? There is a massive shift towards direct-from-Asia and cottage brands and their retail channels have been decimated by Amazon and the cottage guys. I haven't bought a piece of shit from Patagucci in fifteen years. There will be a new retailer convention in SLC, one that avoids hypocritical sweat shop prestige brands. You can bank on that. Enjoy your over-priced weed.

[Ironweed]

[QUOTE=Makid;8279427]"Because CCR/PRI have deeper pockets, they are able to self fund their projects. They also don't want to be the only developer in town for big projects.

This is a catch-22 in the market because pre-leasing doesn't really happen in the market the same that it may happen in other markets. This means that it is harder for a developer to hit 30-50% pre-lease before a bank will provide a loan to allow construction to start on a given project.

This is one reason why the suburban market has so much commercial space compared to downtown. Loans are easier and developers can self fund easier as well."



Makid, I'm a little dense. Are you saying that the LDS church development arm is the reason SLC is squat? They pick and choose who they want as tenants creating a lack of competition?

The church doesn't build, so that forces developers to go to the suburbs?

Help me out with this please.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by delts145

I'm glad you brought up the subject Bob. As everyone can imagine, the size of Los Angeles and it's often ideal weather conditions creates the perfect recipe for transient challenges. There is no easy solution, but it will take the hands on grass roots involvement of the local Utah business owners and local public in general. Utah's cooperative style history would suggest that if any area can make a significant dent in the problem, the Wasatch Front can. All major metros on the West Coast are spilling over the critical mass point with the problem, and it's going to take a herculean effort to bring the situation under control.

It's just frustrating when people assume that because they personally are not seeing things become better, then it's not happening. They talk about seeing an increase in transients/drug use/crime in their own neighborhood, yet ignore the fact that SLC themselves stated that crime OVERALL was down 25% since last year, and has dropped in every single district of the city. That's a huge drop for a single year. No single person can get a perspective on the issue. Maybe the street someone's business is on has seen an increase in crime and transients. That's a problem, but it doesn't mean the operation has failed. It means that that one specific location has seen an increase in issues.

Or they ignore the fact we've managed to get double the number of treatment beds, and that 75% of the people that chose the rehabilitation option are still on that path. This was all in the SL Trib article, and sure, it's only a small part of the story, yet because someone else has seen more issues in their particular neighborhood or on their street, then it's a failure.

I just wonder what some people think could be done better? It really does sound like a lot of people are making real efforts to fix this issue, and sure it's a mixed bag, but if homelessness were an easy issue to fix, then it wouldn't require such a herculean effort, as you say.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Seriously though this is an issue that the state needs to take control of and responsibility for. SLC proper and its 200K residents cannot possibly manage the homeless population of a CSA of 2.4 million people. Further it is political suicide for any Mayor outside of SLC to do much of anything to address the issue.

Until the state gets involved in a big way we won't solve anything. We will just chase them from one neighborhood to another.

I also agree with this. The state and other cities in the county need to take more responsibility. It's not an issue that's restricted to SLC.

[TakeFive]

Just curious if anybody was yet aware that Denver gives out free Greyhound bus tickets to any homeless interested in seeing the sights in SLC/Utah?

[delts145]

Are you sure, or is that just a popular urban myth to throw around? We often hear that kind of claim, but is it really a fact?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by delts145

Are you sure, or is that just a popular urban myth to throw around? We often hear that kind of claim, but is it really a fact?

It's in jest. We also hear that SLC buys one way tickets for the homeless and sends them to Denver. Or from Kansas City, LA, SF, Seattle, etc....

Because dealing with chronic homelessness and affordable housing is such an easy issue to solve- just put them on the bus.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Makid, I'm a little dense. Are you saying that the LDS church development arm is the reason SLC is squat? They pick and choose who they want as tenants creating a lack of competition?

The church doesn't build, so that forces developers to go to the suburbs?

Help me out with this please.

What I am saying is that with other developers actively trying to get into the Commercial market, CCR/PRI will hold back to allow the others a chance to get their projects going.

From what we do know, the design that Havok has shown is the same that came out in the State of the City earlier this summer and has a height of 375'. Isaac has stated that the design was just initial and that they are planning on going through the Conditional Building and Design Review. Meaning that the it may be possible that the design may not be changing much currently but the height will be.

I do think that CCR/PRI will be open to talking to or have already talked to the other developers about possibly holding back some of the space (floors) to allow their projects a chance to compete.

This is what I was meaning about deep pockets. CCR/PRI can sit longer on empty built space were as other developers may not be able to. They could effectively lease 1/3 of the building and leave the rest empty waiting for a large tenant looking to relocate again such as when Pluralsight moved. Also on the deep pockets side, they could offer a large tech company (local or otherwise) lease rates below market rate, to move Downtown.

Known and Estimated Commercial Project sizes
Salt - 260,000
Held (370 Millennium) - 220,000 (estimated)
Patrinely (650 Main) - 320,000
Tower 8 - 660,000 - 750,000 (estimated)

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Just curious if anybody was yet aware that Denver gives out free Greyhound bus tickets to any homeless interested in seeing the sights in SLC/Utah?

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It's in jest. We also hear that SLC buys one way tickets for the homeless and sends them to Denver. Or from Kansas City, LA, SF, Seattle, etc....

Because dealing with chronic homelessness and affordable housing is such an easy issue to solve- just put them on the bus.

No, it is not "any homeless interested..." The homeless person has to prove that they have a relative or some other resource at the destination city willing to take them in or provide care. Only after that's been confirmed will the city pay for their transport to that destination. Many cities have similar programs.

TakeFive, stop spreading disinformation.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by airhero

I think the way it is worded in the code for the Sugar House neighborhood is a portion of the ground floor of these developments must have a different use than the primary use of the building, or something along those lines. In the case of the Fairmont, it's office. I'm not disappointed with a lack of retail in Sugar House. It seems there is plenty of it. Many new apartments have incorporated retail in the base.

The only place in the city I can think of where retail is mandated is downtown for any new development built within 1/2 a block (330 feet) of Main Street.

Since I took a moment to look through the zoning today, I noticed I was wrong about a few things. I should probably fact check myself before I post.

Within the Sugar House Business District, the street level space of ALL developments must be used as residential, retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, social clubs, art galleries, theaters or performing art facilities. Though if this is true, why does The Fairmont have none of those things? Also, in SH, anything greater than 30 or 50 feet in height (depending on where exactly the development is) or 20,000 sq ft in total area must go through conditional building and site design review.

The comment where I said "a portion of the ground floor of these developments must have a different use than the primary use of the building" applies to transit station areas, not the Sugar House neighborhood, and is only one of many criteria that go into decided whether a development in a TSA goes through CBSDR.

As for the Main Street corridor, retail is required for any development on Main Street between S Temple and 400 S and within one block of Main (between W Temple and State Street) on 100 S, 200 S, and 300 S. I never noticed that all recent developments in this area have retail. 222 has a restaurant, 111 has a restaurant, the Eccles has 3 restaurants, and City Creek obviously has a lot of retail.

Also, I missed this tidbit earlier from Isaac's article on the Fairmont:

According to their website, in addition to The Fairmont, the developers plan to build apartments at the site of the now-canceled Dixon Building proposal. Developer Craig Mecham had planned to build a six-story, 180,000-square-foot office space building that also would have been the home to a University of Utah medical clinic. That project fell apart after the University of Utah opted to relocate its clinic to the under-construction Park Avenue development near 1300 East and Interstate 80.

So the Dixon Building is dead and apartments are planned for the site. That's fantastic because the Dixon Building proposal was ugly.

[Comrade]

SLC did, however, give a bunch of homeless people one-way tickets to Las Vegas prior to the 2002 Winter Olympics...

(another myth, I think, as every article I found on the subject denied it...but it was a common one back then - and one Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman pushed in 2001 or so)

[airhero]

Does anyone know the name of the group that took over the Carl's Jr site? Or has seen any info on what they plan for it?

[airhero]

Originally Posted by airhero

Does anyone know the name of the group that took over the Carl's Jr site? Or has seen any info on what they plan for it?

Never mind I found it.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by airhero

Does anyone know the name of the group that took over the Carl's Jr site? Or has seen any info on what they plan for it?

This is the only thing that I have been able to find.

http://www.kicboston.com/properties/75-east-200-south/