Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[delts145]

I wish the new acquarium was being built downtown, it's a very cool building. It will be a world class facility, and apparantly will supplant the Denver acquarium as the largest between Chicago and the West Coast. I will say though that Draper is fairly convenient to the acquarium's most devoted base, that of hundreds of thousands of children in the South Salt Lake and Utah Valleys.

The plans for the Soccer Stadium had always included a substantial lifestyle center surrounding it's perimeter. Looks like the new ownership will be able to make that a reality in the near future. Good to hear.



http://www.ereleases.com/


The new 136,000-square-foot Draper facility (nearly three times the size of the current Sandy aquarium) will showcase 62 exhibits including a 300,000 gallon shark tank with a 40-foot walk through tunnel. Officials expect completion of the new aquarium in December of 2013, at which time the livestock from the current aquarium in Sandy will be transported to their new home in Draper. The aquarium will then be renamed The Loveland Living Planet Aquarium.

The $20 million new facility is possible because of rapid growth in attendance at the current Sandy aquarium in addition to private donations, grants, and a $13 million Draper City bond.

The Living Planet Aquarium at Sandy will remain open during the construction of the new facility.

.

[SLC Projects]

Would of, could of, should of isn't going to chance where the stadium is at now so we might as well make due with what we have now and hope for a surrounding development that will make this area of Sandy more like a urban-ish lifestyle center that will put Sandy on the Map so the kids will know where the hell Sandy is.
I do agree though that where the Aquarium will end up is a big letdown. Don't get why placing it in the middle of a business park nowhere near Trax or Frontrunner was a good idea. At the very least Draper put it at the future Vista Station develop where there's at least a Frontrunner stop. I can only hope that a lifestyle center can be built around that as well......I guess.

[UtahProjects]

Originally Posted by TheHeights22

This is great and all...BUT having the stadium up in Salt Lake would've have been the best choice in the long run. The suburbs like Sandy, South Jordan, WVC, Cottonwood Heights, etc., need to understand their roll in the SL Valley, and that is not to pull stadiums, ballparks, mega malls, etc., to their towns. SLC needs to be the hub of the SL Valley. If SLC really wants to grow and put themselves on the map, they need to stand up for themselves and be assertive and try to attract things like the aquarium, stadium, etc., to SLC.

Dad: "Hey kids, hop in the van, we're spending the weekend in Sandy, Utah!"
kids: "Who the hell is Sandy?"

Another perfect example is the new location of the aquarium. Why on earth would they decide to build it near a business park in Draper, Utah? It's not even located in the nice part of Draper either!!! It should have been in SLC. They really dropped the ball on that one, BIG time! You don't see the Atlanta of Denver aquariums in the suburbs.

No large suburb will understand that role. They're going to compete for tax money like everyone else, and having a professional sports team adds to their goal. All Salt Lake City can do is create the best infrastructure and environment (politically, socially, etc.) possible so that people and developers demand those venues be built there.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Would of, could of, should of isn't going to chance where the stadium is at now so we might as well make due with what we have now and hope for a surrounding development that will make this area of Sandy more like a urban-ish lifestyle center that will put Sandy on the Map so the kids will know where the hell Sandy is.
I do agree though that where the Aquarium will end up is a big letdown. Don't get why placing it in the middle of a business park nowhere near Trax or Frontrunner was a good idea. At the very least Draper put it at the future Vista Station develop where there's at least a Frontrunner stop. I can only hope that a lifestyle center can be built around that as well......I guess.

True, and Vista Station is actually turning out to be quite a surprise to many. I mean, it seems to be literally bursting forward with major development faster than we can catch our breath. Hopefully, much of the future phases will be ample vertical density.

I have to say that the Salt Lake Valley is developing in an almost identical pattern as the Los Angeles Basin. If you know the basin intimately, that's not a bad thing. Like Salt Lake, Central Los Angeles is hemmed in by mountains and water. While there are many nice single family neighborhoods, there's also a lot of density, with a lot of highrise corridors and islands. Salt Lake City's advantage is that it's Downtown will never fall into the same abyss that set Downtown L.A. back so many decades.

My biggest fear for Salt Lake Valley has been that it would be so overwhemed by development growth as was Los Angeles last century. We complain about developers like Cowboy Partners etc., but you guys don't know cheap and ugly till you see what so much of the apartment development of the 60's and 70's looks like in L.A. Unfortunately, in Central L.A. the seriously bland and ugly apartments replaced beautiful historic mansions and charming historic buildings. This replacement was done not just here and there, but by the thousands. Many if not most of these replaced historic structures would rival some of the finest on South Temple and the Avenues. Fortunately, the mindset of Los Angeles today is much like what we see with Salt Lake, and these types of homes and various structures are protected. And yes, while there's room for improvement, the mediocre brick and hardie board apartment building is a huge improvement over the building boom that permeated LA by the thousands.

Thousands of these replaced by the ugliest imaginable 60's stucco designs. Thank goodness thousands still remain.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by UtahProjects

No large suburb will understand that role. They're going to compete for tax money like everyone else, and having a professional sports team adds to their goal. All Salt Lake City can do is create the best infrastructure and environment (politically, socially, etc.) possible so that people and developers demand those venues be built there.

Very well-put! Being that we live in a free-market economy, we have to compete on wooing developers just like any other facet of the economy. I think the biggest problem is not so much the cities/suburbs around Salt Lake competing for economic development in of themselves. It`s the fact that, collectively, there are so many cities with whom Salt Lake must compete. Salt Lake should actively work to annex the few remaining unincorporated communities around it before they, too, incorporate to become future competitors. I heard that Millcreek tried to incorporate and placed it on the ballot of the last election. What ever happened with that? That`s another potentially 65,000 people that could have been annexed into Salt Lake City that could become yet another competitor with SLC. I believe there is still a lot of unincorporated area in the Cottonwood Heights area. Whys doesn`t SLC work to incorporate these areas? I think the problem is more of a failure of SLC than its suburbs. Had SLC incorporated these areas early, this problem wouldn`t exist. Now the suburbs are only doing what makes the most economic sense for them.

[Comrade]

Salt Lake City lost the stadium because the legislature passed a law saying you couldn't use RDA funding on sports stadiums. That killed the stadium in Salt Lake because it was impossible to raise the funds needed for the stadium.

Then the legislature passed a law later to divert 15% of the county's hotel taxes to the project once it was moved to Sandy. No offer ever existed for Salt Lake City.

Salt Lake was screwed out of building the stadium because the legislature basically made it impossible for them to fund the project. But then they turned around and bent over backwards in 2007 to help Sandy develop the stadium.

We just saw a similar situation unfold with the downtown convention hotel. It's like they're actively trying to stick it to Salt Lake.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by (Eco)nomy_404

Very well-put! Being that we live in a free-market economy, we have to compete on wooing developers just like any other facet of the economy. I think the biggest problem is not so much the cities/suburbs around Salt Lake competing for economic development in of themselves. It`s the fact that, collectively, there are so many cities with whom Salt Lake must compete. Salt Lake should actively work to annex the few remaining unincorporated communities around it before they, too, incorporate to become future competitors. I heard that Millcreek tried to incorporate and placed it on the ballot of the last election. What ever happened with that? That`s another potentially 65,000 people that could have been annexed into Salt Lake City that could become yet another competitor with SLC. I believe there is still a lot of unincorporated area in the Cottonwood Heights area. Whys doesn`t SLC work to incorporate these areas? I think the problem is more of a failure of SLC than its suburbs. Had SLC incorporated these areas early, this problem wouldn`t exist. Now the suburbs are only doing what makes the most economic sense for them.

If I recall correctly the Millcreek incorporation was defeated at the ballot. As for Cottonwood Heights, there aren't many unincorporated areas out there anymore, Cottonwood Heights incorporated in 2004. There are a few areas along Creek Road, the Willow Creek area, but other than that there aren't many. Salt Lake City wouldn't be able to annex that area into the city anyway, Willow Creek would have to either incorporate on their own and annex into Cottonwood Heights or Sandy. SLC can't simply go out and annex islands of unincorporated county, annexation have to have common borders. Millcreek, and Magna are the two most logical areas of annexation for SLC.

One thing that has to be considered in an annexation, more than just the number of residents added to the books is the cost of services into those areas. Is the increase in property tax and sales tax revenue enough to offset the cost of expanding services, police, fire, garbage, parks, etc. Another thing to consider is the residents have to actually want to be annexed into the city, it's obvious by the recent vote that they like the status quo of being in the county, either that or they didn't like the incorporation committee leadership team.

So while I agree that SLC needs to annex a couple of areas, without seeing the numbers I'm not sure I want them to.

[Bob The Builder]

Originally Posted by TheHeights22

This is great and all...BUT having the stadium up in Salt Lake would've have been the best choice in the long run. The suburbs like Sandy, South Jordan, WVC, Cottonwood Heights, etc., need to understand their roll in the SL Valley, and that is not to pull stadiums, ballparks, mega malls, etc., to their towns. SLC needs to be the hub of the SL Valley. If SLC really wants to grow and put themselves on the map, they need to stand up for themselves and be assertive and try to attract things like the aquarium, stadium, etc., to SLC.

Dad: "Hey kids, hop in the van, we're spending the weekend in Sandy, Utah!"
kids: "Who the hell is Sandy?"

Another perfect example is the new location of the aquarium. Why on earth would they decide to build it near a business park in Draper, Utah? It's not even located in the nice part of Draper either!!! It should have been in SLC. They really dropped the ball on that one, BIG time! You don't see the Atlanta of Denver aquariums in the suburbs.

Heights 22, that is some flawed thinking. While I too prefer most major developments to be down town, however Not everything should be. Cities across the country was Stadiums and large malls in the Burbs. LA Galaxy & Chivas' Stadium is in Carson CA. FC Dallas is in Frisco TX. Also the Detroit Pistons have their arena in Auburn Hills; to name a few. All of which work fine. Soccer works in the burbs as it is family oriented event that has a lot of youth attend. You have to remember that Not everyone (especially in Utah) want to go down town for everything; if they did they would live there. Utahns as a whole aren't an urban people. Salt Lake is the center of the valley, but places like Sandy & West Valley are the secondary hubs in the valley that draw people. I agree the aquarium's location is bad. Down Town would have been better, or at least at South Towne in Sandy so that it would be around some dinning and shopping. IF Salt Lake get a MLB team that I would prefer to be down town. Personally I'd rather see all of the Tech Companies (Adobe, eBay, Vivint, OverStock.com, ect) in 12+ story buildings in Salt Lake; or at least in Provo, Sandy, Ogden rather than in Office Parks at the Point of the mountain and elsewhere.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Bob The Builder

Heights 22, that is some flawed thinking. While I too prefer most major developments to be down town, however Not everything should be. Cities across the country was Stadiums and large malls in the Burbs. LA Galaxy & Chivas' Stadium is in Carson CA. FC Dallas is in Frisco TX. Also the Detroit Pistons have their arena in Auburn Hills; to name a few. All of which work fine. Soccer works in the burbs as it is family oriented event that has a lot of youth attend. You have to remember that Not everyone (especially in Utah) want to go down town for everything; if they did they would live there. Utahns as a whole aren't an urban people. Salt Lake is the center of the valley, but places like Sandy & West Valley are the secondary hubs in the valley that draw people. I agree the aquarium's location is bad. Down Town would have been better, or at least at South Towne in Sandy so that it would be around some dinning and shopping. IF Salt Lake get a MLB team that I would prefer to be down town. Personally I'd rather see all of the Tech Companies (Adobe, eBay, Vivint, OverStock.com, ect) in 12+ story buildings in Salt Lake; or at least in Provo, Sandy, Ogden rather than in Office Parks at the Point of the mountain and elsewhere.

Well said. Agreed. Alot of these companies had no plans to ever move downtown anyways ( Adobe, Ebay, ect ) so having them near frontrunner/trax stations is about as good as it's going to be if they want to remain in the burbs. Sure is better then a business park when there only way to get to or from is by using your car. Never had a issue with Rio Tinto Stadium where it's at since it's on State Street right in the heart of Sandy entertainment district, but the aquarium placement is about as dumb as one can get. Everybody is going to have to drive to get there. No Trax or Frontrunner anywhere near there.

[Comrade]

I have no problem sharing with the suburbs. But something the size of a stadium should be built downtown - and for the exact reasons why Sandy continues to not be an ideal location for the stadium.

Look, I get it's logical to point out cities where suburban stadiums work. The problem, of course, is that almost every single one of the cities you mentioned are bigger than Salt Lake and already have established, and successful downtowns.

L.A. might not have the most active and lively downtown - especially for the second-largest city in the country, but it's still infinitely more active than Salt Lake's. There is enough population in that area to support multiple-downtowns and it certainly isn't taking away from the area.

Dallas is a major American city with, again, an already established downtown. They're large enough to get away with building two of their major stadiums (baseball and the NFL) outside the downtown area solely because of that.

As for Detroit, the Pistons are already looking to relocate downtown - but even if they don't, Detroit already has a NFL stadium, a MLB stadium and a NHL stadium located within their downtown. I don't think Detroit is a very good example here because they do have multiple stadiums in their downtown area to help draw people into a struggling center.

Salt Lake is not a huge city. Even our metro puts us solidly in the middle of the larger metros in the country. We don't have the luxury of losing out on major developments to the suburbs because we're still trying to establish our downtown. The problem that Salt Lake faces, that most cities with suburban stadiums don't, is that we still have only one major draw sports-wise in our city's center - the ESA with the Utah Jazz.

Most every other major city, especially out west, has more than just one of their major league stadiums in the downtown area.

Denver - Coors Field (MLB), Mile High Stadium (NFL) and the Pepsi Center (NBA/NHL) are all located in their downtown.

Phoenix - U.S Airways Center (NBA) and Chase Field (MLB) are both located in their downtown.

Minneapolis - Target Center (NBA), Target Field (MLB) and the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome (NFL) are all located in their downtown.

This is just a small sample of cities that aren't as big as, say, Los Angeles our San Francisco, but big enough to have multiple major league teams and most have at least a couple of their arenas/stadiums in their downtown for a reason.

Look, I'll always continue to believe Salt Lake is the best area for a stadium and a broadway style theater and other major entertainment options because I think those are vital to the growth and success of a downtown area.

Maybe it makes me a hypocrite - but I look at it this way: Salt Lake has managed to lose out on the Maverik Center (the city had proposed a plan to build a hockey arena on one of the blocks next to the ESA), the aquarium, nearly lost out on the broadway theater (and only really fell into it because Sandy's bid proved too ambitious) and, of course, Rio Tinto Stadium. Imagine what downtown would look like today if all those developments were built there - and then add Spring Mobile, which considered developing downtown instead of on the site of the old Derks Field.

It would have created an entirely different feel downtown. As is, though, the only draw, in terms of sports and concerts, is the ESA. But you add the Maverik Center, which was absolutely developed in a horrible location and it remains just as horrible today as the day the arena opened 16 years ago, and Rio Tinto and suddenly, you're looking at a pretty active, lively downtown more than just a few days a week. Let's be honest, the major draw downtown will still remain the ESA because of the Jazz and certain concert shows - but that's not a constant. RSL plays during the summer - when the Jazz don't. That would have been the perfect counter to when the Jazz' season ends.

But it didn't happen and I guess debating it is pointless. Still, I don't think it was a good idea to put the stadium there and I think I'll be vindicated by this in sixteen years when that area looks no better than the area surrounding the Maverik Center.

And to be fair, it's not just a suburban thing. I have the same concerns about Spring Mobile. I already said on here in the past that I felt the city dropped the ball on its development. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that suburban stadiums don't work - whether it's in Salt Lake or Frisco. At least work in the way we present them to communities. They certainly work in housing teams - but they're not necessarily the jumping off point for major redevelopment. It's why the area around the Maverik Center and Spring Mobile Park looks almost unchanged from when those complexes opened.

It's the same for the Braves in Atlanta. They built a stadium outside their downtown and there is nothing around it. It's not walkable. It's not the hub of a retail and entertainment center. It's just a large stadium in the middle of a residential community. That generally seems to be the case - as is the case in Auburn Hills with Detroit's arena. It sits smack dab in the middle of massive parking lot with no major development around it and the stadium is as old as I am.

That's my problem. Downtown Salt Lake is already built for that type of development because that's what a downtown is for - it's for the commercial, retail and entertainment of a community. Sandy isn't. As much as they'd like to change that, you can't just plop a soccer stadium in what you want to be your downtown and hope, one day, the downtown will grow around it. It didn't work for West Valley and it's not going to work for Sandy. It's why, from coast to coast, suburban stadiums hardly ever have as big of an impact on a community as the stadiums built downtown.

My fear is that this mindset is very prevalent in Utah and when the ESA becomes too outdated for the Jazz, and the Miller Family begins looking for a new location for a new arena, the suburbs will win out. If downtown loses a NBA area, you might as well just close up shop on Salt Lake because it's over. That would be a huge blow for an area that has crawled back from the abyss in part because of the ESA. And I don't have any confidence in the city being able to keep it because it seems everything has worked against 'em the last 22 years since the ESA opened.

But we'll see.

[SLC Projects]

Comrade, I agree with alot of what your saying but you also got to remember that there's alot more to a downtown then sporting arenas and stadiums. Sure the Utah Jazz have be a big draw for years that brought people downtown, but a big draw for the sport fans. There's many different types of people who go downtown for many different reasons rather they are coming for the entertainment at the gateway, or reading a book at our world class library or seeing a Broadway show at one of the theaters or shopping or dinning at the City Creek Center or relaxing at a outdoor concert show or going to a convention or just a simple walk around Temple Square, ect. Sporting arenas help sure, but it's not the only thing that makes a downtown or brings people downtown for that matter.
Salt Lake City from what I'm seeing has come a long ways in these last 10-years alone from where we were back when we hosted the 2002 winter games. City Creek Center opened up one year ago that is drawing in a bunch of people who otherwise would of gone elsewhere to shop or dine. The new Broadway theater is set to break ground next year that will finally bring in the shows who otherwise in the past have looked over us. There's finally real talk of a CC hotel that if built would draw in even more business and people to downtown. Plus don't forget all the new housing development that are popping up like spring flowers all over downtown that will only bring more people downtown.
Few of our biggest setbacks right now is that I think Salt Lake is a bit behind the rest when it comes to having a CC hotel, Broadway theater, more downtown living and allowing more stores to open on Sundays. Also having another pro sports team to the mix will help too since I think Salt Lake is almost ( if not already there ) when it comes to us being ready to support a MLB or NHL team. When that time comes and I believe it will come within the next 20 years, the Spring Mobile ballpark and the Maverik Center will not cut it. Both would need to be replace if either were to go pro. Then that would be the best time for Salt Lake City to set aside some land to land these teams back to the downtown area. Til then I don't ever see them moving from where there at right now.
Anyways I think Salt Lake City is doing great with what they have already and sure we can always raise the bar higher. But don't worry about the Jazz leaving downtown anytime soon since I don't see that ever happening since the Jazz have always been downtown. Even back when the Starz was our only pro team way back in the 70's. The roots run deep with pro basketball playing in the heart of downtown. Salt Lake, while slow sometimes is heading in the right direction.

[UtahProjects]

Milcreek voted down the measure to incorporate itself.

Has there ever been a vote or desire for Salt Lake City to incorporate Milcreek? I'm guessing Milcreek residents would have none of that since they won't even incorporate themselves but I wonder if the idea has ever been more than just an idea.

In time the mindsets may change. I really hope so. It would take SLC to about 250,000.

[Comrade]

It's too simplistic to say there are other options. The driving force of downtown remains Energy Solutions Arena and Temple Square because they're the only two unique things to the Salt Lake Valley. City Creek might offer an experience that is different than your typical mall, but in the end, it's still a mall - and really, it's not too different from the rest of the malls in the state. That's not a knock, either, but reality - the ESA is unique because it's the lone arena in the state that hosts one of the four major league teams. That will never be replicated in the suburbs unless it's at the expense of downtown.

It also was the foundation for the revitalization the city experienced in the 70s and 80s and then the 90s - as the city evolved to keep up with the suburbs. When the Salt Palace was built, again, it offered a unique structure to the city and it helped edge it along, even though the city itself was losing thousands of people a year to the suburbs. The ESA has been instrumental in stretching downtown westward - as I question if the Gateway could ever succeed, let alone exist, if there was no NBA arena as a catalyst.

Basically, downtown has succeeded for a wide range of reasons - but it's been the unique developments that have set it apart from the rest of the valley. That continues with the convention center, a broadway style theater, Abravanel Hall and hopefully, one day, a NFL or MLB stadium. That's what a downtown should offer. No one is going to Sandy for a day - they do go downtown for a day, though. If you're going to a RSL game, or a Utah Grizzlies game, or even a Salt Lake Bees game, it's likely you're going to the event, you're watching the event, and then you're going home.

But downtown offers everything that Sandy wants with their stadium - namely other entertainment options that people can use while they wait for the game to start, or to celebrate a victory.

At the end of the day, the biggest draw for downtown business has been the Utah Jazz and it remains that way because they're the one unique thing about the state. Sandy can't offer the Jazz and neither can West Valley or any other city in the valley. You take that out of the equation and I believe downtown would be hurt beyond repair. So, I do worry, especially when I see this mindset that it doesn't matter where the stadium is built - just as long as it's built. I disagree. Obviously, if the last option is to build in Sandy, or leave, then I would want the Jazz to do that - but Sandy was not the last option. It was only an option because the legislature stepped in and forced Salt Lake to abandon their MLS dreams. Then the legislature stepped in and allowed Sandy to keep theirs. It was very appalling, as a citizen of this city, to watch the legislature actively work against Salt Lake landing the MLS stadium and then do a complete 180 in supporting Sandy. Had that support system been there back in 2005, it would have been built downtown and I think the city, and area, would be better off for it. It's a very nice stadium smack dab in the middle of a sprawling suburb with limited optimal growth. Just as the Maverik Center in West Valley.

So, I am skeptical because, like I said, since the ESA was built, it seems Salt Lake has struggled keeping things in the city center. We're not just talking one stadium, either, we're talking a hockey arena, an aquarium and nearly a broadway style theater. Even the convention hotel saw a setback because the legislature, it seems, likes to actively work against the city - when, in the past, they've supported the suburbs.

It's fine to use tax dollars on the MLS stadium in Sandy. But it wasn't okay for Salt Lake to use its RDA funding on a MLS stadium downtown. It's fine to use a public bond on the Living Planet Aquarium in Draper, but it's not okay to use a tax subsidy to fund a convention hotel downtown.

See a trend? Who's to say the exact same thing won't play out with the Jazz? We all know the second the Jazz announce their plans for a new arena, every suburb in the valley is going to propose a plan to woo the Jazz to their city. That's fair, but what if it works?

800,000 people come into downtown to watch the Jazz on average each year. Downtown businesses still depend on the Jazz. Lose the Jazz and those businesses are going to struggle. Lose the Jazz, and the Gateway very well could go under. Lose the Jazz and how long until City Creek sees a hit? I'm not saying it's all tied together - but we must seriously think about this mindset that any city is just as deserving of a sports stadium as downtown. I don't think they are.

But I think you're right. I do, deep down, believe the Jazz will remain downtown, even after the construction of a new arena (whenever that may be). Still, I'm not going to lie ... the idea of the city losing out to the suburbs has crossed my mind in the past.

[Makid]

Projects, it is true that currently there are things to bring people downtown.

But, lets say that Temple Square was in Magna, COB in Downtown, ESA in Bountiful and Broadway Theater in Ogden.

With this situation, would we have what we have now in Downtown? I feel that there would be less as there wouldn't be a reason to go there often.

That is what Comrade is getting at. If all facilities were located near each other, they would benefit a far greater area and create more of a buzz. Development would be faster as there is a better atmosphere with more pedestrians and more potential clients.

I would think that if we had the Maverick Center and RSL Stadium in the Downtown area, we would have more construction going on in Downtown, the offices would be filling even faster and residential would be growing taller as well.

All things feed off of each other. Spreading them out can help some local political figures but it does hurt the overall economy. Not many people will drive or take transit across the valley for dinner and a show if they can't get both nearby to each other. In SLC, the infrastructure is there and the restaurants are there, the attractions year round are missing.

The last thing to point out is that when selling itself to potential businesses looking to relocate, a selling point is what attractions are within city limits. SLC can say that Maverick Center and RSL are close via Trax but that isn't the same as listing them in the same city.

Now, if the County boundaries were also the City boundaries, this wouldn't be a problem, but that ship sailed a few decades ago.

I feel this is one reason that Austin has grown and attracted as much business as it has and Salt Lake hasn't.

[Future Mayor]

I too don't expect the Jazz to ever leave downtown SLC, Larry Miller was dedicated to the Jazz as part of Downtown SLC and he saw the vision and purpose behind building the Delta Center in downtown. I think that same vision and dedication has been passed along to Greg, and I know Gail has it too. Will other locations fight for a new Jazz arena? Yes Will they succeed? I don't anticipate it. Many NBA teams across the country made the move to the burbs from a downtown arena in the late 70's and 80's and have since returned to downtown, because they realized the synergy that is created with a downtown and an nba arena, combine that with concerts and other events.

It's not fare to compare moving the NBA arena to the burbs and the building of the Maverik Center in WVC, or Spring Mobile on 13th S. Both facilities are minor league in their respective sports, and minor league teams, even in downtowns struggle to fill to capacity on a regular basis, much of the attendance and subsequent economic development surrounding sporting venues is based on the level of competition. The Grizzlies were and IHL team when the E Center was built, then and AHL, both comparable to AAA in baseball, they are now ECHL which is comparable to AA in Baseball. Even if these stadiums had been built in downtown, the resulting economic development would have been sparse, possibly even more sparse than what has occurred in WVC around the now Maverick Center. While RSL is the premier US soccer league it doesn't compare with the overall fan support that the big 4, has, at least not at this point. MLS, minor league hockey and baseball just don't have the draw that NBA, MLB, NFL, and NHL have. If a MLB stadium had been built where Rio Tinto is, the following economic development would have most likely already taken place or would be in the process.

With that said however, downtown venues tend to spur much more economic development near the venue than suburban ones do.

Randy Rigby, President of the Utah Jazz, has stated several times that ESA still has a 10-15 year lifespan. The have capacity to add suites, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an exterior remodel/expansion occur in the next 5 years. SLC in 10-15 years will be a much different place (especially if I get on council ) and the allure of building the new NBA arena downtown will be that much greater.

[Comrade]

Well the Maverik Center doesn't disappoint me at the rate Rio Tinto does. I still think the Maverik Center's location is crap and WVC has bungled the entire redevelopment of that area. With Hale moving out, it's even more pathetic.

If SLC gets a NHL team, let's all hope it doesn't end up in WVC.

[jedikermit]

Looks like the Granite High Movie Studio isn't happening, and the building will be back up for sale:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56...-lake.html.csp

No happy ending for Granite High site as movie studio plan unwinds
Development » The idea to use the old building for a movie studio falls through.
By Cimaron Neugebauer
| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published 7 hours ago • Updated 1 minute ago
South Salt Lake • Saving the century-old Granite High School started out as a dream for the city and developers — but that’s all it ever became.

The building at 3305 S. 500 East will not be turned into a motion picture and television production facility as originally promoted in a news conference in October. In fact, the property most likely will go on the open market to the highest bidder soon.

A joint venture between developer Woodbury Corp. and movie equipment rental company Redman Movies and Stories fell apart because parties couldn’t come to a lease agreement.

"We held that press conference thinking it was a done deal," South Salt Lake Mayor Cherie Wood told The Salt Lake Tribune late last week.

[SLC Projects]

That sucks. Watch it now as it gets tear down to make way for another strip mall.

[Orlando]

CEO of Envision Utah spoke last week at Salt Lake Rotary luncheon:

http://www.slenterprise.com/view/ful...latest_stories

speaker: major changes coming to metro area in next 27 years
1 day 15 hrs ago | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The Wasatch Front and Wasatch Back will undergo some major changes in the next 27 years, and Robert Grow wants people to help make the transition as smooth as possible.

Speaking at the Salt Lake Rotary luncheon last week, the president and CEO of Envision Utah noted that Utah will add 2 million residents by 2050 but cited several other projections expected to become reality by 2040.

Two-thirds of the buildings in 2040 have not yet been built. Total investment in new development will approach $700 billion. About 900,000 new housing units will be constructed, and 180,000 existing dwellings will be replaced or renovated. A total of 1.9 billion square feet in new and rebuilt space will be needed.

“Some of us will be leaving,” Grow told the audience, whose average age is a bit higher than the overall Salt Lake City demographic. “Some of us will be leaving, but, frankly, how many of you want your children and grandchildren to leave? How many of you would like most of your children and grandchildren to stay? … To do that, we’ve got to meet a whole bunch of challenges.”

Envision Utah was established in the late 1990s as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, voluntary partnership of business, government and community members to plot growth strategies for the burgeoning 10-county area. The goals spelled out at the time were enhancing air quality, increasing transportation choices, preserving critical lands, conserving water, providing more housing opportunities and spending wisely on infrastructure.

“Those challenges we listed in 1997, have they gone away? No, they haven’t gone away,” Grow said. “Lots of them remain and lots of them have changed.”

Grow noted that air quality issues remain and that the region’s demographics are changing, with Salt Lake County’s population getting older and the county likely becoming a “majority minority” county by 2050. What’s more, the area is “building an international economic engine,” with the resulting challenge being the need to produce more skilled workers for the future.

For those and other reasons, Envision Utah is talking with the governor’s office and the legislature about doing a statewide update on its quality growth strategy “about how to accommodate those next 2 million people.”

“We would invite you, as leaders of the business community, to be involved in that process,” he said, adding that Envision Utah is currently forming task forces to study certain topics.

As for the organization’s past, Grow said Envision Utah had plenty of influence on the development of light rail, commuter rail, City Creek Center and Daybreak, among others. But, he stressed, everything had to occur in a particular order.

“Could City Creek Center have been built if we had not built the transit system first, to keep downtown Salt Lake the center from a transportation standpoint in these valleys? Unlikely,” Grow said. “So all of these things, step by step, are continuing to make major changes that allow us to grow so Salt Lake can be a world center, a world city. It can be a great regional center. It can be a place full of great neighborhoods.”

Other communities in the U.S. have looked to mimic Envision Utah’s success, which Grow said has focused on local government and local decision-making but with an understanding that those also influence a larger region.

“You could say there are still a lot of problems, and that’s true,” he said, “but they are a lot smaller than they would have been had we not started 17 years ago.”

Read more: The Enterprise - Speaker major changes coming to metro area in next 27 years

[SLC Projects]

Latest Facebook update from Fairbourne Station.

"It's springtime at Fairbourne Station in West Valley City. We'll celebrate today at 11:30 a.m. with the groundbreaking of The Residences at Fairbourne Station."