Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by I-15

Adding to the list of cities that have a second skyline,

St. Louis has Clayton:






The St. Louis metro is not that much bigger than the Wasatch Front. I suppose I could see another skyline developing at some point, but I sure would rather just see it all concentrated in downtown SLC.

There are always exceptions to the rule - and Clayton, Missouri feels like the exception.

With that said, St. Louis' metro population is significantly larger than Salt Lake's - as our metro is 1,145,905 and St. Louis' is 2,795,794. So, that is probably why it can support two skylines (and I get you said Wasatch Front - but that's comparing apples to oranges).

[Boiseguy]

I wish there were some kind of federal regulations on how Urban areas are governed. I realize that 50-100 years ago many "suburbs" were once separate towns or cities, but when it becomes one large urban area, it seems like there are too many opposing local governments keeping things from being properly and efficiently planned because each localized governing body is seeking a tax base. I can't think of an area where it is such a problem as the Salt Lake Valley. Here you have an urban center of 1.1 million people where the main city proper is barely 185K..where suburban populations are about to come really close if not surpass the city proper's population.. I feel like all the development that has happened in suburban salt lake county has severely left downtown lacking in high-rises. An urban area of Salt lake's size should have a much more impressive skyline than it does, and your suburbs are the culprits. What will happen when west valley city is 250K and Salt Lake City is only 190k? will that give them more sway in getting large developments over salt lake city? I guess my point is, you have a million people in the area, and all these little shit towns are competing to be the point of interest to draw upon that million people. If the entire county or at least urban part of it were under one city government it would make for cohesive urban planning, where downtown was the focal point of commerce, and suburbs were merely neighborhoods.. This happens everywhere in the US I know(it sucks though), but having a city proper with such little population in respects to the entire urban area makes it a bit more pronounced..then you factor in the different demographics and mentalities of SLC proper vs the "suburbs" and it just sucks for downtown Salt lake..
the church's heavy investment in CCC was also an investment in downtown in hopes of spawning more development to keep it the focal point of the valley…I think they saw and understood that it needed to happen otherwise we could easily be seeing much of what has been happening downtown lately going to other places in the valley instead.

[delts145]

A lot of good points Boiseguy that most of us share. It is so frustrating to see large populations surrounding Salt Lake proper, such as Millcreek, South Salt Lake, etc., yet there seems to be a lack of leadership toward bringing it all under one tent. Salt Lake City is growing and expanding it's population base now, but it could be much larger if not for the many small county governments. Salt Lake County and the Wasatch Front is expanding in much the same way that California's major metros have in the past. I do think though that Salt Lake will mimic San Francisco's more urban feel vs. L.A.'s past abandonment of it's Downtown core. L.A. is getting it right now, but it took a while for it to come back around.

[Future Mayor]

There are major shifts occurring across the country. The younger demographic wants a much more urban, transit, walkable lifestyle, they want owning a car to be an option. We are obviously seeing this as we speak, countless projects of commercial, office, residential and civic are occurring all over downtown Salt Lake City, and the city gained population for the first time in decades in the 2010 census. The burbs are realizing this trend and while these burbs are looking to expand their tax base they are looking to attract new population as well. These suburban cities realize that they are nearly built out and if they don't expand upwards they are going to suffer the same fate that Salt Lake City did over the previous 30-50 years. The larger families are going to grow up, move out and be replaced with smaller households. If they don't go upward they will have a shrinking population.

The biggest issue, as has been discussed, is the organic growth vs non organic development of a "downtown." Yes these cities can dream big and tall, but those wanting a true urban experience, currently only have three places to get that in the entire state. Salt Lake City, Provo, and Ogden. A downtown isn't a downtown simply because it has tall buildings, it's a downtown because it has character; character in people, buildings, and activities, it offers variety and convenience.

So yes Draper and Sandy can dream big, but the end result will be what "downtown" Sandy is currently being developed as, a suburban office park, with some housing nearby. As the overall population continues to explode along the Wasatch Front and in the SL Valley all the cities will have pockets of more density, my hope is that those will occur around our ever expanding transit system. I do applaud all the SL Valley cities for dreaming big though, as Daniel Burnham (often considered the father of modern city planning) stated "Make No Little Plans...For They Have No Magic To Stir Men's Blood"

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

Dream on Draper, dream on.

Only some major metropolitan areas have a second skyline. SLC is not one of those metros, and they never will be.

Atlanta has Sandy Springs
Seattle has Bellevue
Los Angeles has West Hollywood

That's all I can think of...

Supposedly the twin cities (St. Paul and Minneapolis) have two skylines.
Then there's Dallas / Ft. Worth
And of course Provo / Orem

As many have pointed out the Wasatch Front is developing similar to the LA metro, so a bunch of smaller skylines isn't out of the question someday. But proposals like these are pipe-dreams. They'll get scaled back to a Dunkin' Donuts and 3-story Marriott by the end.

[Bob The Builder]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

What kind of skyline, CBD, what have you just abruptly ends at a freeway? Could you imagine how dead that area would be outside of working hours?

Interesting to see they have a TRAX line running through this area, though. I'm assuming TRAX rather than FrontRunner as it's running in the street.

Draper is REALLY reaching if they think that this will work. Those buildings will Not be built without tenants signing to lease the space, and it is too risky to building them without a tenant. Outside of Salt Lake/down town, Provo & Ogden should be where the 10+ story buildings should go and have actual city centers. After that West Valley, Sandy, Orem, Logan and St George should follow - a least what would make sense to me.
I for one would rather see a Six Flags and a kick ass zoo there on the prision site; with some resturants, smaller hotels like the 4-6 story Court Yard Marriots, Hilton Gardens ect. With maybe a small business part (2-4 story buildings) - and yes I am tired of business parks.
But I know I am dreaming................ oh well.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Bob The Builder

I for one would rather see a Six Flags and a kick ass zoo there on the prision site; with some resturants, smaller hotels like the 4-6 story Court Yard Marriots, Hilton Gardens ect. With maybe a small business part (2-4 story buildings) - and yes I am tired of business parks.
But I know I am dreaming................ oh well.

Oooooo.... I like that idea!

[Boiseguy]

Maybe draper is hoping to cash in on it's strategic location between provo/orem and Downtown? It wouldn't be out of the question to assume tenants wouldn't grab up office space in such a location especially considering the rapid growth and close proximity to the Provo/Orem MSA..I think Salt lake needs to become City county of Salt lake to rein in on this expansive decentralized planning efforts..also do away with all these little piss ant suburb cities who actually increase infrastructure costs to tax payers in the entire urban center because they want a tax base. It's easier to plan transportation with more centralized areas of employment and commerce vs. having it spread out everywhere.. it turns an urban setting into a cluster f*** where eventually it is a deterrent to future residents for lack of quality of life. It was said that the wasatch front is developing along the same lines as LA, but LA has a lot more to it's economy, climate, locale (motion picture industry and proximity to the Pacific Ocean)to draw residents than Salt lake will ever have in 2-3 lifetimes.(I'm not saying never)
As Urban enthusiasts, I think it would be safe to say if you had a choice in seeing salt lake city develop more like LA vs Chicago or Philadelphia.. the latter two are the better option..

[delts145]

Many Non-Angelinos are oblivious to the fact that greater Los Angeles has an infinite amount of urban villages. In other words, the list of Sugar House style enclaves is so long I wouldn't know where to begin. Yes, there are also a number of major CBD skylines, or what would at least seem like major CBD skylines by SLC terms. There is also a long list of dense, walkable, sustainable villages, that have every convenience within a close walkable proximity. The Wasatch Front doesn't need to have major skylines outside of Odgen, Salt Lake City, Provo to be considered mature. Dense mid rise centers are the norm in much of Greater Los Angeles, many of which are a larger CBD center, than current Boise. As Greater Salt Lake City approaches 3 then 4 then 5 million, it will grow it's three skylines. It's villages like Holladay, Midvale, Pleasant Grove, and all the other Main Street/Village Centers will also become more pronounced and walkable. State Street/89 from Ogden to Payson will have intermittent groupings of dense centers, much as Wilshire Blvd. does today. Also, Salt Lake Valley itself will see a fully developed BRT along State, as well as mid to high rise buildings strung all the way from Downtown Salt Lake to Sandy or Draper, much as we see along the Wilshire Corridor.

The one advantage CSA Salt Lake has over many of America's urban centers, mid size and large, is that the Wasatch Front has a much better and 'bigger bang for the buck setup' of transportation infrastructure in place now and going forward. As the Wasatch Front surges forward as a top growth center, it's transportation mentality is much healthier, than say cities like Austin, Oklahoma City, or like a Los Angeles was, which is now trying desperately to play an overwhelming game of catch up.

[EPdesign]

Originally Posted by delts145

Many Non-Angelinos are oblivious to the fact that greater Los Angeles has an infinite amount of urban villages. In other words the list of Sugar House style enclaves is so long I wouldn't know where to begin. Yes, there are also a number of major CBD skylines, or what would at least seem like major CBD skylines by SLC terms, but there is also a long list of dense, walkable, sustainable villages, that have every convenience within a close walkable proximity. The Wasatch Front doesn't need to have skyscapers outside of Odgen, Salt Lake City, Provo and a couple other enclaves to be considered mature. Dense, mid rise centers are the norm in much of Greater Los Angeles. As Greater Salt Lake City approaches 3 then 4 then 5 million, it will grow it's skylines. It's villages like Midvale, Pleasant Grove, and all the other Main Street Centers will also become more pronounced and walkable.

Amen. I completely agree

[EPdesign]

So I was looking at some large cities. I noticed that in the 80's there was a building boom and many have not added many new tallest or significantly tall buildings relative to their skylines. I kinda like that salt lake has this steady pace of building in downtown so we don't get stuck with a city skyline and have to wait 20 to 30 years before DT can start building towers again. The constant or some what constant flow of construction I'm sure plays a valuable role in the psyche and moral of the residents seeing growth. I'm it raises confidence as well.

[Plaid Shirts]

Originally Posted by delts145

The one advantage CSA Salt Lake has over many of America's urban centers, mid size and large, is that the Wasatch Front has a much better and 'bigger bang for the buck setup' of transportation infrastructure in place now and going forward. As the Wasatch Front surges forward as a top growth center, it's transportation mentality is much healthier, than say cities like Austin, Oklahoma City, or like a Los Angeles was, which is now trying desperately to play an overwhelming game of catch up.

You clearly do not follow Austin or know anything about the city. Austin is putting together a transit system similar to TRAX.

Round Rock, which is a suburb of Austin, is way ahead of and much better than any suburb of SLC.

The Austin airport is expanding and extending their concourse to add seven more gates. They begin non-stop London Heathrow service in a few weeks on British Airways.

Austin is the leading city in the nation in many categories. Always beating out SLC. They are constantly doing construction and improvements to meet the growing population.

People in Austin say, and I agree, that Austin in about 25 years will be similar to what Seattle is now. It's a growing, young, modern city with a major university, and many tech jobs. Also many companies are adding jobs there.

The I-35 sucks, I'll give you that, but they do have plans to greatly improve that.

Austin is going to be the next major city in the U.S.

[Wasatch_One]

deleted.

[brankrom]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

I disagree with this assessment—at least the first sentence—wholeheartedly. Having walked through most of Daybreak, it feels ridiculously more pleasant being a pedestrian there than it does in most places in the valley. The biggest flaw to Daybreak right now, to me, is the lack of a local neighborhood grocery store like Emigration Market. But when the District is as close as it is, you'll be hard pressed to get someone to open up until the population hits critical mass.

What is the population of Daybreak now? I live close to Emigration Market and the place is packed every day its a real neighborhood magnet and I do most of my shopping there. It seems to me that Daybreak should be close to the same population as the Yalecrest neighborhood. Maybe its still just a suburban/vs urban mindset easier to load kids into the minivan for the trip to Harmon's at the District than to walk to SoDa. I have family in South Jordan and Daybreak is nicer than the typical 80s and 90s development of suburbia but the place still isn't walkable yet, maybe in 20 more years when there is a tree canopy and it is reaching build out. Hopefully developers planted heritage trees instead of the typical Utah Suburban flowering pear trash tree. With all the aspects of new urbanism that were implemented at Daybreak it still lacks the density of traditional neighborhoods and lacking the grid makes the place hard to navigate, at least they mostly ditched cul de sacs. I've made special trips to Daybreak just to walk there and the place still has the middle eastern war zone undeveloped feel to it. I look forward to what will happen in a decade or two, but for now it is still hopelessly stuck in the suburban mindset.

The District is terrible development simply a re-imagined strip mall with miles of parking.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

You clearly do not follow Austin or know anything about the city. Austin is putting together a transit system similar to TRAX.

Round Rock, which is a suburb of Austin, is way ahead of and much better than any suburb of SLC.

The Austin airport is expanding and extending their concourse to add seven more gates. They begin non-stop London Heathrow service in a few weeks on British Airways.

Austin is the leading city in the nation in many categories. Always beating out SLC. They are constantly doing construction and improvements to meet the growing population.

People in Austin say, and I agree, that Austin in about 25 years will be similar to what Seattle is now. It's a growing, young, modern city with a major university, and many tech jobs. Also many companies are adding jobs there.

The I-35 sucks, I'll give you that, but they do have plans to greatly improve that.

Austin is going to be the next major city in the U.S.

You clearly did not follow the point he was making in his post. The Point was; due to how the Wasatch Front is set up we get a bigger bang for our buck, because the population is very linear. He wasn't bagging on Austin in any way, he was simply stating that due to the linear nature, the majority of the growth is required to be north to south. As a result the transportation resources that are invested can serve a greater percentage of the population vs a place like Austin, which experiences growth in all directions. Austin is obviously investing in it's transportation infrastructure but it is more difficult to serve the population growth as efficiently.

Example; FrontRunner from Provo to Pleasant View is within a few miles of the majority of the population. If Austin were to build a commuter rail, I'm sure it would be successful, but due to a more wide open potential for development it would be more difficult to serve as high of a percentage.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

Supposedly the twin cities (St. Paul and Minneapolis) have two skylines.
Then there's Dallas / Ft. Worth
And of course Provo / Orem

As many have pointed out the Wasatch Front is developing similar to the LA metro, so a bunch of smaller skylines isn't out of the question someday. But proposals like these are pipe-dreams. They'll get scaled back to a Dunkin' Donuts and 3-story Marriott by the end.

I wasn't aware that Orem had a skyline? Unless one building over 4 floors counts as a skyline.

[tygr]

It seems that Plaid Shirts likes to find something wrong with anything and everything positive that is said about Salt Lake City.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

You clearly did not follow the point he was making in his post. The Point was; due to how the Wasatch Front is set up we get a bigger bang for our buck, because the population is very linear. He wasn't bagging on Austin in any way, he was simply stating that due to the linear nature, the majority of the growth is required to be north to south. As a result the transportation resources that are invested can serve a greater percentage of the population vs a place like Austin, which experiences growth in all directions. Austin is obviously investing in it's transportation infrastructure but it is more difficult to serve the population growth as efficiently.

Example; FrontRunner from Provo to Pleasant View is within a few miles of the majority of the population. If Austin were to build a commuter rail, I'm sure it would be successful, but due to a more wide open potential for development it would be more difficult to serve as high of a percentage.

[delts145]

^^^
Agree Tygr, To put it mildly. He's sounding more and more like a reincarnation of someone previous ...and thanks Future Mayor, much appreciated.

[Plaid Shirts]

Originally Posted by delts145

^^^
Agree Tygr, To put it mildly. He's sounding more and more like a reincarnation of someone previous ...and thanks Future Mayor, much appreciated.

Well other than the fact that I used to live in Austin and Denver makes me a homer to them. In my opinion, Austin and Denver are 10x better than SLC. But I also think SLC is 10x better than cities like Kansas City and San Antonio...

[Stenar]

Austin needs to get as big as SLC before it can become what Seattle is.

Originally Posted by Plaid Shirts

You clearly do not follow Austin or know anything about the city. Austin is putting together a transit system similar to TRAX.

Round Rock, which is a suburb of Austin, is way ahead of and much better than any suburb of SLC.

The Austin airport is expanding and extending their concourse to add seven more gates. They begin non-stop London Heathrow service in a few weeks on British Airways.

Austin is the leading city in the nation in many categories. Always beating out SLC. They are constantly doing construction and improvements to meet the growing population.

People in Austin say, and I agree, that Austin in about 25 years will be similar to what Seattle is now. It's a growing, young, modern city with a major university, and many tech jobs. Also many companies are adding jobs there.

The I-35 sucks, I'll give you that, but they do have plans to greatly improve that.

Austin is going to be the next major city in the U.S.