Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[airhero]

Originally Posted by FullCircle

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/...e-utahs-greek/

I think we had heard rumors that the Greek Orthodox Church was thinking of developing the lots around their church, but this is the first real story I've heard about it.

And thanks for clearing up the CCH room count needs, Makid.

Hotel, offices, apartments, retail outlets, and a large park. I'm not entirely sold Woodbury can develop something to my standard downtown, but I'd really like to see their proposal! I'd also be disappointed if La France was torn down. Almost seems inevitable but interesting the other three developers proposed keeping them. Hopefully whatever is developed on 300 West covers up as much of Milagro Apartments as possible. That building is ugly.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by airhero

Hotel, offices, apartments, retail outlets, and a large park. I'm not entirely sold Woodbury can develop something to my standard downtown, but I'd really like to see their proposal! I'd also be disappointed if La France was torn down. Almost seems inevitable but interesting the other three developers proposed keeping them. Hopefully whatever is developed on 300 West covers up as much of Milagro Apartments as possible. That building is ugly.

I completely agree that losing the La France would be very disappointing. They need a lot of reinvestment, but add a lot of character to the area.

[FullCircle]

It sounds like the church community wants them gone though. I agree they are kind of cool, but they likely harbor some elements the church wants gone. A rehab, if financially feasible would seem to mitigate negative effects however, but the article made it sound like some statutes around affordable/moderate income housing may make that complicated.

[bob rulz]

I definitely would like to see some of that parking around the church developed, but I agree that those rowhouses being torn down would be a real shame. They add so much character, why not renovate them instead? We've lost too much of our classic housing stock already. Hopefully the city can find a way to prevent those from being destroyed.

Originally Posted by Old&New

Its “cute” you think people who make multi-billion dollar decisions will even consider researching Salt Lake’s CSA unless the city’s reputation of being small and populated by religious freaks/intolerant, homogenes people changes.

You think companies are making decisions based on random Internet lists? And how much "research" do you really need to know the population of a CSA? Wikipedia? Come on. A multi-billion dollar corporation is going to actually have people actively researching the viability of any location. They're not just going to do a Google search of MSA/CSA sizes and be like "welp, guess Salt Lake City isn't going to work". That's absurd. There's so much more that factors into a decision than just population, and again, companies understand the concept of market size anyway,

And people are going to make decisions that I feel are best for their business. Most businesses are not going to care about the religious affiliation of the residents of an area, only whether they can make money being there.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I definitely would like to see some of that parking around the church developed, but I agree that those rowhouses being torn down would be a real shame. They add so much character, why not renovate them instead? We've lost too much of our classic housing stock already. Hopefully the city can find a way to prevent those from being destroyed.



You think companies are making decisions based on random Internet lists? And how much "research" do you really need to know the population of a CSA? Wikipedia? Come on. A multi-billion dollar corporation is going to actually have people actively researching the viability of any location. They're not just going to do a Google search of MSA/CSA sizes and be like "welp, guess Salt Lake City isn't going to work". That's absurd. There's so much more that factors into a decision than just population, and again, companies understand the concept of market size anyway,

And people are going to make decisions that I feel are best for their business. Most businesses are not going to care about the religious affiliation of the residents of an area, only whether they can make money being there.

HAHAHA. This is so naive.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I'm sure Salt Lake has been researched as a city to host a MLB/NHL and even NFL team. I doubt the research took 'em beyond the initial phase, though, and the realization there's far more viable, and larger, locations than Salt Lake.

Like San Antonio, for instance, which has a metro a similar size of Salt Lake less than 100 miles away from its own metro, which is comparable in size to Salt Lake.

It's hilarious that you think anyone has actually done research into the viability of SLC for another major franchise. We're not on anyone's radar.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I will be very disappointed if they demolish the La France Apartments. Those are so unique to downtown and while rundown, renovated they'd bring in that type of charm you really just see much of in Salt Lake.

I'll be out protesting if they try and tear those down.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I definitely would like to see some of that parking around the church developed, but I agree that those rowhouses being torn down would be a real shame. They add so much character, why not renovate them instead? We've lost too much of our classic housing stock already. Hopefully the city can find a way to prevent those from being destroyed.



You think companies are making decisions based on random Internet lists? And how much "research" do you really need to know the population of a CSA? Wikipedia? Come on. A multi-billion dollar corporation is going to actually have people actively researching the viability of any location. They're not just going to do a Google search of MSA/CSA sizes and be like "welp, guess Salt Lake City isn't going to work". That's absurd. There's so much more that factors into a decision than just population, and again, companies understand the concept of market size anyway,

And people are going to make decisions that I feel are best for their business. Most businesses are not going to care about the religious affiliation of the residents of an area, only whether they can make money being there.

You are repeating yourself, and my response to that was the same as Stenar’s: we’re likely not even on their radar.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Old&New

You’re fooling yourself, it’s common sense. Why would they go with either? Not when we’re not even on their radar. Who do we petition to make our MSA the same as our CSA? Also, I think if it meant more jobs for the region, I bet some suburbs would be open to merging/being annexed for the purpose of boosting the State Capitol’s population numbers. Perhaps we do a workaround that makes those suburbs a “burough” of Salt Lake City, so leadership remains the same, but legally and statistically is part of the same city?

This was my thought exactly. Allow many decisions to remain local, while being officially part of Salt Lake City. If we did that, we wouldn't be the first city to do so.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

You think companies are making decisions based on random Internet lists? And how much "research" do you really need to know the population of a CSA? Wikipedia? Come on. A multi-billion dollar corporation is going to actually have people actively researching the viability of any location. They're not just going to do a Google search of MSA/CSA sizes and be like "welp, guess Salt Lake City isn't going to work". That's absurd. There's so much more that factors into a decision than just population, and again, companies understand the concept of market size anyway,

And people are going to make decisions that I feel are best for their business. Most businesses are not going to care about the religious affiliation of the residents of an area, only whether they can make money being there.

First of all, I'm not talking about internet lists, but actual studies.

Second, an example we've all seen play out before, and we've discussed in this forum in the past... a retail chain finally comes to SLC after moving into other cities, even smaller ones before coming to Utah. They came here late because they thought we were smaller than we are.
After they've been open a while, they're shocked to find that one of their Utah stores is the top-grossing store in their entire chain. And the reason their Utah store is doing so well isn't because Utahns are bigger shoppers than elsewhere, but because they opened fewer stores than they did in other similar sized metros, because they still think we're smaller than we are.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Old&New

You are repeating yourself, and my response to that was the same as Stenar’s: we’re likely not even on their radar.

I'm not talking about pro sports teams. I agree about the pro sports teams, and I even mentioned that myself a couple pages ago. Besides, I'm not the only one repeating myself. This is all stuff that's been talked about over and over and over and over again here.

Originally Posted by Stenar

HAHAHA. This is so naive.

Not really. Can you actually think of specific examples or are you just assuming? Unless they're an industry that we make it difficult for (an alcohol company or a company that relies very heavily on alcohol sales), or some kind of company that requires a more diverse customer base, they're just going to look at the big $$$ signs. Hell we have a shopping mall in our downtown that has numerous high-profile, prestigious retail shops, even though the mall is owned by the Church and closed on Sundays. Yet they still find it worthwhile to be here.

Originally Posted by Stenar

First of all, I'm not talking about internet lists, but actual studies.

Second, an example we've all seen play out before, and we've discussed in this forum in the past... a retail chain finally comes to SLC after moving into other cities, even smaller ones before coming to Utah. They came here late because they thought we were smaller than we are.
After they've been open a while, they're shocked to find that one of their Utah stores is the top-grossing store in their entire chain. And the reason their Utah store is doing so well isn't because Utahns are bigger shoppers than elsewhere, but because they opened fewer stores than they did in other similar sized metros, because they still think we're smaller than we are.

This may have been true in the past, but I doubt it's true anymore. With the amount of demographic data and analytics that exist nowadays, I don't think there's a multi-billion dollar company that would make that assumption anymore. Maybe a rapidly-growing startup that hasn't yet developed that aspect of their business.

And anyway, as far as official studies, I'm not sure what official studies you have your hands on, but these decisions are likely made internally, or by third-party consulting firms. I don't think we ever see most of the data that major companies use to make their expansion decisions.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Stenar

First of all, I'm not talking about internet lists, but actual studies.

Second, an example we've all seen play out before, and we've discussed in this forum in the past... a retail chain finally comes to SLC after moving into other cities, even smaller ones before coming to Utah. They came here late because they thought we were smaller than we are.
After they've been open a while, they're shocked to find that one of their Utah stores is the top-grossing store in their entire chain. And the reason their Utah store is doing so well isn't because Utahns are bigger shoppers than elsewhere, but because they opened fewer stores than they did in other similar sized metros, because they still think we're smaller than we are.

Good point Stenar. That has happened way too often in the past. Hopefully, as Bob pointed out, the selection process has become a lot more sophisticated over these past few years. I do think that the Wasatch Front is on a lot more selection radars than in the past decades.

Personally, I believe that as far as major sport franchises go, the Wasatch Front/Utah/Southeastern Idaho market needs a few more years growth. Probably a couple of decades. Once the Utah market reaches the 5 million plus mark we should be due for an NFL franchise. However, it could happen even sooner if a very deep pocketed individual or individuals had the passion to make the kind of long term investment needed for such an undertaking.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

...

This may have been true in the past, but I doubt it's true anymore. With the amount of demographic data and analytics that exist nowadays, I don't think there's a multi-billion dollar company that would make that assumption anymore. Maybe a rapidly-growing startup that hasn't yet developed that aspect of their business.

And anyway, as far as official studies, I'm not sure what official studies you have your hands on, but these decisions are likely made internally, or by third-party consulting firms. I don't think we ever see most of the data that major companies use to make their expansion decisions.

It still happens, but it does seem like it might be happening less...we got Trader Joe’s and IKEA before our larger neighbor.

When chains do open here, they still open fewer than other similarly sized metros, so I don't think they're doing proper analysis of the market at all.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I'll be out protesting if they try and tear those down.

Why? I think they are rather ugly, restored or not. Most of the structures are only one floor, so they are a huge waste of prime real estate. Plus, it would likely cost a fortune to restore all of the buildings and make them safe in case of earthquakes (currently, the buildings facing 300 S look so rickety I suspect they would just topple over in an earthquake), so its unlikely, even if they were restored they would stay affordable housing. I say tear down everything and start over. That way the buildings would be built to modern-day building standards and could provide more housing and office space in the city.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by FullCircle

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/...e-utahs-greek/

I think we had heard rumors that the Greek Orthodox Church was thinking of developing the lots around their church, but this is the first real story I've heard about it.

And thanks for clearing up the CCH room count needs, Makid.

Also, does this mean they are abandoning the 'Holy Trinity Campus' project idea that has been listed for years on the downtown rising website? Or do you think they will try and integrate it in the redevelopment?
https://www.downtownrising.com/go/holy-trinity-campus

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I'll be out protesting if they try and tear those down.

Are the La France apartments the 1-story rowhouses? Those need to go if they are. That block needs to be much more dense, and those aren't that precious.

[delts145]

I'm hoping it doesn't also refer to these. I think these are also La France.

[FullCircle]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Also, does this mean they are abandoning the 'Holy Trinity Campus' project idea that has been listed for years on the downtown rising website? Or do you think they will try and integrate it in the redevelopment?
https://www.downtownrising.com/go/holy-trinity-campus

Good catch. They sure sound like entirely different projects, but they are definitely on the same parcels, so either they changed their minds completely, or the project has just evolved over time.

[i-215]

My only concern would be seismic. As charming as the buildings appear (and they do look charming), I'd hate to keep them around if they are simply going to collapse and kill people in "the big one."

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by i-215

My only concern would be seismic. As charming as the buildings appear (and they do look charming), I'd hate to keep them around if they are simply going to collapse and kill people in "the big one."

I agree with your concern, although that same concern would justify tearing down all historic buildings if seismic upgrades weren't done.