Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Denvergotback]

Houston also may be turning into a global city, but it is far from being on anyone’s list (anywhere) to being a destination to visit, or drop millions of dollars on consumer based (foreign) money into housing real estate and much alike.

People are much more willing to visit New Orleans than Houston despite being incredibly smaller, in large part because they have the “it” factor. They have dense neighborhoods full of people walking and lots of nearby restaurants. Downtown Houston looks like “I am Legend” after 6


Compare Houston to Salt Lake: (all links posted at bottom)

Remember Houston metro 6-7 million residents. Salt Lake (1-2 million depending how you look at it)

Houston: no zoning
Salt Lake: zoned

Population of Downtown Houston: 10,165
population of Downtown Salt Lake: 5,491
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Houston
https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neigh...ographics.html

Some info is a few years outdated, but I think you get the picture, if Houston is 3-4 times larger then how come downtown Salt lake isn’t too far off from downtown Houston.

Zoning can easily create more dense neighborhoods also without quite building too tall. Making a city more alive. Look at how many towers Houston has. Now look at Salt Lake. And downtown Salt lake is already half the population of downtown Houston. I would argue that Salt lake has even closed the gap a little since this data was released

[bob rulz]

I'll admit I'm not super familiar with Houston as I've never been there, but I rarely hear it mentioned as a "destination city" as mentioned above. I'm sure there are plenty of great things in Houston, as there is in any city, but how often do you hear people say "man I really want to visit Houston this year?" And this is the 5th-largest MSA in the country. Their light rail system also has about the same average ridership as TRAX, and it doesn't have any heavy rail or commuter rail system at all.

Also what has Houston become most known for recently? That's right, flooding. Part of that is a result of unfortunate geographical circumstances and bad luck, and certainly many places have a problem with building in floodplains, but the flooding issues in Houston are definitely exacerbated by their loose zoning laws and poor neighborhood planning (and I say this as a current student of city planning/urban ecology and someone who is very interested in meteorology and the effects of climate change, so I would like to think I'm not completely talking out of my ass).

I'm not trying to trash talk Houston, simply stating that these are the downsides to a lack of zoning laws, and how in Houston's case it has led a large, low-density, auto-dependent city that, by an admittedly anecdotal perception, lacks the same urban character as many large American cities.

Anyway, I think I can get behind a "middle ground" approach to zoning. Single-use zoning is mostly bad, but a large patchwork of very specific zoning regions also comes with negative side effects...and very loose/no zoning laws are more negative than positive, in my opinion.

[bob rulz]

Also, on an actual Salt Lake City-related note, should we consider making a separate Tower 8 page? We had a separate page for 111 Main, and this is a taller project than that was. With all of the talk of trying to get weekly-ish updates on Tower 8 progress, I am for it.

[delts145]

I asked that question a few weeks ago, and the response seemed to be in favor of not creating a new thread. Not sure if that is still the same opinion. Myself, I tend to favor giving Salt Lake as much activity in its sticky thread as possible.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I'll admit I'm not super familiar with Houston as I've never been there, but I rarely hear it mentioned as a "destination city" as mentioned above. I'm sure there are plenty of great things in Houston, as there is in any city, but how often do you hear people say "man I really want to visit Houston this year?" And this is the 5th-largest MSA in the country. Their light rail system also has about the same average ridership as TRAX, and it doesn't have any heavy rail or commuter rail system at all.

Also what has Houston become most known for recently? That's right, flooding. Part of that is a result of unfortunate geographical circumstances and bad luck, and certainly many places have a problem with building in floodplains, but the flooding issues in Houston are definitely exacerbated by their loose zoning laws and poor neighborhood planning (and I say this as a current student of city planning/urban ecology and someone who is very interested in meteorology and the effects of climate change, so I would like to think I'm not completely talking out of my ass).

I'm not trying to trash talk Houston, simply stating that these are the downsides to a lack of zoning laws, and how in Houston's case it has led a large, low-density, auto-dependent city that, by an admittedly anecdotal perception, lacks the same urban character as many large American cities.

Anyway, I think I can get behind a "middle ground" approach to zoning. Single-use zoning is mostly bad, but a large patchwork of very specific zoning regions also comes with negative side effects...and very loose/no zoning laws are more negative than positive, in my opinion.

The catastrophic, act-of-god flooding in Houston was do to lack of zoning. That's, um, interesting. Frankly what its become known for lately is for being one of the most affordable, incredibly diverse cities in the country with a massive influx of millennial talent and gobs of Fortune 500 companies. It's the world leader in the public space economy and emerging revolutionary private space economy. Its food scene is a gem. Most people who have not spent time there have the typical reaction above.

Anyway, back to Salt Lake. SLC has an alphabet soup of zoning laws that have produced what I consider very poor outcomes: constant demolition of amazing building stock and, perversely, constant preservation of blighted building stock, wide, squat buildings with poor finish and design levels. The constant triggering CBSDR (Conditional Building and Site Design Review) for additional density and height, hugely redundant zones, layers of legacy zones that served other agendas decades ago, and skyrocketing housing costs. When we look at large cities, take NYC fir example (not comparing but it's a useful tool to illustrate), height is a given as-of-right. An intrepid developer can assemble vertical assemblages, just like one can assemble horizontal assemblages. This is commonly called air rights. This is how they went vertical. I want to go vertical on the wrong micro zone in SLC? Blam, CBSDR. If you'v ever been through one of those, they are, well, lots of fun. We need sweeping zoning reform in SLC. I am not advocating for no zoning, that's just a little selfish dream of mine. I think SLC could use a decade or so of the wild west to mix things up. Our economy and fundamentals are not like Boston yet in a lot of ways our city is run like it's Boston instead of the odd, singular western frontier city that it is.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by Marvland

The catastrophic, act-of-god flooding in Houston was do to lack of zoning. That's, um, interesting. Frankly what its become known for lately is for being one of the most affordable, incredibly diverse cities in the country with a massive influx of millennial talent and gobs of Fortune 500 companies. It's the world leader in the public space economy and emerging revolutionary private space economy. Its food scene is a gem. Most people who have not spent time there have the typical reaction above.

Anyway, back to Salt Lake. SLC has an alphabet soup of zoning laws that have produced what I consider very poor outcomes: constant demolition of amazing building stock and, perversely, constant preservation of blighted building stock, wide, squat buildings with poor finish and design levels. The constant triggering CBSDR (Conditional Building and Site Design Review) for additional density and height, hugely redundant zones, layers of legacy zones that served other agendas decades ago, and skyrocketing housing costs. When we look at large cities, take NYC fir example (not comparing but it's a useful tool to illustrate), height is a given as-of-right. An intrepid developer can assemble vertical assemblages, just like one can assemble horizontal assemblages. This is commonly called air rights. This is how they went vertical. I want to go vertical on the wrong micro zone in SLC? Blam, CBSDR. If you'v ever been through one of those, they are, well, lots of fun. We need sweeping zoning reform in SLC. I am not advocating for no zoning, that's just a little selfish dream of mine. I think SLC could use a decade or so of the wild west to mix things up. Our economy and fundamentals are not like Boston yet in a lot of ways our city is run like it's Boston instead of the odd, singular western frontier city that it is.

Those are all great things, but many of which, have nothing to do with zoning. Many of what you said is a result of being a very large city.... namely: being diverse (nothing to do with zoning, unless your argument is it’s cheap, but then look at LA, San Fran, NY, etc...) Fortune 500s is another, Dallas has zoning and is attracting them at an incredible rate too. Not many cities on this planet can even match what San Francisco is doing when it comes to creating these large companies. Sure companies may move, but at least San Francisco is more focused on self generating money verses stealing them from other states. That right there is a very telling story about your economies. Massive influx of millennials is another you mentioned, well how do you explain the cities that attract millennials more so? Denver, Austin, Portland, Seattle.....

Yes it’s a food gem, but so is LA, San Fran, NY, Chicago, Philly, Dallas.

None of which you mentioned are really good examples of no zoning, at all.

As someone who has spent significant time in Texas, mainly Dallas and some in Houston, I can tell you with confidence that not even in Texas does Houston get much love.

Does it have great food? Yes! But that doesn’t make up for the big sprawly mess they have created and to be frank, I would choose to visit and live in Salt Lake any day than to have to vacation or live in Houston. It’s a great city, but far from ideal for most.

Let’s look at why people move there... Texas is AMAZING at giving huge incentives to companies to have them move to their cities. I’m not sure if anyone does that better. Nothing to do with zoning though, as Austin, Houston and Dallas are all experiencing the benefits from that.

It’s dirt cheap. Be honest, would you pay more to live in Salt Lake or Houston? Places may get expensive, but it only keeps going up if people are willing to pay the price tag.

Houston may be growing like crazy, but how many of those jobs are low wage blue collar? At what point is Texas not worth it? I would assume it wouldn’t take too much.

I’m not trying to bash Houston at all, it really is a great city, but if we are going to be honest, then I think we should talk about the actual benefits no zoning has and ALSO the negatives from no zoning. There are plenty of each, and there is a reason cities do take the zoning approach. It’s not just to be stupid or silly.


Houston is pretty much bound to be cheap no matter what, mainly because of its sun belt style influence, the land isn’t worth much, and many jobs (not all obviously) are very blue collar and if Houston where to become too much more expensive I would bet money that their growth would significantly slow.

[Orlando]

Ya, that whole argument that more restrictive zoning creates less density could be seen both ways. Seattle, San Francisco and Portland and many of the canadian cities like Vancouver and Toronto have much more regimented zoning/land-use codes, and look how much more lively and dense they are.

[Makid]

I think the main issue is that there are numerous zones that have outlived their usefulness.

I personally think that the area from North Temple to 9th South and from I-15 to 7th East could all be handled under the D1 zone. Just make some updates so that building width and depth go through CBDR on any building less than 1:1 (Height to Width/Depth) and either remove the 375' maximum before CBDR or put it around 750' (double the current level).

With High Frequency bus routes and Trax lines running throughout the area and with FrontRunner on the western edge, it seems silly to force taller developments into just the CBD.

This update could allow for the preservation of some buildings within the CBD as other spots would be available for taller buildings. There shouldn't be anything wrong with a 300' tower across the street from the Central Station.

I also think something needs to be done about land banking.

Lastly, I wouldn't be opposed to a minor tax increase within the city itself that would be used to attract businesses and possibly assist with land acquisition and construction costs. If every 5 years they could attract just 1 large company, local or national, to build taller downtown, we could see a cascade effect with companies moving back to the city.

This could possibly be sold as city level option to help improve air quality as driving could be reduced while transit ridership is increased due to increased densities downtown.

[Stenar]

I think the CBD is too small. The first time I learned what the CBD even was, I thought it was way too small. However, I would like to see highrises only going west towards I-15, but not east of 300 E. If we're going to allow heights taller than 375, then those should be confined to the existing CBD, or maybe just a couple blocks outside the CBD.

UPDATE: After looking at the map, I could support buildings up to 200' between 300 E and 700 E, but only between 100 S and 500 S.

Originally Posted by Makid

I think the main issue is that there are numerous zones that have outlived their usefulness.

I personally think that the area from North Temple to 9th South and from I-15 to 7th East could all be handled under the D1 zone. Just make some updates so that building width and depth go through CBDR on any building less than 1:1 (Height to Width/Depth) and either remove the 375' maximum before CBDR or put it around 750' (double the current level).

With High Frequency bus routes and Trax lines running throughout the area and with FrontRunner on the western edge, it seems silly to force taller developments into just the CBD.

This update could allow for the preservation of some buildings within the CBD as other spots would be available for taller buildings. There shouldn't be anything wrong with a 300' tower across the street from the Central Station.

I also think something needs to be done about land banking.

Lastly, I wouldn't be opposed to a minor tax increase within the city itself that would be used to attract businesses and possibly assist with land acquisition and construction costs. If every 5 years they could attract just 1 large company, local or national, to build taller downtown, we could see a cascade effect with companies moving back to the city.

This could possibly be sold as city level option to help improve air quality as driving could be reduced while transit ridership is increased due to increased densities downtown.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Ya, that whole argument that more restrictive zoning creates less density could be seen both ways. Seattle, San Francisco and Portland and many of the canadian cities like Vancouver and Toronto have much more regimented zoning/land-use codes, and look how much more lively and dense they are.

Be interesting to hear your experience with zoning codes in Seattle Orlando. I know you were (are) based there?

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Be interesting to hear your experience with zoning codes in Seattle Orlando. I know you were (are) based there?

Marvland, I admit I'm still not too versed in the Salt Lake area, where do you see a disconnect between current zoning and development in the area? What are your solutions to the problems if we must keep zoning to some degree?

I agree fully that zoning across many cities need to be loosened in some degree, but I don't know anything really about Salt Lake's zoning yet so I don't really know where the city's zoning is holding development back.

I'm not too sure that zoning is the full or main cause of loosing historic buildings, as every city seems to have been or is still dealing with that.... zoning or not.

[ajiuO]

Tower 8: 05/17/19

[Utah_Dave]

KSL has a good article about growth in Utah. In the last 5 years Utah has added 250,000 people, 100,000 of them were from out of state which was surprising. Also, permit for single family home vs multi family homes is now 50/50.

Hey Makid, a few years back there was a discussion about impact fees. Can the county apply impact fees to certain areas of the county or is this only done at the city level? Also, do you have anymore rumors? Do you know of any 400ft + Developement rumors that we may not know about.

[Utah_Dave]

Also steel and aluminum tarrifs on Canada and Mexico have been lifted or will be soon. That said, I have read conflicting articles about the effect those tarrifs had on steel prices for the duration of time they were imposed. Can anyone clear up the effect the tarrifs actually had on steel prices and to what degree they raised actual prices?

Thanks

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Marvland

The catastrophic, act-of-god flooding in Houston was do to lack of zoning. That's, um, interesting.

Hurricane Harvey was not the only catastrophic flooding event in Houston in the last few years.

In fact, two of the costliest flood events in the city's history occurred in 2015:
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-w...s-11176375.php

And 2016:
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...r-11077890.php

And just a week ago Houston experienced more flooding:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cy/1174543001/

And here's just one article talking about the link between zoning and flooding, particularly Houston's high parking requirements:
https://kinder.rice.edu/2017/09/25/w...stons-flooding

[Makid]

I don't think the County can implement impact fees, I think that only cities can.

I don't know of any 400'+ towers in the rumor mill. I can say that some plans were scaled back due to the tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico. Time will tell if the lack of tariffs helps to increase heights or not.

[ajiuO]

Rainy days...

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I would have to say I completely agree with you about the reality of the situation. I know there’s plenty of land on the west side of the city. I just have my doubts about that area being a desirable place to live for the money. The opportunity is there, but it will require the proper spark. Patients is the name of the game.

Who wouldn’t love that postcard view of the city and the Wasatch range in the background? But those are the views you’d get if more residential high-rises were built west and south of the CBD

[nushiof]

There is a truck with a large vertical drill-like apparatus attached and three workers setting up on the Carl's Jr. parking lot today.

Possible soil testing?

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by nushiof

There is a truck with a large vertical drill-like apparatus attached and three workers setting up on the Carl's Jr. parking lot today.

Possible soil testing?

Awesome! This site is the best site for a new residential high-rise, IMO.