Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

...

I'm sad that Cyprus will be leaving historic Magna for where it's going...hopefully they'll be able to maintain their roots and connection to it.

...

I’m very mad that Cyprus is leaving the historic part of Magna. Although, there will be new housing around the new Cyprus, it’ll still be on the edge of Magna and almost all of the kids in Magna will have to be bussed to this new location. It’s a bad site.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by delts145

Come'on Orlando, Of course I get it. However, I don't have a problem looking at the long game. Those office parks are being set up so as to become much denser as the land availability dwindles and the growth/economy demands. They will be redeveloped many times over, probably sooner than expected. Parking lots will become parking structures, just as combustion engines will continue to be replaced by much cleaner modes of auto transport, and mass transit will continue to make advances along the Wasatch Front.

I continue to see the Wasatch Front developing at the same level as the new and wiser Los Angeles. I continue to be amazed at how geographically similar Salt Lake City is to Los Angeles. Salt Lake City is learning from L.A.'s past mistakes and copying much of the right directions L.A. is now pursuing..

Probably some of it's just media hype, but the national attention that Seattle and San Francisco have been getting lately for a large variety of negative issues dealing with growth are hardly painting a picture of paradise. The report that I saw this morning made Downtown Seattle look as if its right on the heals of some of San Fran's most egregious challenges, including downtown filth, retail flight, and especially the alarming growth of homelessness. I'm sure that Seattle and hopefully the West Coast in general will meet their own challenges, but there's no need to hype Seattle over Salt Lake City. Many of us prefer Salt Lake. I use to conduct a boat load of business for my parents in Seattle, and there are many cities that I personally would prefer to live in over Seattle. That said, Seattle is a great place, and I'm happy for you that you like it there. Obviously many people do, great for them.

No disrespect Delts, but I am sorry, both of these statements above, tell me that you don't understand what I am getting at. Lehi is not just going to turn all urban pedestrian friendly in a few decades or even later than that. And, that is because the urban plan for a pedestrian friendly & vibrant urban environment has not been set up, except for its old downtown. It's all highways connecting stand-alone offices. There needs to be a plan or framework in place for the developments to follow, and, unfortunately, the plan is based on highways connecting stand-along properties that are not interconnected. Stricter land-use regulations are what help cities to densify and become vibrant. If you don't like Seattle as a model, look at Vancouver, Canada, Portland, Oregon, Calgary, Canada, or any other city with a vibrant downtown. L.A. is now getting one, but is not the right model for SLC to follow. It's way bigger than SLC as you know.

Also, this thinking that we just let sprawl development happen and then it will densify is also bad urban planning. There is endless desert out there for them to continually sprawl outwards, and L.A. is a terrible example. The deterrent that those two real estate guys were using is that Salt Lake City is not where the action is. It's not very vibrant. It's got bums and vacant lots, etc. Guess why downtown SLC still has a lot of blight and vacant lots? because more and more development is being encouraged to be built outside of SLC! because there is a lack of regional framework that controls sprawl and all of these stand-alone developments that encourage greater infrastructure of water, sewage, roads, etc.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by delts145

Come'on Orlando, Of course I get it. However, I don't have a problem looking at the long game. Those office parks are being set up so as to become much denser as the land availability dwindles and the growth/economy demands. ...

They will never be walkable or urban because the infrastructure hasn't been built to accomodate it...no matter how dense it gets.

[RC14]

I find the comments of these real estate brokers enlightening. It is enlightening because it shows that tech companies do want to be downtown, all else being equal.

The question that needs to be answered before I can criticize these brokers is: why do these companies ultimately choose to be in the Sandy-Lehi area "9 times out of 10?" What is the tipping point? Did these brokers just convince them that Lehi is more vibrant than downtown? I doubt it. Or are they just convinced that Utah is so family and outdoor oriented that none of their employees will ever want to work downtown?
Does it have to do with cheap land or excessive building regulations in downtown Salt Lake?
Why would urban oriented companies ultimately choose to locate in Lehi?

[bob rulz]

Tech companies like to locate where other tech companies are. That's probably part of it.

I do feel like we are reaching a tipping point though. The planning of the PoM area has been disastrous and people are starting to take note. All I ever hear - even from people who are not urbanist-oriented - is how bad the traffic has gotten, how poorly-planned it is, etc.

That's why I'm so excited with what's happening at Gateway and with Tower 8 going up. I'm hoping it will spur more tech to seriously consider downtown. I just wish it would've happened sooner - imagine the Adobe campus in downtown SLC.

I wonder if these office parks going up in Lehi will even be occupied in 25 years, or if we will start to see some of them being abandoned as the trend for suburban office parks goes away.

I suppose it's unlikely, but they were not built with long-term sustainability in mind. If these big companies DO leave these buildings forever, they will be essentially useless and they will have no choice but to redevelop. Unfortunately I do agree with the sentiment that it would take decades for the damage to be undone and for there to be any chance of those areas becoming walkable and urban.

[tchild2]

Originally Posted by RC14

I find the comments of these real estate brokers enlightening. It is enlightening because it shows that tech companies do want to be downtown, all else being equal.

The question that needs to be answered before I can criticize these brokers is: why do these companies ultimately choose to be in the Sandy-Lehi area "9 times out of 10?" What is the tipping point? Did these brokers just convince them that Lehi is more vibrant than downtown? I doubt it. Or are they just convinced that Utah is so family and outdoor oriented that none of their employees will ever want to work downtown?
Does it have to do with cheap land or excessive building regulations in downtown Salt Lake?
Why would urban oriented companies ultimately choose to locate in Lehi?

Cost of land, availability of land, proximity to workforce. I work in the thanksgiving point area. I live in Lindon. The last thing I want to do is to commute all the way up to Salt Lake City everyday. Hell no. Nobody living in Utah county wants to commute to SLC. I don't need bars and nightlife. I want quality of life; mountain access, skiing. The Wasatch front has cities all along its mountain range. People want to live where they can have a home, nice backyard for a barbeque and to raise a family. Yes, you lose that hipster, walkable city life, but you gain in other ways.

My commute is barely 15 min, traffic is rarely bad. I don't want to go to a bar after work. I want to go home to my family, strike up a barbeque, go for a jeep ride, head to the mountains for a bike ride, walk in the foothills etc etc.

The area is developing exactly the way that the 2 million people living here want it to and that fit the geography of the area IMO. Utah is a very special place. Once you have been to LA, or San Fran, or New York, you get it.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by tchild2

Cost of land, availability of land, proximity to workforce. I work in the thanksgiving point area. I live in Lindon. The last thing I want to do is to commute all the way up to Salt Lake City everyday. Hell no. Nobody living in Utah county wants to commute to SLC. I don't need bars and nightlife. I want quality of life; mountain access, skiing. The Wasatch front has cities all along its mountain range. People want to live where they can have a home, nice backyard for a barbeque and to raise a family. Yes, you lose that hipster, walkable city life, but you gain in other ways.

My commute is barely 15 min, traffic is rarely bad. I don't want to go to a bar after work. I want to go home to my family, strike up a barbeque, go for a jeep ride, head to the mountains for a bike ride, walk in the foothills etc etc.

The area is developing exactly the way that the 2 million people living here want it to and that fit the geography of the area IMO.

I guess that’s where this topic gets touchy.... we have our group (people like most of us) who love urban cities and development. Then you have the group of people that like and love the low density sprawl, and then you have the other side to all of that, which is, what is actually sustainable.

I understand people in Utah like and prefer the way it’s growing, and there isn’t anything wrong with having a preference. The problem comes when you add in sustainability. One could look at the south and wonder, “why can’t we keep sprawling like this? The south does it just fine.” But I think we often forget that in Salt Lake City’s case, we can’t afford giving up that kind of land to development nor can our air quality. It’s just not good.

Land restrictions in the south is much different than land restrictions here in Utah. Namely, mountains. And were there isn’t mountains here, we have 2 huge lakes. Makes things much more difficult.

Maybe if electric cars where to become far more mainstream it could help slow down the sustainable tipping point... but it can’t stop it, especially if a few more million people are expected to move here in the future. Plus, why do many people love Utah? Because it’s beautiful. Do you really want to keep sprawling forever until you’ve destroyed or built on all of Utah’s landscape that many people here fell in love with?

I get the desire, and it’s easy to say it’s not a problem, especially since the Wasatch Front only has around 2 million. But to keep this place beautiful and clean in the long run we will have to compromise on some stuff. It won’t always be fun nor wanted, but it will be worth it. Especially if you like to breathe clean air.

[tchild2]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I guess that’s where this topic gets touchy.... we have our group (people like most of us) who love urban cities and development. Then you have the group of people that like and love the low density sprawl, and then you have the other side to all of that, which is, what is actually sustainable.

I understand people in Utah like and prefer the way it’s growing, and there isn’t anything wrong with having a preference. The problem comes when you add in sustainability. One could look at the south and wonder, “why can’t we keep sprawling like this? The south does it just fine.” But I think we often forget that in Salt Lake City’s case, we can’t afford giving up that kind of land to development nor can our air quality. It’s just not good.

Well, I love urban areas. I love cities. I love everything skyscrapers just like everyone on this forum. I despise sprawl and the lifeless, devoid-of-culture suburban city-scapes. My comments reflect on how we are now as a car-centric society. My comments reflect the "why" of how development is happening the way it is, not which is more preferable. I see SLC changing so fast. It is on the cusp of being a really vibrant and energetic city like Portland or Denver. Like you, I cheer every time a highrise or midrise goes up in SLC for commercial or residential use. However, I don't want to commute to SLC everyday, nor does anyone else.

Portland, Denver, LA, every larger metro city in the US except for NY has the same growth formula as does SLC: there is a vibrant city core and a helluva lot of sprawl in the burbs surrounding the city.

I guess the only way to get the larger, vibrant city is to get the sprawl that goes with it. Secondly, Utah with its larger LDS population and family oriented workforce values family life and that is not a hipster condo downtown SLC.

I am cheering the growth of SLC with you brother.

[taboubak]

I think alot of would like to see some of the companies setting up shop in Lehi, move downtown and invest in our cities core. However, hopefully some good will come from Lehi's growth. I personally hope that since the growth will bridge the already very small gap between Salt Lake and Utah counties, that the Census bureau changes the definition of our Metro to include the entire Wasatch Front from Ogden to Payson. This would bump our metro population up to about 2.5 million and make our city look more attractive on paper to outside investment. We can be hopeful that eventually we are gonna be forced to urbanize, truly there just isn't much land left to develop, Lehi, Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain, and the Western Salt Lake Valley all have open land left but that should really change fairly quickly.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by tchild2

Well, I love urban areas. I love cities. I love everything skyscrapers just like everyone on this forum. I despise sprawl and the lifeless, devoid-of-culture suburban city-scapes. My comments reflect on how we are now as a car-centric society. My comments reflect the "why" of how development is happening the way it is, not which is more preferable. I see SLC changing so fast. It is on the cusp of being a really vibrant and energetic city like Portland or Denver. Like you, I cheer every time a highrise or midrise goes up in SLC for commercial or residential use. However, I don't want to commute to SLC everyday, nor does anyone else.

Portland, Denver, LA, every larger metro city in the US except for NY has the same growth formula as does SLC: there is a vibrant city core and a helluva lot of sprawl in the burbs surrounding the city.

I guess the only way to get the larger, vibrant city is to get the sprawl that goes with it. Secondly, Utah with its larger LDS population and family oriented workforce values family life and that is not a hipster condo downtown SLC.

I am cheering the growth of SLC with you brother.

Lol this is a perfect example of why people living in the Utah County bubble should have no say in how SLC develops. You love the suburbs. Good. Stay there. To act like people coming from out of state want to live how mormons live in Utah county is absolutely hilarious. Unless you are mormon Salt Lake City is the only livable place in this state. Also, I'm pretty sure the word hipster died in 2014. This forum is about progress. Get with the times or get out of our way.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

Lol this is a perfect example of why people living in the Utah County bubble should have no say in how SLC develops. You love the suburbs. Good. Stay there. To act like people coming from out of state want to live how mormons live in Utah county is absolutely hilarious. Unless you are mormon Salt Lake City is the only livable place in this state. Also, I'm pretty sure the word hipster died in 2014. This forum is about progress. Get with the times or get out of our way.

Speaking of progress I would love to progress to the point where these intolerant and stereotypical comments would be left out of this forum. There are so many problems with your outrageously overly simplistic comments. Stereotyping is not progress.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by tchild2

Cost of land, availability of land, proximity to workforce. I work in the thanksgiving point area. I live in Lindon. The last thing I want to do is to commute all the way up to Salt Lake City everyday. Hell no. Nobody living in Utah county wants to commute to SLC. I don't need bars and nightlife. I want quality of life; mountain access, skiing. The Wasatch front has cities all along its mountain range. People want to live where they can have a home, nice backyard for a barbeque and to raise a family. Yes, you lose that hipster, walkable city life, but you gain in other ways.

My commute is barely 15 min, traffic is rarely bad. I don't want to go to a bar after work. I want to go home to my family, strike up a barbeque, go for a jeep ride, head to the mountains for a bike ride, walk in the foothills etc etc.

The area is developing exactly the way that the 2 million people living here want it to and that fit the geography of the area IMO. Utah is a very special place. Once you have been to LA, or San Fran, or New York, you get it.

The problem is that while this is a desirable life for Mormons, it's not going to attract a lot of people from out of state. Why do you think it is that so many people from out of state are still hesitant to move to Utah? Unless you are a great lover of the outdoors, there is still a stigma surrounding this state, whether fair or not (although sometimes, it's a totally fair stigma).

And a lot of people who work in the tech industry around PoM DO live in downtown Salt Lake City, so that they can be close to those things that you say you don't care about. You may not care about those things, and Mormons may not care about those things, but by and large, many people do, and until Utah makes a conscious effort to bring tech to downtown and liberalizes their alcohol laws, Utah is still always going to attract hesitancy from people moving from out of state. If I was considering moving out of state (which I'm not at the moment) then I would be consciously looking for downtown or near-downtown locations in other cities.

You (and I don't know for sure if you're Mormon, but if you're not, then you share their desires) may not care about it, but you are not everybody. You may not even be the majority in out-of-state areas.

If you worked in downtown SLC, you could still go home to your families and have backyard barbecues pretty close to downtown. And frankly even if I had a family, I wouldn't want to live way out in the suburbs.

Also, this "hipster" thing about walkable communities, is part of the problem. Why are walkable communities considered hipster? When did we lose"walkable" as being a standard for a community? It's not something that should be stigmatized with stupid words like "hipster". I know that you are a supporter of this urbanization, but defining walkable communities like they're "other" or "different" doesn't help the discourse.

As for contrasting "quality of life" with "bars and nightlife", for many people that is part of quality of life. Those are not separate for many people and I would be curious to know how you think they are separate.

Thing is, if you live in Salt Lake City, you're still close to the mountains, AND you can have the bars and nightlife and walkable communities. I know many people who desire all of those things - I am just one of many.

Final comment (I know this post is a mess), is that you can still have office parks that aren't nearly as unsustainable and messy as this awful development that's happening at the PoM. It is possible to have something that finds a good middle ground between these two desires.

[wrendog]

Wanting to live in the suburbs is not just a mormon thing. What in the world?

[UV4EVER]

I was in down town last night and there is definitely a lot going on and a lot of new housing. I'll be curious to see the census numbers come 2020.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Wanting to live in the suburbs is not just a mormon thing. What in the world?

Well, I never said it was. But also in Utah, suburban lifestyles and Mormons do kind of go hand-in-hand. Mormons definitely disproportionately prefer the suburban lifestyle and don't care about nightlife. I figured it didn't have to be said that Mormons aren't the only ones that want a suburban lifestyle, that's implicit. What I'm saying is that there are tons of people moving from out of town that are going to be looking for things beyond what tchild described, and that having a strong urban core with good nightlife is a huge draw for people from out of state.

I never meant to make it sound like non-Mormons don't like suburban lifestyles, just that Lehi is not exactly an appealing place that attracts a lot of people. Ultimately people go where the jobs are....but even more people go where the jobs are if those jobs are in more exciting and vibrant locations. Like downtown SLC (at least compared to Lehi).

[Sight-Seer]

I'm always bothered when people say things like "the 2 million people who live here all want the same things." I think to say that authoritatively and factually, you'd have to interview all of them. I live here and I don't want a suburban lifestyle. That's at least one. Another thing that bothers me is a favorite saying around here: "If you don't like it leave it." For the Utah economy to grow and thrive you need people from other states with new ideas.

[tchild2]

Originally Posted by Sight-Seer

I'm always bothered when people say things like "the 2 million people who live here all want the same things." I think to say that authoritatively and factually, you'd have to interview all of them. I live here and I don't want a suburban lifestyle. That's at least one. Another thing that bothers me is a favorite saying around here: "If you don't like it leave it." For the Utah economy to grow and thrive you need people from other states with new ideas.

Except, no one said that. my statement was" The area is developing exactly the way that the 2 million people living here want it to"

Meaning, SLC is developing with new downtown residential buildings because that is the way 2 million living here want it (demand) . The Wasatch is growing its commercial zones in nodes all along the WF...because that is the way 2 million people want it (demand).

The collective is determining how growth occurs along the WF...Urban living, suburban living etc. etc. It is all demand driven, nothing more.

Arguing for a certain type of urbanization and growth is productive and enjoyable, but explaining what is actually occuring is something else.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by tchild2

Except, no one said that. my statement was" The area is developing exactly the way that the 2 million people living here want it to"

Meaning, SLC is developing with new residential buildings because that is the way 2 million living here want it. The Wasatch is growing its commercial zones in nodes all along the WF...because that is the way 2 million people want it.

The collective is determining how growth occurs along the WF...Urban living, suburban living etc. etc. It is all demand driven, nothing more.

No, there are a very small number of developers who pretty much determine the ways in which SLC develops with little to no input from residents or even government.

[tchild2]

Originally Posted by Stenar

No, there are a very small number of developers who pretty much determine the ways in which SLC develops with little to no input from residents or even government.

Developers are always beholden to local city planning and zoning for their developments. Local city may cave, but they ultimately dictate growth in their respective cities.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by tchild2

Developers are always beholden to local city planning and zoning for their developments. Local city may cave, but they ultimately dictate growth in their respective cities.

Cities set zoning rules and then 9 times out of 10 when a developer asks to rezone, they allow it. So, they have little input, in actuality... which is a large part of why SLC is developing into a mess like L.A.