Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[Justnslcsugarhood.]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

I have not heard anything about this development recently. A clip from an article back in March is about the latest I have.

"The Boyer Co. also is proposing to build an office building to the southwest of the hotel. The 100,000-square-foot building -- the sixth office building at The Gateway -- is expected to open in summer 2009."

I think this is such an awesome development! I think alot of the new gateway developments are really neat, especialy the Symphony.

[urbane]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

That once again those skylines are there because they have the energy business and have had it for a long time.

Oklahoma City as a metro area is smaller than Salt Lake City and as far as a Mega area goes Ogden to Provo via SLC is much larger.

However, they have the energy business because of historic oil history and central location.

Nothing is really going to happen (relative to Calgary and Oklahoma City) in Salt Lake City until there is a tangible reason for it. IE there really is a wealth of energy reserves in Utah but no one is doing anything iabout it beyond talk.

It is talked about and talked about but there are so many realistic possibilities of nothing being done. There really is no comparison between Calgary and Oklahoma City.

CSA wise Salt Lake City is MUCH bigger than Calgary and considerably larger than Oklahoma City. However both Calgary and Oklahoma City have and have had a strong infra-structure in place for decades.

I would love to see SLC become involved in this kind of economic progress but until many things happen this is all Pie in the sky.

Hell...it will take years just to get people to consider oil bearing shale as possible. Then it will take decades through the courts to even be able to start exploration and recovery.

As of this point we do not even have the kind of machinery even in a design stage to make the shale oil a viable and profitable asset.

Calgary and Oklahoma City are working from reality...Right now Salt Lake City is working from hope.

Then again maybe people here have heard things are in motion for something to happen. I would love to hear this.

If there is going to be something happening, I think that a $hit load of permissions are going to have to magically appear.

This is not true, Redleaf is developing and implementing equipment and has rights to public lands. See my reference to this on the "Western Energy Forum". This is not here-say or guesswork but comes from people working on actual projects (Engineers).

[urbane]

Originally Posted by cololi

While mas transit expansion is great, there had to be the money for it. I don't see the state giving SLC any money for anything other than the airport line. SLC cannot afford, without a local bond, to build these facilities. While they may be planned, they are at least 30 years from being constructed unless some other funding source comes about. Unfortunately, downtown population growth will be slow due to the cost of land, the current lending situation, and the lack of suburbanites moving into urban cores. I really think that we will see a bit of a boom every 5-7 years, but those project that haven't started construction yet, are very unlikely to happen now which delays the progression to a critical mass. We also have to define what the critical mass is. We have a huge downtown in terms of land area and the City council continues to insist downtown includes the area between I-15, 700 East and N Temple to 900 South. Way too much land to see a critical concentration of activity.

I am not sure you are correct about the "lack of suburbanites moving to Downtown. I think that there are a lot of facts that show otherwise. Look to previous articles on this thread that refer to many people choosing new homes that are close to work and transit. As long as gas prices continue to stay high you will see Downtown stay healthy and increase residential numbers.

[RFPCME]

NYC Rick: I confused you. What I was trying to say above is that the new central Utah oil field is enormous (at least a billion barrels from the first field). I wasn't talking about oil shale. My speculation about the impact on Salt Lake City is based on development of crude oil, not shale oil.

If you wish, I will get into the details on the Western Energy Forum. It's odd, I'll admit, that I have spent a great deal of the summer touting oil shale development, which will happen, when the crude oil development is taking place right now. I only became aware of the size of the resources after the second field was discovered.

The first field, discovered in 04, has already been drilled and blocked, which is where the 1B barrel estimate comes from. A second field, some 12 miles north of the original field, was discovered this spring, which is where the "proof of concept" comes from. The oil-bearing geology, while part of the greater Overthrust belt, appears unique to Utah, with some potential in Western Wyoming. The differences between the new fields and previous ones in the Overthrust belt are the oil-bearing rock formations. People knew the possibility existed, but it had never been proven before.

It would be interesting to hear from a reader who works directly in oil exploration. I don't, just on the fringes. Hope this helps.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

Also we can aim a little higher than Oklahoma City...that place is....never mind.

Don't worry Rick, I never intended to use Oklahoma City as an example to aim for, just that one building.

[delts145]

Leonardo: Will the city convert or lose its religion?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10296476

Hard to say how The Leonardo's latest plea - both contrite and combative - will play, but it seems clear the museum's new bosses know this is their last chance to rescue a science center at Library Square.

...But architect and board member Allen Roberts argued there is little risk for the city since "95 percent" of the planned improvements are not Leonardo specific.
.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by urbane

I am not sure you are correct about the "lack of suburbanites moving to Downtown. I think that there are a lot of facts that show otherwise. Look to previous articles on this thread that refer to many people choosing new homes that are close to work and transit. As long as gas prices continue to stay high you will see Downtown stay healthy and increase residential numbers.

There is a huge difference in moving closer to work and moving downtown or moving closer to transit. They are not one in the same. The fact is SLC population has decreased since the 2000 census, fromt 181,000 to 178,000 in 2006. This may go up by the official 2010 census, but there are not a significant amount of people moving into SLC at the moment. There are several reasons:
not a lot of desirable residential land available.

Policies that make it almost impossible to add on to an existing home

The perception of the majority of residents outside SLC is that the existing housing stock contains homes that are too small for Utah's large families.

The majority of people do not want to live in an urban environment.

These are realities that many urban planners and people on this board do not want to admit. But with a state that is growing as fast as Utah, with an economy that has not had the same level of decline that other states have had, and a state with annual job growth well above the national average, why has SLC failed to see a population increase?

[delts145]

Much of what you say is true Cololi. There are many reasons for Salt Lake proper's lack of population growth. Those areas of the city, which actually would have room for population expansion have in many ways been shunned by the citizens and politicians alike. We are all well aware of the broken promises made to the West side, only to go unkept. I do think that will start to show some change with Becker at the helm.

Another major reason is the shift of traditionally large families, and also the aging of Eastern Salt Lake City neighborhoods. My cousins remind me constantly of how their once younger and vibrant neighborhood is now much older and without children at home. This however is now changing as many of the elderly have passed on, and are now being replaced by younger couples, who are starting their families. I don't know if these older neighborhood on the east side will ever have the same population as in the 60's though. While homes are once again being occupied by 30 somethings, they are often single professionals, or are not interested in the old norm's of 4 plus children.

Ofcourse, there are many other reasons, and I think we are all just hoping that the shift of generation X toward a more urban mentality, will also have it's affect on Salt Lake City's downtown and city proper.

There really is no reason to think that Salt Lake City proper will show a dramatic population increase, until it develops it's potential on the western and northwestern sector. Downtown and adj. will continue to densify as more condo's and apartment's replace single family dwellings, but this will be a long term development over the next 20 to 50 years.

The only way that Salt Lake City proper would jump dramatically in it's population over the next 10 to 20 years, would be to incorporate the many townships which surround it. Whether entrenched politicians will create scenarios that would encourage that to happen is doubtful.

I do believe that the look and feel of downtown will show dramatic change over the next twenty years, and that will of course show a moderate uptick in population. It just won't be growth of a major proportion, say like 100,000 plus people. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the metro reach it's three million mark in the not to distant future, and still have this beautiful, much more urban, but comparitively small capital of around 230,000 people.

[WASDEN]

So the official census shows a loss of a few thousand residents- big deal. Really would you rather live in the Salt Lake City of 2000 or the Salt Lake City of 2008? I don't know about you guys but even a decade ago there were a lot of locations in the city that I wouldn't set foot in after dark, and today these are some of the swanker/hip neighborhoods. Really considering the recent housing fiasco where you could get twice the living space in the blossoing burbs than you could in the city made sense for a lot of Utah families. I think a slide of only a few thousand people isn't bad, and baffeling if your not thinking about it deep enough. We have all seen condos and apartments sprouting in SLC faster than ever before, but there was a population loss? The reality is that Salt Lake is attracting a different demographic these days- older more established couples, Gen Xers and urbanites that aren't packing 5-6 kids- the bread n' butter of population growth. Really these are the transplants that have helped counter what could have been an even larger population decline. Salt Lake is churning out TONS of housing, its just in a format that is more compatible with people who get around on bikes, transit, and scooters rather than minivans. Growth is coming, just at a more manageable rate.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

So the official census shows a loss of a few thousand residents- big deal. Really would you rather live in the Salt Lake City of 2000 or the Salt Lake City of 2008? I don't know about you guys but even a decade ago there were a lot of locations in the city that I wouldn't set foot in after dark, and today these are some of the swanker/hip neighborhoods. Really considering the recent housing fiasco where you could get twice the living space in the blossoing burbs than you could in the city made sense for a lot of Utah families. I think a slide of only a few thousand people isn't bad, and baffeling if your not thinking about it deep enough. We have all seen condos and apartments sprouting in SLC faster than ever before, but there was a population loss? The reality is that Salt Lake is attracting a different demographic these days- older more established couples, Gen Xers and urbanites that aren't packing 5-6 kids- the bread n' butter of population growth. Really these are the transplants that have helped counter what could have been an even larger population decline. Salt Lake is churning out TONS of housing, its just in a format that is more compatible with people who get around on bikes, transit, and scooters rather than minivans. Growth is coming, just at a more manageable rate.

You are exactly right Wasden, the lower population is most likely due to changes in demographics. Instead of eight people per household we are now seeing smaller families and singles. Urban loving singles college students, gays... all of them moving to downtown and living in spaces that used to house entire families. Suburbia will also help downtown grow as their gen-X children move out on their own... many of them will probably prefer an urban setting as well.

[cololi]

Wasden and DMT,

I agree with you on changing demographics. I would much rather live downtown then the suburbs. But it is a false assumption to think that the majority of people want to live urban. I personally would much rather live in downtown than a suburb, but I choose to live in what I describe as an urban neighborhood, close to downtown with small neighborhood commercial areas, mostly single family homes on small lots where my kids can play in the yard. This type of development is not what the urban care should look like, but it certainly is what should be surrounding the urban core.

I think urban cores can be much better at attracting a more diverse population. Afterall, if the core is predominantly younger, single people or married people with no kids, the diversity that makes a place great suffers and ultimately discourages many people with kids from going downtown due to their incorrect assumptions.

[VelvetElvis]

Great way to make a first post on a SLC forum I know... but the ubiquitous use of "Gen-X" is a pet pieve of mine. "Generation-X" is roughly defined as children of Baby Boomers. -Those born before '77 or so. (A strict cut-off line is unrealistic as there are exceptions but this is where you run into the gray years.) Those born in the late 70's and thereafter are "Gen-Y." The former's influence has been felt for years in urban areas and now the later generation is starting to make some noise as well.
Anyways, I'm done being a smartass... I lived in the "Reinier" a decade or so ago on 2nd S. by the violin shop while going to school at the U. I very much liked SLC. My only complaint was the tired and constant bickering of polar social groups. It really seems to put a strain on the majority of downtown citizens who just enjoy their surroundings. Now I'm living in Idaho Falls after a moderate spell in the midwest. -Never would have dreamed of living here. Only a select group of people even care about a vibrant core here. But those who do are very determined!
I enjoy checking on updates about SLC and have always thought that one of those 2 or 3 story historic buildings on the west side of Main near the Gallivan would be an amazing place to work and live.
Don't want to highjack the thread... Please carry on.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by VelvetElvis

Great way to make a first post on a SLC forum I know... but the ubiquitous use of "Gen-X" is a pet pieve of mine. "Generation-X" is roughly defined as children of Baby Boomers. -Those born before '77 or so. (A strict cut-off line is unrealistic as there are exceptions but this is where you run into the gray years.) Those born in the late 70's and thereafter are "Gen-Y." The former's influence has been felt for years in urban areas and now the later generation is starting to make some noise as well.
Anyways, I'm done being a smartass... I lived in the "Reinier" a decade or so ago on 2nd S. by the violin shop while going to school at the U. I very much liked SLC. My only complaint was the tired and constant bickering of polar social groups. It really seems to put a strain on the majority of downtown citizens who just enjoy their surroundings. Now I'm living in Idaho Falls after a moderate spell in the midwest. -Never would have dreamed of living here. Only a select group of people even care about a vibrant core here. But those who do are very determined!
I enjoy checking on updates about SLC and have always thought that one of those 2 or 3 story historic buildings on the west side of Main near the Gallivan would be an amazing place to work and live.
Don't want to highjack the thread... Please carry on.

VelvetElvis: Welcome to the thread! Anyone with that moniker has to be a great addition.

[T-Mac]

Just got my copy of The Enterprise today nothing really noteworthy to mention from it. Pretty boring week. One of the headlines was an insurance company from Arizona is moving into Salt Lake and Rubio's is looking to open quite a few new restaurants in Utah.

[urbane]

Originally Posted by cololi

There is a huge difference in moving closer to work and moving downtown or moving closer to transit. They are not one in the same. The fact is SLC population has decreased since the 2000 census, fromt 181,000 to 178,000 in 2006. This may go up by the official 2010 census, but there are not a significant amount of people moving into SLC at the moment. There are several reasons:
not a lot of desirable residential land available.

Policies that make it almost impossible to add on to an existing home

The perception of the majority of residents outside SLC is that the existing housing stock contains homes that are too small for Utah's large families.

The majority of people do not want to live in an urban environment.

These are realities that many urban planners and people on this board do not want to admit. But with a state that is growing as fast as Utah, with an economy that has not had the same level of decline that other states have had, and a state with annual job growth well above the national average, why has SLC failed to see a population increase?

The most correct statement in your response is "The perception of the majority of residents outside SLC is that the existing housing stock contains homes that are too small for Utah's large families" The number of people may have decreased by a few thousand but the number of dwelling units as anyone can tell you has increased dramatically. It is true that large families can't or won't live in the smaller homes in SLC. I am sure you will not find a lot of empty homes anywhere in the downtown area. Property values have also increased more in the downtown area than in outlying areas. The demand is definitely high for downtown homes/condos. I have bought and sold three homes in the last nine years all of which sold very quickly and the most recent was about 8 months ago. Talk to some realtors selling homes in Herriman, Eagle Mountain, Woods Cross etc. about how long homes stay on the market. The homes are not big enough for large families but it doesn't mean that they are empty.

The policies regarding additions to homes is to protect the historic and quaint qualities of SLC neighborhoods. The "Monster House" policies also protect adjacent homeowners that may not want a gigantic house that may block their view 2 feet from their property line.

I think we have all made our point rather well. Thank you.

[urbane]

The majority of people do not want to live in an urban environment.



Why would you speculate on what people want?

[Viperlord]

I stumbled across this map on the visistsaltlake.com site... Its kinda interesting it shows everything in relation to the Salt Palace. Gives you a better idea of where the nightlife and hotels really are DT. I hate to see all the hotels bunched at the south end of DT though.



1 Howard Johnson Express Inn
2 The Salt Lake Plaza Hotel
3 Radisson Hotel Downtown
4 Marriott Downtown
5 Shilo Inn
6 Hotel Monaco
7 Marriott City Center
8 Hilton City Center
9 Peery Hotel
10 Homewood Suites
11 Residence Inn by Marriott
12 Courtyard by Marriott
13 Hampton Inn Downtown
14 Crystal Inn Downtown
15 Sheraton City Centre
16 Metropolitan Inn
17 Little America Hotel
18 Grand America Hotel
19 Hilton Garden Inn
20 Royal Garden Inn
21 Embassy Suites
22 Springhill Suites
23 Red Lion Hotel

A Pioneer Memorial Museum
B Utah State Capitol
C Council Hall
D Conference Center
E Museum of Church History & Art
F Family History Library
G Temple Square
H Maurice Abravanel Hall
I Salt Lake Art Center
J City Creek Center
K The Cathedral of the Madeleine
L St. Mark's Cathedral
M Utah Museum of Art and History
N Capitol Theatre
O Gallivan Center Plaza
P Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center
Q Holy Trinity Cathedral
R The Gateway
S Rio Grande Depot
T City & County Building
U Library Square

[Viperlord]

found this cool little then and now photo tour of Downtown Salt Lake... check it out...

http://www.cejohnson.us/gallery.html

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbane

The majority of people do not want to live in an urban environment.

I do believe it's a mix of available housing and afforability versus preference.

I think most of us value space. That said, I'm living in an apartment complex, because it's all I can afford. Someday I'd like to upgrade to a trailer, and eventually a home.

For the time being homes in the suburbs and in the country are cheaper than what you can get in a high-density area part of town. That could someday change as transportation and energy costs skyrocket.

Likewise more available housing downtown could mean more people moving in who like the environment.

But I'd say we need to keep building plenty of both urban and suburban housing. Nobody ever complains about a surplus of housing. It means those on the lower-rungs of the financial food chain get a decent place to live.

[urbane]

Originally Posted by i-215

I do believe it's a mix of available housing and afforability versus preference.

I think most of us value space. That said, I'm living in an apartment complex, because it's all I can afford. Someday I'd like to upgrade to a trailer, and eventually a home.

For the time being homes in the suburbs and in the country are cheaper than what you can get in a high-density area part of town. That could someday change as transportation and energy costs skyrocket.

Likewise more available housing downtown could mean more people moving in who like the environment.

But I'd say we need to keep building plenty of both urban and suburban housing. Nobody ever complains about a surplus of housing. It means those on the lower-rungs of the financial food chain get a decent place to live.

Just to clarify to everyone the statement above is not a quote from me but from cololi.