Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanboy
The sum of all levels of office space in office buildings at the Cottonwood Corporate Center (business park), including this new proposal, equals 87. So basically, this business park could have been either one 87 story tower in downtown, two 43 story towers in downtown, three 29 story towers in downtown, four 22 story towers in downtown, and so on.
And that is just the Cottonwood Corporate Center. Currently, Sandy is at 89.
|
Don't forget Jordan Landing! It has 2 million square feet of residential, commercial, and retail. If one level is 5,000 square feet, that's 400 stories!!
It is important to note that most of Jordan Landing is retail that would not exist had it been built down town. Just talking office space, Jordan Landing has about 30 stories worth. It is also important to note that the busineses that own these buildings would not have simply went down town instead had this particular development not been built. They probably chose Jordan Landing due to it's close proximity to a small airport, cost of land, demographic, city incentives, etc. They may have not opened in the SLC area at all, but did so because Jordan Landing won them over. I'm sure that other areas of the valley are the same. The busineses that built buildings in Sandy, West Valley, Fort Union, etc. may have chosen those locations for certain reasons that down town could not provide.
It's the rule of the market. Some companies choose down town because it is an ideal location for them. Some companies choose suburban locations because those are ideal. If we didn't have these developments, we would have a good number of busineses that would not expand into the SLC area market at all because it is not what they are looking for. I like to think of it as providing many options for companies so that the metro as a whole can attract a wide range of busineses and companies that it would not be able to attract with just one commercial center.
SLC needs to agressively attract companies that would thrive in a down town market. Suburban centers need to attract companies that would thrive in a suburban location. This is how a metro develops.
Think of SLC as being a Target and the suburbs as being an Albertsons. Both of these stores can succeed next to each other because they have different draws. People would go to Target to buy some clothes and CD's, but will still go to Albertsons for baked goods and produce. Then, there is a "cross-over zone" where the two stores compete. For example, if someone wanted milk and ceareal, they could get them at either store. The store then needs to provide an incentive for the shopper to purchase it at their store. The loosing store will still be fine, because it has a market base that doesn't compete with the other store. Just because down town looses some companies to the suburbs that could have gone down town doesn't mean it will suffer because it will still draw others that the suburbs would not be able to compete for. A problem arises when one store begins to over power the other. If Target suddenly starts to sell produce and opens a bakery, then the Albersons will begin to suffer. If down town took all the buildings from Ft Union and Sandy, then the suburbs would begin to suffer. Or, if the Wells Fargo building went to West Valley, then SLC would suffer. If Sandy were to build a 30 story tower at this particular time, then it would be a blow to SLC. Yes, I know I support this project, but I think it would still be ok if it were shaved down to a height around 10-15 stories. There just needs to be a balance and both can do just fine. Remember that both stores can actually help each other too. They will both draw shoppers that can do business at both stores (some Target shoppers would not have gone to Albertsons had it not been near Target and vice versa).
Just remember that issues like these are so much more complex than we may think. We can't just make over-simplified assumptions, but, rather, consider the complex details.
Prev
It's one thing to offer constructive criticism and express what you feel is wrong with a project in your opinion, but it's another to just bitch about it. I'm not necessarily talking about people on this forum, but just the general attitude I encounter in general (which I tend to also encounter on here on occasion). I often hear muttered comments like "the suburbs are wasting all of our energy with their new houses and air conditioners." This statement isn't even necessarily true. New homes have much greater insulation and are usually built to Energy Star standards. If anything, they use less energy. Then there's the fact that almost everytime I hear people from SLC talk about the suburbs, they talk about them as they were 20 years ago. Then there's the time I was talking to someone and they asked, "You're from West Valley, right?" And I replied, "No, I'm from West Jordan." Then they laughed and said, "Ehh, same thing." Excuse me? They most certainly are not the same at all. Thats like me going up to someone from Sugar House and asking "So you're from South Salt Lake, right?" and then going "Yeah....same thing." Come on, getting a little cultural perspective never hurt anyone. Come out and visit the suburbs for once, then we'll talk (not you, I'm talking about these morons I run into every now and then). Anyways, sorry I got frustrated, but I stand by my rant 
Then just down the street from that I notice there is a new 4-story office building. 
Linear Mode
