Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by EPdesign

This is such a sensitive and complex subject. I’m not even educated enough to participate in the conversation.

Same here. I’d be curious if there are cities/governments putting policies into place that address gentrification or if gentrification is just a word to describe a specific reality of the situation. “It is what it is” kinda thing. I figure there might be some rental assistance but beyond that I haven’t heard or know much about it beyond the basics.

[RC14]

I feel like this is just the newest evolution of NIMBYism. If nobody invests in the neighborhood it's racism but if they do it's also racism because we are pricing people out.

[EPdesign]

Per google

gen·tri·fi·ca·tion
/ˌjentrəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing current inhabitants in the process.
"an area undergoing rapid gentrification"
the process of making someone or something more refined, polite, or respectable.
"soccer has undergone gentrification"

[EPdesign]

So it isn’t a race thing but it’s happening predominantly where minorities are present.

But…if this is the case, East salt lake, 400s experienced gentrification first. Now it is happening to the south and west neighborhoods. I guess now those that didn’t have a voice before do and can now be heard more than before. one of my properties is set to have a small hotel built next door and I welcome it…but I also don’t live there. I know my neighbors worry about traffic and safety. It’s not unreasonable to understand. Especially if it increases rent prices

[Utah_Dave]

Am I right in thinking gentrification is predominantly affecting renters the most negatively? Property owners might view it as a mixed bag depending on other views. I get the renters argument. But existing owners is a tougher sell for me to understand? Perhaps it’s just another neighborhood that prices them out of ownership which I get. Basically it’s just a housing price increase for a neighborhood by another name. With negative consequences for renters and people priced out of the market. Correct me if I’m missing something. I always thought it was a glass half empty way to look at a neighborhood improving its value, granted the negative consequences that are always associated with rising prices, whether it’s a poor neighborhood or not. I appreciate the anticipated replies.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by RC14

I feel like this is just the newest evolution of NIMBYism. If nobody invests in the neighborhood it's racism but if they do it's also racism because we are pricing people out.

Def a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I understand people who grew up in an area may want to settle in those areas themselves and then not being able to is maddening (I am living that), and can imagine if you own a home your tax bill could go up quite a bit over the years because of improving areas which would be frustrating.

What is happening is that people in majority-minority areas feel like their communities are disappearing or will soon. This could mean that their elected representatives may change along with the overall feel of the neighborhood. Trust me, even they are both demos, there’s a difference in being represented by Luz Escamilla over Derek Kitchen. They likely feel under-represented now and that their influence will be diluted further.

I’ve only experienced such rapid cultural/racial change once and that was when I lived in SoCal. We had a Buddhist temple go in by where I lived and I’m telling you the neighborhood changed overnight. People from Taiwan would offer millions IN CASH for these houses. I’m LDS and we went from 3 strong wards to 1 in just a few years. The rise in housing prices was too good to pass up and everyone moved out of state. It is now a majority (wealthy) Chinese-ethnic area. It was somewhat upper class before and it’s a mega-rich area now.

What I object to is the racially charged language. I was raised to believe it that multicultural neighborhoods are good, but many anti-gentrifiers are quick to tell certain groups to stay out, often with very race-centric language.

[mstar]

So . . . . . anyone have any development news???

[delts145]

There's a lot of projects in various stages of construction scattered around Salt Lake City that haven't been updated for a while. If your passing by any of them don't forget to snap some shots. Everyone on the forum loves those updates

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by meman

Does anyone on this forum have contacts with Layton construction (the builders of Convexity Tower because there has been no activity at the site for at least 2 weeks. I was just wondering what was going on ? Maybe supply chain issues?

I was told it would be going vertical in February!!

No Building Permit yet. Watch the Citizen Access Portal, and when you see the permit is pulled, you'll know it's imminent.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Dallas Snob

So, riding the bus or riding a bike is white priviledge/racist now? Whats next; walking?

Complain all you want at the smoke. We need to solve the underlying fire:

Until housing policy requires (or even allows) developers to build products which reach all income levels, we're going to create all sorts of weird societal ills.

For instance, "I hate high-density gentrification" --> is not really about density. It's about the fact that the building has a starting price of $1,900 a month with no option to buy. It's about the fact that only 20% of the units are (artificially) "affordable" when the demand in the city is greater than 50% of the market.

So when people complain about weird stuff like "biking is privilege" --> it's not about privilege. It's all about watching the majority of people in the valley get left behind by a housing market which continues to cater to the luxury market again and again.

We can never begin to address homelessness in the city until we address affordable housing.
We can never begin to address affordable housing in the city until we address moderate income housing.
We can never begin to address moderate income housing in the city so long as 100% of the new projects are luxury.

(Sorry to keep getting on this soap box. I'm in my mid-30s and never been able to afford an entire housing unit of my own. Always had to split with family or roommates. And it sucks royally).

[locolife]

Originally Posted by mstar

So . . . . . anyone have any development news???

Crickets…

[RC14]

Originally Posted by i-215

Complain all you want at the smoke. We need to solve the underlying fire:

Until housing policy requires (or even allows) developers to build products which reach all income levels, we're going to create all sorts of weird societal ills.

For instance, "I hate high-density gentrification" --> is not really about density. It's about the fact that the building has a starting price of $1,900 a month with no option to buy. It's about the fact that only 20% of the units are (artificially) "affordable" when the demand in the city is greater than 50% of the market.

So when people complain about weird stuff like "biking is privilege" --> it's not about privilege. It's all about watching the majority of people in the valley get left behind by a housing market which continues to cater to the luxury market again and again.

We can never begin to address homelessness in the city until we address affordable housing.
We can never begin to address affordable housing in the city until we address moderate income housing.
We can never begin to address moderate income housing in the city so long as 100% of the new projects are luxury.

(Sorry to keep getting on this soap box. I'm in my mid-30s and never been able to afford an entire housing unit of my own. Always had to split with family or roommates. And it sucks royally).

I hear this argument often these days but I think it gets cause and effect backwards.
The cost of housing isn't going up because we are building too much luxury housing. The cost of housing is going up because people who can afford luxury housing are pricing out the rest of us. If there isn't enough high end housing, those who make enough money to afford it will be forced to compete for mid market housing and those who are looking for mid market housing will be forced out of the market because they won't qualify for low income and can't afford anything else. This is exactly what is happening. We won't solve this problem by fighting luxury housing. We will solve it by building enough to keep up with demand.

[mstar]

Originally Posted by RC14

I hear this argument often these days but I think it gets cause and effect backwards.
The cost of housing isn't going up because we are building too much luxury housing. The cost of housing is going up because people who can afford luxury housing are pricing out the rest of us. If there isn't enough high end housing, those who make enough money to afford it will be forced to compete for mid market housing and those who are looking for mid market housing will be forced out of the market because they won't qualify for low income and can't afford anything else. This is exactly what is happening. We won't solve this problem by fighting luxury housing. We will solve it by building enough to keep up with demand.

That actually makes sense. Good post RC14!

[rockies]

Originally Posted by RC14

I hear this argument often these days but I think it gets cause and effect backwards.
The cost of housing isn't going up because we are building too much luxury housing. The cost of housing is going up because people who can afford luxury housing are pricing out the rest of us. If there isn't enough high end housing, those who make enough money to afford it will be forced to compete for mid market housing and those who are looking for mid market housing will be forced out of the market because they won't qualify for low income and can't afford anything else. This is exactly what is happening. We won't solve this problem by fighting luxury housing. We will solve it by building enough to keep up with demand.

Couldn't have said it better. There is a substantial amount of research that shows nearby rents fall/stabilize when new market-rate housing units are brought online. Here is the UC Berkeley paper I'm referencing, but there are numerous studies that found this. It also significantly reduced risk of displacement.

I'm not against affordable housing, but requiring developers to include affordable units isn't doing anything to prevent people from needing affordable units in the first place. If anything the west side should push for citywide zoning changes to force development to be more evenly spread out (if that's even possible). They are just kicking the can down the road at this point

[rockies]

Sorry for double post but it looks like demolition might begin soon for the Ivory University Home student housing project replacing that chapel

[Utah_Dave]

I’m not trying to beat a dead horse or drive a topic into the ground but I read this comment on Reddit yesterday about using transit to connect SLC to the university research park. There was a brief mention of studying the negative impacts transit development would have on poorer communities by potential encouraging gentrification. One forum member posted this and it made a lot of sense to me.

“ Trax line would spur gentrification
Thanks for that! What criteria does UTA use though? I'm not directing this at you, but it feels like the focus on displacement/gentrification in SLC is well meaning but wrong-headed. Anything that improves the neighborhood would increase rents, right? Does that mean we shouldn't make any neighborhood investments? Here's Matt Yglesias:
In other words, you could imagine this kind of logic becoming an infinite cycle of bad urban policy. Defund police will lead to more murders? Well, that’s good for housing affordability. Contractors are spending tons of money on giant subway stations for no good reason? Well, that’s good because it creates construction jobs without the gentrification-inducing impact of improving mass transit service.
This is all wrong, wrong, wrong. We simply cannot accept “make sure the neighborhood sucks” as our affordable housing strategy. How do you improve transportation access to a neighborhood without displacing people? You need to expand the housing supply. How do you improve schools without displacing people? You need to expand the housing supply. How do you reduce crime without displacing people? You need to expand the housing supply. How do you improve the retail amenities in Baltimore without displacing people? Well, you need to expand the housing supply!”

It looks like the Reddit poster quoted an official from Baltimore trying to tackle housing prices apparently. I sometimes worry local governments will end up chasing their tail trying solve a problem when sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Anyway, the tribune had another good article about the topic but I’m not a tribune member. I need to work on that.

[Utah_Dave]

^^^^^

I copied that quote from electric_zoomer on Reddit.

[TMoneySLC]

Originally Posted by delts145

TMoney, Did I miss something about the historic Auerbach buildings, or did you mean the Brooks Arcade Facade? I know the original Auerbachs department store did have an ornate facade but was covered over during the '50s or '60s when so many beautiful facades were ruined with the quickly passing trends of the times. Then again it was given a little bit of a positive do-over when it became an office building. The latest office do-over will never equal the original though.

You are very much correct. I was thinking of the Brooks Arcade.

[delts145]

The original Auerbachs Department Store


Its first remodel




Here's the original 1933 Sears Roebuck Department Store on the Southwest corner of Main and 300 So.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

I’m not trying to beat a dead horse or drive a topic into the ground but I read this comment on Reddit yesterday about using transit to connect SLC to the university research park. There was a brief mention of studying the negative impacts transit development would have on poorer communities by potential encouraging gentrification. One forum member posted this and it made a lot of sense to me.

“ Trax line would spur gentrification
Thanks for that! What criteria does UTA use though? I'm not directing this at you, but it feels like the focus on displacement/gentrification in SLC is well meaning but wrong-headed. Anything that improves the neighborhood would increase rents, right? Does that mean we shouldn't make any neighborhood investments? Here's Matt Yglesias:
In other words, you could imagine this kind of logic becoming an infinite cycle of bad urban policy. Defund police will lead to more murders? Well, that’s good for housing affordability. Contractors are spending tons of money on giant subway stations for no good reason? Well, that’s good because it creates construction jobs without the gentrification-inducing impact of improving mass transit service.
This is all wrong, wrong, wrong. We simply cannot accept “make sure the neighborhood sucks” as our affordable housing strategy. How do you improve transportation access to a neighborhood without displacing people? You need to expand the housing supply. How do you improve schools without displacing people? You need to expand the housing supply. How do you reduce crime without displacing people? You need to expand the housing supply. How do you improve the retail amenities in Baltimore without displacing people? Well, you need to expand the housing supply!”

It looks like the Reddit poster quoted an official from Baltimore trying to tackle housing prices apparently. I sometimes worry local governments will end up chasing their tail trying solve a problem when sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. Anyway, the tribune had another good article about the topic but I’m not a tribune member. I need to work on that.

It is important to remember that part of the problem is we aren’t providing services and infrastructure equally enough. Adding some protected bike lanes and reliable transit to an area could spur gentrification because that is not found in many other places. If we were selective on where we paved roads then asphalt would suddenly become a method of gentrification.

While some areas are inherently more desirable, the city and state can still work to have good infrastructure, schools, access to reliable and regular transit. This will make each neighborhood less prone to higher income people flooding in.

Lastly, I agree the answer is and always has been more supply. All citizens by right should be able to step up to the next level of density. ADU’s legal everywhere is a no brainer. All intercity and intracity roads should be zoned for mixed use that allows for mid to high density. ALL those roads should have protected bike lanes, wide sidewalks, great lighting and frequent mass transit.