Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Reeder113]

.

[Boz]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

.

[EPdesign]

Hahahahaha

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Some new info and photos of the Astra site from u/Nathan96762 on the subreddit

There's an SLC Development subreddit? Why am I just learning this?

Well guys, it's been a great 18 years....
jk

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by i-215

There's an SLC Development subreddit? Why am I just learning this?

Well guys, it's been a great 18 years....
jk

Lol. I slum in both forums. Both are great, but Skyscraper page is forever the OG

[Utah_Dave]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Agreed. Any community location that limits other cultural uses should be subject to Conditional Use limitations as they affect real economics of everything around them.

Well said Marvland. You would think an urban environment and the nature of urban density would reduce the restrictions of bars and clubs proximity to churches. It’s not my torch to carry but is this restriction a big problem in downtown? It would be interesting to see a map of downtown with the restricted areas for bars highlighted. It’s probably just one of many zoning issues that need to be addressed, along with liquor licenses.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Well said Marvland. You would think an urban environment and the nature of urban density would reduce the restrictions of bars and clubs proximity to churches. It’s not my torch to carry but is this restriction a big problem in downtown? It would be interesting to see a map of downtown with the restricted areas for bars highlighted. It’s probably just one of many zoning issues that need to be addressed, along with liquor licenses.

As someone who owns two bars I’ll just say commercial real estate is like finding a needle in a haystack for our property use. Besides proximity issues to churches, schools, parks, libraries, etc. D1 is the only zone you don’t have to go through a lengthy conditional use process that invites any nimby in a 300 foot range the opportunity to simply say no to your project. On top of that a lot of zoning also limits the size of your establishment. Jump through all those hoops then sign a lease. Jump through SLC building and permit hoops and then finally get to hope and pray a liquor license is available once you project is finished (they will not issue a liquor license to you until construction is complete). It’s a miracle anyone manages to make it happen. Meanwhile people moving to Utah from out of state wonder why there aren’t any good neighborhood bars. Lol.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by JAMESEY271975

No offense mate, and I'm all for development but your "a few more townhomes" comment is laughable. I've lived in Sugarhouse for 15 years -- have you seen the number of huge new apartment developments in the area in the last 5 years?

And it cracks me up how folks love calling other groups of people NIMBYs. That was thrown around when Sugarhouse objected to another homeless shelter in the middle of residential homes when crime in district 5 has risen exponentially compared to places like Utah county etc. Those areas, of course, wouldn't approve of a homeless shelter near them for love or money. I recall the mayor of one of those areas volunteering to build a shelter and said mayor was bombarded with outrage from the same folks who call Sugarhouse residents NIMBYs -- as they head off to church. The irony.

What, you think I'm new to Salt Lake City and Sugarhouse? Big talk from someone with 4 posts, the other 3 of which were over 6 years ago.

Yes, I have seen the number of apartment developments in the last 5 years. I am, in fact, not blind. And yes, there were literally dozens of comments opposing the construction of FIVE townhomes. You better believe I am going to call those people NIMBYs. They care about nothing but preserving the exclusivity of their neighborhood, and the property value of their homes - which, ironically, has exploded as those thousands of apartment units that supposedly ruin neighborhoods have come in. They get rich by sitting on their laurels and getting mad at the changing city around them. They got what they wanted, and now they want to prevent others from getting the same opportunities they've had. I have little patience for them.

My post has nothing to do with that homeless shelter. I made no reference or inference to my opinion on it, but that's a nice straw man.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

Thanks.

Yeah, it's really unknown at this point - it really depends on how quickly the supply chain issues can be resolved in the US economy, cause this has been causing insane delays up and down the housing market.

That said, here is how I got my numbers.

By my current count, there are:
7,534 residential units under construction in Salt Lake City.
13,484 residential units are planned in Salt Lake City.
A total of 21,018 units planned or under construction, which is insane!

For perspective of rapid growth of projects in the city, back in February 2021 we were at 5,841 units under construction and 8,576 units planned for a total of 14,417 units
Thats up a total of 6,601 units from just 10 months ago, not including all the projects that have completed throughout this year.



This year (2021) we have seen the completion of nearly 2,500 units.
Next year (2022) around 5,200 to 5,600 units are scheduled to complete.
In 2023 that will rise again to 6,000 and appears to peak in 2024 with around 6,500 units scheduled to complete.

In the chart below, I thought I would extrapolate out the 2030 population based on if we can continue building at the currently planned 2024 completion rate of around 6,500 units.

It is important to note that this may or may not happen. This year we have had insane levels of delays that has pushed thousands of units down the development schedule into 2022 and 2023. Its hard to say if we will see further delays or project cancellations. Supporting 6,500 unit annual completion has never been done before and it may prove to be too difficult for our current labor pool to be able to support (resulting in more delays).



The chart above shows how the construction of these units may impact the population, depending on the number of people per unit.

By my guess, the population growth will be somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 people per unit, likely close to 1.60 to 1.65 people per unit.

Here is my reasoning:
A majority of housing units getting built lately are studio or 1-bedroom units. These are designed for either a single individual or a couple so they will likely be below 1.5 people per unit, but not quite 1.0 either, since couples will raise that average.
2-bedroom+ units will likely have at or above a 2 person average, since many people in these units are couples, small families, or have roomates.

This means it is likely the overall average people per unit is somewhere close to the middle of 1 and 2 people each.

Assuming we can meet and maintain the 6,500 units a year after 2024, 1.5 people per unit (the middle section of the chart) would increase Salt Lake City's population from 200,831 in 2020 to 290,081 people in 2030.

Salt Lake's population will also see a bump next year with the completion of the prison, which will be a 1-time boost to the city's census population for 2030 of a couple thousand people.

Again this all depends on if the supply chain issues can be resolved in the upcoming year and if buildings actually start completing on or closer to on-schedule.




All that said, I think 250,000 is more a floor than a ceiling for the 2030 population.

Let's say next year (2022) we fail to complete the 5,200-5,600 units that are currently planned to complete and build only 5,000 units. Lets go further and say that is where construction peaks and we maintain 5,000 units a year for the rest of the decade.

With 1.5 people per unit, the population would be approximately: 272,081 people by 2030

So I'd say 270,000 by 2030 is a good conservative estimate, barring of course an unexpected collapse in construction, the economy, or society.
We will know more in the next 2 years on how the rest of the decade is likely to play out based on if we see the expected jumps in annual residential unit completions or if we just see more delays.

While I love the optimism of your numbers, what projections like this don't take into account is that a likely not insignificant chunk of people who move into the new apartments are already residents of the city upgrading their living situations, whether it be children aging out of their parents' homes, U of U students graduating and taking local jobs, people in older apartments moving into new ones, etc. They will not all be new residents.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

While I love the optimism of your numbers, what projections like this don't take into account is that a likely not insignificant chunk of people who move into the new apartments are already residents of the city upgrading their living situations, whether it be children aging out of their parents' homes, U of U students graduating and taking local jobs, people in older apartments moving into new ones, etc. They will not all be new residents.

Some interesting points bob rulz. However, I disagree on the significances of the scenarios you brought up.

Scenario 1: upgrading living situations - children aging out

Some young people may indeed be residing in their parents house and may be ready to live on their own. However, this is likely a very small amount. I say this because in large part, few young people today have the financial ability or the need to vacate their current residence, especially just to move into another residence within Salt Lake City. Some will, obviously. Most, especially if their work is also in Salt Lake City, would rather stay inexpensively or rent free with family rather than pay $1,500+ a month for a studio apartment just a mile or two from the home where they already live. The economics for it just isn't there - especially these days with rent prices skyrocketing.

Again, a few will (especially those that are upper middle or upper class) as a way to assert independence or whatnot. Most, however, will either not leave their current housing arrangement or move to less expensive cities and commute. So I'd say this scenario may account for maybe a couple hundred to a thousand units over the course of a decade. It definitely is not going to be really significant.

Scenario 2: U of U graduates

The benefit of university students is that every time one graduates and moves out of student housing, another one conveniently moves in the next fall. This alone makes the net loss 0 for population.

If anything, the U of U has been constantly in a state of growth over time, meaning the number of students attending and people working there is consistently going up.

It should also be noted that the U of U is planning multiple student housing projects that will add thousands of additional student housing units in the coming years that I have not included in my unit development counts.

Here is some of the stuff they have planned or starting construction right now:

Impact, Health, & Prosperity Epicenter
Website: https://pdc.utah.edu/projects/impact...ity-epicenter/
Units: 575 beds
Construction is expected to begin in 2022, and The Impact, Health, & Prosperity Epicenter will open for student move-in Fall of 2024



Family and Graduate Housing Replacement in the West Village
Website: https://pdc.utah.edu/projects/west-village/
Units: 504 new apartments - meant for families (so more people)
Note: some units are being replaced, so total unit gain is less than than 504.

Construction began Fall 2021 and will complete in Summer 2023





Research Park Redesign Plan
SL Trib article: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/06/...kable-amenity/
Units: as many as 8,550 new apartments and townhomes built in the park over the next two decades, much of it clustered on its southern end.
Project in planning stages. Again, full implementation over the next 1 to 2 decades.





This doesn't include whatever the U has planned for their Station Center 'Innovation District' downtown as well.

So overall, the University of Utah will actually be a source of population growth over the coming decades rather than decline.

Scenario 3: Elderly moving from one home to another
Again, similar to the previous scenario, any household moving from one place to another is going to be replaced by new residents. So an elderly person selling their house and moving into assisted living, for example, will still have the new residents of their old home moving in. So net loss should still be 0, if not positive growth if an elderly person or couple is being replaced by a family.


So all said, I don't think these scenarios will have any particularly negative impact on the future of Salt Lake City's population growth. At least that's how I see it anyways.

[bob rulz]

Just a quick response to your points:

First point about children aging out - I know very few people who would choose to stay with their parents when they reach a certain age or get their careers started. Some may stay out of financial necessity, but most will still find a way to move out, even if it's not very far away.

You make a good point with the U of U. I think that's probably the least impactful of what I mentioned.

I think you misinterpreted me on the 3rd point. I didn't mean elderly people moving - I think that's a very neglibible impact on population. I meant that often when a new apartment goes up, those who can afford them will move from older, less desirable apartments, most of which are in Salt Lake City. So people moving within the city I would imagine are actually a somewhat significant chunk of people who are inhabiting new apartments. They may be marketed to out of state workers that are relocating, but plenty of locals will still inhabit those apartments. Of course, I don't know the numbers, and I don't know if anybody does, but people move within cities all the time.

I still say 250,000 is the upper limit of what Salt Lake City will achieve by 2030, especially since the 2020 numbers were already a bit lower than what I think a lot of people were expecting. That said, residential construction is obviously accelerating. I imagine there will come a peak sometime in the 2020s, but I don't see the residential boom in Salt Lake City slowing down any time soon, so I do think Salt Lake will see pretty substantial growth this decade.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Just a quick response to your points:

First point about children aging out - I know very few people who would choose to stay with their parents when they reach a certain age or get their careers started. Some may stay out of financial necessity, but most will still find a way to move out, even if it's not very far away.

You make a good point with the U of U. I think that's probably the least impactful of what I mentioned.

I think you misinterpreted me on the 3rd point. I didn't mean elderly people moving - I think that's a very neglibible impact on population. I meant that often when a new apartment goes up, those who can afford them will move from older, less desirable apartments, most of which are in Salt Lake City. So people moving within the city I would imagine are actually a somewhat significant chunk of people who are inhabiting new apartments. They may be marketed to out of state workers that are relocating, but plenty of locals will still inhabit those apartments. Of course, I don't know the numbers, and I don't know if anybody does, but people move within cities all the time.

I still say 250,000 is the upper limit of what Salt Lake City will achieve by 2030, especially since the 2020 numbers were already a bit lower than what I think a lot of people were expecting. That said, residential construction is obviously accelerating. I imagine there will come a peak sometime in the 2020s, but I don't see the residential boom in Salt Lake City slowing down any time soon, so I do think Salt Lake will see pretty substantial growth this decade.

Thanks for that clarification bob rulz.

Some additional thoughts.

Prior to the pandemic, we were seeing unit completion rates hovering at around 2,100 a year. In 2020 that dropped to a completion rate of just 847. So this year was more of a return to the 'normal' level of construction boom that we were experiencing in the second half of the 2010s. If we continue at that rate into the future, I'd say your perspective of 250,000 being the ceiling is more accurate - and that would fit with the past levels of growth.

This is why I think the next year or so will be the real 'tell' on future population growth. If we see the currently slated completion of around 5,000+ units in 2022 (double this year's rate) and that becomes the 'new normal', then I'd say the 270,000 to 300,000 people by 2030 becomes not only likely but basically inevitable for the reasons I stated in that long chart post.

Again, if we see unit completion growth stagnate at or near current (and pre-pandemic) levels of around 2,500 units a year than around 240,000-250,000 would indeed be more realistic. I just think that is extremely unlikely to happen. Obviously barring a major collapse in the global trade and supply chain systems.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

What, you think I'm new to Salt Lake City and Sugarhouse? Big talk from someone with 4 posts, the other 3 of which were over 6 years ago.

Yes, I have seen the number of apartment developments in the last 5 years. I am, in fact, not blind. And yes, there were literally dozens of comments opposing the construction of FIVE townhomes. You better believe I am going to call those people NIMBYs. They care about nothing but preserving the exclusivity of their neighborhood, and the property value of their homes - which, ironically, has exploded as those thousands of apartment units that supposedly ruin neighborhoods have come in. They get rich by sitting on their laurels and getting mad at the changing city around them. They got what they wanted, and now they want to prevent others from getting the same opportunities they've had. I have little patience for them.

My post has nothing to do with that homeless shelter. I made no reference or inference to my opinion on it, but that's a nice straw man.

Lol, I don’t know why his number of posts is a relevant point of criticism. I agree that those who opposed the townhomes were behaving as NIMBY’s. I assume the original poster may have been part of the opposition considering his response. With that said, I think his point is fair, in a sense, with how drastically SH is changing. It is natural for current property owners to worry about what impacts it will have, especially when they see the look of the city change so fast. While densifying is and should be the natural course of urban town centers, I am sure for many the change is so fast it is hard to accept. Density can bring extra crime and of course traffic if not done right. With proper transit support and planning, though, SH will get even more desirable as the urban dynamic develops.

[delts145]

I have to laugh a little. I'm curious as to what happened to that art installation on the Walker Parking Garage wall? I remember everybody seemed to hate it. How long did it last and what's some of the gossip about taking it down so soon? I'm wondering if it wasn't deemed a big safety hazard during a wind event.

Great to see so much going on at the Astra site, and thanks for posting those Atlas. I can hardly wait until the steel starts to rise! For me, Astra represents a pivotal moment in downtown's highrise progress.

Originally Posted by Atlas

Some new info and photos of the Astra site from u/Nathan96762 on the subreddit:

.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

Lol, I don’t know why his number of posts is a relevant point of criticism. I agree that those who opposed the townhomes were behaving as NIMBY’s. I assume the original poster may have been part of the opposition considering his response. With that said, I think his point is fair, in a sense, with how drastically SH is changing. It is natural for current property owners to worry about what impacts it will have, especially when they see the look of the city change so fast. While densifying is and should be the natural course of urban town centers, I am sure for many the change is so fast it is hard to accept. Density can bring extra crime and of course traffic if not done right. With proper transit support and planning, though, SH will get even more desirable as the urban dynamic develops.

The only reason I bring up his number of posts is because he's not a regular and comes in and makes assumptions about my opinions and my experiences. I seem to have triggered something with my response. I absolutely welcome new voices here, but he doesn't seem interested in providing his voice, it just seems I hit a personal nerve.

Yes I can understand why long-term residents might be overwhelmed by the rapid pace of change in Sugarhouse. I grew up in Sugarhouse but I left shortly before the current boom, and yeah, it's barely recognizable compared to what it used to be. I personally don't consider it a bad thing, but I do get why others might have different opinions on it.

My issue is that they heavily opposed this development that was literally only five townhomes. It's not a huge apartment complex, and it would provide rare for-sale options for new homeowners or families. Five townhomes would add very minimal traffic and have nearly no negative impact on the community, so it's frustrating that so many people conflate it with the greater level of development occurring in Sugarhouse, and it's annoying that the planning commission only seems to be willing to go against small projects on the east side that all the rich homeowners are up in arms against.

The people opposing developments like this were mostly lucky enough to move into the neighborhood at a time when it was affordable for most people. Now they want to block others from having the same opportunities. As a young person who eventually would like to own a home, ideally in Salt Lake City, it's incredibly frustrating that this mentality is so overwhelming and influential in neighborhoods such as this.

I'm sure you don't disagree with what I'm saying, but I guess the above poster hit a bit of a nerve for me as well.

[Atlas]

The U posted a pretty cool image looking down 200 S after the snow this morning:

[Reeder113]

Salt Lake City to require all new city-funded buildings to be more 'climate-friendly.'

https://www.ksl.com/article/50312373...imate-friendly

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Utah_Dave

Well said Marvland. You would think an urban environment and the nature of urban density would reduce the restrictions of bars and clubs proximity to churches. It’s not my torch to carry but is this restriction a big problem in downtown? It would be interesting to see a map of downtown with the restricted areas for bars highlighted. It’s probably just one of many zoning issues that need to be addressed, along with liquor licenses.

Utah Dave, it is a HUGE issue especially with the new crop of big-city type investments like Post, EVO, Industry, Brinshore et al. These all by design have major amenity upgrades over developments we've seen historically. In short, if you are doing a diverse site development you NEED great food and beverage. Hell to be a proper city, you need great food and beverage. I, along with a few other on this forum, have done lots of work on the hill. When we talk to the legislature, who ironically are all brokers and developers, they look at us like we are the devil profiting on people devilish addiction to alcohol. We have been reaching out directly to developers to amplify these issues. We will see if anybody wants to take this seriously. Because we have something like 250,000 squared feet of retail coming on line downtown. You cannot fill those spaces with Blue Lemons, Teddy Bear stores, Deseret Books and R&R BBQs. These developers aren't the asshat grey hairs from Davis County trying to score a sweet heart Chipolte deal, they need world class amenities. F&B is not a luxury, it is literally a cornerstone cultural amenity. If SLC wants to truly emerge as a world city, this stuff matters. SLC Corp and our new development blood needs to be very aggressive on the hill but they never do anything. Thus far, the Silicon Slopes PAC looks like a lobbying effort for tax favors. I've lost a lot of respect for that group. I hope they surprise me.

Edit: also, I would say that at least 50% of our available building stock is affected by these stupid proximity regs.

[rockies]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

NIMBYs. Look at all of the public comments at the end of that document. That area of Sugarhouse is full of NIMBYs who are convinced that a few more townhomes are going to make the neighborhood unlivable. The Sugar House Community Council was also opposed to it.

Not sure if this has been mentioned here yet and I presume it was mentioned in the meeting, but I asked the planning commission about this decision and I was told the project has been downsized to 3 townhomes and will maintain the same height and footprint. That doesn't really make sense to me... why would they decrease the amount of units while keeping the 'unfavorable' large size?

On another note, it's awesome to see the U growing and expanding so aggressively. A lot of similar sized metros in the middle of no where really seem to lack the institutional wealth that SLC has.

[Utah_Dave]

Thanks for the perspective Marvland. The obstacles and barriers to liquor licenses and zoning really need to be revisited sooner then later. I always enjoy hearing from those involved in the community like you fellas. Can we get Hatman on this one also?