Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[TheGeographer]

Speaking of visiting and touring downtowns. Does anyone else zoom around in the mobile google earth app? It’s pretty sweet. The level of detail is impressive and it’s pretty up to date. I’d say it’s usually 6 months behind or so. I’d recommend checking it out. The level of infill in SLC has been impressive and zooming around in google earth is probably the best way to see the scope of downtowns. Even better than the drone videos since you can zoom in and out from any angle or direction.

Phoenix has a ton of buildings in the 200-400 ft range! They have that Atlanta feel with the buildings stretching out to another cluster of tall buildings outside the main downtown. If they can continue to infill in between and adds few taller buildings it could be quite an impressive skyline one day.

[Comrade]

Phoenix is also much bigger than Salt Lake.

Again, I think we need to define who SLC's peer cities are because we can't expect to compete with the Denvers, Seattles and Phoenixes of the world. We're just not anywhere near that level of size.

In terms of metro, we're more aligned with Memphis, who I think Salt Lake is outpacing. But Memphis is also a second city in Tennessee (to Nashville), whereas Salt Lake is the lone decent-sized city in the state. So, even then the comparisons aren't completely accurate.

You also run into this issue with the Oklahoma cities, OKC and Tulsa, which are similar to SLC's metro size.

In fact, Salt Lake's maybe one of the most unique situations overall in the sense that it's the only real urban center in the state (unique to our peers, not necessarily overall) - as even Nevada has Reno.

I guess the best example is probably Milwaukee and Wisconsin. They've got the urban center of Milwaukee (metro 1,559,792 to SLC's 1,266,191), plus smaller metros that are probably more aligned with Provo and Ogden (Madison, and Green Bay).

Their breakdown recently of buildings over 300 feet:

2020s: 2 (BMO Harris Financial Center, 335 ft and The Couture, which is under construction and is set to be 537 feet)
2010s: 4 (tallest was 550 feet)

There are a few towers planned to break ground this year but I didn't include 'em. Regardless, currently, like with Portland, SLC is outpacing Milwaukee this decade but last decade, Milwaukee absolutely outpaced SLC - including the construction of one 500 footer (and now have a new 500 footer being built right now).

So, here's an example of a city with a similar population (metro) that is absolutely exceeding Salt Lake in height.

Once that uc tower is finished, they'll have four towers over 500 feet (with one over 600 feet - their tallest).

What does that mean? I don't know - it just means that yeah, we're doing okay keeping up in terms of towers over 300 feet but in overall height, we're still not there yet.

And that's doing a 1:1 comparison with metro areas - move it up to CSA numbers and Salt Lake absolutely is lacking.

[Makid]

1 large item that is holding SLC back in high rise development is the availability of labor. We have multiple labor intensive projects just within the city. The 3 largest non-high rise projects are, Airport redevelopment, Temple Square redevelopment, and State Legislature office complex. There are also numerous projects at the U that reduce the amount of available workers.

The amount of 5 over 1 or 2's does have an impact in the availability of trade workers (electrical, plumbing, etc.) as projects in SLC compete against projects throughout the Wasatch Front.

There are projects going up all along the Wasatch Front and particularly in the SL Valley. The number of projects and the number large, non-high rise, projects increases the overall costs of the various projects. Personnel, equipment, and supplies all drive costs.

The next big issue is something that the State has wanted to fix for a while, how the population is counted.

Just look at the breakdown (numbers are approximate):

City: 200K
MSA: 1.5 Million
CSA: 2.7 Million

We know that many companies don't use CSA when looking at expansions or corporate moves. Companies primarily use MSA or City populations and estimates.

In SLC alone, there are approximately 12,000 residential units in the various stages from construction to planning. This is before adding in the Mayor's desire for an additional 10,000 affordable units. There is another 12,000 - 15,000 units spread across SL County. The vast majority of apartment construction along the Wasatch Front is happening in SL County. With nearly 50% happening in SLC itself.

Using just MSA population could cause a loan officer to pad the interest rate a bit more than a project in a similar situation but with an MSA of 2.7 Million. Those little increases make it harder for projects to pencil out.

The last issue is the zoning requirements, particularly parking. This is an area that SLC has been working and where it also has some advantages over other, similarly sized cities.

SLC has groceries downtown and a very strong transit network. These can help reduce the need for parking within a project, which can help to offset some of the other costs and improve profitability.

Overall though, I think SLC will push through to the next level this decade. We are seeing robust population growth and a growing, diversified, economy that will help keep the economy moving.

There are many items that could push projects forward, from an Olympics 2030/2034 selection, a lower vacancy rate for Residential or Commercial, a corporate office expansion/relocation, to even a new major league sport coming to the city.

It isn't difficult to see SLC adding 4 or more 300' towers in the next 6.5 years. We are effectively under 2 years from the completion of 2 major non-high rise projects (Airport and Temple Square) and 1 year from completing 2 major high rise projects (Astra and Worthington). These steps will help to reduce project costs and allow more projects to move forward, even with higher interest rates.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Phoenix is also much bigger than Salt Lake.

Again, I think we need to define who SLC's peer cities are because we can't expect to compete with the Denvers, Seattles and Phoenixes of the world. We're just not anywhere near that level of size.

In terms of metro, we're more aligned with Memphis, who I think Salt Lake is outpacing. But Memphis is also a second city in Tennessee (to Nashville), whereas Salt Lake is the lone decent-sized city in the state. So, even then the comparisons aren't completely accurate.

You also run into this issue with the Oklahoma cities, OKC and Tulsa, which are similar to SLC's metro size.

In fact, Salt Lake's maybe one of the most unique situations overall in the sense that it's the only real urban center in the state (unique to our peers, not necessarily overall) - as even Nevada has Reno.

I guess the best example is probably Milwaukee and Wisconsin. They've got the urban center of Milwaukee (metro 1,559,792 to SLC's 1,266,191), plus smaller metros that are probably more aligned with Provo and Ogden (Madison, and Green Bay).

Their breakdown recently of buildings over 300 feet:

2020s: 2 (BMO Harris Financial Center, 335 ft and The Couture, which is under construction and is set to be 537 feet)
2010s: 4 (tallest was 550 feet)

There are a few towers planned to break ground this year but I didn't include 'em. Regardless, currently, like with Portland, SLC is outpacing Milwaukee this decade but last decade, Milwaukee absolutely outpaced SLC - including the construction of one 500 footer (and now have a new 500 footer being built right now).

So, here's an example of a city with a similar population (metro) that is absolutely exceeding Salt Lake in height.

Once that uc tower is finished, they'll have four towers over 500 feet (with one over 600 feet - their tallest).

What does that mean? I don't know - it just means that yeah, we're doing okay keeping up in terms of towers over 300 feet but in overall height, we're still not there yet.

And that's doing a 1:1 comparison with metro areas - move it up to CSA numbers and Salt Lake absolutely is lacking.

I wasn't suggesting PHX and SLC are peers, just referencing the similar frustrations in both cities I've lived with the backlog of high-rises getting going.

I think Milwaukee is a tough comparison, because it's population is stagnant, which is a problem with most upper Midwest/Rustbelt cities and it's <100 miles from Chicago.

The SLC CSA and Charlotte CSA are about 100K apart, that might be a decent comparable. Different regions obviously and Charlotte isn't too far from Atlanta, Raleigh is in NC but it's fairly far away from Charlotte. They're both growing rapidly and generally "sunbelt" type cities, I know it snows a lot in SLC but I still consider it closer to sunbelt than Snowbelt because of how sunny the climate is.

[Atlas]

Another variable here is the price of concrete, which I was just told yesterday is around $300/yard^3 in the valley. This is double what it was just a few years ago and the shortage is probably caused by sheer demand and SLC's geographic isolation. The new planned mine in Parley's Canyon, which is being fought by the cities and SL County, would probably help alleviate the cost of building. I'm not advocating for it but that's certainly an argument they are going to use.

To be honest, the towers are less important than the connectivity, livability, and affordability of the downtown core. I'd like to see some more transit improvements, green space, policies that benefit small businesses, and more mid-rise housing to replace the dead zones. Projects like the West Quarter, Post District, and the Greek Orthodox development are just as exciting as Astra or Worthington to me.

That said, a 500-600+ footer would really take our skyline up a notch. Here's hoping we see one this decade

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by locolife

I wasn't suggesting PHX and SLC are peers, just referencing the similar frustrations in both cities I've lived with the backlog of high-rises getting going.

I think Milwaukee is a tough comparison, because it's population is stagnant, which is a problem with most upper Midwest/Rustbelt cities and it's <100 miles from Chicago.

The SLC CSA and Charlotte CSA are about 100K apart, that might be a decent comparable. Different regions obviously and Charlotte isn't too far from Atlanta, Raleigh is in NC but it's fairly far away from Charlotte. They're both growing rapidly and generally "sunbelt" type cities, I know it snows a lot in SLC but I still consider it closer to sunbelt than Snowbelt because of how sunny the climate is.

I used Milwaukee because it's an urban area that dominates its state like SLC does Utah.

Portland is another good example, but their MSA has one-million more people than Salt Lake.

Charlotte would be a good comparison but I get the sense they're a rung above Salt Lake. And if they are a peer, well they're blowing right by Salt Lake.

I believe Salt Lake is overperforming for a metro its size but underperforming for a CSA its size.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I used Milwaukee because it's an urban area that dominates its state like SLC does Utah.

Portland is another good example, but their MSA has one-million more people than Salt Lake.

Charlotte would be a good comparison but I get the sense they're a rung above Salt Lake. And if they are a peer, well they're blowing right by Salt Lake.

I believe Salt Lake is overperforming for a metro its size but underperforming for a CSA its size.

Yeah, I was following the logic there on Milwaukee but in that case the state line doesn't mean much when a Goliath like Chicago is basically the same distance away as Ogden to Provo.

I've been trying to figure out for a while if/when Ogden to Provo becomes a single MSA, hard to get a clear understanding of when or what would be needed for that to happen.

An MSA, as defined in 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is an area “associated with at least one urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000” and it includes the jurisdiction(s) containing the core “plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and economic integration with the central county or counties as measured through commuting.”

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by locolife

Yeah, I was following the logic there on Milwaukee but in that case the state line doesn't mean much when a Goliath like Chicago is basically the same distance away as Ogden to Provo.

I've been trying to figure out for a while if/when Ogden to Provo becomes a single MSA, hard to get a clear understanding of when or what would be needed for that to happen.

An MSA, as defined in 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is an area “associated with at least one urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000” and it includes the jurisdiction(s) containing the core “plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and economic integration with the central county or counties as measured through commuting.”

Yeah, it's a weird definition with little explanation.

The definition of the MSA changed too. It used to be the Salt Lake City-Ogden metro.

Looking at a study done by the University of Utah commuter pattern probably indicates why Davis is part of the Ogden metro and not the Salt Lake - their Interchange Score is higher with Weber than it is Salt Lake (by a lot):



https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/...rt-Jan2020.pdf

I can see why Utah County isn't part of the Salt Lake metro as it does feel like Utah County is less connected to Salt Lake than Davis is.

So, I guess it kinda makes sense - and why Tooele is lumped in with Salt Lake's metro.

[Makid]

I do wonder if there will be changes to what defines an MSA soon. With a shift to working from home, commutes are dropping. This means that commutes shouldn't be used to define a connection for an MSA.

I don't know what the new method to determine an MSA would look like but I do think that commutes should no longer be used.

I would be okay with something like transit connectivity or TV market, Sports Market, or something similar as it would link areas better than a commuting reference would.

[wrendog]

I think it would be pretty reasonable for SLC MSA to go back to SLC/odgen MSA

That would be SLC MSA at 2 million. Provo keeps their own at 750k.

[RC14]

Photo Update from 6:00 this evening

Astra:






Worthington:

[DCRes]

State Street is starting to have a 'canyon effect' that rivals Main Street!

[locolife]

Originally Posted by wrendog

I think it would be pretty reasonable for SLC MSA to go back to SLC/odgen MSA

That would be SLC MSA at 2 million. Provo keeps their own at 750k.

This means Silicon Slopes is part of the Provo MSA? That's kind of weird to wrap my head around.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by locolife

This means Silicon Slopes is part of the Provo MSA? That's kind of weird to wrap my head around.

Lehi ≠ Silicon Slopes

Draper is mostly in SL County and MSA, and SLC proper still has more tech jobs than either of them. Murray/Midvale/Sandy also have a decent amount too.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by locolife

This means Silicon Slopes is part of the Provo MSA? That's kind of weird to wrap my head around.

Roughly 75% of the Tech jobs and companies are in SL County (Salt Lake MSA). 25% are in Utah County (Provo MSA).

Many people, including locals, think that Silicone Slopes refers to the Lehi/northern Utah County area. That area may have some of the larger company names such as Adobe, Texas Instruments, and Microsoft but SL County has Ebay, Pluralsight, and Overstock.com (Bed Bath and Beyond - name changing soon).

It was discussed here previously but the initial map for Silicone Slopes showed the there are more Tech companies and jobs in Salt Lake City itself than the rest of the Silicone Slopes area. I think that this was the primary reason the map was changed as the State keeps pushing the Point of the Mountain as the center of the Silicone Slopes area.

This changed pushed SLC to don the moniker of Tech Lake City. The Tech Lake City name represents both the standard Tech companies and jobs but also the Bio Tech industries. The Bio Tech portion is behind the push for additional lab space with the biggest planned project located directly adjacent and west of the Red Lion redevelopment/development projects.

[Atlas]

Great breakdown, Makid. I have to point out that it's "Silicon Slopes" not "Silicone Slopes". The latter is actually unintentionally hilarious and rather apt for the Provo MSA, if you know what I mean.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Makid

Roughly 75% of the Tech jobs and companies are in SL County (Salt Lake MSA). 25% are in Utah County (Provo MSA).

Many people, including locals, think that Silicone Slopes refers to the Lehi/northern Utah County area. That area may have some of the larger company names such as Adobe, Texas Instruments, and Microsoft but SL County has Ebay, Pluralsight, and Overstock.com (Bed Bath and Beyond - name changing soon).

It was discussed here previously but the initial map for Silicone Slopes showed the there are more Tech companies and jobs in Salt Lake City itself than the rest of the Silicone Slopes area. I think that this was the primary reason the map was changed as the State keeps pushing the Point of the Mountain as the center of the Silicone Slopes area.

This changed pushed SLC to don the moniker of Tech Lake City. The Tech Lake City name represents both the standard Tech companies and jobs but also the Bio Tech industries. The Bio Tech portion is behind the push for additional lab space with the biggest planned project located directly adjacent and west of the Red Lion redevelopment/development projects.

Thanks for the background, I definitely did not know that and also admit I've never heard the term Tech Lake City either.

[felixg]

Originally Posted by Makid

I think that this was the primary reason the map was changed as the State keeps pushing the Point of the Mountain as the center of the Silicone Slopes area.

Between this, the point, trying to move pro sports teams etc, I can’t help but wonder why the state always seems to be pulling this shit? Is it entirely politically motivated or does a bulk of the legislature actually have something to gain from other area’s growth? Also, to others that have lived elsewhere; is this kind of behavior prevalent in other states? I can’t think of another capital city that so consistently gets screwed by its own state. Not trying to be cynical, just wondering if there are more concrete reasons apart from trying to own the libs?

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by felixg

Between this, the point, trying to move pro sports teams etc, I can’t help but wonder why the state always seems to be pulling this shit? Is it entirely politically motivated or does a bulk of the legislature actually have something to gain from other area’s growth? Also, to others that have lived elsewhere; is this kind of behavior prevalent in other states? I can’t think of another capital city that so consistently gets screwed by its own state. Not trying to be cynical, just wondering if there are more concrete reasons apart from trying to own the libs?

My only other experience is living in Denver and there is some of this with the Denver tech center and Colorado Rapids stadium being out in Commerce City. There’s also random larger companies spread out throughout the metro. And of course there’s the rumor of the Broncos maybe building their next stadium out towards DIA, and DIA itself. But overall seems like a lot of momentum is downtown between the River Mile project that will be essentially a second downtown right next to downtown, RINo district, a bunch of other development currents going up on all sides of downtown, and all but one major sports team downtown. So it’s some of the same but not as extreme as the Wasatch front from my perspective.

[Rileybo]

Originally Posted by felixg

Between this, the point, trying to move pro sports teams etc, I can’t help but wonder why the state always seems to be pulling this shit? Is it entirely politically motivated or does a bulk of the legislature actually have something to gain from other area’s growth? Also, to others that have lived elsewhere; is this kind of behavior prevalent in other states? I can’t think of another capital city that so consistently gets screwed by its own state. Not trying to be cynical, just wondering if there are more concrete reasons apart from trying to own the libs?

The state leaders are incentivized politically and financially to pull support away from SLC.