Salt Lake MSA Development Thread

[delts145]

Again, whether you or I like it or not, it is going to happen in Sandy. There are a myriad of reasons for this happening, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with arrogance. Whether those of us on this forum agree or not, there are many who prefer to live in a suburb and commute five minutes to a close-in commercial center rather than downtown. The only arrogance IMO is assuming an attitude of 'my way or the highway'. I feel that as long as downtown Salt Lake continues on it's current path, there will continue to be an increasing amount of people who choose to live downtown. IMO, the mistake is not offering options. I in no way would be so presumptious as to think that my preferred way of living must apply to all people.

Regarding Downtown Salt Lake. Ten years ago, the sprawling area we now call the Gateway District was little more than brown earth. Ten years ago even the immediate area surrounding Temple Square was full of parking lots. Ten years from now much of what are now vacant lots in the western sector of downtown will be attractively developed. Downtown will continue to develop in an attractive and amazing pace. This will happen whether places such as Sandy and Lehi become business hubs or not.

Speaking of Seattle and Bellevue, Bellevue is almost a perfect illustration of Sandy and what it will probably become. Bellevue is little more than 7 miles from Seattle. Depending on I-90 traffic, typically less than a fifteen minute drive. It's recent boom and the impressive buildup of it's downtown is a strong indicator on a number of levels as to what is happening in many of America's fifty largest metros, particularly those which are experiencing dynamic growth, such as Salt Lake's MSA. A far better comparison than Bellevue and Provo, would be Tacoma and Provo. Tacoma, also a major part of Seattle Metro is approximately 30 miles from Seattle proper. That would be basically the same distance and perspective on many demographic and infrastructure levels as Provo and Salt Lake.

Before we know it, the Wasatch Front will reach 3 million people, then we will be on a path toward 4 million-plus. Metro Seattle now has 4 million-plus people. I'm sure as the Wasatch Metro grows to three and 4 million people, it will begin to strongly resemble Seattle's current cores, i.e. Seattle/Salt Lake City, Bellevue/Sandy, Provo/Tacoma.

Downtown Tacoma - 30 miles from Seattle Proper


Downtown Bellevue - 7 miles from Seattle Proper

[Orlando]

As usual, it is Delts and Projects who don't understand this problem. Of course, people should have options. But, not a 20 story highrise in Sandy!! What do you not get that is problematic to downtown SLC if Sandy builds like that now???!!!!! Everytime, these huge suburban/ex-urban developments come up, you two jump on the bandwagon for it. It's absurd!!!!

And of course, it is understandable for a family to live in a less-expensive neighborhood, and there should be options of higher density in Sandy, but not at the expense of downtown. They are building more office square footage in Sandy right now, than in downtown already. This is suburban sprawl. Have you seen the huge office parks in the Jordan River bottom?

[TonyAnderson]

The problem is people are under the assumption that these buildings are only built for people in Sandy. People will be driving from all over to go to work there, just as they do to get to Salt Lake. Personally, I like Salt Lake City as the business center of Utah, and more specifically, of the Salt Lake Metro, and hope to see all the major tower developments there. It has a much better transportation infrastructure to support it, from having all rail lines meeting there, as well as the airport. It was mentioned that we'd all be gridlocked going to Salt Lake, well it's already gridlocked with people going... everywhere in the valley because people work all over the place and live all over the place. When it comes to working somewhere, you usually aren't going to be picky and only work in a certain city because typically that's not an option - you go where you get the best opportunity. Just as downtown isn't for everyone, well neither is Sandy.

I like seeing the core cities of the metros develop downtown. I understand commercial and retail should be mixed in all the neighborhoods, including those of suburbs. But for the actual office and business centers, as well as the main venues such as theater and sports, etc. - I like that to be downtown and think it's more effective that way.

I think with a Seattle it can make sense for other business centers to emerge because of the density and development of Seattle. The argument here is that Salt Lake City has so much under-utilized land that to put a 20 story tower in the suburbs could actually be taking a lot away from Salt Lake, whereas in Seattle, that would matter very little.

So I'm not totally against things like this in the suburbs - I think it could be very beneficial to have all communities self-sustaining - but I'd rather see it once the core cities have utilized their potential. Sprawl occurs because people are so quick to spread out as opposed to densifying and being smart about their use of land. I just don't want to see it get out of control.

[cololi]

The suburbs can have theirs, and they should. But, there is a pecking order in terms of roles that each community has. These roles change over time. Why is Sandy's 20 story building bad? because they completely lack the infrastructure or the urban fabric to support such a development. It is the absolute worst kind of sprawl because it increases the need for infrastructure, it costs the City more to serve and maintain, it creates additional congestion which in turns produces all kinds of negative by products, such as wasted time, increased air pollution, less people walking because there are cars everywhere, etc. Suburbs need to add jobs and infrastructure and everything else that can make them more self sustaining. But it does not happen simply by building a 20 story building.

There are 16 blocks between interstate off and on ramps. A 20 story buildng produces a lot of traffic. State Street is insanely wide and is a major barrier to pedestrians. What would be better, is for them to incrementely grow up. That means:

Orient buildings to people and not machines.

Stop surrounding their office buildings with large parking lots.

Work like hell to get additional interstate ramps to disperse traffic throughout the entire area between 9000 and 106.

Work on creating a real street and connection network between the light rail line and I-15 and 9000-10600.

Require building to be close to the sidewalk

Reduce commercial parking requirments and set maximums

Require better internal circulation networks within large, private developments

Focus development around the transit stops

Take the good with the bad. This means acknowledging urban style development brings things that are good, but also brings things that are seen as undesireable, such as kids hanging out on the sidewalks, some homeless people, some panhandlers, some grit, etc. Most people I know who live in sandy don't like coming downtown because of the grit and street life, which they perceive as being dangerous and scary.

There are much more suitable building heights that can accomodate the required space for jobs, walkability, urban design, etc. that will fit better into sandy and offer options to people on where to live, shop, dine, play, work, etc.

[delts145]

If there is a bandwagon to jump on, then the only one I could conceivably be prepared to jump on, would be the northen end of Utah Valley, specifically at the Thanksgiving Point area (as a future commerical epicenter). Pointing out the trends and what is a strong probability is hardly absurd. The fact is, if places like Sandy and West Jordan were not allowed to compete in the metro market, then many of those numerous businesses, which have relocated and or expanded there over the past 10 years would take their business elsewhere. Instead of the Wasatch Front, it would be another metro in New Mexico, Nevada, or any one of numerous metros/States willing to match the very defined specifics of a new business relocation or expansion. As a long list of forumers have repeatedly pointed out, Downtown simply does not fit every mold, nor will it ever. I would hope, as Cololi pointed out, that these business cores would be developed with some sense of urbanity. Unfortunately, we cannot force Sandy/Metro developers, whoever they are, or from wherever they are moving from, to develop more pedestrian friendly centers. I would hope they would do so, and it's our responsibility to elect officials in our various communities who are of a like mind.

Bellevue Wa. didn't just spring up over night, nor did any one of a dozen business/tower cores in L.A, such as Century City or Glendale, etc. It happened over an extended period of time. It has taken many years for Bellevue to reach it's current development density. Granted, over the past fifteen years it has developed upward at a faster rate. Salt Lake is not going to be left as a ghost town, because some would prefer to locate in Sandy. It is going to take at least another ten to twenty years before Sandy or Lehi has a recognizable skyline. As I said before, by the time Sandy or Lehi has a recognizable skyline, Downtown Salt Lake City will be an exemplary CBD. It's already happening, and I say that with a very big DUH!!!! The SLC CBD roll will continue.

Hey, I would have loved for all of that Class A office space in Draper or Cottonwood Heights to be Downtown, but that is not the way of your typical metro evolution. I'm not going to waste precious time on some emotional rant every time someone announces another mid-rise in Sandy.

[Future Mayor]

Cololi, you said it perfectly. Infrastructure wise, Sandy is not currently set up to accommodate a 20 story or multiple 10+ story buildings. THE END. IMO

Will it happen? Yes Should it happen now or in the next five years? No.

[TonyAnderson]

I second that FutureMayor, that was well said cololi.

Sort of the reason people like Sandy is because it's not downtown Salt Lake right? But in a way, they're on their way to creating the same thing...

[scottharding]

I have no problem with Sandy trying to develop a real urban core and bring business into the city. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. But Future Mayor is right. These things must happen organically. I balked at the Procenium development because it was absurd. This is why, I think, some people call sandy "arrogant." To think they could just leap to the level of say... Bellevue was naive. This new proposal shows that the planners/developers have been brought back to reality a bit, but there's still a ways to go. I expect this proposal to be scaled back again, until it fits what Sandy can support.
No doubt, something should be developed there. If it is done smart, it will help Sandy continue to grow towards being a place like Bellevue. But you can't run before you can walk.

[delts145]

I agree with Cololi on several points, and like several of us have said, "It will happen, but whether it should is another question and subject to debate." Developers are typically on a much faster construction time-line with their announcements than what reality would suggest, and I think most of us are aware of that, even though by the comments of some, you would think otherwise. But again, Bellevue or Century City didnot happen quickly. I fail to see that what will be the "START" of a business center in Sandy is really anything to panic about. Who is saying it will happen overnight. Frankly, given what already exists and the infrastruture under construction, Sandy or Lehi is in a much better position to cope with what will most likely be a gradual buildup than many urban cores I have seen.

I think that Sandy and Lehi will do a much better job of keeping up with transportation infrastructure than Seattle and many metros have with their many cores. L.A.'s Century City has been notorious these many years, and has finally expanded the I-405/I-10 and Santa Monica Blvd. access. Sandy is already much further ahead of the game than many cores around the country that I have seen. Upgrading and expanding the access into Sandy and Thanksgiving Point is a much easier scenario than many existing prospects nationwide. This is especially true with the psyche of TRAX, Trolley, and Front-Runner that is developing at an "ahead of the game" rather than behind it as in many metros.

By the time Metro Salt Lake City/Ogden/Provo reaches four million-plus it will have a much more efficient transportation system than say even Seattle or especially metros like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix etc. currently do.

[Orlando]

Guys, the argument shouldn't necessarily be about infrastructure. The primary argument here should be that it takes away from downtown slc. Downtown slc has not matured yet to the level of say, Seattle, or wherever. Another argument, is that if you make a large downtown core in Sandy, it will most definitely exacerbate our sprawl problem even further. Eagle Mountain and beyond...yeehaaa! to our environmentally and ignorant cowboy ways!!! Delts you can stay in Alpine. That is a beautiful location, but don't argue for these big development for your own self-interest. You are probably the typical suburbanite who does not understand the problem at hand.

I'l rather see Salt Lake to be like Calgary than sprawling Phoenix. How do you expect Salt Lake to get these tall highrises, Delts, if places like Sandy keeps sucking that demand away???!!!!!!!!!!

[Future Mayor]

Orlando, yes I too and most of us on here want a very vibrant and bigger downtown SLC. However we as downtown and urban anti sprawlers can't control the mentality of everyone out there. If a company chooses to locate in a 20 story building and shows that demand in Sandy we can't force them to move downtown. I would expect to see a 10 story building in "downtown" Sandy in the next 8-10 years, yet in that same 8-10 years I anticipate SLC getting a new tallest, and one or two additional 15+ story buildings. So while it will happen in Sandy, it will happen at a slower pace than SLC and while the posible new plans may be for one or two 20 story buildings again it simply comes down to demand. Only one developer that I know of has the deep pockets to invest 100's of millions/ a billion + dollars without the full demand being there.

As CCC is finished, 222 is occupied, front runner south opens, city trolleys are built and more and more residential dwellings are built in downtown that will only increase the pace and demand for office space in downtown.

Sandy will get there's but only if the demand is there and if there is demand in Sandy that simply means that the core is in even more demand. IMO

[delts145]

Bravo Future Mayor. A big ditto to that!!

IMO Salt Lake at a future 4 million will be a better example of urbanism than present Seattle is at 4 million today. I say that with the understanding that current Seattle is a much better example of urbanism than many current metros. By the time that Sandy evolves to the same level as Bellevue, Downtown Salt Lake City will be a national example of what's being done right.

And no Orlando, I don't think that Sandy is going to suck Salt Lake City's CBD dry.

Obviously, you are not totally familiar with the attractiveness of the street engagement in downtown Calgary. I like some of the towers in Calgary, when looked at as an individual projects. However, the look of the street engagement and streetscape in general is not even close to as attractive as Salt Lake's streetscape developments over the past decade.

Salt Lake City will continue to emerge as a very beautiful city at ground level over the next few years, as well as continuing to expand it's skyline. Whereas, many of these CBDs, whose skylines are attractive at a distance will continue to have vapid and sterile streetscaps up close. Of course, not to mention their settings, minus the Wasatch Mtns. as a backdrop, they will always pale in comparison to Salt Lake City.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Sandy will get there's but only if the demand is there and if there is demand in Sandy that simply means that the core is in even more demand. IMO

Not really! Sandy and the Jordan river area has seen a tremendous upswing in office building development in the last ten years! Yet, downtown SLC has only seen less new office space development in the last ten years than Sandy! That is a new trend. A trend that shows that suburban office development will continue to outpace urban even more so. THIS IS A PROBLEM!!!! Portland has curtailed a lot of that. So, almost all large office development is in downtown. Smaller carbon footprint!

[cololi]

Tall high rises do not define a City. And infrastructure is the number one thing that separate places and it should be the number one force behind influencing development. If you don't have the infrastructure or the resources to build and maintain it, then you should limit what you are building.

To me the best cities in the world are the ones where the desired place to be is on foot, outdoors, regarless of the weather. I do not think you need tall buildings to accomplish this. I would be perfectly happy if downtown SLC was full of 10-12 story buildings in the entire downtown area. I know that this differs from many on this forum, but I don't participate in this forum because of the name or a love for tall buildings. I like them in places that have gone through the necessary aging cycle to support and warrant them. SLC is not there and probably will not get there in my life time. Likewise, there are very few suburbs where life can take place on foot.

I agree that a strong downtown is critical to the economic, cultural, environmental realm not just of SLC, but the entire region and the state. But, we also have suburbs that are currently creating a major drain on our resources, both economically and environmentally. That needs to change. The suburbs are not going away. But they can be improved. The need to be improved. The only way to do that is to have suburbs that are self sustaining. Major regional attractor types of uses (sports arenas, major entertainment facilities, etc) should always be downtown.

[esirhgih]

This discussion really seems to underscore the ideological divide between those on this forum who simply like tall buildings, and those that actually know things about urban planning and development.

[Wasatch_One]

Here is Sandy had the Proscenium been built...



...In my opinion, Salt Lake City was just started in the wrong spot in the valley. Had it been started around where the new hospital is (Murray - 5300 S) I dont think there would have been as big of a tug-o-war between developments

[leerjet]

I think it's depressing that both Tacoma and Bellevue have skylines that rival ours.
We should have reserved a lot more land for open space! Like maybe all of Sandy and Draper. HA! Then we would have been forced to build UP instead of OUT

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

...In my opinion, Salt Lake City was just started in the wrong spot in the valley. Had it been started around where the new hospital is (Murray - 5300 S) I dont think there would have been as big of a tug-o-war between developments

There's allot of truth in what you are saying Wasatch. It's not unreasonable to believe that if the Salt Lake CBD were around 5300 South, that it would have evolved upward at a faster rate. I do think though, that given the past ten years of development downtown, Salt Lake's CBD is looking very good. If downtown Salt Lake can maintain a similar pace of buildup over the next ten years, it's going to be a very attractive CBD. I'm especially pleased with the general quality and attractive appeal at street level of the many projects downtown. While it's true that cities such as Vancouver or Calgary have more highrises, Salt Lake is far more attractive at street level in those areas that have been developed. Like Cololi, I much prefer a very attractive streetscape to a canyon of highrises with no to very little visual appeal. I believe very strongly that the near future Salt Lake will have both a beautiful streetscape and an ever increasing number of attractive towers.

[John Martin]

I respect everyone's opinion here and I think everyone has some good points. The only thing that really bothers me is the attitude that anything and everything outside of downtown is something that is working to kill downtown. It's as if downtown is superior to everywhere else, and deserves extra special attention, care, and nurturing, so it can be the best it can be, regardless of whether or not the rest of the valley is the best that they can be. Look, I like skyscrapers, they're cool, but I don't see why everything must be downtown. The idea that every multi-level project in the suburbs is basically interchangeable with a project that could've been downtown is ridiculous. The reason why this project, for example, was proposed in Sandy is because the developers think it could work in Sandy (obviously whether or not it does is up for debate). Now here's a wild thought: just because a development is suitable for somewhere in the valley, does not necessarily mean it's suitable downtown. It disgusts me when people insinuate that suppressing all of the Salt Lake MSA of developments, save downtown Salt Lake city, would be like putting downtown on steroids, which would supposedly be a good thing. I just don't think that the mentality that everything should be done for downtown, at the expense of the rest of the community, has any place. There will be developments suitable for every part of the valley. I believe that if every city only sought after developments appropriate for their city, the entire metro would see healthy growth. That doesn't mean competition would be eliminated (which, again, some of you seem to be implying we should do for the sake of downtown), competition is necessary to having top-notch developments, and a nice place to live.

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

Here is Sandy had the Proscenium been built...



...In my opinion, Salt Lake City was just started in the wrong spot in the valley. Had it been started around where the new hospital is (Murray - 5300 S) I dont think there would have been as big of a tug-o-war between developments

SLC started in the right space. What is attractive about it is the surrounding environs. That will make downtown SLC stand out in the future like it does today. The difference is that the amount of serious downtown structures will come but it will still have the beauty right there.