Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[locolife]

Originally Posted by rockies

This is very exciting to think about. In 2022, downtown SLC had a population of 4,900 people. I think it will be a good thing to have a huge population center pulling downtown west. The Gardner institute said back then that SLC's downtown population would double to 10,000 by 2025... I wonder if that is the case now that we are here and I would like to see future projections with SEG/Power district taken into account.

I think there is a good a balance between heavily urbanizing multiple parts of the city proper and in doing so saving some of the CBD for even greater future developments. Big cities have big neighborhoods and building out north temple, downtown sugarhouse, etc will benefit main st and the urban core in the long run

Unless the map is redrawn the power district population isn't considered downtown, so that won't help which is partially what I'm getting at. Having those residents downtown instead of 1.5 miles away would be nice. But is what it is.

I'd still prefer to keep the population growth focused downtown, personally. Phoenix has a classic example of trying to spread urban growth north out of its downtown core along Central Ave in the 70's. It's now an okay secondary urban core but only drew energy away from the true downtown for a long time. It took a very concerted effort to shift the energy and focus back to where it should have properly been the whole time. Now the downtown core is nearing 30,000 of population with the right energy and focus happening where it should have been.

Not saying SLC will follow the same path, but with an estimated 10K population there is no need to worry about saving space right now. I think you fill in every underutilized space and surface parking lot you can. That supply reduction will help draw in greater projects along with more urban population density.

[Makid]

The boundaries for downtown may be different between some of the estimates stating 10,000 residents by 2025. I say this only because last August (2024) the "State of Downtown" had the following as shown in the SL Tribune:

An ongoing population boom is expected to lift the city center from 14,469 full-time residents in 2020 to 27,000 or more by 2030. That trend is already bringing major shifts and is likely to drive more, with effects ranging from reshaping the city’s overall economy to boosting the need for wider transit access and, in a huge way, more green spaces.

If things are built within the Entertainment District Phase 1 and Block 67, as currently planned, we could see between 2,000 and 3,000 additional residents on just these 2 blocks. If, other planned projects within the downtown area proceed as planned, we should easily top the 27,000 full time downtown residents estimate for 2030.

There are a few factors that will help keep many projects moving forward, even with higher costs from the tariffs. Funding is in place for the Entertainment District and the Power District projects. This will allow for the Salt Palace, Delta Center, and Power District to continue to move forward.

Another factor, there is still a large amount of housing needed (close to 35,000 units today). With the tariffs, lumber will see costs increase faster than steel and concrete. This can push more high-rise development rather than the 5:1 - 5:3 projects we have been seeing. This would mean more residential within the downtown area as opposed to the current periphery.

Outside of these, SLC and particularly Downtown, has benefited a bit more than the average city during slowdowns in the past. With work wrapping up around Temple Square, it is very likely that we will see movement on the CCR residential high-rise projects. There are a few reasons I have heard for these projects happening soon with the main one being a desire to reinforce the residential component around City Creek Center.

[i-215]

The Millers are great! Good to see a team go back INTO downtown, rather than leaving it.

Now the question is, what happens to the Real Salt Lake stadium?

[Comrade]

Let's not put the cart before the horse.

1. The deal hasn't been done yet.

2. Everything about a new stadium is speculation and assumptions. Maybe they do decide to keep the team out in Sandy (my guess is no they won't but until it's a done deal...).

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by Makid

Outside of these, SLC and particularly Downtown, has benefited a bit more than the average city during slowdowns in the past. With work wrapping up around Temple Square, it is very likely that we will see movement on the CCR residential high-rise projects. There are a few reasons I have heard for these projects happening soon with the main one being a desire to reinforce the residential component around City Creek Center.

If I were CCR, I'd want to get in the game before the Millers and SEG try for residential towers. Finally finish the Cascade, the Woolen Mills replacement, and the property east of Harmons.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by Makid

SEG is currently planning a 600' residential tower in their Phase 1 plans. With other planned residential nearby (Block 67), a reconstructed and upgraded Convention Center, and at least 1 new large hotel (in SEG's phase 1 plan)

Do we know which site the 600' would be on? Or an educated guess?

And is "large hotel" ...we talking Hyatt Regency or bigger?

I know there are things you can't say, but are there things you can?

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by mattreedah

If I were CCR, I'd want to get in the game before the Millers and SEG try for residential towers. Finally finish the Cascade, the Woolen Mills replacement, and the property east of Harmons.

It's been so long that I forgot that these were ever even on the drawing board...but yeah, it would be great to see all of those rising at the same time. I'm also wondering how much of each of those has changed over the years; I remember Cascade, but I don't know if I ever saw anything on Woolen Mills at all, and I think just a massing model for Harmons.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by jedikermit

Do we know which site the 600' would be on? Or an educated guess?

And is "large hotel" ...we talking Hyatt Regency or bigger?

I know there are things you can't say, but are there things you can?

No hidden knowledge here. This is just based on the initial diagrams that were provided. The 600' residential tower was mentioned a few times by SEG. This and the hotel would be on the block directly East of the Delta Center. The Hotel would be on the SE corner of the block with the residential close to the western edge, probably close to the current Salt Palace 3rd West entrance or towards the Fidelity building on the NW corner of the block.

The hotel in the diagrams looks to be between 400' to 450' based on a 600' height on the residential tower.

The overall shape and structure are probably changing but I would expect the final plans to still be close to what SEG has presented already.

[Blah_Amazing]

• Video Link

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

• Video Link

It's somewhat impossible for one of these urbanist YouTubers not to sound pretentious. It's like someone took an intro to urban design principles and decided to hold us all hostage to his newfound knowledge. He, in particular, acts like these cities he critiques were created in the 2010's and not the 1840's and there is no history or externalities that can explain why the city isn't up to his standards. And Calling City Creek a single use development? Just wrong.

[bob rulz]

With the incoming tariffs, I'm not convinced any of these high-rises will actually happen until I see them rising with my own eyes.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

With the incoming tariffs, I'm not convinced any of these high-rises will actually happen until I see them rising with my own eyes.

Mass timber?

I tend to agree. It's a BAD time for any projects that require steel.

[taboubak]

Originally Posted by i-215

Mass timber?

I tend to agree. It's a BAD time for any projects that require steel.

Ya..... looking like it's gonna kill all the fun

[Orlando]

/\/\/\
/\/\/\
/\/\/\
I watched it and the bulk of his video was everything on the 9-line, from Central 9th, to Maven, to Liberty Park, to 9th & 9th, and then he accidentally stumble on Trolley Square, which he loved. He had glowing praise for everything on 9th except for the huge roads cutting through it like 7th east.
He also kept calling Central 9th, the Ballpark District, and then he later called the section between Liberty Park and Maven as Central 9th.

[Comrade]

https://www.ksl.com/article/51289327...second-changes

Changes to the plan. They've approved more money and added Block 67 to the zone, which is a bit interesting.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Comrade

https://www.ksl.com/article/51289327...second-changes

Changes to the plan. They've approved more money and added Block 67 to the zone, which is a bit interesting.

What is interesting is that the County is saying Block 67 is for parking. Then they say that the plans aren't finalized but they selected the cheapest option on the Salt Palace reconstruction at $1.3 Billion.

Block D for The West Quarter (Block 67), already has 1,000 parking spaces included and paid for from the County. Now, I do agree including the block in the project area will provide the additional funding needed for the overall reconstruction but I don't think the County wants just parking included on the block.

I say this as I had heard that at one point there was talk of including meeting space in Block D and connecting this to the main Convention Center with an enclosed bridge over 2nd West.

The next 4 to 5 years will be really busy around these 5 blocks with all of the work that is planned to happen.

[mattreedah]

Originally Posted by Makid

Block D for The West Quarter (Block 67), already has 1,000 parking spaces included and paid for from the County. Now, I do agree including the block in the project area will provide the additional funding needed for the overall reconstruction but I don't think the County wants just parking included on the block.

I say this as I had heard that at one point there was talk of including meeting space in Block D and connecting this to the main Convention Center with an enclosed bridge over 2nd West.

Agreed. Interesting this quote from Ryan Richie (the West Quarter developer) in BSL:

“We have to work with (Salt Lake) County [to] provide infrastructure, and that is our intent, is to try to provide the additional infrastructure, one from the loss that they have by demoing the west annex — the west side of the convention center — and then there’s some additional parking that we’ll have available for that as well,” Ritchie said.

https://buildingsaltlake.com/state-b...rns-from-city/

[Orlando]

Can someone please post the article and any images?

https://buildingsaltlake.com/city-co...ulevards-plan/

[Comrade]

Two of Salt Lake City’s most car-dense, one-way streets could see an overhaul in the hopes of making the streets more pedestrian- and business-friendly.

In a presentation to the City Council on Tuesday, staff members from the council and Transportation Division presented an early draft of the Grand Boulevards Concept Development Project — a long-simmering concept to change 500 South and 600 South between Interstate 15 and 700 East.

The goal of the project is to try and walk the fine line between keeping up the current vehicle flow and also increasing pedestrian, biking and other modal options for the streets.

Keegan Galloro, a transportation planner for Salt Lake City, acknowledged that any changes to 500 and 600 South would have to run through the Utah Department of Transportation, which is a byproduct of Senate Bill 195.

UDOT already owns the sections of 500 South and 600 South between State Street and I-15. SB 195 also stripped Salt Lake City of its ability to plan the portions of many streets around Downtown and beyond, including 500 South and 600 South east of State.

“As we all know, redevelopment is reshaping the landscape around this area and around these corridors,” Galloro said. “It’s moving from more of an auto-centric, business and warehouse kind of district, to apartments, restaurants, offices — places that people like to live, work and play.”

The Tuesday update was the latest in a long-simmering concept of making two key entrances and exits to and from Downtown Salt Lake City better looking and more welcoming for people who aren’t in cars.

There was no discussion about previous or ongoing efforts to reconfigure the rows of large billboards that line both 500 South and 600 South, indicating recent efforts to tame the billboards’ visual impact along the corridors is on the shelf for now.

Reaction from the council was varied. Some members acknowledged the need for enabling different modes of transportation, but said cars need to get in and out of Salt Lake City.

Councilmember Dan Dugan said he likes the idea of Grand Boulevards going in and out of the city, but worried that activating the streets would be difficult as long as each are one-way.

“I’ve always thought about the idea of making those streets, at some point, two ways instead of one way,” Dugan said. “So you just slow down some different things, you can activate the street, and you can actually make it more livable as a walkable street.”

Galloro said making the streets two-ways is, “something that’s definitely on the table, and it’s something that we’re looking at.”

A number of Downtown businesses oppose any plans to slow down traffic or change how roads are currently used, said Councilmember Eva López Chávez. She asked city transportation staff how they could find balance in the project.
“We really do need to make sure that we’re addressing the needs of all users, and that does include people who drive,” said Jon Larsen, Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division Director. “As a city continues to grow and evolve, and our transportation system becomes more and more multimodal, I do think it’s important that we do that in a way that still leaves driving as a convenient option for many people who come to Salt Lake City.”

For Councilmember Victoria Petro, who represents Rose Park and parts of Fairpark, driving across town has become more of a challenge. She said more and more streets that run from East to West are either clogged with construction, have been narrowed down to one or two lanes or are too congested to use regularly.

“I just want to know, is there one time where we’re not going to penalize people who have been conditioned into actually needing a car, by virtue of family size, by virtue of not earning enough to have disposable hours in their day?” Petro asked.

She told city staff she regularly has to drive through Salt Lake City during peak hours to drop off or pick up her kids from school, and she often takes 500 and 600 South because those are the quickest options.

“You take our west side kids and send them to East High School, you send them to Highland (High School),” Petro said. “We have to cross the city in record time to not only pick them up when they’re sick, but to get to parent teacher conferences, to get to band concerts. There has to be at some point a consideration for what we’ve inherited through the legacy of the car, and not harming the people who are still dependent on it.”

Larsen said he’s heard from other west side residents with the same concern. He said understands using transit might not be the best option for everybody, adding, “The last thing you want is for people to feel like they’re being punished for driving when they’re just trying to go about their day.”

“The Grand Boulevard project, I think, is going to be a project about balance, and I really do believe that there’s enough space in the right of way to be able to meet our multimodal needs, our design needs, and create more highly functional, beautiful streets, while still keeping cars flowing,” Larsen said. “Might be a little bit slower, but we’ll still be moving the same number of cars.”

Nick Tarbet, the council’s deputy director of policy, said it’s still very early in the process of creating a plan for the two streets, and the council’s feedback will be considered in future concepts.

Galloro said the longest phase of the planning project will be for public engagement, which will start in the coming weeks. He said a plan for the area could be finalized before the end of the year, but it could be longer, as the city has had to shift its timeline in response to SB 195.

Posting this because it said my post was too short.

[i-215]

God bless our Billboard Lobbyists.

Is there any other state where outdoor advertisers have more rights?