HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9921  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 5:30 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJaxon76 View Post
Been around, haven't posted in years. As far as NFL goes. Utah could support a Team. Attendance isn't the issue. If a 80,000 seat Stadium is built, LDS members will go. Its only 8 home games a season minus play-offs. On any given Saturday along the Wasatch Front there's 3 Stadiums sold-out. Weber, Utah, BYU that's over 100,000 fans in attendance. I've understood its the T.V. viewership that accounts for reasons Utah couldn't sustain a team right now. But hey, get one of these Silicon Slopes Billionaires to go buy the LA Chargers, they can still be in the AFC West. They have no fans in L.A. and share a stadium? Clear out the railyard and build a iconic stadium. Hell ya....Wishful Thinking.
I agree the TV market is the make or break and I would guess it is not enough especially with Las Vegas getting the Raiders. That alone probably set back our hopes 20 years. The best chance Utah has is if the state continues to go fast, attracts or builds 1-3 Fortune 500 and Idaho continues to see fast growth. If that happens then 20 years from now I think Utah would look solid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9922  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 5:37 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is offline
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,815
I'm actually glad we won't get an NFL team anytime in the next decade. If we did, I can just imagine Draper making a push to get the stadium built on their soon-to-be-prime real estate at the Point of the Mountain. That said, I still would love to see the "Salt Lake Chargers" to build their stadium on the soon-to-be-prime real estate that is the former RMP power plant site on North Temple

I confess that I don't know enough about the homeless problem to have an informed opinion. It's an awful situation and I really hope we can find a solution to help these people get off the streets and meaningfully back into society. BSL posted another article today with some potentially good news pertaining to this topic:

Homes for urban campers? St. George non-profit pitches big in SLC for “at least 3” motel conversions for homeless relief
__________________
r/DevelopmentSLC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9923  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 7:23 PM
ucsbgaucho ucsbgaucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrendog View Post
Disagree 100%. SLC would have zero issuea filling a stadium 6-8 times a year on a Sunday. No issue at all

The lack of fortune 500 companies is definitely problematic
San Diego, with an NFL team for 50 years, couldn't sell out a 60,000 seat stadium even when the team was good. They regularly had blacked-out home games when they didn't mean the min threshhold for ticket sales. SD is tearing down their stadium as we speak and building a 35,000 seat stadium for San Diego State football and an eventual MLS team.

0% chance we get an NFL team here, when cities that have teams already, like Jacksonville, shouldn't. There are cities like San Antonio that already have NFL level facilities in place and much bigger potential fan bases. Los Angeles went without NFL for 15 years.

Hockey could work here, I think. Seattle just got an expansion franchise, and Vivint would be a good home for an NHL franchise as many cities use the same arena for NBA and NHL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9924  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:19 PM
locolife locolife is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
This is really interesting. A couple things to note. Population stats are 8 years old. The other thing is that population parameter area is strange because my understanding when they figure potential television revenue they use a much wider area. I believe we are in the Broncos “watershed”. So I would expect for us it would be Idaho, Western Wyoming and all of Utah. If the team were good you probably could pull Northern Nevada and all of WY.
Yeah, the population stats are 8 years old as are the income numbers but along that same line the cost to maintain a team has also probably increased as well. I don't think a team's decision would be drastically different today honestly.

You could look at designated media area rankings to see how combing parts of Wyoming, Idaho and northern Nevada change it but other cities will have similar and probably better larger populations to pull from. A city like Raleigh, as one example, would be pulling from all kinds of medium sized population centers around NC, such as Winston-Salem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9925  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:19 PM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
Your statement makes it sound like we tore down a functioning shelter and turned out a bunch of homeless. Obviously the reality is we built several other shelters to replace it. Obviously not enough beds, but the way you phrased it is what makes it sound cynical.
We did, but as I mentioned before the location choice was questionable, and reducing the overall number of beds was a short-sighted and perhaps overly optimistic decision. You can think I'm cynical for the way I'm framing it, but I can see how poorly we're dealing with homelessness in this city. Whatever well-intentioned strategies we've been attempting lately are not even close to enough.

But I'll relent and admit it has more to do with our general strategy of dealing with homelessness, and won't continue this discussion here further since I know how homelessness discussions have gone in the past on this forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9926  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:14 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by locolife View Post
It's easy to get caught up in homerism on the topic of new teams, we all think our cities are great. But when you analyze the SLC sports market the team presence is right where it should be. The study below is a few years old now but it shows SLC capacity scores of 6 for an MLB team and 13 for an NFL team, you want to be at or near 100 for it to work.

I say leave it alone, trying to jam another team in to compete for the same income dollars as the Jazz and Real is only going to pull away finite dollars from the existing teams.

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn.../market31.html

Name of sports market: Salt Lake City
Formal name: Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem, UT, Combined Statistical Area
Population: 2,389,225
Population rank (of 83 sports markets): 31

INCOME CALCULATIONS
  • Total personal income (TPI): $91 billion
  • Number of existing teams and Power Five programs: 3
  • TPI required for existing teams and programs: $85 billion
  • Remaining TPI: $6 billion
  • Market's status: Small surplus of TPI

CAPACITY SCORES
  • Major League Baseball: 6
  • National Football League: 13
  • National Basketball Association: (already has team)
  • National Hockey League: 12
  • Major League Soccer: (already has team)

A score of 100 indicates that a market's income base is sufficient to support a new team in a specific league. A score below 70 indicates that an income base is insufficient for a given sport. (A score is not calculated if a market already has a team in a given sport.)
Not sure why you quoted me when I said that the NFL is likely not going to be successful here, so, no, I don't think my post was partial to homerism at all.

The MLB or the NHL are the only two possible, even if extremely unlikely, options because of low capacity needs (compared to the NFL).

The average attendance for a MLB game in 2019 was just 28,317.

The average attendance for a NFL team in 2019 was 66,151.

Definitely a big gap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9927  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:24 PM
Blah_Amazing Blah_Amazing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 819
TAG Project - L'oriol Plaza

3 Lot Consolidation (March 31, 2021): https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Commercial Demolition (April 14, 2021): https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Address: 324 S 400 E

TAG seems set to start on another project, this one now called 'L'oriol Plaza.'

The project appears to have changed since we last saw it a year ago (called TAG 324 at the time).

The project as initially proposed was to be 11 floors and 91 residential units.

https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Old rendering of TAG 324:


Now all we know is that it will be just 60 residential units based on the demolition filing. This likely means the project has been scaled back and will not be 11 floors tall. Does anyone else know anything?

The three properties to be demolished (image from original filing from 1 year ago):
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9928  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:29 PM
Comrade's Avatar
Comrade Comrade is offline
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 9,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz View Post
We did, but as I mentioned before the location choice was questionable, and reducing the overall number of beds was a short-sighted and perhaps overly optimistic decision. You can think I'm cynical for the way I'm framing it, but I can see how poorly we're dealing with homelessness in this city. Whatever well-intentioned strategies we've been attempting lately are not even close to enough.

But I'll relent and admit it has more to do with our general strategy of dealing with homelessness, and won't continue this discussion here further since I know how homelessness discussions have gone in the past on this forum.
I'll keep it going because a concern I raised back in 2016 is proving true today:

Quote:
Not sure how they can close the main shelter and replace it with less overall beds and expect to clean up the homeless camps.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...ss#post7579829
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9929  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:04 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing View Post
3 Lot Consolidation (March 31, 2021): https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Commercial Demolition (April 14, 2021): https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Address: 324 S 400 E

TAG seems set to start on another project, this one now called 'L'oriol Plaza.'

The project appears to have changed since we last saw it a year ago (called TAG 324 at the time).

The project as initially proposed was to be 11 floors and 91 residential units.

https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Cit...howInspection=

Old rendering of TAG 324:


Now all we know is that it will be just 60 residential units based on the demolition filing. This likely means the project has been scaled back and will not be 11 floors tall. Does anyone else know anything?

The three properties to be demolished (image from original filing from 1 year ago):
Architecture worth persevering. 🙁
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9930  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:07 PM
Blah_Amazing Blah_Amazing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 819
BTW, 'The Bookbinder' project's Design Review is tonight according to the PC agenda:

https://www.slc.gov/planning/public-...endas-minutes/

Project Address: 422 S 200 W

BSL article on the project: https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/bui...ding-downtown/

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9931  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:16 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePusherMan View Post
Do I think we will get an NFL team any time soon? No, but it’s a perception problem not a demand problem.
I agree that perception is the biggest problem. Also, the population is under accounted for in current msa statistics when compared to other city's similar in size to Salt Lake City. The narrative matters just as much as reality. And we as a people need to start defending our reputation and promote ourselves. Again the numbers underrepresent the true metro population and density because of 2 things: arbitrary boundaries splitting up the population and unpopulated mountains within the boundaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
Architecture worth persevering.
Agreed

Last edited by Old&New; Apr 15, 2021 at 12:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9932  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:56 PM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJaxon76 View Post
Been around, haven't posted in years. As far as NFL goes. Utah could support a Team. Attendance isn't the issue. If a 80,000 seat Stadium is built, LDS members will go. Its only 8 home games a season minus play-offs. On any given Saturday along the Wasatch Front there's 3 Stadiums sold-out. Weber, Utah, BYU that's over 100,000 fans in attendance. I've understood its the T.V. viewership that accounts for reasons Utah couldn't sustain a team right now. But hey, get one of these Silicon Slopes Billionaires to go buy the LA Chargers, they can still be in the AFC West. They have no fans in L.A. and share a stadium? Clear out the railyard and build a iconic stadium. Hell ya....Wishfull Thinking.
Then why is this your first post? What username did you use before?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9933  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 12:18 AM
ThePriceWentUp's Avatar
ThePriceWentUp ThePriceWentUp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing View Post
This is such an exciting project! I really like how you can see some hints of CINQ in the design, as well as the building west across the street. I do think this will look really nice across from The Gateway and will help to continue the rapidly expanding wall of development along 200 South.

I'm actually surprised how quickly they are moving on this, it was only bought two months ago: https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/the...cal-developer/ So good for dbUrban.

I do think there is going to be some public pushback on this one, unfortunately.
I do research for this pretty vocal tenants right organization in the city. They are already planning physical demonstrations to protest this project. Not going to be an easy process for the developer and I almost guarantee they are going to be forced to include more affordable housing. I do agree that its pretty ridiculous to use these micro units as a way of saying they're including affordable housing and even more ridiculous that 60-80% AMI is considered affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9934  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:19 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePriceWentUp View Post
I do research for this pretty vocal tenants right organization in the city. They are already planning physical demonstrations to protest this project. Not going to be an easy process for the developer and I almost guarantee they are going to be forced to include more affordable housing. I do agree that its pretty ridiculous to use these micro units as a way of saying they're including affordable housing and even more ridiculous that 60-80% AMI is considered affordable.
While I would expect some people to protest, if the Developer doesn't get the increase they need, they could just remove the micro units and lower the height to the current zoning. At that point, it is doubtful that the project could be stopped.

My biggest issue isn't the unit breakdown or even the micro units for lower incomes (which are probably added as a way to get the height increased). My issue is the amount of parking. It is in one of the most transit saturated areas of the City. They could reduce the amount of parking and increase the unit counts, or even lower the average rental rates. For the remaining parking, they should charge a premium for it.

So, if there was anything to really protest against, it would be the amount of parking being included.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9935  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:33 AM
Blah_Amazing Blah_Amazing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makid View Post
While I would expect some people to protest, if the Developer doesn't get the increase they need, they could just remove the micro units and lower the height to the current zoning. At that point, it is doubtful that the project could be stopped.

My biggest issue isn't the unit breakdown or even the micro units for lower incomes (which are probably added as a way to get the height increased). My issue is the amount of parking. It is in one of the most transit saturated areas of the City. They could reduce the amount of parking and increase the unit counts, or even lower the average rental rates. For the remaining parking, they should charge a premium for it.

So, if there was anything to really protest against, it would be the amount of parking being included.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9936  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 4:42 AM
SLCLvr SLCLvr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: SLC
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePriceWentUp View Post
I do research for this pretty vocal tenants right organization in the city. They are already planning physical demonstrations to protest this project. Not going to be an easy process for the developer and I almost guarantee they are going to be forced to include more affordable housing. I do agree that its pretty ridiculous to use these micro units as a way of saying they're including affordable housing and even more ridiculous that 60-80% AMI is considered affordable.
The fact that the Road Home used to be on this site doesn't grant it mystical properties. It's a nice design and fits in well with the developing neighborhood. I don't remember the planning commission ever denying a height increase that is allowed under the site's zoning. The planning commission does not have the power to require additional (or any) affordable housing as part of the design review process so if this group believes that they can force it to be included I'm not sure what this is based on. Protesting this project seems at best performative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9937  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:42 AM
ThePriceWentUp's Avatar
ThePriceWentUp ThePriceWentUp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCLvr View Post
The fact that the Road Home used to be on this site doesn't grant it mystical properties. It's a nice design and fits in well with the developing neighborhood. I don't remember the planning commission ever denying a height increase that is allowed under the site's zoning. The planning commission does not have the power to require additional (or any) affordable housing as part of the design review process so if this group believes that they can force it to be included I'm not sure what this is based on. Protesting this project seems at best performative.
First of all, I think the design of this project is some of the best in the city. That being said, I think some people believe that local political decisions should reflect the interests of concerned citizens. Because some people do share that sentiment this group has had some influence on smaller things like zoning decisions. With this one.. you can't deny that a homeless shelter being replaced by sub-400 sq ft units for people making $40k makes for a really compelling argument as far as the media is concerned.

All things considered, I hope the project gets built and sets a new standard for design in the area and throughout the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9938  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:55 AM
DJaxon76 DJaxon76 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old&New View Post
Then why is this your first post? What username did you use before?
Bammbammz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9939  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:07 PM
Atlas's Avatar
Atlas Atlas is offline
Space Magi
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,815
So there's been a little leak about the rumored 450 Main tower. This article mentions a "Sundial Tower" with 425,000 sq ft. of office space, developed by Hines. The JLL report mentioned in the article also says this:
Quote:
Hines has announced Sundial Tower, a forthcoming 23-story, 425,000-s.f. office project to be built on Main Street between 400 and 500 South.
__________________
r/DevelopmentSLC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9940  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:51 PM
airhero airhero is offline
ML Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas View Post
So there's been a little leak about the rumored 450 Main tower. This article mentions a "Sundial Tower" with 425,000 sq ft. of office space, developed by Hines. The JLL report mentioned in the article also says this:
That would likely be around 375 feet. That’s in a height range that’s becoming very popular in Salt Lake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:01 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.