[Atlas]

This thread is way off topic.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

As for this debate over whether MSA or CSA numbers more accurately describe SLC, SLC is in a unique situation. I can’t think of another metro with a larger disparity between its CSA and MSA figures. The fact of the matter is, every American metropolis is different, and there are no perfectly defined borders that can be used to determine where exactly the edge of suburbia lies and which populations should or shouldn’t count as part of the metro.

For example, neither the MSA nor the CSA definitions work well for my current city (Denver). One excludes Boulder, which is obviously part of the metropolis; the other includes Boulder but also includes a bunch of far-off towns which are obviously not part of the metropolis. The true population of this metro is somewhere in between.

As is the case with SLC.

I’ve spent much time in that town, having been a truck driver with a dedicated route based out of SLC (Costco distribution center), which meant I spent every other night there and had countless back-hauls that led to seemingly innumerable points within the metropolis - and having visited at least once a year all throughout my life since childhood, because my family is from Sandy and most of my family still lives there. Even in my current job as a flatbed driver I’ve picked up countless loads from Interstate Brick in West Jordan, delivered countless loads to the IFA DC on West 1700 South, etc, etc, etc. I know the town well. I know many towns well.

I think all of you on either side of the “how big is SLC” debate are kidding yourselves. I think it’s obvious SLC isn’t nearly as large or prominent as its CSA peers such as St Louis or Pittsburgh. It doesn’t feel that way, on the ground, within those towns, at all; nor does it feel that way in terms of the cultural, historical and economic gravitational pull those towns exert within the American collective consciousness. It’s equally obvious SLC is far larger and more prominent than its MSA peers such as Louisville or Buffalo. Those cities don’t belong in the same conversation with SLC.

It’s somewhere in between. And unfortunately a number in between those vastly disparate CSA and MSA figures - a number that could be used to accurately rank SLC among its peers - doesn’t exist. More than any other metropolis I can think of, SLC doesn’t have a definitive size that will work within the realm of this forum and its home-town-boosting, city-vs-city culture. There just isn’t a good, useful number for poor SLC.

Edit: I propose we just use SLC’s CSA figure when we’re making comparisons, and call it good. I mean, close enough. Otherwise we’re just going to keep getting hung up on this.

Thanks for the perspective. SLC is an oddball and the CSA is very much tri-modal, both geographically and culturally, but with SLC being the clear center of power. Anyone from the SL Valley will tell people that they're "from SLC" but people from Utah County or Weber/Davis Counties won't do that despite being directly connected to it.

I guess that the original point I was making is that if it's thrown in with cities with similar MSAs like Buffalo, Grand Rapids, etc. then I think it is over-performing when it comes to building towers right now. Compared to similar CSAs, maybe not. I don't think we are having the same kind of tower boom as Nashville and Austin, but we are probably building as many residential units around the CSA as those places. There is still an ocean of underdeveloped lots around downtown that are currently being swiped up for huge low/mid-rise developments so I'd expect taller projects to start to emerge once those are all gone. In terms of SFH, I'd guess the SLC CSA is adding as much as any urban area in the country, for better or for worse.

Here's a cool image that user Blah_Amazing made a few weeks ago that shows all of SLC's active tower projects, for anyone interested: