Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Comrade]

It really isn't fair to compare Calgary and Edmonton to Salt Lake or Denver. They're literally the two most important cities east of Vancouver - all the way to Ottawa.

Denver and Salt Lake are always in competition with other western cities - those two are only in competition with one another and, to an extreme, Vancouver. That's it. If the Western United States only had three major cities (say Denver, Los Angeles and Seattle), they'd be multitude larger than they are now.

But there's literally no major city in Saskatchewan, which is east of Alberta, and the largest city in Manitoba is Winnipeg. So, it only reasons the city centers would be larger as there are fewer urban centers like in the US - where you have, just in that area alone, Denver, Colorado Springs, Salt Lake City, Boise, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Albuquerque, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Kansas City.

[Atlas]

Calgary seems to have a rather centralized downtown. Not sure where the contrary idea came from, and the difference between Calgary and SLC can't be as simple as "they allow taller buildings in more areas."

My guess is that on top of having different land use codes and approval processes, there are a littany of economic and cultural factors involved in shaping the difference in outcomes. For instance, Calgary has always had a big oil industry presence.

I don't think it's worth going into the weeds too much on this forum (unless someone has some concrete ideas on how to learn from these other cities), but to me it is interesting to compare the outcomes themselves for our rather similarly-sized cities.

[SaltCityScrapers]

Exactly right. Calgary is the Houston of Canada. It is Canada's biggest oil and gas city.

Salt Lake and Denver aren't in that league.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Calgary seems to have a rather centralized downtown. Not sure where the contrary idea came from, and the difference between Calgary and SLC can't be as simple as "they allow taller buildings in more areas."

My guess is that on top of having different land use codes and approval processes, there are a littany of economic and cultural factors involved in shaping the difference in outcomes. For instance, Calgary has always had a big oil industry presence.

I don't think it's worth going into the weeds too much on this forum (unless someone has some concrete ideas on how to learn from these other cities), but to me it is interesting to compare the outcomes themselves for our rather similarly-sized cities.

Was just going to chime in to say that Calgary is actually remarkable in the Canadian context for its highly centralized downtown (and relatively fewer suburban high rises.)

You're also correct that both the employment and residential density of downtown Calgary is due to its high concentration of energy company corporate offices in the CBD (and associated industries like legal, finance, accounting, IT, etc) which created demand for restaurants, shopping, and ultimately residential space nearby.

[TheGeographer]

See my next post

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by Comrade

It really isn't fair to compare Calgary and Edmonton to Salt Lake or Denver. They're literally the two most important cities east of Vancouver - all the way to Ottawa.

Denver and Salt Lake are always in competition with other western cities - those two are only in competition with one another and, to an extreme, Vancouver. That's it. If the Western United States only had three major cities (say Denver, Los Angeles and Seattle), they'd be multitude larger than they are now.

But there's literally no major city in Saskatchewan, which is east of Alberta, and the largest city in Manitoba is Winnipeg. So, it only reasons the city centers would be larger as there are fewer urban centers like in the US - where you have, just in that area alone, Denver, Colorado Springs, Salt Lake City, Boise, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Albuquerque, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Kansas City.

Would Denver have a bigger skyline if they had the same population as Alberta? A little over 4 million. Colorados population is over 5 million, so Colorado has more population to support Denver than those Canadian cities. It could however get more National support since there are less cities in Canada, which you would be correct in your point there. I think we just build differently in the US regardless of population and competing cities.

The oil comment has merit, there’s tons of oil money up there. We also have money in copper, albeit a lot less than oil.

I’ll chalk it up to Canadian cities of late like to build more skyscrapers per capita when compared to Us cities of similar size. That much is obvious, the reasons behind them building more skyscrapers are less obvious. Things do seem to be trending in the direction of more skyscrapers in mid-size cities in some US cities - Nashville, Austin, Denver, SLC. We’re just a little bit later to the show.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

Would Denver have a bigger skyline if they had the same population as Alberta? A little over 4 million. Colorados population is over 5 million, so Colorado has more population to support Denver than those Canadian cities. It could however get more National support since there are less cities in Canada, which you would be correct in your point there. I think we just build differently in the US regardless of population and competing cities.

The oil comment has merit, there’s tons of oil money up there. We also have money in copper, albeit a lot less than oil.

I’ll chalk it up to Canadian cities of late like to build more skyscrapers per capita when compared to Us cities of similar size. That much is obvious, the reasons behind them building more skyscrapers are less obvious. Things do seem to be trending in the direction of more skyscrapers in mid-size cities in some US cities - Nashville, Austin, Denver, SLC. We’re just a little bit later to the show.

It's not just Alberta, tho. If Denver was the only major city between Detroit and the west coast, it likely would have a larger skyline.

That's 6.4 million people between Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - with literally no major cities outside Calgary and Edmonton. Add British Columbia and you're now looking at 11 million people in a four-province area with only three major cities (Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton).

That's about the size, population-wise, of Ohio. But even Ohio has more urban centers than those areas in Canada - with Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus the big three. That's on top of the fact that Ohio isn't just sitting alone in its importance within the region. Cleveland also has to go up against Detroit and Pittsburgh - maybe even Chicago.

But again, outside those three cities in the western part of Canada, there's nothing else. Denver is not one of the most important cities in the US when you rank 'em out (unless you're generous and say top-twenty). Calgary is. It's not only the 4th largest city in Canada, as mentioned already, it's the center of oil.

It's just an apples to oranges comparison.

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

See my next post

Originally Posted by Comrade

It's not just Alberta, tho. If Denver was the only major city between Detroit and the west coast, it likely would have a larger skyline.

That's 6.4 million people between Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - with literally no major cities outside Calgary and Edmonton. Add British Columbia and you're now looking at 11 million people in a four-province area with only three major cities (Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton).

That's about the size, population-wise, of Ohio. But even Ohio has more urban centers than those areas in Canada - with Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus the big three. That's on top of the fact that Ohio isn't just sitting alone in its importance within the region. Cleveland also has to go up against Detroit and Pittsburgh - maybe even Chicago.

But again, outside those three cities in the western part of Canada, there's nothing else. Denver is not one of the most important cities in the US when you rank 'em out (unless you're generous and say top-twenty). Calgary is. It's not only the 4th largest city in Canada, as mentioned already, it's the center of oil.

It's just an apples to oranges comparison.

I feel ya. You make some good points. It’s definitely not oranges to apples, and different countries also build differently.

[Blah_Amazing]

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

The Asher Adams aka Union Pacific Hotel has filed Commercial Building Permits.

[Atlas]

I drove around the city yesterday and I was surprised to see that Salt Development's "Salt Lake Crossing" project, which is next to the Hardware apartments and North Temple station, is seemingly doing site prep already. Zephyr Lofts is doing prep work too.

No activity at Convexity or SWT sites yet. Anyone know if the project on 400 S and 900 E is still alive?

[StevenF]

I would like to point out that Canadian cities tend to be all one city instead of one large city with a bunch of smaller ones scattered around. Halifax, Nova Scotia used to be five independent cities but they merged together into the Halifax we see now many years ago. Imagine Salt Lake City controlling all of Salt Lake County. With that, we wouldn't have Sandy, West Valley City, Draper, or any other city in the county pulling sports venues and businesses away from downtown. I think we still would have areas like Murray, Magna, Sandy, and Midvale with their community urban centers like Sugar House though.

The thing is, we have a county with 1.3 million people where only 200,000 of it is in Salt Lake City, and 17-20 cities and communities have 20,000-130,000 each taking over the remaining 1.1 million. Each of these smaller cities is fighting to create its own identity. It's like a dysfunctional large family with no proper parental guidance.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

As someone who has lived here my whole life, who intends to live here my whole life, I DO understand the context of the area. The idea that I do not insulting to say the least.

Some people and cities have become so addicted to zoning restrictions and control that they do not realize they themselves are destroying of the potential of their communities, not preventing it.

We all know that much of the land in D-1 that is developable is either in the process of being developed, owned by a few land-banking organizations (that without reform, may be indefinite), or is already occupied with lower level buildings and may stay that way for a considerable amount of time.

Salt Lake City is at the exact right time to eliminate its zoning height restrictions on the western sides of downtown in areas like the Granary before things solidify. However, that time is quickly passing. Every new 3-5 floor building that is built in the area, it further solidifies it as the norm.

When we reach a point where Downtown SLC is fully built out its current D-1 (likely in the next 10-15 years or so), there will be a fully built Granary District and that will be solidly 50 feet and under. At that point, it will be TOO LATE to rezone the area because it genuinely would stand against the character of the area that has developed under the arbitrary powers of the zoning. I fear it will be just as entrenched in its 5 floors and under ways as the Avenues is.

So I respectfully, disagree. To wait is to only make rezoning and height rises in these areas more difficult to outright impossible. The speed of development is such that the rezones are really now (next 3 years or so) or likely not at all.

Completely disagree. 100%. Zoning helps the city. We don't need to be like Houston. Seattle and Portland are better examples to follow.

[Makid]

One of the big items that helps Calgary, outside of there being limited bigger cities between the Pacific and the Great Lakes, is the C-Train.

The Light Rail ridership is massive. Prior to COVID, they were pushing 320K average daily ridership. Currently during COVID, they are pushing about 140K average daily ridership.

Ridership started and continued on a similar trajectory to that of SLC. After approximately 5 years in operation both systems were pushing roughly 40,000 average daily ridership. Of course, the C-Train added more lines/extensions faster than SLC. These extensions helped to spur additional development around their Downtown area.

Another factor that helped Calgary to grow up is that suburban development isn't encouraged by Alberta the same that it is encouraged by Utah. This push by Utah leaders has held back more development in SLC than nearly anything else. Just look at the PoM and Lehi as examples.

Now, in spite of all of this, SLC is seeing massive growth and development across the City. We are seeing more proposals submitted in a given year than SLC used to see in a decade.

This shift has been quick and drastic. SLC needs to ensure that development happens right but it also needs to make sure that it doesn't stop or slow development that it moves to the suburbs.

Lastly, while the projects haven't happened, we have seen proposals for 400'+ projects in South Salt Lake, Sandy, and Lehi. The closest one to have actually being built was in South Salt Lake and that only was cancelled due to the crash of 2007/2008. Without that, there would have been a 400'+ condo building at roughly 2100 South and West Temple.

Now, if SLC had as much land control as other pier cities, or Calgary for that matter, the downtown skyline would be bigger both in height and the number of towers. For reference, Calgary city is roughly the size of the SL Valley. Imagine pushing nearly all multi-family projects downtown from across the County for the last 40+ years.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Completely disagree. 100%. Zoning helps the city. We don't need to be like Houston. Seattle and Portland are better examples to follow.

Orlando, I have great respect for you. You have contributed so much to this forum. However, on this I believe you are wrong.

First, I'm not saying get rid of zoning. I am saying get rid of the height restrictive zoning in the Granary.

Second, your own example of Portland was actually the one of the very cities I was thinking of when I was saying we need to reduce the overzealous zoning restrictions on the Granary District, as Portland has in their warehouse district, The Pearl District.

Portland, Oregon has essentially four separate and growing areas where towers have shot up all within short distances of each other. These are Downtown Portland, the Lloyd District, the still developing South Waterfront, and the Pearl District.

Downtown Portland
This is the CBD, an area that basically spans from the river to the freeway (405) and the freeway to Burnside Street.



Lloyd District
This sits across the river from Downtown Portland and is essentially another downtown that has popped up around the convention center. The area is still filled with surface parking, providing tons more room for the towers in this area to grow.


South Waterfront
This second additional extension of the high-rises in the city, as the name suggests, is south of the CBD of Downtown Portland. Again, another great example of letting towers expand outside of a city's CBD.




The Pearl District
The Pearl District is Portland's version of the Granary District, in that it is also a warehouse district that had tons of potential. Portland, unlike what Salt Lake is doing, allowed towers to be integrated into the neighborhood as it developed, including a 341 foot tall tower. The Pearl District is celebrated as one of the best developed, planned, and designed Warehouse Districts in the US and has often been cited to me as such.

Today, it almost melds with Downtown Portland, with just some midrises in-between.



CONCLUSION
Portland is indeed a good example to look when it comes to urban planning. However, its development fits with what I was suggesting, not with what you were suggesting, Orlando.

Portland is a good example of a city that has allowed high rise development to expand outside its CBD, and included it in the development of their warehouse district - literally what I was suggesting. The towers and the increased population that brought to The Pearl District is absolutely key to the Districts' overall success as a unique and eclectic neighborhood.

This is exactly the lesson we should learn from Portland and the Pearl District. The Granary District has the potential to become a cool and unique place, that better melds with the Downtown SLC while also retaining its warehouse identity. This will not be nearly as likely, however, if we retain this suffocating zoning restrictions and reduce everything to 3-5 floor standard apartment buildings.

Orlando, I do hope you reflect further on what I am saying and what Portland has shown us. If done well, allowing towers in the Granary District would unlock the area's real potential, just as it has for the Pearl District. Enforcing arbitrary zoning height restrictions only hamper the area at this point.

After all, it's not like I am saying we should build skyscrapers in Sugar House. The Granary is literally adjacent to the D-1 CBD zones. Actually significantly even more adjacent to Downtown Salt Lake than the Pearl District is to Downtown Portland.

Salt Lake has the real potential to become a truly great city in the coming several decades, if we can break out of these restrictions and allow more freedom in areas that will genuinely benefit from it.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Completely disagree. 100%. Zoning helps the city. We don't need to be like Houston. Seattle and Portland are better examples to follow.

I don't believe in NO zoning codes, but I do believe that zoning codes should be far more flexible and loose. I don't know the particulars of Seattle or Portland, so I can't comment on those. Houston is a mess, but that isn't only because of their lack of zoning codes (and, well, Houston has a myriad of other ways to enforce zoning-like standards).

I don't really see how a 200 ft. building in the Granary District would hurt the city, honestly. It's fairly close to downtown and it's not as if there's an abundance of single family neighborhoods in the Granary District for the building to tower over. Much of the Granary District is still underdeveloped or abandoned warehouses and light industrial. And if we're worried about losing history, well, how is a huge, 200 ft. long 8-story apartment building any better? If anything, the latter would require more demolition than a 200 ft. tall building.

EDIT: I agree 100% with blah, and his knowledge of Portland's development is obviously much greater than mine. I say bring on the towers!

[Reeder113]

I like tall buildings.

That's my contribution to this conversation.

[Jerm]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

I like tall buildings.

That's my contribution to this conversation.

Ditto

[airhero]

Haven’t seen this mentioned. Pioneer Park is headed for more design changes.

City has an open survey about it and an open house on February 2.

https://www.slc.gov/parks/pioneer-park-improvements/

[Reeder113]

Beautiful shot of downtown SLC from Carter Peterson, via Twitter.



https://twitter.com/KUTV2News/status...333250/photo/1

[Atlas]

That is a gorgeous shot. The apartment that I used to live in was directly under where the drone was hovering.