In your view, is Salt Lake a city of 1.2 million or 2.7 million?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by DZH22

It's interesting that out west, urban areas don't have to actually be urban to count. Been clicking down street view in downtown SLC and even that's like an overgrown suburb. Waltham MA has a ton of office parks and a population of 64,015, so I'm going to say in my view SLC strikes me as a city of about 64,000. Final answer.

Urban areas are "urban" as that word is defined by the Census Bureau, uniformly and nationwide: Wikipedia puts it as a contiguous set of census blocks that are densely developed residential, commercial, and other nonresidential areas; they consist of a densely-settled urban core, plus surrounding developed areas that meet certain density criteria.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DZH22

My first thought when I was there was how does this city have a pro sports team?

Probably why they were always branded as the Utah team. Their market was the entire state.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Providence is a much older city than Salt Lake. But I didn't ask if Providence felt more urban - I asked if it felt bigger and I don't think your point was very well made.

As for Salt Lake not having neighborhoods that feel or look urban - what are you basing this on? Yes, Salt Lake lacks neighborhoods that you'd see back east but by that standard, pretty much any major western city wouldn't fit your definition of urban.

I guess I'm just confused by what standards you're using to describe things n your post. It seems kind of all over the place.


I don't know - not the most urban but it just seems ridiculous to say the city doesn't have any neighborhoods that feel or look urban - unless you're using a very simplistic definition of high-rises = urban but that would be a really silly point to make on a forum like this.

Well, IMO, the size of a place is tied to how urban it feels. If someplace has a healthy downtown and vibrant urban neighborhoods, it's going to feel bigger than a place with a sleepy downtown and suburban neighborhoods, even if the latter sprawls more and is more populous.

The vast majority of SLC is suburban, and even the few urban scenes you shared are fairly suburban looking. Has nothing to do with high-rises, and more to do with the wide streets, lack of pedestrian oriented commercial corridors, and single family homes. Like I said, SLC is urbanizing at an impressive rate, but on my visits, it felt like a small city.

Btw, craigs, we are all able to find the stats on urban area, MSA, and CSA population figures. The entire point of this thread is about if the SLC area feels more like a region of 1.2 million (MSA) or 2.7 (CSA). So, my impressions are that it feels like something in between those two figures. The city feels small, but the suburban sprawl is vast and there are other hallmarks of a bigger metro area, such as the airport, freeways, transit, etc.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Going by actual CITY, Providence has 189k population in 20.6 square miles, while SLC has 200k population in 110.8 square miles. So over 5x the land area for about 6% more population.

Providence metro is listed as over 1.6 million. Here it's 38th nationally vs 46th for SLC. Providence metro accomplishes this in 1636 square miles of land, compared to SLC's 9975 square miles of land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrop...atistical_area

You clearly haven't spent much time looking at Google Maps if you think this is a fair comparison. Almost half of SLC's land is mountainous wilderness and wetlands. This skews the population density numbers significantly. The MSA is even more skewed because it includes all of rural Tooele County which, by itself, is almost 7x the size of the entire state of Rhode Island. So really, much of this discrepancy you point out is rooted in the details of what is counted within the boundaries. This is a clear case for why urban area is generally a better metric for this discussion.

SLC had a denser urban center 100 years ago before it was hollowed out for parking. Like other places, it's still recovering from that.

That said, I don't know what to say to you if you actually think downtown SLC feels like a city of 64,000. That statement is just so detached from reality that it's not worth arguing with.

Behold! A city of 64,000 people:

[IluvATX]

Maybe 100k is more accurate. Anchorage on the other hand has ~290,000 in 1,706 square miles almost all of which is in the Chugach state park. But it still feels more dense than SLC. So the wilderness/rural argument doesn’t work here. Are there numbers for downtown density/population which would make SLC denser or larger? Probably not, but I can think of plenty of cities with under 200k that are denser and have bigger skylines than SLC. I’m sure hosting the Olympics helped, but SLC is just another airport transit spot with a smoking area airside IMO.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Behold! A city of 64,000 people.....

Portland Maine's population is 68,000 and its downtown rips SLC's to shreds. It may not have the highrises but it has 50x the urbanity. Harrisburg PA's population is only 50,000 and also has a way better, denser, more urban downtown. So it's all relative, and on a relative scale SLC feels like a fake city in the same vein as Raleigh and Charlotte. Aside from the smattering of highrises, it certainly doesn't give off a "city" vibe the way I'm used to, coming from the Northeast.

So yeah, since it doesn't have the dense urbanity that I equate with cities, it doesn't really feel like a true city at all. I couldn't care less about the metro population if the whole place, up to and including downtown, is built more suburban. If I held SLC to the same standards I hold cities to around here, I'd say from an "urban population" standpoint a real argument could be made that it's 0.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by edale

The entire point of this thread is about if the SLC area feels more like a region of 1.2 million or 2.7. So, my impressions are that it feels like something in between those two figures. The city feels small, but the suburban sprawl is vast and there are other hallmarks of a bigger metro area, such as the airport, freeways, transit, etc.

That's about where I'd place SLC too. Bigger than 1.2 but smaller than 2.7. If I had to think of CA rough equivalents, it feels smaller than Sacramento (MSA of 2.4 million) but bigger than Fresno (MSA of 1 million).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

That's about where I'd place SLC too. Bigger than 1.2 but smaller than 2.7. If I had to think of CA rough equivalents, it feels smaller than Sacramento (MSA of 2.4 million) but bigger than Fresno (MSA of 1 million).

Can you really discern the difference between a 2.4M and 2.7M metro? For that matter, is there even an observable macro difference between a 1.2M and a 2.7M metro? lol

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Can you really discern the difference between a 2.4M and 2.7M metro? For that matter, is there even an observable macro difference between a 1.2M and a 2.7M metro? lol

2.4 and 2.7 probably not. But I think you can tell a pretty big difference between Sacramento and Fresno. 1-1.2 million feels pretty tiny. SLC seems small but it's def not tiny.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Portland Maine's population is 68,000 and its downtown rips SLC's to shreds. It may not have the highrises but it has 50x the urbanity. Harrisburg PA's population is only 50,000 and also has a way better, denser, more urban downtown. So it's all relative, and on a relative scale SLC feels like a fake city in the same vein as Raleigh and Charlotte. Aside from the smattering of highrises, it certainly doesn't give off a "city" vibe the way I'm used to, coming from the Northeast.

So yeah, since it doesn't have the dense urbanity that I equate with cities, it doesn't really feel like a true city at all. I couldn't care less about the metro population if the whole place, up to and including downtown, is built more suburban. If I held SLC to the same standards I hold cities to around here, I'd say from an "urban population" standpoint a real argument could be made that it's 0.

Having just been to Portland, ME I can agree that it's indeed a great downtown, and it benefits from having much of its pre-war architecture intact. However, downtown SLC is also a great place and doesn't deserve the label of "fake city" from arrogant Northeasterners. In fact, despite the wide streets I think it has the bones to someday be a lot bigger and better than the places you mention. It certainly does not feel small even now and I guarantee that your late 90s perceptions are mostly false at this point and will continue to be more false over time.

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Maybe 100k is more accurate. Anchorage on the other hand has ~290,000 in 1,706 square miles almost all of which is in the Chugach state park. But it still feels more dense than SLC. So the wilderness/rural argument doesn’t work here. Are there numbers for downtown density/population which would make SLC denser or larger? Probably not, but I can think of plenty of cities with under 200k that are denser and have bigger skylines than SLC. I’m sure hosting the Olympics helped, but SLC is just another airport transit spot with a smoking area airside IMO.

The point I was making was that the city proper and MSA comparisons between SLC and Providence were not apples-to-apples. Bringing Anchorage into the discussion and saying it feels denser is just shifting the goalposts.

I haven't been to Anchorage but I just spent a week in downtown Austin and I have to say that downtown SLC feels bigger in some ways even despite Austin's recent construction boom. Austin has better food and some taller buildings but outside of maybe 6th street it's really not much more interesting than SLC from an urban standpoint. SLC has more and better historic architecture.

And I had to spend like $40 to take an Uber from the airport to get downtown. My friend took the bus and it took 3x as long. What gives? At least there's a train in SLC.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by DZH22

At street level, Providence feels way more urban than Salt Lake City. It's basically a baby version of Boston and New England's #2 city. Northeast cities are just built differently. SLC doesn't hold up and should not be compared to that region under any circumstances. Even much smaller cities like Harrisburg and Portland smash SLC at street level.

For Providence, sure, there are less highrises overall, but it's so much denser and expansive beyond the immediate downtown. See link for a short drone video showing off the density.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt1ylWDxRso

Again, Providence is a much older city and most its development came up during an era where the automobile just wasn't a major factor. Salt Lake clearly developed around the automobile. But that doesn't change the fact Salt Lake is, and feels like, a bigger city with bigger, more diverse options within its region: from sports to theater, to other entertainment. Providence is a great mid-sized city. Salt Lake is absolutely bigger. And I don't need to see a drone - I dated a girl who was from West Warwick. I spent multiple weeks in Providence. Is it more urban than Salt Lake? Yes but there's nothing that makes it feel like a bigger city - from its relatively tiny airport to its sports options to its live music options. Multiple times to see a live show, we had to duck up to Boston because they didn't have the venue.

Salt Lake not only has a large NBA arena, its minor league hockey arena is roughly the same size as Providence's largest arena. That's on top of Salt Lake also having the Huntsman Center, which is home to Utah basketball, and a 51,000 seat football stadium and a 21,000 seat soccer stadium (I assume Providence has a minor league ballpark, so, I won't claim that difference).

There are plenty of tiny villages in the NE that are much denser and urban than Salt Lake - but that doesn't make them feel larger. They just feel denser. Not the same thing.

Originally Posted by craigs

Salt Lake City's urban area is 1,178,533 people, and Providence's urban area is 1,285,806. Providence is a more populous city by that objective metric. How big people feel cities are, or their personal definitions of urbanity, don't provide any objective measure of a city's population.

And yet, there are plenty of objective measures - including the CSA numbers I outlined (as well as TV market size and other population-based rankings).

Originally Posted by DZH22

Going by actual CITY, Providence has 189k population in 20.6 square miles, while SLC has 200k population in 110.8 square miles. So over 5x the land area for about 6% more population.

This is why your supposed objective numbers aren't significant and can be manipulated to score a point.

Here's Salt Lake City's city limits:



A huge chunk of the city is unhabitable - either due to the mountains to the east or the wetlands to the west. The only area of Providence that is comparable is the Providence River.

Originally Posted by DZH22

I only went to SLC once, back in 1998, and to be fair I have followed its construction and recognize it has come leaps and bounds by then. If you asked me this question back in 1998 I would have said it feels like a city of about 50,000. It was actually an additionally huge disappointment in person because I had been rooting hard for the Jazz those years, especially John Stockton, but they couldn't solve the riddle that was Michael Jordan. My first thought when I was there was how does this city have a pro sports team?

So, you went to Salt Lake almost 30 years ago - and you thought it would have only been a city of 50,000? C'mon. You're pulling my leg here, right? You're not even trying to make a serious point anymore.

Originally Posted by edale

Well, IMO, the size of a place is tied to how urban it feels. If someplace has a healthy downtown and vibrant urban neighborhoods, it's going to feel bigger than a place with a sleepy downtown and suburban neighborhoods, even if the latter sprawls more and is more populous.

The vast majority of SLC is suburban, and even the few urban scenes you shared are fairly suburban looking. Has nothing to do with high-rises, and more to do with the wide streets, lack of pedestrian oriented commercial corridors, and single family homes. Like I said, SLC is urbanizing at an impressive rate, but on my visits, it felt like a small city.

Again, as I said in my original post, your points are all over the place. From my perspective, it appears you're trying to change your explanation to continue to fit a false narrative that didn't make much sense to begin with.

In none of the photos I shared were their wide streets. You can hold Salt Lake's wide streets against it (I would agree to a point) but there are huge swaths of the city that are not directly connected to those wide streets. Again, I shared just a glimpse of those neighborhoods - but that wasn't good enough because it doesn't support your point, so you have to stretch things even more.

Here. What about the SugarHouse neighborhood that is roughly seven-miles south of downtown?











I'm sure the wide street makes this not urban to you - but I don't see how anyone can look at this neighborhood and call it largely suburban (at least by American standards, especially American West standards).

As for single-family homes? Good luck! By your definition, most western cities - from Denver to Phoenix to Las Vegas and Portland - are not urban and therefore don't feel all that big.

Plop yourself 5 miles out of downtown Denver or Portland and I promise you it'll feel almost exactly like Salt Lake City (well to be fair, I guess depends on where you're going - five miles east and you're in the mountains lol).

I think people let their perception of Salt Lake cloud their judgement on this one. Especially if they haven't been to the city in nearly 30 years (and I presume were probably fairly young when they passed through).

If anything, Salt Lake outside its downtown probably feels more like a typical larger city than it does when you're downtown because I agree - Salt Lake's downtown is lacking (tho, it's improving). The rest of the city? It's only suburban when compared to a very small sliver of the country - but certainly no more suburban than pretty much every other city out west. But whether a city feels big or not is way more than how urban it is. Phoenix feels like a big city, despite it being really suburban in nature. But it offers the amenities of a big city that you would probably not get in places like Boise or Providence. That's where it feels big - as mentioned in this thread (airport, transit, freeway .. but I'll also go beyond that and mention entertainment and sporting options).

[craigs]

How a place feels to individuals is entirely and hopelessly subjective. Unlike an objective metric which can at least be considered on its own terms, feelings are a lazy and inscrutable way to attempt to quantify the physical world that we all share. So, when some provincial homer says that he feels that Salt Lake City, where he hasn't been in 25 years ago, now has a population of 64,000 because it isn't built like a random Northeastern suburb near his home, well, there's really no point in arguing.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . . .

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by craigs

So, when some provincial homer says that he feels that Salt Lake City, where he hasn't been in 25 years ago, now has a population of 64,000 because it isn't built like a random Northeastern suburb near his home, well, there's really no point in arguing.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . . .

Thread title starts with "In your view..." so isn't that the same thing? In my view, doesn't feel like a big city because it lacks the build of one. I recognize that we're talking metro, so of course metros are mostly suburban and that's where the majority of people end up living. But if you showed me a metro of 10 million without an anchor city I wouldn't say "feels like a city of 10 million."

Sure, by American standards, the 200,000 anchoring roughly 2 million is right in line with expectations. But then somebody started comparing it to a Northeastern city, which are a different standard altogether.

Originally Posted by Comrade

Again, Providence is a much older city and most its development came up during an era where the automobile just wasn't a major factor. Salt Lake clearly developed around the automobile. But that doesn't change the fact Salt Lake is, and feels like, a bigger city with bigger, more diverse options within its region: from sports to theater, to other entertainment. Providence is a great mid-sized city. Salt Lake is absolutely bigger. And I don't need to see a drone - I dated a girl who was from West Warwick. I spent multiple weeks in Providence. Is it more urban than Salt Lake? Yes but there's nothing that makes it feel like a bigger city - from its relatively tiny airport to its sports options to its live music options. Multiple times to see a live show, we had to duck up to Boston because they didn't have the venue.

Salt Lake not only has a large NBA arena, its minor league hockey arena is roughly the same size as Providence's largest arena. That's on top of Salt Lake also having the Huntsman Center, which is home to Utah basketball, and a 51,000 seat football stadium and a 21,000 seat soccer stadium (I assume Providence has a minor league ballpark, so, I won't claim that difference).

The true problem with comparing the 2 by these criteria is that Providence is 1 hour away from one of the country's powerhouse cities of Boston, whereas SLC is 360-370 miles from the nearest major(ish) cities Las Vegas and Denver. Providence is completely caught in the Boston sphere so is not the anchor for the region. In less miles than SLC is to the next major city, Providence is within Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Montreal. It's at best the #6 city of the Bos-Wash megalopolis. Just a harder city to judge independently by amenities when it's wrapped into the larger whole and basically a satellite of Boston.

Originally Posted by Atlas

....I just spent a week in downtown Austin and I have to say that downtown SLC feels bigger in some ways even despite Austin's recent construction boom. Austin has better food and some taller buildings but outside of maybe 6th street it's really not much more interesting than SLC from an urban standpoint. SLC has more and better historic architecture.

And I had to spend like $40 to take an Uber from the airport to get downtown. My friend took the bus and it took 3x as long. What gives? At least there's a train in SLC.

I heard great things about Austin, but when I visited in 2009 I just didn't see the hype. I know there are a bunch of taller buildings now, but the bones aren't there and never truly will be. SLC appears to have had more sensible development in its downtown, although will look better with a bit more height. Hopefully that upcoming Kensington building doesn't remain the tallest for long.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Comrade

In terms of urban neighborhoods, I feel these are plenty urban and feel big enough:

The Avenues:









Marmalade Hill/Capitol Hill):

That's not even getting into Central City.

I don't know - not the most urban but it just seems ridiculous to say the city doesn't have any neighborhoods that feel or look urban - unless you're using a very simplistic definition of high-rises = urban but that would be a really silly point to make on a forum like this.

I love this Comrade
SLC, you're looking good.

I'd estimate SLC to be around 1.5M-2M if I were guessing (not knowing info)
Is that a new streetcar? looks different than Trax

[Smuttynose1]

I am from the Northeast and spent several years in SLC. It did take me a little bit of time to get used to it, but it really grew on me over time. SLC punches above it's weight in a lot of areas. Parks, public transit, civic pride, quality of services...

Like almost every city, SLC made some not great decisions from the 1950s through the early 90s so some of the land uses/policy decisions are funky. Some of the streets, including those with TRAX service, were frustratingly suburban. One of the bigger aggravations was just how unnecessarily wide the streets were, but they were designed that way. The City has launched several street calming/complete streets projects, but should probably be more aggressive in those efforts. All in all, I really enjoyed SLC. It's not fair to compare it with the land use characteristics of Northeastern states and the progress SLC has made over the last 20ish years has been really impressive.

In regard to the original question, I do think at least visually/land use wise it feels like one single metro area, particularly so over the last 10-15-ish years. The towns in southern SLC County and northern Utah County have really exploded in growth so the gaps that did exist between the SLC and Provo areas are filling in rapidly.

I do think that Utah has some distinct cultural/demographic attributes that can really affect the atmosphere of different areas. Spending time in Provo did feel quite different than SLC, as the demographic was much more conservative and less diverse in Utah County. But as the economy has grown, I think those distinctions are probably becoming less pronounced. And Utah seems to be moderating politically -- in the 2012 election, it ranked as the most loyal GOP state, but in the 2020 election, it didn't even land in the top ten GOP states.

[delts145]

Excellent Comments Smuttynose1. I think most of the comments on this thread have been quite objective and highly interesting and informative if not just downright entertaining.
Of course, there are one or two that challenge the definition of trolling, but that's to be expected.

My only addition to this discussion without wading too much into the weeds would be this. After having spent half my life living in and around Downtown and Central Los Angeles and from that perspective, Salt Lake City Proper, MSA and CSA's buildup progress is very impressive. Whether it's the diverse economic engine, the full transportation infrastructure picture, or its mid-rise residential infill, Salt Lake City is a lot more than just one of the prettiest situated cities of the major 50 metros. I'm enthusiastic about where it will be in another 10 to 20 years.

Edit: I thought since the stats of the MSA/CSA seem to be a little all over the place I would post the latest 2023 pop. stats. estimates. Keep in mind this is aside from whatever your individual vibe feels as was asked by Atlas at the beginning of the Thread. These are as reported by the https://worldpopulationreview.com/us...nty-population

Central MSA/Salt Lake City&County................................................................................................................................. 1,231,912

Western Metro/Tooele County, which is included officially as part of the Salt Lake MSA. This is most likely
because of the large number of commuting employment ..................................................................................................77,042

Southern MSA/ Provo/Orem, which is now developmentally interconnected with Salt Lake's MSA....................................840,000

Northern MSA/Ogden/Layton, Interestingly, much of this MSA is developmentally much closer to the
Northern climes of Salt Lake City Proper and its downtown rather than the designated Metro Hub of Ogden.....................750,000

Eastern Micropolitan Metro/Park City/Heber, I-80 extending through Salt Lake's Parley's Canyon and over to Heber Valley.
Punctuated by a recurring flow of resort communities and traditional incorporated towns. As a reference to those of us
who are familiar with Greater L.A. This would be like taking the 5 to Valencia/Santa Clarita, except the development
along I-80 is far more prevalent than the Valley and Valencia............................................................................................82,332


_________________________________________________________________________________________Total..2,898,954

NOTE: A major part of the future population growth of Salt Lake City's CSA will be Westward as its central/middle valleys will be built out in the not-too-distant future. Trends indicate major population growth will spillover into the Cedar and Tooele Valleys. Also, because of Salt Lake CSA's aggressive approach to commuter rail and upcoming double tracking, it's linear north/south growth will experience an ever-increasing interconnected development between Brigham City to the north and Nephi to the south. At this point, we're looking at a population of over 5 million. Prognosticators indicate that the current CSA population will explode and likely more than double over the next 50-plus years.

[Lobotomizer]

Never been to Utah, but Wikipedia told me SLC is a city of 200,000 in a metro of 1.2 million. The urban area, which most here seem to consider the best metric to judge a city's size, is a tad under 1.2 million. Looks like a small skyline.

The entire Wasatch Front has considerably more population, but that's a linear 120 mile stretch of disjointed, suburban sprawl.

To answer the question in the OP, I'd say 1.2 million. But it seems to be nice, and punch above it's weight in many regards.

[SaltCityScrapers]

I'll throw in my 2 cents:

I feel like it is a metro of 1.75 million. The basis for this is combining Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties' populations.

Natural physical barriers, like the Point of the Mountain, make me exclude Utah County.

I'm excluding Tooele and Boxelder Counties for the same reasons.

Also, it just "feels" like a metro of 1.75 million to me, albeit with a medium/small downtown.

As far as "urban" goes, I look at the historic nature of the buildings around downtown and outside.

Vegas is much bigger than SLC, both the city itself and the metro, but it does NOT have the historic buildings that SLC has, especially when comparing downtowns. There are no Exchange Place-esque buildings in Vegas, or City-County Buildings or houses built in the 1890 - 1920 era. That counts a little bit to me, as far as feeling. But Vegas is definitely in a different league as far as metro and building size.

Northeastern cities have much older, more historic buildings and houses. We are building up more and more of the 6 - 8 story apartments, but they are brand new. No historic feel.

Hence, a city like Providence will "feel" much more urban.

SLC feels similar to Sacramento to me, size-wise, urban-wise. We are significantly smaller than Portland Oregon's downtown and metro, but have a similar "feel", especially since Portland seems to have many highrises in the same size range as ours.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by SaltCityScrapers

I'll throw in my 2 cents:

Natural physical barriers, like the Point of the Mountain, make me exclude Utah County.

Yes SaltCityScrapers, I would certainly have to agree with you that thirty years ago you could consider the Traverse Ridge area a relatively underdeveloped physical barrier between the Central and Southern portions of the Wasatch Front CSA. However, a huge amount of development has occurred in that specific junction of the two metros. So many MSA/CSA's count miles of nothingness as part of their metros. There is certainly nothing that is disjointed about the connection between the Ogden/Salt Lake City/Provo Metro. That is if we're talking about residential/commercial development. For me, I tend to look at uninterrupted development between metro borders as giving the sense of a large MSA/CSA vibe. That Wasatch Front area at the junction of Salt Lake and Provo metros is exploding with diverse development. Especially driving along I-15 through the area or standing at the baseline of Salt Lake MSA's South Moutain and then driving up to the top at Suncrest and Traverse Ridge. South Mountain is like Hollywood Hills on steroids. Then you reach the top of the residential and drive down as it spills over and onto the other side of development. The Highland bench and Northern Lehi areas give a sense of massive growth. The residential of every kind, commercial, recreational, and Tech headquarters development in that area is already phenomenal even by the L.A. standards that I'm familiar with. I would have to say that at this point in time, Southern Salt Lake County and Northern Utah County are very physically connected development wise. From what I'm told that is only going to continue its hyper-growth at an even faster pace.

Here are a few pics, only as an example of the advent and growth of MSA/CSA connectivity of the Wasatch Front

At the north-facing base of the Salt Lake MSA portion of the Central and Southern Metros Junction. A very significant variety of residential development climbs from the base to the very top of these hills that mark the boundary line between the Salt Lake MSA and the Provo MSA.


At the top of the north-facing portion of the Salt Lake MSA


Looking down and to the northwest upon the Salt Lake MSA


At the top. Suncrest community village center.


At the top. One of the community parks


At the top climes of the south-facing portion of the borderline of the two interconnected MSA's. Seen here is the development at the top of the two metros as it begins to spill over the hills and down into the Southern MSA of Provo.


Viewing a section of ongoing residential development at the base of the Provo MSA's portion of the greater Salt Lake/Provo Junction. This photo is several years old and the amount and types of development have increased significantly in the immediate area.


I-15, along the junction area of the two metros.

Originally Posted by SaltCityScrapers

I'll throw in my 2 cents:

Vegas is much bigger than SLC, both the city itself and the metro, but it does NOT have the historic buildings that SLC has, especially when comparing downtowns. There are no Exchange Place-esque buildings in Vegas, or City-County Buildings or houses built in the 1890 - 1920 era. That counts a little bit to me, as far as feeling. But Vegas is definitely in a different league as far as metro and building size.

Vegas is one city I know almost as well as the Wasatch Front and Greater Los Angeles. I've had a lot of extended family and close friends from there. I love Vegas both for the entertainment aspect, but also many of my closest friends have been from there. From the Strip standpoint Vegas seems big or different than most cities. However, hanging out anywhere but the strip Vegas seems actually quite a bit smaller than the Wasatch Front, especially I guess what you would call the scope of downtown. Population wise The Wasatch Front CSA is bigger and as far as spread out desert cities go Phoenix feels much bigger. I'm always amazed at how short the drive is on I-15 between north and south Las Vegas Metro. Especially when compared to the I-15 drive of the Wasatch Front.

.

[SaltCityScrapers]

Vegas is one city I know almost as well as the Wasatch Front and Greater Los Angeles. I've had a lot of extended family and close friends from there. I love Vegas both for the entertainment aspect, but also many of my closest friends have been from there. From the Strip standpoint Vegas seems big or different than most cities. However, hanging out anywhere but the strip Vegas seems actually quite a bit smaller than the Wasatch Front, especially I guess what you would call the scope of downtown. Population wise The Wasatch Front CSA is bigger and as far as spread out desert cities go Phoenix feels much bigger. I'm always amazed at how short the drive is on I-15 between north and south Las Vegas Metro. Especially when compared to the I-15 drive of the Wasatch Front.

.

Not trying to be argumentative, but...

My wife grew up in the Vegas Valley so I've spent a lot of time there too. One of my best friends has lived there for 20 years too. I'm quite familiar with the whole area, Henderson, LV, NLV, Boulder City. I go down there at least a half a dozen times a year currently.

I'll agree with you, the actual downtown of Vegas is much smaller (and shorter) than SLC's downtown. My wife and I have this joking discussion all the time. "We're bigger than you are!"

What most people perceive as "Vegas" is the Strip, which is actually unincorporated Paradise, as you know. But yes, I'm lumping them together when saying Vegas the City is way bigger than Salt Lake the City. Score a point for Vegas.

Vegas is a world-level city. Two points for Vegas.

As I also said earlier, Vegas has no old historic architecture either. Score one point for SLC.

Ten years ago, I would've agreed with you on SLC metro and Vegas metro being comparable, or SLC even slightly bigger, but not nowadays.

The development that has taken place up north on Vegas' 215 highway is crazy. It is sprawling and growing dramatically. Henderson is blowing up too, with more than 350,000 population currently. It is crawling up Black Mountain. It has completely merged with Vegas. It is particularly insane when you realize: Henderson didn't exist before 1940!

The Vegas Valley currently has 2.9 million people. That's a lot more people than the Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties combined. Not a little more, a LOT more. It will continue to outpace us too.

If you want to throw in Utah County, it is still somewhat bigger.

Again, this is all perception, namely mine. As I said earlier, I see a large physical barrier to I-15 like the Point of the Mountain. It creates a separation from Utah County to my eye. Sure, I could drive up Suncrest and Traverse Mountain and look down, but I-15 doesn't go there. No major highway does. The Jordan Narrows and the Point essentially are a wall (for me).

Again, not trying to argue, just giving you my POV. I can respect what you are saying too.