Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[airhero]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

Big story in the SL Tribune on the arena plans...

Oh my. Reading the part where building an NHL arena at the point, Sandy, Herriman, or Provo was being considered, I am happy that some northerners have wieldable influence in the legislature (Stuart Adams from Layton and Dan McCay from Riverton). But now I'm more concerned than ever about what may be lost to make way for this sports and entertainment district.

This article did offer an answer to the big question I've had about how the convention center blocks could be included in the plans. The answer is apparently that most versions of a revitalization plan include a "massive downsizing" of it.

If the plan is a rebuild, which it sound like it is, I'm not sure how a massive downsizing would be necessary (maybe temporarily?). Perhaps it would result in a marginal downsizing of contiguous exhibit space. If the plan isn't a rebuild and just tearing down the west block and working with existing convention space for the future, yeah I see how that could result in a massive downsizing and save on costs, but I don't see how 100 South could be reopened as a pedestrian walkway in that case. I wonder.

The only thing that makes me optimistic is that city councilors seem very upbeat about what may happen with the convention center and Japantown, so maybe we will like what is to come. Abravanel Hall may be the biggest thing to be concerned about in that case. At least it seems like there will be a hall in any case, as the article mentions "significant changes, renovations or even new buildings entirely" for Abravanel Hall and UMOCA.

Sounds like there is still a lot to discuss.

[nushiof]

I liked the part where Brewer mentions 5-star hotels and residential towers!

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by airhero

Oh my. Reading the part where building an NHL arena at the point, Sandy, Herriman, or Provo was being considered, I am happy that some northerners have wieldable influence in the legislature (Stuart Adams from Layton and Dan McCay from Riverton). But now I'm more concerned than ever about what may be lost to make way for this sports and entertainment district.

This article did offer an answer to the big question I've had about how the convention center blocks could be included in the plans. The answer is apparently that most versions of a revitalization plan include a "massive downsizing" of it.

If the plan is a rebuild, which it sound like it is, I'm not sure how a massive downsizing would be necessary (maybe temporarily?). Perhaps it would result in a marginal downsizing of contiguous exhibit space. If the plan isn't a rebuild and just tearing down the west block and working with existing convention space for the future, yeah I see how that could result in a massive downsizing and save on costs, but I don't see how 100 South could be reopened as a pedestrian walkway in that case. I wonder.

The only thing that makes me optimistic is that city councilors seem very upbeat about what may happen with the convention center and Japantown, so maybe we will like what is to come. Abravanel Hall may be the biggest thing to be concerned about in that case. At least it seems like there will be a hall in any case, as the article mentions "significant changes, renovations or even new buildings entirely" for Abravanel Hall and UMOCA.

Sounds like there is still a lot to discuss.

There's no other place for them to rebuild the lost square footage of the CC except really to build up and add another level. According to their info, the exhibit space along W Temple is 234,900 sq ft, and the space along S Temple (that would theoretically be demolished) is 275,700 sq feet, so you'd be losing more than half of the hall space. It's boxed in with the West Quarter development, so adding an upper level of exhibit space equal to the 275,000 sq ft that may be lost is the seemingly only viable option.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

There's no other place for them to rebuild the lost square footage of the CC except really to build up and add another level. According to their info, the exhibit space along W Temple is 234,900 sq ft, and the space along S Temple (that would theoretically be demolished) is 275,700 sq feet, so you'd be losing more than half of the hall space. It's boxed in with the West Quarter development, so adding an upper level of exhibit space equal to the 275,000 sq ft that may be lost is the seemingly only viable option.

Yikes. I can't imagine the CC hotel owner is thrilled about this. Who actually owns that?

[locolife]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

. ANd an extra 41 (minimum) nights of activity throughout the winter, when normally people in Utah would not be out that much, will have a huge effect.

That's not how it works unfortunately.

https://globalsportmatters.com/busin...ports-stadium/

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by locolife

That's not how it works unfortunately.

https://globalsportmatters.com/busin...ports-stadium/

Except it literally is how it works. The story you linked to even concedes that businesses have seen increased spending (though it doesn't really mention how much beyond saying "the gains are small" and mention that it's only relevant to the areas around the stadium - well duh we're talking downtown, so...) and the study it links to on this point ... is not freely accessible.

But what I do know is that Jazz games bring in about $1 million in revenue each season. That might not seem like a lot but it's probably one of the bigger drivers to getting people downtown.

Take out the Delta Center, as in move it to Draper or Provo or somewhere else, and you not only lose the revenue the Jazz create, you also lose the revenue the Delta Center overall can create for downtown - concerts, shows, even March Madness.

So, we're likely looking at a situation where that revenue could potentially double by bringing in a NHL team.

Whether it matches, dollar for dollar, the amount the city invests in renovating? Who knows? How do you quantify an exact number like that?

You can't and that's why these studies are limited. For starters, many of these studies involve already built arenas. So, they're not adding anything new to the market. When Baltimore is looking to renovate or rebuild Camden Yards, they're not adding an entirely new stadium to the area. The Orios have played on that site for 32 years.

This is adding a new team to the market which absolutely mean more foot traffic.

So, there are now two things at play here:

1. Doubling the amount of games downtown (a new stadium in Buffalo for the Bills isn't going to change anything because they're literally building it right next door to their current stadium, so, that's a stupid comparison).

2. It guarantees the main concert/sports arena on the entire Wasatch Front remains downtown as opposed to moving south to Draper and downtown Salt Lake losing all that foot traffic - even if it were just to save the Jazz. There are 41 home games in the NBA alone (and for the NHL too - but let's just stick with the Jazz). This season alone, Utah averaged 18,206 per game. That works out to an average of 746,446 people coming downtown throughout the season. How can anyone look at that number and not think it has some level of impact on downtown and the businesses around it? In 2018, the Salt Palace brought in about a half-million people per year downtown. Add the NHL team, and say with the new renovations, you're looking at 17,500 and that works out to 717,500 on average a year. With the Jazz, that's 1.5 million or so people coming into downtown a year - just from those two events. Add other events the Delta Center hosts, and you're pushing two-million people a year who otherwise might not come downtown at all without the arena.

And so now you have bars and restaurants popping - and then hotels. On top of that, it makes the area more engaging as there's more foot traffic and buzz. So, it's not just a depressed area that people don't want to necessarily visit, or more importantly: live.

It's all tied together.

Especially when it's linked to these types of developments and not just the stadium itself.

It's really not debatable that Salt Lake is better off with the Jazz downtown. They're absolutely better off with a NHL team downtown. They'll be even way better off if they can get a MLB stadium built just a mile west from downtown.

[airhero]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

There's no other place for them to rebuild the lost square footage of the CC except really to build up and add another level. According to their info, the exhibit space along W Temple is 234,900 sq ft, and the space along S Temple (that would theoretically be demolished) is 275,700 sq feet, so you'd be losing more than half of the hall space. It's boxed in with the West Quarter development, so adding an upper level of exhibit space equal to the 275,000 sq ft that may be lost is the seemingly only viable option.

With the current convention center the entire floor space is shared between exhibit, meeting, ballroom. It’s possible with a rebuilt convention center an entire floor could be dedicated to just exhibit space allowing the halls to occupy far more space on just the two blocks than they do currently, so the contiguous exhibit hall space could nearly reach, if not exceed, current space, without extending to an additional block, without tearing down Abravanel Hall or UMOCA, and without substantial modification to the CCH. This assumes the exhibit halls would span over the newly opened 100 S, but maybe that’s not the plan. It also assumes space for loading on both the east and west sides of the convention center. My biggest question about such a plan is how they could preserve convention space in the interim. But since it sounds like a contraction is being considered anyway I’m not sure why we would have to sacrifice exhibit space in the long term—that is, if a full rebuild really is in the cards and there will be a convention center connection over 100 S.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Except it literally is how it works. The story you linked to even concedes that businesses have seen increased spending (though it doesn't really mention how much beyond saying "the gains are small" and mention that it's only relevant to the areas around the stadium - well duh we're talking downtown, so...) and the study it links to on this point ... is not freely accessible.

But what I do know is that Jazz games bring in about $1 million in revenue each season. That might not seem like a lot but it's probably one of the bigger drivers to getting people downtown.

Take out the Delta Center, as in move it to Draper or Provo or somewhere else, and you not only lose the revenue the Jazz create, you also lose the revenue the Delta Center overall can create for downtown - concerts, shows, even March Madness.

So, we're likely looking at a situation where that revenue could potentially double by bringing in a NHL team.

Whether it matches, dollar for dollar, the amount the city invests in renovating? Who knows? How do you quantify an exact number like that?

You can't and that's why these studies are limited. For starters, many of these studies involve already built arenas. So, they're not adding anything new to the market. When Baltimore is looking to renovate or rebuild Camden Yards, they're not adding an entirely new stadium to the area. The Orios have played on that site for 32 years.

This is adding a new team to the market which absolutely mean more foot traffic.

So, there are now two things at play here:

1. Doubling the amount of games downtown (a new stadium in Buffalo for the Bills isn't going to change anything because they're literally building it right next door to their current stadium, so, that's a stupid comparison).

2. It guarantees the main concert/sports arena on the entire Wasatch Front remains downtown as opposed to moving south to Draper and downtown Salt Lake losing all that foot traffic - even if it were just to save the Jazz. There are 41 home games in the NBA alone (and for the NHL too - but let's just stick with the Jazz). This season alone, Utah averaged 18,206 per game. That works out to an average of 746,446 people coming downtown throughout the season. How can anyone look at that number and not think it has some level of impact on downtown and the businesses around it? In 2018, the Salt Palace brought in about a half-million people per year downtown. Add the NHL team, and say with the new renovations, you're looking at 17,500 and that works out to 717,500 on average a year. With the Jazz, that's 1.5 million or so people coming into downtown a year - just from those two events. Add other events the Delta Center hosts, and you're pushing two-million people a year who otherwise might not come downtown at all without the arena.

And so now you have bars and restaurants popping - and then hotels. On top of that, it makes the area more engaging as there's more foot traffic and buzz. So, it's not just a depressed area that people don't want to necessarily visit, or more importantly: live.

It's all tied together.

Especially when it's linked to these types of developments and not just the stadium itself.

It's really not debatable that Salt Lake is better off with the Jazz downtown. They're absolutely better off with a NHL team downtown. They'll be even way better off if they can get a MLB stadium built just a mile west from downtown.

The article I posted does reference financial struggles of tied together developments, including the much touted battery MLB park and entertainment district in Atlanta. It is only a few years old but is already a drain on the city of over $15 million a year.

Keeping the arena downtown is fine, I agree it should be there. It should not cause CC loses, 1/2 million mostly out of town CC attendees who fly in, stay at hotels, eat out 3 meals a day, etc is more valuable than 700,000 mostly locals that likely come in for the game and depart right after. You’re also not subtracting other events that hockey is replacing, it’s not like the delta center is empty any night the Jazz aren’t playing.

I’m not arguing that SLC is better off without the teams downtown, I’m saying if SEG thinks it is a financial slam dunk, they should fund it. At most they should supplement funding only with taxes generated at the project. And they should be told there is no way it can negatively impact CC space, which they shouldn’t want to do anyway as they’d benefit from those massive conferences as well.

Maybe the point is downtown SLC and state leaders believe this is the only way to avoid losing the arena, which actually is kind of depressing. If that’s the case I get it, the arena needs to stay downtown but man the precedent of handing out $ to the super rich like this is frustrating. Guess we’ll see how it plays out there and what it means for the countless other billionaire owners looking for public subsidies nationally.

I don’t live there, your plan is safely out of my say. I’m just pointing out what we’ve experienced first hand in Phoenix and many other cities have around the country. I’ll gladly come see whatever ya all build whenever it’s done.

[Juancrocco]

Just have to say they absolutely cannot take down Abravanel Hall. That is a unique gem and we have to protect those types of places in downtown and throughout Utah. I’m all in on the hockey team, public and private spending to create a new 18 hour district, and I love the idea of reopening 100 S. But we have to be smart about it. I can see the delta center from my window so I’m pretty invested.

Getting rid of the west block of the CC would be great. Having new development there along with next phases of the West Quarter (which hopefully accelerates construction) will be awesome but Abravanel has to stay and I know the church will keep the north parking lot which is fine because I think south temple being the dividing line between church and non church land actually works well.

Let’s get it done but be smart about it.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by locolife

The article I posted does reference financial struggles of tied together developments, including the much touted battery MLB park and entertainment district in Atlanta. It is only a few years old but is already a drain on the city of over $15 million a year.

Again: you're comparing different situations entirely.

The Atlanta MLB park, and that Battery district, is over 10 miles from downtown Atlanta. It was built smackdab in the middle of a suburban community that had no major development to piggyback from.

That area was completely undeveloped.

We're not talking about building a new arena in an undeveloped area. This area is already developed. Downtown is an established entity. Not a new area they're trying to establish. It's just not a comparable situation at all.

Originally Posted by locolife

Keeping the arena downtown is fine, I agree it should be there. It should not cause CC loses, 1/2 million mostly out of town CC attendees who fly in, stay at hotels, eat out 3 meals a day, etc is more valuable than 700,000 mostly locals that likely come in for the game and depart right after. You’re also not subtracting other events that hockey is replacing, it’s not like the delta center is empty any night the Jazz aren’t playing.

Except no one is saying close down the convention center. Scaling it down - or redeveloping it so it's scaled appropriately but on less land is what we're discussing. So, again, you're arguing things that are not relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by locolife

I’m not arguing that SLC is better off without the teams downtown, I’m saying if SEG thinks it is a financial slam dunk, they should fund it. At most they should supplement funding only with taxes generated at the project. And they should be told there is no way it can negatively impact CC space, which they shouldn’t want to do anyway as they’d benefit from those massive conferences as well.

This could go for nearly every major development ever.

It's rare something this size is ever funded 100% without taxpayer dollars - whether it's in Phoenix or Salt Lake or Los Angeles or wherever.

Like the Westgate Entertainment District, which Glendale taxpayers continued to fund well into the 2010s (from parking upgrades to structures).

That's the life of a city.

When Salt Lake built the Gateway, even though it was owned by Boyer at the time, much of the initial cleaning up of the site for the mall's development was funded through government grants tied to the Brownfield project. Boyer wasn't footing the bill on that.

Originally Posted by locolife

Maybe the point is downtown SLC and state leaders believe this is the only way to avoid losing the arena, which actually is kind of depressing. If that’s the case I get it, the arena needs to stay downtown but man the precedent of handing out $ to the super rich like this is frustrating. Guess we’ll see how it plays out there and what it means for the countless other billionaire owners looking for public subsidies nationally.

It's the reality of Ryan Smith, unfortunately. He has zero ties to Salt Lake City. None whatsoever. He never lived here. He wasn't born here. He didn't go to school here. His whole life was either spent out of state or living in Utah County. That's home to him. It's clear he would really like the team to be moved out south and yeah, Salt Lake is probably desperate to keep them here for the reasons I mentioned and it wouldn't surprise me if the LDS Church, as well as the legislature, saw the potential impact of losing the Delta Center, which brings in hundreds-of-thousands of people a year would have on the downtown area.

Smith absolutely could afford to foot the bill, whether downtown or Draper or Provo, where he was apparently looking to relocate the Jazz. Salt Lake is at a disadvantage and when that's the case, you're stuck making tough choices.

I still see it as a potential boon for the area, though. It's a commitment to downtown and I believe having the Jazz and this NHL team down there will make it a better overall experience than if they were to leave.

I don’t live there, your plan is safely out of my say. I’m just pointing out what we’ve experienced first hand in Phoenix and many other cities have around the country. I’ll gladly come see whatever ya all build whenever it’s done.

But have you experienced it in Phoenix? Do you think the Footprint Center hasn't helped downtown Phoenix?

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by locolife

That's not how it works unfortunately.

https://globalsportmatters.com/busin...ports-stadium/

Interesting counterpoint from Natalie Gochnour, a renowned economist at the U of U. She wrote this a few years ago regarding the LHM group renovations to the Delta Center and why it made economic sense to support the project with public money.

https://gardner.utah.edu/blog/slc-su...conomic-sense/

Yes in a lot of cases public money for stadiums don't make sense, especially when you're investing in just the replacement of an existing stadium with a new one, that will create no net new revenue streams other than temporary ones for construction and such. But this project is bringing an entire new team to the area, doubling at minimum the number of people traveling into the downtown core during the winter months in the evenings. Even the article you cited does say that restaurant revenues rose in an area within 1-2 miles of the arena; well in SLC even a one mile radium encompasses all of downtown. Plus you have added ridership on TRAX and Frontrunner, more liquor sales which means increased revenue from that tax, etc. It may take a long time to see a recovery of the investment itself, but it will certainly increase revenue for businesses all around downtown.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by airhero

With the current convention center the entire floor space is shared between exhibit, meeting, ballroom. It’s possible with a rebuilt convention center an entire floor could be dedicated to just exhibit space allowing the halls to occupy far more space on just the two blocks than they do currently, so the contiguous exhibit hall space could nearly reach, if not exceed, current space, without extending to an additional block, without tearing down Abravanel Hall or UMOCA, and without substantial modification to the CCH. This assumes the exhibit halls would span over the newly opened 100 S, but maybe that’s not the plan. It also assumes space for loading on both the east and west sides of the convention center. My biggest question about such a plan is how they could preserve convention space in the interim. But since it sounds like a contraction is being considered anyway I’m not sure why we would have to sacrifice exhibit space in the long term—that is, if a full rebuild really is in the cards and there will be a convention center connection over 100 S.

Only downside to essentially boxing in the Salt Palace is there isn't any space to expand; no room to make larger contiguous space. Although I guess if SLC got big enough to where they had regular requests for events as big or bigger than the Outdoor Retailers and FanX, that'd be a good problem to have and they may find a new home for it. But I think adding another floor that's fully open as a single expansive exhibit hall, with the existing one below, and then finding space for new meeting rooms and such, it can work. Ground level is essentially the middle level of the CC, with only meeting space above, so there's easily room to go vertical.

[delts145]

I think that going vertical with the CC is probably the most sensible answer. I'm even wondering if 20 or even 10 to 15 years from now it would make sense for the downtown power brokers to move forward with what Holding was pushing for, "a southern CC". I think Holding wanted it built on that old Newhouse block. Probably won't be available ten years from now. Perhaps, something in the neighborhood of that much-maligned Garner dealership. Anyway, there are certainly a lot of underdeveloped 10-acre blocks in that general vicinity. It would be incredible if downtown buildup reached a point where a CC #2 that would augment/compliment the Salt Palace was needed. There's certainly good access to TRAX, Main, the Interstate, existing and future Hotels, etc. I predict development between 400 and 800 South is going to be coming on very strong over the next ten to fifteen years. Amongst the many developments moving in that direction, there is also the mid to high-rise regional medical center and campus, which will soon take shape on the old Sears block.

Another thought. Let's hope that the pressure is finally big enough to fill all of those missing teeth directly east of the CC. That whole block from 1st to 2nd S. and Main to W. Temple is screaming for attractive major infill, like upscale high-rise hotels. Development of new multi-use commercial/residential/boutique hotels like a 4-Seasons, a Ritz, a W, etc., then demo the current Marriott on the City Creek corner and put up a J.W. namesake in its place that's worthy of the Hometown/State of the biggest hotelier in the world.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Comrade

But have you experienced it in Phoenix? Do you think the Footprint Center hasn't helped downtown Phoenix?

I was just in Phoenix last week for a work conference so I was downtown for 3 days, unfortunately the Suns were playing on the road so I didn't experience any gameday crowds, but downtown Phoenix is a pretty dead place to begin with. It's very close to Chase Field for the Diamondbacks; they've built some kind of a small "entertainment district" between the two, but it's not much... it's mostly surrounded by parking lots and garages, it's on the outer edge of downtown so it doesn't seem to have spurred any development as of yet. Phoenix is a bit weird as it's such a big city but the downtown is almost an afterthought; it's not the beating heart of the city.

A better example is Petco Park in San Diego, the before/after photos since it opened 20 years ago is stunning; it is one of the best examples of a stadium being a catalyst for construction around it. There are dozens of high rise apartment and condo buildings, restaurants and bars, etc. It's now one of the high energy areas of downtown SD and before it was a very sketchy area. It has helped to expand downtown to the east. But San Diego downtown is a much more desirable area than downtown Phoenix.

[delts145]

Agree one hundred percent ucsb. I think downtown San Diego is a much better template for Salt Lake to look to as an example than say a number of cities, including Phoenix or even my own neighborhood here in Los Angeles. I freakin love San Diego.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by delts145

Agree one hundred percent ucsb. I think downtown San Diego is a much better template for Salt Lake to look to as an example than say a number of cities, including Phoenix or even my own neighborhood here in Los Angeles. I freakin love San Diego.

Yeah I never said Salt Lake should look to emulate Phoenix.

And no, San Diego is not a good example. We're talking two different dynamics: a MLB stadium that brings in 39,000 fans on average (according to 2024 attendance numbers) over a span of 81 home games (that works out to an average of over three-million) and arena that will bring in less than half that over a span of a year.

It would be a good comparison for the Power District but not downtown.

I think the best example is Los Angeles and the area around the Crypto Center. I visited there in 2004 and the area was dead and they invested in LA Live, which broke ground about a year after I had visited, and the whole area is completely different today than in 2004.

[rockies]

Originally Posted by delts145

I think that going vertical with the CC is probably the most sensible answer. I'm even wondering if 20 or even 10 to 15 years from now it would make sense for the downtown power brokers to move forward with what Holding was pushing for, "a southern CC". I think Holding wanted it built on that old Newhouse block. Probably won't be available ten years from now. Perhaps, something in the neighborhood of that much-maligned Garner dealership. Anyway, there are certainly a lot of underdeveloped 10-acre blocks in that general vicinity. It would be incredible if downtown buildup reached a point where a CC #2 that would augment/compliment the Salt Palace was needed. There's certainly good access to TRAX, Main, the Interstate, existing and future Hotels, etc. I predict development between 400 and 800 South is going to be coming on very strong over the next ten to fifteen years. Amongst the many developments moving in that direction, there is also the mid to high-rise regional medical center and campus, which will soon take shape on the old Sears block.

Are there any examples of cities with a CC #2? If there was a push for this I would be extremely interested to read more.

When we had the discussion a few weeks ago, I tried somewhat extensively to research the topic of satellite convention centers; multi-building convention centers with significant separation between the buildings; and convention center campuses, but I found almost nothing. Some examples exist, like even SL County's expo center somewhere in the suburbs could be considered a satellite convention center, but I do not think there is precedent for 2 major downtown convention centers owned by local authorities at least in a city like salt lake

My guess is 1) preference for larger, consolidated convention space as a single convention would probably not want to simultaneously occupy two salt palaces separated by many city blocks and 2) private convention space etc may bridge the gap in some cities. I feel like SLC doesnt have as much of this yet but hotels, universities, park city, event centers, business parks, etc could really step up their game to take pressure off any salt palace that is absolutely bursting at the seams long term

In any case, I do think on a smaller footprint they can give more usable convention space with a complete rebuild. That is what I would like to when I wrap my head around all the potential changes and money spent

[bob rulz]

I'm all in on this revitalizing the area, but I will chain myself to Abravanel Hall if need be. Now there's a venue actually worth saving.

I'm a bit concerned about the talks of downsizing the CC. I do agree that we desperately need to redevelop the back side of the CC and reconnect 100 South, but it would be a shame to lose conventions because of downsizing. If we can ensure that won't happen, then that's a different story.

[RC14]

^
I agree with you on both points.

I would like to see the convention center consolidated but I hope they can do that without loosing exhibit space. In my mind, they could do this by making the convention center 3 floors. We could have meeting space on the ground floor, which could be divided by 100 south and the upper two floor could cross, continuously, above, or below 100 south and house exhibit space.

Also, Abravanel Hall needs to be left alone.

[meman]

Yes , guys I totally agree. Leave Abravanel Hall alone.

It is a gem in our city!!!