Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Orlando

This is truly sad, and an unfortunate trend of many Utahns. Larry Miller was going to place the Delta Center in Murray by his dealerships, but he asked the LDS church presidency about the location, and he then located the Delta Center where it is today, which is a boon to downtown. I don't understand how the Millers think that moving the Bees way out in Daybreak helps the metro area. Large sporting venues should be located in or near the heart of the metro.

When the Millers bought the Bees back in 2005, my first worry was that they would relocate the team outside of the city.

There's always been this dismissiveness toward the urban core by a lot of the business leaders within the community. I don't know if it's just that we have a very suburban mindset but on the whole, Salt Lake seems to always be at a major disadvantage.

I can go down the list where, in the last 30 years, Salt Lake lost out - or nearly lost out - on major development because they decided to build out in the suburbs.

Back in the 90s, when the Grizzlies were relocating to Utah from Colorado (after the Avs relocated from Quebec to Denver), and Salt Lake had won the 2002 Olympics, Mayor Deedee Corradini was in the process of trying to get a hockey-only arena built right next to the Delta Center. But she was undermined by SLOC, who accepted a proposal from West Valley to build the arena out there. Salt Lake was promised a fair shot at landing the arena - but they were not given a serious opportunity to present their plan. SLOC had focused in on WVC from the start and that's where they built the E-Center. I don't mind the Maverik Center but it absolutely is a failure in terms of urban development. That area is no more developed today than when the arena opened in 1997.

That doesn't even get into Larry Miller selling the Golden Eagles after promising not to when he bought the team.

American Stores came close to building their high-rise in West Valley before finally settling on downtown Salt Lake. Could you imagine that?

If you were here in the late 2000s, you remember the conversations regarding the stadium for RSL. That was a masterclass in how to screw Salt Lake.

Salt Lake had a prime location picked out on Main Street - everything seemed ready to go. Dave Checketts was on board, Mayor Anderson was vocally in support of it and so was the council. Then the Utah Legislature passed a bill that said cities could not use RDA and hotel tax funding for sports complexes and without those dollars, Salt Lake did not have enough money to supplement some of the costs and Checketts couldn't build there.

The city floated the fair park as a less expensive option, but eventually, they chose Sandy because Sandy promised them more money.

Except Sandy couldn't afford to pay for the stadium, either. After months of tense discussion, with Checketts all but saying he would have to relocate RSL out of Salt Lake, the legislature essentially revoked their funding law (Bramble was the sponsor and revoker of both, I believe) and allowed for Salt Lake County to use those dollars to build the stadium.

The about-face by the legislature boned Salt Lake out of the stadium. Even today, I think Rio Tinto, or whatever the hell it's called, is located in a poor spot and under-utilized because of it.

Then there was the aquarium but over time, I've come to not care about that loss as much.

Now add the Bees.

And I'm convinced, had the Millers never sold the Jazz to Ryan Smith, they'd be joining the Bees out in Daybreak.

[scottharding]

Agreed, Comrade. I remember all those events well, and how infuriating it was. The Legislature, in particular, has a history of working against SLC, sometimes quite openly. For all the things they've stolen or helped to steal from the city as you've listed above, they've imposed other things, like forcing the Prison move into the city limits to the benefit of a suburb, and the Inland Port fiasco, both of which have recently proved to be the short-sighted endeavors that experts said they would be.
It's no secret, locally and nationally, that Utah generally has a very backwards mindset, and that's often very clearly demonstrated in our state government and wealthy public figures, the Millers included. Salt Lake is always fighting an uphill battle it seems, and I think this in part also answers the question on the last page about what the obstacles are to Salt Lake not getting more high-rise and taller towers. Utah has a lot of great and attractive qualities, but my god, can it really shoot itself in the foot sometimes.

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Not having any major fortune 500 companies in Utah certainly hurts in that regard

The LDS church would rank in the top 100 of the Fortune 500 companies. Plenty of money there but they don’t seem interested in building tall skyscrapers. I have to agree with Scott that Utahs backwards way of doing things is an uphill battle for Salt Lake and prevents Salt Lake from reaching its potential, and could lead to our demise. Some of our Senators voting against a bill to hold our government accountable for the Great Salt Lake says it all. Their priorities are wack. If the lake goes dry do we really think big companies and people will want to move to Salt Bed City - a city stuck to in a perpetual environmental disaster

[John_Walker]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

The LDS church would rank in the top 100 of the Fortune 500 companies. Plenty of money there but they don’t seem interested in building tall skyscrapers.

The LDS Church owns City Creek Reserve Inc., which is behind several of the tallest buildings in Salt Lake City.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

The LDS church would rank in the top 100 of the Fortune 500 companies. Plenty of money there but they don’t seem interested in building tall skyscrapers. I have to agree with Scott that Utahs backwards way of doing things is an uphill battle for Salt Lake and prevents Salt Lake from reaching its potential, and could lead to our demise. Some of our Senators voting against a bill to hold our government accountable for the Great Salt Lake says it all. Their priorities are wack. If the lake goes dry do we really think big companies and people will want to move to Salt Bed City - a city stuck to in a perpetual environmental disaster

I meant, yeah, nothing super tall, but if it weren't for the church, SLC skyline would be half of what it is now

Can't blame the church for this one

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by wrendog

I meant, yeah, nothing super tall, but if it weren't for the church, SLC skyline would be half of what it is now

Can't blame the church for this one

True, the LDS church does own a quarter of the land downtown (not sure this is a good thing), and are responsible for many of the buildings. My statement was only partially accurate. They are interested in building tall buildings, but not skyscrapers. To be fair no developer in SLC has yet to build an actual skyscraper. The LDS church are the Fortune 500 company you speak of though. They have the capital to build an actual skyscraper which SLC still lacks. By definition we still do not have a skyscraper - 490 ft. My opinion, I love the density and think the infill we’ve had is necessary, but it’s time for SLC to build an actual skyscraper, which others on the forum have pointed out time and again it’s only a matter of time…we think.

As for the State of Utah impacting development downtown. I stand by my statement and agree with much of what Comrade and others are saying in that regard. I also will reiterate SLC is a ticking time bomb if the state of Utah as a whole does not figure out some of the environmental issues going on. SLC will simply become a much less desirable place to live if the issues are not improved.

[TheGeographer]

Originally Posted by John_Walker

The LDS Church owns City Creek Reserve Inc., which is behind several of the tallest buildings in Salt Lake City.

This is true, they have built several tall buildings and own a quarter of the land downtown, but have not yet built a skyscraper by definition - 490 ft. An interesting question to ask ourselves, without the LDS church and a church ran state how would SLC have developed differently? I’m not saying it would be better or worse, but how would it be different

[Reeder113]

Originally Posted by Comrade

When the Millers bought the Bees back in 2005, my first worry was that they would relocate the team outside of the city.

There's always been this dismissiveness toward the urban core by a lot of the business leaders within the community. I don't know if it's just that we have a very suburban mindset but on the whole, Salt Lake seems to always be at a major disadvantage.

I can go down the list where, in the last 30 years, Salt Lake lost out - or nearly lost out - on major development because they decided to build out in the suburbs.

Back in the 90s, when the Grizzlies were relocating to Utah from Colorado (after the Avs relocated from Quebec to Denver), and Salt Lake had won the 2002 Olympics, Mayor Deedee Corradini was in the process of trying to get a hockey-only arena built right next to the Delta Center. But she was undermined by SLOC, who accepted a proposal from West Valley to build the arena out there. Salt Lake was promised a fair shot at landing the arena - but they were not given a serious opportunity to present their plan. SLOC had focused in on WVC from the start and that's where they built the E-Center. I don't mind the Maverik Center but it absolutely is a failure in terms of urban development. That area is no more developed today than when the arena opened in 1997.

That doesn't even get into Larry Miller selling the Golden Eagles after promising not to when he bought the team.

American Stores came close to building their high-rise in West Valley before finally settling on downtown Salt Lake. Could you imagine that?

If you were here in the late 2000s, you remember the conversations regarding the stadium for RSL. That was a masterclass in how to screw Salt Lake.

Salt Lake had a prime location picked out on Main Street - everything seemed ready to go. Dave Checketts was on board, Mayor Anderson was vocally in support of it and so was the council. Then the Utah Legislature passed a bill that said cities could not use RDA and hotel tax funding for sports complexes and without those dollars, Salt Lake did not have enough money to supplement some of the costs and Checketts couldn't build there.

The city floated the fair park as a less expensive option, but eventually, they chose Sandy because Sandy promised them more money.

Except Sandy couldn't afford to pay for the stadium, either. After months of tense discussion, with Checketts all but saying he would have to relocate RSL out of Salt Lake, the legislature essentially revoked their funding law (Bramble was the sponsor and revoker of both, I believe) and allowed for Salt Lake County to use those dollars to build the stadium.

The about-face by the legislature boned Salt Lake out of the stadium. Even today, I think Rio Tinto, or whatever the hell it's called, is located in a poor spot and under-utilized because of it.

Then there was the aquarium but over time, I've come to not care about that loss as much.

Now add the Bees.

And I'm convinced, had the Millers never sold the Jazz to Ryan Smith, they'd be joining the Bees out in Daybreak.

I can't imagine how terrible the traffic would be in SLC had all of those stadiums been built there. It's already a nightmare to navigate when we have a couple of events happening at the same time.

Personally, I like how the various stadiums are spread across the valley.

But I'm clearly a lone wolf on this issue.

[Makid]

SLC has been close, really close, multiple times to getting 490' or taller towers.

The LDS Church almost built the first one in the 70's. The COB was originally planned to be between 33 and 35 stories. This was scaled down to the current 28 stories we have today.

I have heard that Zions Bank has had multiple HQ buildings lightly planned over the years. The old Social Hall tower was one such possible Zion tower.

Wasatch Partners had a plan for 2 500'+ twin condo towers planned for the NE corner of 4th South and State. This project was mentioned by Del Loy Hansen in/around 2007. It died as part of the Great Recession.

This is all of course without the Triad towers of the 80's.

These are just the more publicly known projects/proposals for SLC. I would expect that there were dozens more that all never got off the table or were scaled down to their currently built sizes.

For today though, we are getting closer to the 500' range for towers with the Astra pushing us towards 450'.

As long as the housing market remains tight in the SLC area, we can continue to see residential towers built in SLC. As the projects start to compete against each other and other built towers, we will see heights increase.

For Commercial towers, everyone is in a wait and see mode due to COVID and how businesses respond with remote working being more feasible today than ever before. I know many companies are starting to pull workers back 3 days a week, so it may just be a few years before everything settles.

Hospitality (hotels) - we will see how things settle with the CCH built and the return of OR and its multiple shows each year.

Now, I have heard that there are a few 450+ projects in the works. So it is only a matter of time, hopefully sooner than later, before we push the 500' range.

[Atlas]

There's clearly a bias against SLC in the state among many residents/legislators. It may actually be a really cool research project to really dig into the sources and distill the reasons and motivations behind it. There are probably some elements to it that we share in common with other cities: white flight, car dependency, Republican vs. Democrat attitudes, etc.

More interestingly, I wonder how the unique Mormon vs. gentile dynamic plays into this. SLC proper has not been controlled by an LDS majority for probably a century and I think this could have had an effect on annexation and development patterns. For example, LDS-majority communities like Murray probably didn't want to be part of SLC when the opportunity came. And it's not all bad: what other mid-size metro in the US has a public transit system like SLC's? You have to think that the cultural dynamics have something to do with that.

One thing I notice in places like Denver and Kansas City is that people have a lot of pride in the city and its downtown. In SLC, I don't typically feel that. A lot of people in SLC seem to resent it or think it's "not a real city." (laughable) People in the burbs just don't like SLC and many never actually go downtown. Some think its dirty and blighted, some think it's controlled by the Church, others think "the Libs" have ruined it. None of that is true.

One thing I loved about Bury the Rails is that it showed me that there are a lot of other people out there who want to see SLC succeed and continue to be the alpha-city of Utah.

Originally Posted by Makid

Wasatch Partners had a plan for 2 500'+ twin condo towers planned for the NE corner of 4th South and State. This project was mentioned by Del Loy Hansen in/around 2007. It died as part of the Great Recession.

Great post. I had no idea about this one. That parcel is ripe for redevelopment and would be a fantastic spot for a 500+ footer. One proposal you didn't mention was the skyscraper that was proposed at the site of the One Utah Center in the 80s. Here's a composite image I made from a Youtube video that mentioned it.

I know our skyline has a "tabletop" look right now but I think the extra density of 300-400 ft towers will make it look great when some bigger ones come along. What is more important is that all of the infill is really starting to make a big impact on street level. The urban fabric is recovering and more people are going to and living in downtown. When I walked around downtown last week on a weekday, there were people everywhere on the streets. It was good to see.

I just wish we could get some condo developments built instead of all apartments.

[John_Walker]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

This is true, they have built several tall buildings and own a quarter of the land downtown, but have not yet built a skyscraper by definition - 490 ft. An interesting question to ask ourselves, without the LDS church and a church ran state how would SLC have developed differently? I’m not saying it would be better or worse, but how would it be different

Good point. And I don't think they will be building anything that tall anytime soon despite all the land they are sitting on.

I am not from Utah and have been surprised at how much influence and power the mormon church wields. Especially taking into consideration the quickly shrinking % of the state population that the active members make up.

[SLCHenry]

Sad to see all of these cool proposals scrapped. The Air Center, Arrow Press Square, and the Cascade.

I hope they do stuff with the empty lots remaining downtown, tones of potential there.

[Atlas]

The LDS church itself has invested heavily in SLC. City Creek was a fantastic addition to downtown, for example.

I think the bias against the city comes from regular (largely LDS) people who have their own opinions.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

I can't imagine how terrible the traffic would be in SLC had all of those stadiums been built there. It's already a nightmare to navigate when we have a couple of events happening at the same time.

Personally, I like how the various stadiums are spread across the valley.

But I'm clearly a lone wolf on this issue.

Salt Lake City’s grid and multi-modal accessibility spreads the traffic. There are too many bottlenecks in the suburbs. And having stadiums and other large venues at the heart of the spider network of TRAX and Front Runner makes them more accessible to everyone than they would be if they were located on one of the arms.

[Reeder113]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Salt Lake City’s grid and multi-modal accessibility spreads the traffic. There are too many bottlenecks in the suburbs. And having stadiums and other large venues at the heart of the spider network of TRAX and Front Runner makes them more accessible to everyone than they would be if they were located on one of the arms.

Have you ever been downtown on a night when there's a Jazz game and an event at the Conference Center? It's gridlock. Now imagine a hockey arena and a soccer stadium somewhere in the vicinity. Total nightmare.

FrontRunner and TRAX also meet up at the Murray Central Station. Most people coming from either direction need to switch from Frontrunner to TRAX in SLC (or Murray) anyway, in order to get to the Vivint Arena. It's shorter than taking one of the arms, but it's the same concept.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

Have you ever been downtown on a night when there's a Jazz game and an event at the Conference Center? It's gridlock. Now imagine a hockey arena and a soccer stadium somewhere in the vicinity. Total nightmare.

FrontRunner and TRAX also meet up at the Murray Central Station. Most people coming from either direction need to switch from Frontrunner to TRAX in SLC (or Murray) anyway, in order to get to the Vivint Arena. It's shorter than taking one of the arms, but it's the same concept.

lol you do know that just because these arena/stadiums might be located by each other, that they're not all going to be used the same night, right?

This is how places like Denver can have both a NHL and NBA team utilize the same arena.

RSL and the Jazz play (or played if you count RSL's end season last year) at home on the same night just twice. That's it.

In fact, it's not uncommon for local teams to work around each other's schedules so they can monopolize the time and not have direct home competition (obviously that isn't always the case -but it generally is).

[Rileybo]

Originally Posted by TheGeographer

. I also will reiterate SLC is a ticking time bomb if the state of Utah as a whole does not figure out some of the environmental issues going on. SLC will simply become a much less desirable place to live if the issues are not improved.

If immediate drastic action is not taken, Salt Lake won’t just be less desirable to live in, it will be uninhabitable. Arguably it’s already too late to do anything. I don’t think we’ll be seeing anything taller than Astra here, unfortunately.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Rileybo

If immediate drastic action is not taken, Salt Lake won’t just be less desirable to live in, it will be uninhabitable. Arguably it’s already too late to do anything. I don’t think we’ll be seeing anything taller than Astra here, unfortunately.

This seems... a tad too pessimistic

[Rileybo]

Originally Posted by Atlas

There's clearly a bias against SLC in the state among many residents/legislators. It may actually be a really cool research project to really dig into the sources and distill the reasons and motivations behind it. There are probably some elements to it that we share in common with other cities: white flight, car dependency, Republican vs. Democrat attitudes, etc.

More interestingly, I wonder how the unique Mormon vs. gentile dynamic plays into this. SLC proper has not been controlled by an LDS majority for probably a century and I think this could have had an effect on annexation and development patterns. For example, LDS-majority communities like Murray probably didn't want to be part of SLC when the opportunity came. And it's not all bad: what other mid-size metro in the US has a public transit system like SLC's? You have to think that the cultural dynamics have something to do with that.

One thing I notice in places like Denver and Kansas City is that people have a lot of pride in the city and its downtown. In SLC, I don't typically feel that. A lot of people in SLC seem to resent it or think it's "not a real city." (laughable) People in the burbs just don't like SLC and many never actually go downtown. Some think its dirty and blighted, some think it's controlled by the Church, others think "the Libs" have ruined it. None of that is true.

One thing I loved about Bury the Rails is that it showed me that there are a lot of other people out there who want to see SLC succeed and continue to be the alpha-city of Utah.


Great post. I had no idea about this one. That parcel is ripe for redevelopment and would be a fantastic spot for a 500+ footer. One proposal you didn't mention was the skyscraper that was proposed at the site of the One Utah Center in the 80s. Here's a composite image I made from a Youtube video that mentioned it.

I know our skyline has a "tabletop" look right now but I think the extra density of 300-400 ft towers will make it look great when some bigger ones come along. What is more important is that all of the infill is really starting to make a big impact on street level. The urban fabric is recovering and more people are going to and living in downtown. When I walked around downtown last week on a weekday, there were people everywhere on the streets. It was good to see.

I just wish we could get some condo developments built instead of all apartments.

If this wasn’t just an urban development forum and people didn’t get their panties in a bunch anytime Utah’s culture is criticized, I could discuss for hours about the bias against SLC and how both the city and state are in a constant state of one step forward two steps back.

You’re right about there being no pride in the city from residents. No one here seems satisfied ever. And that really does include everyone .

[Rileybo]

Originally Posted by wrendog

This seems... a tad too pessimistic

Am I too pessimistic or have I been listening to the environmental experts and reading the data? Our legislators are making it so they hold no legal responsibility for the destruction of the lake right now, so can’t count on them to do the right thing who’s gonna step in?