Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, we will play *your game*. Let's have some fun *discussing* nonsense. At least you are not *bashing* Utah ... yet ...
How far East should Utah go to build a pipe line to get water, from *your East* which gets pummeled with snow ? Do you know how many miles it is from Utah to the East (which often gets to -40 F) ??
You do take pretty pictures, so stick with that !!
Please calm down. This is a discussion about skylines, not water. I said nothing about a pipeline. And it's just a thought, not a solution. And yes, certain places in the east do get down to -40 F. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and the Dakotas are good examples of this. It may not get down to -40 very commonly, but it certainly can. And, the east did get pummeled with snow last year. Were you living under a rock? Every major news outlet covered it. And why are you suggesting that I am going to start bashing Utah, I am not, I just said our skylines suck besides a few cities. I'm sorry for wording some things weirdly, and I am sorry for causing you so much grief. But please, let's discuss the skylines. And be nice.
Last edited by CaptainCrape; 11-01-2015 at 11:07 PM..
Not quite sure as to why this conversation turned into water pipelines, sustainability and the general Utah/California comparison (which is quite absurd to compare the two States). I'll focus in on SLC because, lets face it, it is the only city in Utah that even has a skyline. Yet the facts can be used for other Utah cities. And, as a side point, I've lived in dtSLC for a short while as well as dtSan Diego and dtLA. It all boils down to work/live/play.
Skyscrapers and tall buildings are usually comprised of commercial/professional and residential buildings. On the commercial/professional side it all comes down to supply and demand. Although there are, presumably, a few large companies etc located in DTSLC, it seems that a lot of new companies seem to opt out of DTSLC because there is a lot of cheap land and rent available in areas outside of downtown. In addition, the fact that DTSLC doesn't have a lot of night options, see below, doesn't bode well for attracting companies to the downtown area.
On the residential side, DTSLC is not seen as an attractive area to live by residents and thus there is no demand to build high-rise residential buildings. Thriving downtown areas are typically resided by young professionals who don't have children. They prefer to live in such areas because of the proximity of work as well as the availability of restaurants, bars, sports/cultural events. In short, a nightlife worth living close to. People with children, on the other hand, don't typically want or need to be in the mix of everything and thus usually opt for suburbs where it is quieter. The problem with SLC is two-fold: 1) People marry young and have children; 2) DTSLC is boring when the sun goes down (please spare yourselves from arguing either of those two points).
I also think SLC's transportation is too efficient for its own good. All it really does is coerce people to live outside of the city since the metro rail can take you into the city. I know many friends who work in SLC yet live in outlying areas from Layton all the way to Ogden. Even in another decade or two when SLC reaches the current population of Denver, I find it hard to believe that Utah's skyline will be any more vastly improved.
Even in another decade or two when SLC reaches the current population of Denver, I find it hard to believe that Utah's skyline will be any more vastly improved.
This may surprise you, but when I was a child living in Salt Lake City back in the 1950s and 60s, the population of Salt Lake City was pretty close to what it is right now. The population of Boise, Idaho is actually larger than Salt Lake's. Now keep in mind that I'm talking about Salt Lake City itself, and am not including the "outlying areas." If you include the entire metropolitan Salt Lake area, the population is now about 2.1 million. But the population of Salt Lake City proper has been right around 180,000 for years and years and years. It is never going to be what the current population of Denver is.
This may surprise you, but when I was a child living in Salt Lake City back in the 1950s and 60s, the population of Salt Lake City was pretty close to what it is right now. The population of Boise, Idaho is actually larger than Salt Lake's. Now keep in mind that I'm talking about Salt Lake City itself, and am not including the "outlying areas." If you include the entire metropolitan Salt Lake area, the population is now about 2.1 million. But the population of Salt Lake City proper has been right around 180,000 for years and years and years. It is never going to be what the current population of Denver is.
Salt Lake City is actually around 195,000-205,000 currently. (It was at 192,000 in 2013, so 195,000-205,000 is a very good estimate, seeing how fast Utah has been growing) It has been going up, but SLC has a weird track record for growth, it has steady growth for a few years, than falls dramatically, then gradually raises up higher than last time, then falls again. It is sort of like mountain peaks. It been doing that for decades. And the same thing with Provo, which in 2009 had a population of around 120,000. Now it has around 116,000, and I guarantee you it will have 125,000-130,000 in a few years. And you are right, Boise is technically larger at 215,000. However it has a way worse downtown, nightlife and skyline because the surrounding cities are relatively small, unlike SLC which has surrounding cities around it with over 100,000 people. equating to 1.1 Million in the Metropolitan area, and around 2.7 million or 2.8 million in the Wasatch front, which is most of Utah's population of 3 million. In fact, the only other fairly large area outside of the Wasatch front is the St. George and it's Metropolitan area, which has 150,000 people.
But, yeah there is no way the Boise Skyline Compares to SLC's skyline. Boise, Idaho Skyline. Salt Lake City, Utah Skyline, (In my opinion, this is the best view of the skyline, as it shows much more buildings than other views do.
Last edited by CaptainCrape; 11-05-2015 at 09:28 PM..
Not quite sure as to why this conversation turned into water pipelines, sustainability and the general Utah/California comparison (which is quite absurd to compare the two States). I'll focus in on SLC because, lets face it, it is the only city in Utah that even has a skyline. Yet the facts can be used for other Utah cities. And, as a side point, I've lived in dtSLC for a short while as well as dtSan Diego and dtLA. It all boils down to work/live/play.
Skyscrapers and tall buildings are usually comprised of commercial/professional and residential buildings. On the commercial/professional side it all comes down to supply and demand. Although there are, presumably, a few large companies etc located in DTSLC, it seems that a lot of new companies seem to opt out of DTSLC because there is a lot of cheap land and rent available in areas outside of downtown. In addition, the fact that DTSLC doesn't have a lot of night options, see below, doesn't bode well for attracting companies to the downtown area.
On the residential side, DTSLC is not seen as an attractive area to live by residents and thus there is no demand to build high-rise residential buildings. Thriving downtown areas are typically resided by young professionals who don't have children. They prefer to live in such areas because of the proximity of work as well as the availability of restaurants, bars, sports/cultural events. In short, a nightlife worth living close to. People with children, on the other hand, don't typically want or need to be in the mix of everything and thus usually opt for suburbs where it is quieter. The problem with SLC is two-fold: 1) People marry young and have children; 2) DTSLC is boring when the sun goes down (please spare yourselves from arguing either of those two points).
I also think SLC's transportation is too efficient for its own good. All it really does is coerce people to live outside of the city since the metro rail can take you into the city. I know many friends who work in SLC yet live in outlying areas from Layton all the way to Ogden. Even in another decade or two when SLC reaches the current population of Denver, I find it hard to believe that Utah's skyline will be any more vastly improved.
Actually, SLC has a good nightlife, for the Intermountain west, besides Colorado, which has much bigger cities, and weed is legal so it definitely has a better nightlife, right? Lol. And the SLC skyline has been improving a lot, look at the skyline 15 years ago, now look at today's. Its way different and much bigger, though in some areas not very evident. I highly doubt that the skyline would just stop growing. All predictions say its actually speeding up growth.
Salt Lake City is actually around 195,000-205,000 currently.
I'm not sure where you're getting this number. I found differences from one source to another, but there wasn't a single one where the population was listed even at your low number.
I'm not sure where you're getting this number. I found differences from one source to another, but there wasn't a single one where the population was listed even at your low number.
Just search "Salt Lake City Population" on google. Google always has updated census statistics for at least 2013. If you want to see the population here it is: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...y%20population . This is the city population, not the population for the metro, which google lists as 1.15 million as of 2013. And of course its going to be higher now. And the 195,000-205,000 is an estimate. Seeing how SLC has been growing I inferred that it now has a population in between 195,000-205,000.
Last edited by CaptainCrape; 11-05-2015 at 10:44 PM..
Just search "Salt Lake City Population" on google. Google always has updated census statistics for at least 2013. If you want to see the population here it is: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...y%20population . This is the city population, not the population for the metro, which google lists as 1.15 million as of 2013. And of course its going to be higher now. And the 195,000-205,000 is an estimate. Seeing how SLC has been growing I inferred that it now has a population in between 195,000-205,000.
I see. Well, you go right ahead and estimate, but time will prove you wrong. The city limits aren't going to change; they are not going to get bigger than they already are, and there are only so many people who can live in that relatively small area. If you were talking about the metro area, I would not be disagreeing with you. It can still spread out for a pretty good sized distance and so the population of the Salt Lake metro area is likely to grow a lot in the near future. But the city proper -- it's not going to happen.
Salt Lake City is actually around 195,000-205,000 currently. (It was at 192,000 in 2013, so 195,000-205,000 is a very good estimate, seeing how fast Utah has been growing) It has been going up, but SLC has a weird track record for growth, it has steady growth for a few years, than falls dramatically, then gradually raises up higher than last time, then falls again. It is sort of like mountain peaks. It been doing that for decades. And the same thing with Provo, which in 2009 had a population of around 120,000. Now it has around 116,000, and I guarantee you it will have 125,000-130,000 in a few years. And you are right, Boise is technically larger at 215,000. However it has a way worse downtown, nightlife and skyline because the surrounding cities are relatively small, unlike SLC which has surrounding cities around it with over 100,000 people. equating to 1.1 Million in the Metropolitan area, and around 2.7 million or 2.8 million in the Wasatch front, which is most of Utah's population of 3 million. In fact, the only other fairly large area outside of the Wasatch front is the St. George and it's Metropolitan area, which has 150,000 people.
But, yeah there is no way the Boise Skyline Compares to SLC's skyline.
Boise, Idaho Skyline.
Salt Lake City, Utah Skyline, (In my opinion, this is the best view of the skyline, as it shows much more buildings than other views do.
Way worse?
Have you ever been to Boise? I lived in downtown SLC for many years and I can honestly say downtown Boise from street level actually has a better downtown vibe compared to SLC. It's more walkable, has a more cohesive nightlife, smaller more organic blocks full of shops, bars, coffee houses, a lot of new breweries, local restaurants that specialize in locally grown organic food products, wine bars, blocks of sidewalk dining and drinking, art galleries, foilage, safer for cycling, I can go on. Downtown Boise is busy during the day and also at night. SLC's downtown dies at night except for some clubs and restaurants that are spread out over large blocks. I have several friends I left behind in SLC who come up to Boise a few times a year to experience the nightlife downtown which per them is more enjoyable than Salt Lakes. Boise also has a river running through it's downtown along with a greenbelt and parks.
SLC has a larger skyline but SLC is attached to a much larger metro area compared to Boise. A larger skyline does not equate a better downtown at street level.
SLC also has a nice downtown, it's just a completely different vibe compared to Boise and even larger cities like Portland and Denver. Temple Square of course is unique.
I see. Well, you go right ahead and estimate, but time will prove you wrong. The city limits aren't going to change; they are not going to get bigger than they already are, and there are only so many people who can live in that relatively small area. If you were talking about the metro area, I would not be disagreeing with you. It can still spread out for a pretty good sized distance and so the population of the Salt Lake metro area is likely to grow a lot in the near future. But the city proper -- it's not going to happen.
I didn't it was going to grow a lot. The estimate I gave was small. And the thing you have to realize is that yes, while city limits can limit growth sideways, they cannot limit growth upward, like other big cities, more high rise apartments and projects will move in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol. And the SLC skyline has been improving a lot, look at the skyline 15 years ago, now look at today's. Its way different and much bigger, though in some areas not very evident. I highly doubt that the skyline would just stop growing. All predictions say its actually speeding up growth.
