You are on page 1of 32

YOUR UTAH. YOUR FUTURE.

Population Growth in Utah


7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065

Source: US Census; Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute


Population Growth in Utah

Historically, 67% of Utah’s growth is internal (births minus deaths)


Salt Lake County
≈ 40,000 Acres Currently Developable
≈ 15,000 Additional Kennecott Acres
Davis County
≈ 20,000 Acres Currently Developable
Weber County
≈ 40,000 Acres Currently Developable
Utah County
≈ 240,000 Acres Currently Developable
How do we keep up with demand
and keep life in Utah affordable?
Solution #1: Smaller Homes
SHRINKING HOUSEHOLDS, GROWING HOMES
3.6 3500

Average area for a single-family home (sqft)


3.5 3000

3.4 2500
Average Household Size

3.3 2000

3.2 1500

3.1 1000

3 500

2.9 0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Average Household Size Average New Home Size

Data Source: LIR Parcel Data for Davis, Salt Lake, Weber, Utah County; US Census
SQUARE FEET/OCCUPANT IN THE WASATCH FRONT; NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS

1,019.17
820.82 842.75
605.17 665.06

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Data Source: LIR Parcel Data for Davis, Salt Lake, Weber, Utah County; US Census
Solution #2: High-Density Detached
Lots are getting smaller
LOT ACRES BY DECADE CONSTRUCTED IN SALT LAKE COUNTY
0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2
Parcel Acres

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2018

Data Source: county LIR parcel data by county


Accessed via Utah AGRC
Solution #3: “Missing Middle” Attached
SHARE OF NEW HOUSING UNITS BY DWELLING TYPE
WASATCH FRONT
Multifamily Missing Middle Single-Family Detached

39%
46% 43% 50% 46% 48% 47%
43%
57% 60%
70% 67% 68% 66%
75% 74% 77% 75% 77% 76%
79% 78%
17%
24% 17% 25%
27% 17% 24% 27%
17%
20%
12%
11% 17%
22% 44%
12% 14%
15% 16% 15% 16% 33% 34% 37%
11% 17% 27% 26% 28% 26% 32%
19% 21% 20%
13% 12% 11% 15%
9% 8% 9% 8% 9%
4%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Single family homes
Large apartment buildings

Similar Average Densities


Different Neighborhood Character

Single family homes


Duplexes
Townhouses
Apartment buildings
Solution #4: The “Value Brand”
Solution #5: Accessory Dwelling Units
Solution #6: Accessibility & Mobility
Typical Utah Household Budget
Percent of
income spent on
housing and • Typical Utah
utilities
Percent of household
41% 31%
income spent on spends nearly
2 cars
60% on
Percent of housing and
29% income spent on
transportation
all other
expenses
From the following options, what would your ideal community be to
live in?
Low density residential (Examples: Suncrest,
Alpine) 8%
Walkable suburban (Examples: Daybreak,
Vineyard/Geneva)
16% 34%
Urban and mixed-use (Examples: Downtown
SLC, Provo, Sugar House)
Low-density urban (Examples: the Avenues,
Bingham Junction)
Residential-only suburban (Examples: 10%
Rosecrest, the Ranches)
Small Town or rural (Examples: Cedar Fort, 12% 20%
Goshen, Genola)

About 42% of respondents say they want to live somewhere more


walkable than traditional suburban.
Results from Valley Visioning online survey and workshops.
WHAT IS A CENTER?
A M I X O F U S ES
A m i xe d - u s e c e nte r co n s i st s o f t wo o r m o re l a n d u s e s
b e t we en w h i c h t r i ps ca n b e m a d e u s i n g l o ca l st re e t s
w i t h o u t h av i n g t o u s e m a j o r st re e t s . – R e i d E w i n g
BENEFITS OF A CENTER
L ES S T R A F F I C O N T H E R EG I O N A L N E T WO R K
Mixed-use centers bring shopping, jobs, ser vices, and
entertainment closer to home, reducing vehicle miles traveled.
INTERNAL CAPTURE RATES OF TRIPS BY MIXED-USE SHARE OF WALK, BIKE, AND TRANSIT FOR EXTERNAL TRIPS
CENTERS 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Atlanta
Austin
Boston
Denver
Eugene
Houston
Kansas City
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Portland
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
Seattle
Overall average

Source: Ewing, R. & Hamidi, S., Compactness versus sprawl: A review of recent evidence from the United States, Journal
of Planning Literature (2015).
Because of Online Shopping, We’ll Need Less Retail Space
Internal and External Connectivity

A mixed-use
center consists of
two or more land
uses between
which trips can
be made using
local streets
without having to
use major streets.
Internal and External Connectivity
The Importance of Parking

Parking is essential to market viability, but . . .


parking can be the biggest barrier to walkability
KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES
PA R K I N G — W E H AV E T O O M U C H
S a l t L a k e Va l l e y P a r k i n g S u p p l y v s . D e m a n d ( # o f s p o t s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 s q f t )

Urban Supermarket

Suburban Supermarket

Shopping Center

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Peak Demand
Source: Metropolitan Research Center Trip and Parking Generation Method Documentation Memo (2017)
W H AT U TA H N S A R E W I L L I N G T O D O

32% “More communities will


have to allow a variety
28%
of housing types other
than large-lot homes
22%
(small lots, townhomes,
apartments, duplexes,
mother-in-law and
11% basement apartments,
8% etc.)”

Not at all Somewhat Very


willing Willing Willing Results from Your Utah, Your Future survey (2015).