Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[urbanboy]

If we make Downtown Salt Lake City a great place to live, we can then count on more residential high-rises. Remember, not all towers are offices.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

Salt Lake City is maybe 30 years behind the developmental foundation that Oklahoma City and Calgary has with oil. That isn't going to change overnight, so don't expect anything in ten years. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there is anything in terms of this type of development in 20.

Of course, Oklahoma City also hit a huge wall by the mid-80s and since hasn't seen any real skyscraper development (well up until this new proposal). The same could be said for many cities that grew up around oil, especially throughout Texas and even OKC's state rival, Tulsa.

Not saying that would happen to Salt Lake, but remember that it's up and down and I don't expect an oil boom comparable to what we saw in the 70s and 80s.

Comrade:

I promised myself I would lay off this thread tonight because I'm swamped with work. So much for promises.

That Delts is a crafty devil...flaunting the pictures of high-rises from the Calgary and the proposed development in OK-City. That stirred up some interest. Here's a couple of considerations that exist today that didn't exist in the energy boom of the 70's and early 80's, which will have a direct impact.
(1) Current oil supply only exceeds demand by a scant 660K barrels a day worldwide, which is a razor thin margin considering daily world consumption is over 86M barrels a day and rising. This is why even the hint of a problem in supply sends the energy markets into shock...far different than the 70's and 80's when difference between supply and demand was about 20%, not 1%. The game has changed.
(2) The issue is not one of reserves. They are there. The issue is of production, which isn't.
(3) The recent discoveries in Utah of crude are MASSIVE. Without a bunch of boring detail, let's just say that TODAY the proven reserves in central Utah are in the 1B barrel range. The discoveries in central Utah are much bigger than the discovery of a field. They are PROOF of a concept. Guess where most of the geology of that concept exists? It ain't in Colorado, and a lot of people do not want to live in southwestern Wyoming?.
(4) Because Big Oil bet the wrong way, the Utah reserves are in the hands of independents, very similar to Devon energy in OK-City, which means they are going to need tremendous space for all the back-office stuff that has to be done to support development of a super field or field(s). It now takes far more geologists, geophysicists, chem engineers, et cetera to support exploration than it does oil field personnel because the exploration is far more complicated. These companies do not, by and large, already have the facilities, and they have no reason to sell out to Big Oil. Their investors will make far more money if they hang on to their holdings than if they sell them.

You know where I'm going with all of this.

So Delts is pretty perceptive. The SLC skyline will change fairly dramatically in the next 10 years because of energy...and this is energy from crude, not oil shale. If oil shale is developed, which it will be, because even though a multi-billion barrel production sector in Utah (which is very possible) may change the Salt Lake skyline, it's pretty insignificant in the world view. Oil shale is significant in the world view.

[Comrade]

You missed my point. If it changes the skyline, the impact will be 20 or so years from now. Who knows what we'll be dealing with then, however, anyone who thinks tapping here will automatically mean a boon for downtown is fooling themselves.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

You missed my point. If it changes the skyline, the impact will be 20 or so years from now. Who knows what we'll be dealing with then, however, anyone who thinks tapping here will automatically mean a boon for downtown is fooling themselves.

Comrade: You're right. Hitting black gold in Utah doesn't automatically mean big buildings. But I think the paradigm has changed. As foolhardy as it may seem, I think the development scenario may be quicker than any we have considered before.

[Zionide]

Very longtime lurker here, recently registered, and finally had to speak up about this Utah Theatre discussion and related Sundance discussion.

I'm sure Bill Becker has toured the Utah Theatre, but I have a hard time believing there's nothing left to preserve. Unless it has been seriously stripped in the last 5 years, there are a lot of amazing details in the auditorium.

Some background:
In late 2002/early 2003, Clear Channel Worldwide was considering moving their newly purchased KTVX-TV (ABC 4) to downtown SLC from its (relatively new--built in 2000, but very poorly) building on 1700 S./2100 W. They wanted a Main Street studio to hopefully rejuvenate KTVX's sagging ratings and bring some life back into both downtown and the station.

It was only financially feasible for Clear Channel to do this if two arms of their company went in on the project. Clear Channel Radio had a relatively new building in WVC from their Jacor Radio buyout, so that wasn't an option, but Clear Channel Entertainment (which runs Broadway Across America, Salt Lake City), had recently decided to push for a Broadway theater in downtown, since many productions skipped SLC because of the size of the Capitol (sound familiar?).

Sooooo, Clear Channel TV and CCEntertainment decided to find a venue that would house both operations: a TV news studio, a Broadway theater, and offices for both. The obvious (and awesome) solution: The Utah Theatre and the surrounding store fronts. They also considered the (then) American Stores tower if CCE dropped out and it was to be the TV division all by itself.

I worked for Clear Channel then, and in summer 2003, I was on the team that toured the American Stores tower and the Utah Theatre as part of this process. Sadly, I did not have a camera with me that day (it was a surprise visit). But believe me, at that time, the lobby and hallway were the LEAST interesting and ornate areas. (Incidentally, a coworker did have a camera, and this post has prompted me to email him and ask if he still has the images--I'll post them if I can get them.)

Though the auditorium was split into two levels with a movie screen in each, and some historical moldings and wall pieces had been damaged or removed to make the balcony a full auditorium/floor, the space was still stunning. I distinctly remember turning to a coworker, mouth open, and saying, "How has this been here like this for so long?! It's so much better than the Capitol Theatre."

Most of the period lighting remained, original signage was there, the stage and curtains were intact, the staircases and floors were amazing, even under all the dirt and, most surprising, the restrooms retained many of their 1920s fixtures and, even, charm. The seats were mid-century replacements, yes. The plaster walls were cracked, yes. Areas of the balcony were roped off because they were unsafe. But so much of the Pantages' character was obviously there, and in my opinion, completely salvageable.

So, unless Rick Howa got stupid and removed all those wonderful elements, I don't believe "there's no there, there."

Oh, and as for Clear Channel's plans? They were in informal discussions with the RDA, trying to clarify what kind of assistance would be available given the massive revitalization it would have been for Main Street. While this was happening, KUTV/CBS got word of the possibility and, not having a Broadway component, jumped at the chance to be in the tower. Clear Channel and CBS battled very briefly with the RDA, and we all know who won that one. Frankly, I think the city was still upset with KTVX for breaking open the Olympic bribery scandal, and KUTV always played nicer.

Given all that, the Utah is my sentimental favorite in this current Broadway Theater search. I'm not sure if it makes the most sense, but I still love it.

Now, for the Sundance arm of this dicussion:
I left Clear Channel to work for the Sundance Institute, and though I hate to rain on anybody's parade, I can tell you without hesitation that Urbanboy's proposal, nice as it is, will never happen.

Though the Institute tries to keep elements of the Festival in Salt Lake City (see "SLC Festival Cafe" at the Beehive Tea Room and 300 S. becoming "Festival Row" in 2008), their eggs are now all in Park City's basket. The Institute even moved its corporate offices from the Crane Building to Park City in August 2005 (Jill Miller's doing). And though the Institute does the occasional SLC screening during the summer, at that time of year its focus is on the screenwriting and theatre labs at the Sundance Resort. The SL Film Center would be a more likely candidate for this idea, IMO. Sundance just isn't interested in Salt Lake City.

Second: Jill Miller, managing director, doesn't do much that matters. Ken Brecher, executive director (located in the Institute's Beverly Hills office), calls all the shots that Bob and the board does not. And Brecher would prefer to stay as far away from (what he perceives as) the Mormon influence of SLC as possible. Anything film-related that Brecher does not decide goes to Geoff Gilmore, film festival director. Miller, though nice enough, essentially just oversees the day-to-day operations of the Institute outside of the Film Festival. And that ain't much.

Anyway, sorry for the LONG, potentially off-topic first post. Have greatly enjoyed the forum over the last couple years. I won't be saying much, but will probably speak up from time to time now that I'm no longer a posting virgin.

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I wrote a letter, but I haven't sent it yet. What do you all think?

Quote:
Dear, Jill Miller

Downtown Salt Lake City will be experiencing a renaissance very shortly. Over 3 billion is currently being invested into Downtown. 1.5 of that is being invested into two city blocks that are adjacent to Temple Square, Utah's top tourist attraction. When completed, these two blocks will be known as City Creek Center a world-class shopping and lifestyle center: http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/

Furthermore, the City is working to create a "Cultural Arts District" on the two blocks just south of City Creek Center. This is where the Sundance Institute comes in. Salt Lake City has enjoyed the exposure, economic activity, and the cultural experience that the Sundance Film Festival has brought. Our community is full of gratitude because of it. We would like for the Sundance Institute to have a more permanent presence as part of our Cultural Arts District. Perhaps the implementation of a Sundance film school that could rival Vancouver's Film School. There is also an opportunity to restore one of two existing 1,400 seat B. Marcus Priteca "Pantages" theaters (located on one of the two blocks) into a premiere Sundance venue and Film Center. The other existing B. Marcus Priteca "Pantages" theater is in Minneapolis, and was recently restored: http://www.pantagesplayhouse.com/pantageses.htm ......and...... http://www.hga.com/the_latest/press_...vitalizes.html

Also, a Tony Award-winning producer Bill Becker, the mayor's brother, is directing Salt Lake City's efforts on a full-time, volunteer basis, with assistance from the local arts community, business leaders and civic organizations in bringing a Broadway- style theater to downtown. A site for the theater has been proposed on one of the two Cultural Arts District blocks, as seen in the attached file. Also shown in yellow is the Pantages Theater and leasable space for a possible film school.

With the City, P.R.I (the real-estate arm of the LDS church), and other private developers investing in Downtown, this community's commitment to creating a world-class Downtown has never been stronger. Now is a great time to get involved.

[delts145]

Well Zionide, That was your first official post, and it sure carried a lot of useful information. A big welcome to the forum.

Most of us would agree with you regarding the Utah/Pantages Theatre. There is much left intact, and it must be restored and preserved. While I think it has become apparent that the Utah will not be used as the larger Broadway style venue, it certainly should not be left to dwindle in limbo for another twenty years.

Your assessment of Sundance using downtown in a permanent capacity is unfortunately spot-on. For numerous reasons, until Utah actually develops it's own 'Utah-based' power in film production, most to all of the important decision making will be coming from Hollywood.

The number of films created in Utah will continue to see an increase, and hopefully the Utah business of television series will get it's act together locally. The Wasatch Front and Utah in general does most definately have the potential to become another Vancouver. Actually, there are a number of reasons that Utah is a much better film local than Vancouver. However, there is much development left to be accomplished before that can happen.

Regarding the downtown potential for skyscapers, I would like to believe that the paradigm has changed, as RFPCME has suggested. Certainly, the potential is there for an acceleration of what has been the historical cycle, which Comrade correctly pointed out. I also think that Urbanboy's suggestion of continuing to make downtown an attractive place to live is appropriate. The more residentially attractive the downtown becomes, the more need will develop to locate both residential and office towers downtown. TRAX and FrontRunner should be a tremendous help in that department, along with the continued change in psychology of developing the walkable street and inner- block.

[delts145]

Becker still hopes Leonardo can be success

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700252727,00.html

Salt Lake City's recently precarious partnership with The Leonardo has settled on more stable ground.
Mayor Ralph Becker pledged Thursday to hold off on seeking other uses for the old city library until "every effort is made for The Leonardo to be successful" in the building at 209 E. 500 South.

.

[utahboozer]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Where do you guys see Salt Lake in say 20 years from now? (2028) I once heard that in 20 years Salt Lake City would be the size of San Diego in the present day. ( That was back in around 2002. ) Not really sure if I believe that or not. But do you guys think we will ever see SLC break the 40-story mark or 50 within our lifetimes. How much bigger would our skyline by in 20 years? Will the Jazz ever win a championship? Sorry I had to throw that one in there.

TBQH, I would gladly postpone a big skyline for a Jazz championship this year. I guess I have my priorities.

[RC14]

Hyett at the Gateway update, taken this morning:
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[Viperlord]

not sure if this got posted or not....

A Hole Lot of uncertainty about the SLC courthouse expansion

http://www.utahstories.com/salt_lake_courthouse_expansion.htm

[RFPCME]

Zionide: A huge welcome to the forum!!! Loved your first post. Well thought out and helps clear up the Sundance question. You put into words what I think many of us have just suspected.

Ironic, if you think about it...that is, Sundance's distancing themselves from Salt Lake City. For an industry (the film industry, especially the independent portion of it) to turn its back on a culturally different segment of the country seems antithetical to the values the Sundance Institute loves to flaunt. You know, providing a venue for all sorts of film, not just the Wonderbread, designed-for-profit crap that is the majority of what Hollywood turns out. Why? Because local values do not fit Hollywood values. Smells like provincialism to me. Just another form of: "If you don't think my way, then your way is no good." (I can't believe I just defended the conservative values that still dominate SLC. But hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, whether it wears a beret or not...The whole concept really pisses me off).

If I were producing truly independent films, I would NOT want to be associated with a venue best known for its conspicuous consumption. Not the values I would want to communicate. Hell, they might as well move the film festival to Dubai!

All well, if that is the soul of the Institute, then the SLC Arts District is better off with out it. Art doesn't flourish when it has to conform.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

You missed my point. If it changes the skyline, the impact will be 20 or so years from now. Who knows what we'll be dealing with then, however, anyone who thinks tapping here will automatically mean a boon for downtown is fooling themselves.

Absolutely right!

There is no instant gratification when it comes to constructing something of permanence amd quality value.

Salt lake City is not Du Bai. NYC is not Du Bai where it is like a game more than a strategic evolution.

SLC is what it is. A populous area that will grow but is much more dominated by space rather than a focused high rise construction area.

So much urban space and like many western cities, so little demand for a focused downtown. Hey, in the real world, only the die hard skyscraper development nerds (like us) want to see a focused Highrise downtown.

The other 95.9% could care less.

Would it be great to see a dominant skyline"? Yes and absolutely because it becomes a definition of excitement and an urban core.

Will it get one? No...Let's face it, the main populous of SLC could care less. 5 stories...50 stories...most people could care less about th edifference,

In NYC it is just the way it is because there is no space. In SLC, people seem to like the open spaces...high rise construction is like a temporary aborrition.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

Absolutely right!

There is no instant gratification when it comes to constructing something of permanence amd quality value.

Salt lake City is not Du Bai. NYC is not Du Bai where it is like a game more than a strategic evolution.

SLC is what it is. A populous area that will grow but is much more dominated by space rather than a focused high rise construction area.

So much urban space and like many western cities, so little demand for a focused downtown. Hey, in the real world, only the die hard skyscraper development nerds (like us) want to see a focused Highrise downtown.

The other 95.9% could care less.

Would it be great to see a dominant skyline"? Yes and absolutely because it becomes a definition of excitement and an urban core.

Will it get one? No...Let's face it, the main populous of SLC could care less. 5 stories...50 stories...most people could care less about th edifference,

In NYC it is just the way it is because there is no space. In SLC, people seem to like the open spaces...high rise construction is like a temporary aborrition.

NYC Rick: Cynical but probably containing more truth than most of us would like to admit. But I'm still sticking with my "the paradigm has shifted" argument. Paradigm shifts don't happen often, but when they do, conventional logic doesn't apply. Too much data to suggest the rules that applied in 1980 or 1990 or even 2000 still work.

[delts145]

I think no matter what our opinion, we all hope you're right RFPCME. I remember as a kid, when the energy boom hit downtown Denver, it's skyline seemed to change overnight. Of course, the energy bust also had a long-term effect on Denver also. This go around of energy development seems to be more of a long term expansion however.

In looking closely at Calgary's CBD tower build-up, not only energy development, but the ancillary business which accompanies energy is phenominal.

Are there any national or world cities that comes to your mind within the last few years, that have experienced a dramatic CBD build-up as a result of intense focus on energy development? I realize many areas have taken a certain amount of time to evolve, but this paradigm, which exists today is much different in the world of energy vs. what it was in the 70's. The advent of a new China and India alone, has added a huge amount of hyper-drive into the equation. In a way, it's like the U.S. is facing a similar need for build-up speed as it faced prior to WWII.

Another thought is that the Wasatch Front and Utah in general, is not exactly a new born babe in this game of energy development evolution. This whole process of oil,gas,general mining,coal,geothermal,solar,wind,etc. is a tradition already existing for decades, to practically being as old as the first settlers themselves. As with so many industries, which have exploded onto the Wasatch metro scene in the last few years, energy would be but an expansion of a previously existing infrastructure. I mean, the list of companies, which have gone from dozens of employees to hundreds, as they have converted resource away from former centers toward the Wasatch is very long indeed. And all of this has happened in a very short time. Seriously, how long is it going to take for these dozens of energy related companies, many of which are local, to expand their office-support presence in the metro, if the federal government allows their development?

Perhaps ultimately, it's going to depend on public pressure, and who occupies the White House for the next 4 years.

.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Zionide

Now, for the Sundance arm of this dicussion:
I left Clear Channel to work for the Sundance Institute, and though I hate to rain on anybody's parade, I can tell you without hesitation that Urbanboy's proposal, nice as it is, will never happen.

Though the Institute tries to keep elements of the Festival in Salt Lake City (see "SLC Festival Cafe" at the Beehive Tea Room and 300 S. becoming "Festival Row" in 2008), their eggs are now all in Park City's basket. The Institute even moved its corporate offices from the Crane Building to Park City in August 2005 (Jill Miller's doing). And though the Institute does the occasional SLC screening during the summer, at that time of year its focus is on the screenwriting and theatre labs at the Sundance Resort. The SL Film Center would be a more likely candidate for this idea, IMO. Sundance just isn't interested in Salt Lake City.

Second: Jill Miller, managing director, doesn't do much that matters. Ken Brecher, executive director (located in the Institute's Beverly Hills office), calls all the shots that Bob and the board does not. And Brecher would prefer to stay as far away from (what he perceives as) the Mormon influence of SLC as possible. Anything film-related that Brecher does not decide goes to Geoff Gilmore, film festival director. Miller, though nice enough, essentially just oversees the day-to-day operations of the Institute outside of the Film Festival. And that ain't much.

I also used to work for the Sundance Institute and I disagree with several of your comments, Zionide. When Urbanboy first suggested using the Utah Theatre for some sort of Sundance film school or program, I am the one who encouraged him to write Jill Miller. I believe that Sundance doing something with that space is less likely, but I would never say never.

The way to be sure that you're idea won't happen is to keep it to yourself. If you share your idea with someone in a position to possibly make it happen, then there is a chance, however slim. I've personally experienced this many times in my life where I've shared an idea and it has come to fruition.

I strongly disagree that Sundance is not interested in Salt Lake City. I know from personal conversations with several people at Sundance that they are interested in expanding their presence in SLC. The reason Sundance moved their headquarters from downtown SLC was not because they are uninterested in SLC, but because of pure economics. Various entities in Park City were raising rates for the Sundance Film Festival every year. Sundance negotiated a contract with the city and various property owners in Park City that froze rates for 10 years with the condition that Sundance move their headquarters to Park City, but that also included a huge discount on office rental for the HQ there. The Park City deal was very sweet because it required the Institute to forego several hundred thousand dollars in annual SL Co. Zoo, Arts & Park funding.

I find it odd that you would say Jill Miller has no power to do anything at Sundance, but then say she was responsible for moving the offices to Park City. While it is true that Ken Brecher is the executive director, Jill has a lot more authority and power than you give her credit for. Jill doesn't isn't just in charge of everything, but the film festival. She oversees everything, including the film festival. The film festival is part of the Institute that she directs. Geoffrey Gilmore is director of the festival, but he doesn't oversee anything to do with the logistics and administration of the festival, outside of programming.

Even if Jill had as little power as you say (with which I disagree), if she was interested in Urbanboy's idea, she could share it with other's in the Sundance organization and try and rally them to the 'cause, so to speak. Sharing the idea with Jill gets the idea further than if he kept the idea to himself.

I agree that the idea is less likely to happen, but for different reasons. Sundance isn't a hugely wealthy organization with massive resources to take on a restoration project for a film school or other film program like this. If they did decide to do something along these lines, they could probably get partners to join them, but it is less likely than some of their other ventures. I still think it is worth sharing the idea, though.

I took a biz graduate-level class on writing business proposals from Dr. Niko Linardakis at the U. a few years ago. There were two biz proposals that came from his class that many people in the class scoffed at. One was a biz proposal to open an aquarium in SLC. The other was to start a trolley line in Sugar House. These were just ideas generated by average citizens in the community without any financial resources of their own. But by working on these ideas and sharing them with people in positions of authority, the trolley line is now likely to come to fruition. The aquarium--as initially envisioned--is still struggling, but may be built, albeit in Sandy.

Perhaps, Urbanboy should take Dr. Linardakis' class and write a business proposal for a film program at the Utah Theatre and share it with various entities downtown. I suppose it depends how far he wants to personally take the idea. But I think it was good to share the idea with Jill Miller and the mayor and chamber of commerce.

[SLC Projects]

Thanks for the Hyett at the Gateway update. I've been wondering how that project is coming along.

[delts145]

Speaking of Gateway updates... what's the latest news on the future Gateway Six? That particular project is one of my favorites, when it comes to Gateway itself. Any news on a ground breaking date? Viperlord, have you heard anything recently?

Gateway Office building
Proposed
Floors:5
Height:Unknown
Address: 450 West 50 North
Other:Office Space. in planning stages.

[rmarkosian]

A Hole Lot of Uncertainty

Federal government courthouse funding uncertainty could leave Market Street, Salt Lake City without Port O'Call and a giant hole in downtown Salt Lake City for years to come.

http://www.utahstories.com/salt_lake_courthouse_expansion.htm

[Viperlord]

Originally Posted by delts145

Speaking of Gateway updates... what's the latest news on the future Gateway Six? That particular project is one of my favorites, when it comes to Gateway itself. Any news on a ground breaking date? Viperlord, have you heard anything recently?

Gateway Office building
Proposed
Floors:5
Height:Unknown
Address: 450 West 50 North
Other:Office Space. in planning stages.

I have not heard anything about this development recently. A clip from an article back in March is about the latest I have.

"The Boyer Co. also is proposing to build an office building to the southwest of the hotel. The 100,000-square-foot building -- the sixth office building at The Gateway -- is expected to open in summer 2009."

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Comrade:

I promised myself I would lay off this thread tonight because I'm swamped with work. So much for promises.

That Delts is a crafty devil...flaunting the pictures of high-rises from the Calgary and the proposed development in OK-City. That stirred up some interest. Here's a couple of considerations that exist today that didn't exist in the energy boom of the 70's and early 80's, which will have a direct impact.
(1) Current oil supply only exceeds demand by a scant 660K barrels a day worldwide, which is a razor thin margin considering daily world consumption is over 86M barrels a day and rising. This is why even the hint of a problem in supply sends the energy markets into shock...far different than the 70's and 80's when difference between supply and demand was about 20%, not 1%. The game has changed.
(2) The issue is not one of reserves. They are there. The issue is of production, which isn't.
(3) The recent discoveries in Utah of crude are MASSIVE. Without a bunch of boring detail, let's just say that TODAY the proven reserves in central Utah are in the 1B barrel range. The discoveries in central Utah are much bigger than the discovery of a field. They are PROOF of a concept. Guess where most of the geology of that concept exists? It ain't in Colorado, and a lot of people do not want to live in southwestern Wyoming?.
(4) Because Big Oil bet the wrong way, the Utah reserves are in the hands of independents, very similar to Devon energy in OK-City, which means they are going to need tremendous space for all the back-office stuff that has to be done to support development of a super field or field(s). It now takes far more geologists, geophysicists, chem engineers, et cetera to support exploration than it does oil field personnel because the exploration is far more complicated. These companies do not, by and large, already have the facilities, and they have no reason to sell out to Big Oil. Their investors will make far more money if they hang on to their holdings than if they sell them.

You know where I'm going with all of this.

So Delts is pretty perceptive. The SLC skyline will change fairly dramatically in the next 10 years because of energy...and this is energy from crude, not oil shale. If oil shale is developed, which it will be, because even though a multi-billion barrel production sector in Utah (which is very possible) may change the Salt Lake skyline, it's pretty insignificant in the world view. Oil shale is significant in the world view.

Everything that you are mentioning is pure postulation on things that MAY be. The actual foundation and infrastructure is basically non existant.

1. The SLC skyline will change fairly dramatically in the next 10 years because of energy...and this is energy from crude, not oil shale. If oil shale is developed, which it will be, because even though a multi-billion barrel production sector in Utah (which is very possible) may change the Salt Lake skyline, it's pretty insignificant in the world view. Oil shale is significant in the world view.

the SLC skyline may very well change dramatically. However, it is going to have to have a reason to change. Hey. I would love to see a dynamic and powerful skyline. Yet, right now there is no reason for it to change "dramatically". No one even knows how successful a highrise condo enviroment will even work is SLC. It is all built on the hope that a dynamic downtown will emerge. No guarantee there.

2. The recent discoveries in Utah of crude are MASSIVE. Without a bunch of boring detail, let's just say that TODAY the proven reserves in central Utah are in the 1B barrel range.

Do we even have the technology to bring that oil to a profitable fruition? Do we even know the true extent of the oil shale field? Not what we hope but what is fact. Is there real, dead on, factual scientific research that shows there is a billion barrel potential?

The discoveries in central Utah are much bigger than the discovery of a field. They are PROOF of a concept.

It is easy to have proof of a concept...it is hard to have real a total facts of proof

Guess where most of the geology of that concept exists? It ain't in Colorado, and a lot of people do not want to live in southwestern Wyoming?.

Yeah, is is in Colorado also and believe me all of those people you think do not want to live in Wyoming would fall out of the cracks in the walls if it was profitable reality. I have never been a big Wyoming fan...though the Tetons are off the charts amazing...I would love to know where you got your "It ain't in Colorado, and a lot of people do not want to live in southwestern Wyoming?" information from.

The proven???? reserves are 1 billion barrels... Maybe possibly 1 billion barrels if everything works out perfectly?

Oil Shale has been talked about for quite sometime. Who stated a definite 1 billion barrels? I hope you are right but How do they know this. Yes they could say the in this area we see the potential of XXX amount of barrels ergo sum the larger area would be the same, How do they know?

I know there are people that will think I am slamming you, I am not. I just would love to not see hopes for a skyline or hopes of being the new energy meca when NOTHING has been done. Yes we know the potential would be huge but there are so many natural and human obstacles.

One more thing because I love urban areas as much as anyone...don't you think there may be a possibility that we could seriously harm the land? I am no Mr. Green but it is possible.

One thing that I do know is that I would love to see safe and new energy technologies to take off for the future generations. You know, a time when no one would give a shit about oil. I mean it is human nature to go...Gee we have all of this new oil...we do not have to worry...that is the way the heads of oil companies and idiot presidents think.

Also we can aim a little higher than Oklahoma City...that place is....never mind.[/B]