Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[blazefirelight]

Originally Posted by John Martin

My grandpa designed that white striped-looking building, the taste must be genetic. I have a portfolio somewhere full of his projects so I'll have to post some material.

The Parkside Tower. I made a 3D version of it for Google Earth....

...not really a big accomplishment for me. But that's awesome that your grandpa designed it! =D

[urbanboy]

Just got back from my first ever visit to Port-O-Call... it's a shame we're losing it!

[N2I.F.]

I'm not sure where to post this question, so I apologize if this is the wrong place.

Has anyone here, as a private citizen, been contacted by the county about signing an easement agreement? I should state I know the plan is to widen the road to create an independent bike path, but I don't get the aggressiveness of the county representative about having this easement agreement signed now. Perhaps matching funds, or just a pushy person or other?

Any tips I should know? Does an easement agreement allow access to all the property or only a portion clearly spelled out? Can I have any say over the hours people will be on my property?

If you have any info you can share from a private perspective, or know how this works from your employment, I'd appreciate either a PM or a post. The County ain't going away. I want to know more before I sign.

Plus, last month they talked about the price of the land to be used for the bike path. Somehow that discussion has stopped from the County.

Thanks for any pointers any of you may have.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by N2I.F.

I'm not sure where to post this question, so I apologize if this is the wrong place.

Has anyone here, as a private citizen, been contacted by the county about signing an easement agreement? I should state I know the plan is to widen the road to create an independent bike path, but I don't get the aggressiveness of the county representative about having this easement agreement signed now. Perhaps matching funds, or just a pushy person or other?

Any tips I should know? Does an easement agreement allow access to all the property or only a portion clearly spelled out? Can I have any say over the hours people will be on my property?

If you have any info you can share from a private perspective, or know how this works from your employment, I'd appreciate either a PM or a post. The County ain't going away. I want to know more before I sign.

Plus, last month they talked about the price of the land to be used for the bike path. Somehow that discussion has stopped from the County.

Thanks for any pointers any of you may have.

Don't sign it until you know the following:

1. exactly where on your property the easement is going to be
2. Are you responsible for maintainance of the piece?
3. What type of easement is it? Public access easement? Limited access easement?
4. Are you responsible for paying taxes on the land where the easement is?
5. Who will use the easement?
6. Is the county going to free you of all liability revolving around the piece?

I do not like public access easements because often the property owner is still paying taxes on the land even though the public is benefiting from it and the property owner loses some rights on that portion of the easement. It is a border line unconstitutional taking (Look up the dolan v. tigard case: dolan was required to put in a path across their property as part of a building permit. simlar but some differences).

They should buy it from you. I would get these answered, in writing, by the county prior to signing anything. Some issues would have to be addressed by different departments, so this is going to be lengthy, frustrating, and time consuming proposition.

[Future Mayor]

No, Thank You Port O'Call! You will truly be missed!

[shakman]

I am sorry to hear that you guys are about to lose an alive street corner. I am not much of a fan of bars and clubs, but it seemed to have a been a casual gathering place that has been sacrificed in a way in which its replacement could create a dead street corner.

(I attended a Super Bowl Party that invigorates my dis-taste towards bars and clubs. Though I do like casual lounges.)

[WASDEN]

This is a HUGE step backwards for Salt Lake City. We say we want a 24/7 city, but one of our most prominent clubs is closing its doors. Port 'O Call could open in another location (totally unlikely and it just wouldn't be the same), but most importantly the Shubrick building can never be replaced. And if we also lose the Oddfellows building over this bane of a 'Borg Cube,' I'm not sure I can keep the hope alive that Salt Lake could one day be something to write home about. Where is the outcry from city officials? Where were they on Sugarhouse? Seriously SLC has so much potential! But that potential is getting chipped away day by day. I can't even begin to decribe my dissappointment- and I've had years to prepare for this.

[Boiseguy]

isn't that a gay bar?
It looks familiar... but I was drunk when I was there...so I'm not sure

[shakman]

Also remember, Utah is still predominately conservative just like me.

Let us look at the other side of this discussion. This a loss but not a "major setback". There other developments, such as CCC and Sugarhouse, are bringing life back into Downtown. Since a bar and /or a club is closes its doors, does not neccessarily dictate the SLC government is moving in the wrong direction relative to creating a 24 /7 area.

There are other means of creating a 24 /7 area without clubs and bars that are infested with obnoxious drunks.

Please note, I am not trying to put down any particular establishment(s) or disrespect the opinion of others with the above said. I am simply stating based on perception of what has been said and how they coincide with the opinion of others. (It always makes for a good discussion and learning potential.)

Just remember a loss can be always be turned into a gain.

[arkhitektor]

The worst part of this whole debacle is that unless I'm mistaken there is no funding and there are no immediate plans to actually build the courthouse that the Shubrick is being vacated for.

The fed. gov't. is rushing these people out the door, but all indications are that the site will sit empty for years to come.

I predict that the next headline in this ongoing disaster will be that they give up on moving Oddfellows hall and just demolish it in place.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

The worst part of this whole debacle is that unless I'm mistaken there is no funding and there are no immediate plans to actually build the courthouse that the Shubrick is being vacated for.

The fed. gov't. is rushing these people out the door, but all indications are that the site will sit empty for years to come.

I predict that the next headline in this ongoing disaster will be that they give up on moving Oddfellows hall and just demolish it in place.

Sources in SLC have told me that it is in design phase.

[urbanboy]

No, it's mostly straight, but everyone was welcome, just as gay bars are mostly gay, but all are welcome. The gay bars in town include: "Babylon" (Saturday nights at club "Bliss," kiddy-corner to Port-O-Call), club "Jam" (in the Marmalade district on 300 West and 700 North), both "The Trap Door" and "The Trap" (West of The Gateway on 100 South), Gossip (Friday nights at club Sound, near intermodal hub), and Tryangles (on 900 South, around the corner from Trails (a straight strip club)). There is also "The Paper Moon" on State Street which caters mostly to the lesbian crowd. "W Lounge" is not necessarily gay or straight; the place is pretty sexuality ambiguous.

[Future Mayor]

I contacted the city and the Utah State historical society when I first heard that the Shubrick was coming down. They said that although they would love to save the building, unless the owner had already registered the building as a historical structure, an application at that time wouldn't do any good. They also pretty much said that if the Feds want a piece of property they can pretty much get it and will do what they need to in order to get it, and the city and state can't deter them from doing so.

While I am glad they are attempting to move Odd Fellows it seems that the Shurbrick may have been an easier move than Odd Fellows, but again the difference is that Odd Fellows was designated historic.

If Odd Fellows is deemed to not be structurally worthy to make the move the feds should do one of several things. 1) Alter their design plans and set the building back down were it was, 2) if it is going to tumble the shift the remaining money to move the Shubrick or 3) disassemble Odd Fellow and reassemble it across the street.

I don't know if this option was ever mentioned but could they have done this. I know there are security and distance issues but come on Feds be a little more creative,


Or maybe something like this and simply make it a unique design and taller, I think they could still accomplish their "space/security" requirements with something like this. And it would still allow them to connect to the original courthouse.

[urbanboy]

It is possible to disassemble the Odd Fellows Hall and reassemble it across the street. The old statehouse, which once stood down near where the Harmon's is going in, was disassembled and reassembled on capitol hill just south of the Utah State Capitol Building. This way they could easily retrofit the building while there at it.

[MetroFanatic]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I contacted the city and the Utah State historical society when I first heard that the Shubrick was coming down. They said that although they would love to save the building, unless the owner had already registered the building as a historical structure, an application at that time wouldn't do any good. They also pretty much said that if the Feds want a piece of property they can pretty much get it and will do what they need to in order to get it, and the city and state can't deter them from doing so.

So much for "power to the people."

[SLC Projects]

Just shows you can't fight the Feds.

[cololi]

I agree completely with you FM and have been saying this for a long time now. GSA is not interested in taking the time or creativity required to make the courthouse fit in and not destroy the urban fabric. They have done it in other places, even following their own self imposed safety criteria. They can do it, they just don't want to. And I agree that we will end up with a surface parking lot for at least 10 years after shubrick is gone. Battling GSA is far worse than battling UDOT. There is very little the city can do about it. And with the state legislature, the city has to be very picky about what battles they choose to fight.

And I suspect odd fellows will be demoed. The thing about moving a building is that they never know what they are going to face until they actually start moving it. In this case, if you look at the north elevation, the top section is on a completely different plane than the bottom; it has shifted due to lifting it up. This was the reason for the initial delay. After attempting to fortify the structure further, I suspect they have realized that the building has been too compromised. That is why it is rarely a good idea to move a historic building. This is pure speculation on my part.

[nickfreakingrules]

Originally Posted by shakman

Also remember, Utah is still predominately conservative just like me.

No offense, but you don't live here, so you don't know what it's like. UTAH is predominately conservative, SLC is predominately liberal and struggling with the rest of the state to stay that way. Loosing a bar in SLC is like loosing a ward house in Sandy. lol

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by nickfreakingrules

No offense, but you don't live here, so you don't know what it's like. UTAH is predominately conservative, SLC is predominately liberal and struggling with the rest of the state to stay that way. Loosing a bar in SLC is like loosing a ward house in Sandy. lol

I think the struggle might be mutual. SLC has a very sizable "liberal" crowd, as well as an equal-sized "conservative" population. Whenever I talk to "liberals" from the area, they say that the "conservative" LDS Church is making its presence more pronouced by building CCC and they feel like they are loosing the "battle". When I talk to "conservatives", they complain that the "liberals" are taking over and that they are being pushed out to the suburbs. They say that they are loosing the "battle". It looks to me like a culture war that isn't going away anytime soon. I think that both groups will retain a strong presence for decades to come.

Note: I put quotations on the words "liberal" and "conservative" because those are rather vague terms that don't necessarily describe everyone in SLC. Generally, these terms refer to lifestyles rather than political affiliations in an SLC context.

[urbanboy]

It's interesting how LDS culture and Republican ideologies or "conservatism" have become synonyms, at least from a Mormon majority perspective, when of course that is not entirely the case. Remember, James E. Faust was a Democrat, aka "liberal."