Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[ski_steve]

Park Building's renovation complete

Before

Edgar Zuniga Jr.

After

Edgar Zuniga Jr.

The Daily Utah Chronicle
Rachel Stuart


Renovation of the John R. Park Building is now complete.

During nearly 11 months of construction, the aging building received exterior improvements and a much-needed seismic upgrade.

The historic building, located at the top of Presidents' Circle, is 95 years old. It houses the offices of U President Michael Young and other administrators.

The original roof of the Park Building was not secured to the walls and could have caused significant damage to the building in the event of an earthquake. The roof has been nailed down and the building’s internal structure strengthened.

Other renovations to the Park Building include fire protection and sprinkler systems, an improved limestone facade and refurbished windows. The bronze statue of John R. Park was also fully restored. The original limestone exterior, constructed with stone from Sanpete County, has been patched with more durable limestone from Wisconsin. The newly installed copper sheet-metal flashings on the roof direct water away from the building and protect the new facade.

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/ne...lete-1.1763552

[SLCforme]

Originally Posted by WeST

Once again I would quickly like to get the facts straight. Whatever your opinion of organized religion is the facts need to be out there. SLCForme you are mistaken about the tax exempt status of religions. They can not run businesses and use the religion as a cover. Whether this is strictly adhered to and enforced is debatable, but if a church makes profit it does so from a branch or arm that sells a product and then pays taxes on that profit.

Beneficial Life is a "arm" of the LDS Church, but paid taxes on the profits realized during its years of business. The LDS Church over the years has slowly been divesting itself of these types of businesses. In the past they served a purpose, but as society changes some of them are no longer needed. Many of the for profit business that the Mormon church runs/ran were to fill a need that they perceived as unmet. Whether it has been schools (use to run schools that were K-12), insurance, gymnasiums, media, farming, ranching etc., they were designed to meet a need that they believed was not being filled. If you look at the history, the LDS Church holds a fraction of the for profit businesses it use to.

Decide for yourself what is a proper role of religions, but don't be misled to believe that these businesses are something they are not. To tie this to development, these for profit businesses have been in the past a big boon for the local economy. I think it is a wise move for the LDS Church, but a serious loss for Salt Lake City.

I'm well aware of the distinction between for profit and not for profit arms of churches. My point is that not for profit arms of churches, or churches that have no for profit arms, ie, a church that is just a church and has no traditional business dealings whatsoever, is still a business. It's goods and services are it's ideology and people pay for that ideology (and the promise of salvation) in tithes, donations, offerings, etc. Their goal is to expand and bring their product to more and more people and take in more and more donations. If that isn't a business then I don't know what is.
And I agree that historically the LDS church has provided a wealth of services that weren't being met by the local economy, and that's great. But even if they were to drop all for profit dealings they would still be a business like other religions and should not be tax exempt, in my opinion. Like I said, I wasn't deriding the LDS church at all with my statement, just calling attention to an inequality in our country, and that's that religions are provided benefits and protection that other institutions are not, simply because they are religions.

[SLCforme]

oh, and the Park Building looks great! The expansion on the University Hospital is nearing completion too, and it's about freakin' time the bus drop off is a mess right now, but it will be very nice when completed. I have yet to see any actual work done on the Huntsman Cancer Institute expansion, but they are doing some utility work in the area that may or may not be for the expansion.

[WeST]

Originally Posted by SLCforme

I'm well aware of the distinction between for profit and not for profit arms of churches. My point is that not for profit arms of churches, or churches that have no for profit arms, ie, a church that is just a church and has no traditional business dealings whatsoever, is still a business. It's goods and services are it's ideology and people pay for that ideology (and the promise of salvation) in tithes, donations, offerings, etc. Their goal is to expand and bring their product to more and more people and take in more and more donations. If that isn't a business then I don't know what is.
And I agree that historically the LDS church has provided a wealth of services that weren't being met by the local economy, and that's great. But even if they were to drop all for profit dealings they would still be a business like other religions and should not be tax exempt, in my opinion. Like I said, I wasn't deriding the LDS church at all with my statement, just calling attention to an inequality in our country, and that's that religions are provided benefits and protection that other institutions are not, simply because they are religions.

Do you believe that everything should be taxed? Should organizations like the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Earth Justice, Sierra Club, Doctors without Borders etc. or is it just a problem with Religions? I believe that cities development is greatly enhanced by a healthy groups of NGOs including churches.

[jtrent77]

seems to be a bit off topic now...and by a bit I mean a lot

[urbanboy]

Photos from today's walk:




Notice anything off about this picture?

[urbanboy]

Just a thought:

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Photos from today's walk:

I hope that the First Security sign isn't coming off the building permanently.

[urbanboy]

I sure hope they put all three signs back in place when they are done!

[jmonkey]

Hooray!! I'm so glad those rusted, outdated signs are coming down! I don't think they are iconic in the least. First Security Bank is long gone. If we were retaining FSB signage, we should have kept it on the 400 South building. That was a good-looking sign.

[John Martin]

Yay! I hope they crumble up into irreparable pieces... it looked like they were about ready to anyway.

[urbanboy]

&



I couldn't disagree with you two more!

These signs add so much color and life to the skyline and even Main Street street-life! Furthermore, these signs are very familiar to those who know and have a history with downtown. These signs are like a family member to those who have an invested interest in Downtown. They are part of what gives people, who call downtown home, a sense of place. I bet both of you do not know downtown very well, but are trying to shape it from an outsiders perspective. There is nothing more irritating than an outsider thinking he knows what's best for a community.

[stayinginformed]

Unfortunately, they cut them up according to the Deseret News.




The second of two First Security signs is taken down from a building at the intersection of 100 South and Main on Wednesday. An identical sign was removed Tuesday and cut into pieces with an acetylene torch before it was hauled away.

[jmonkey]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

&



I couldn't disagree with you two more!

These signs add so much color and life to the skyline and even Main Street street-life! Furthermore, these signs are very familiar to those who know and have a history with downtown. These signs are like a family member to those who have an invested interest in Downtown. They are part of what gives people, who call downtown home, a sense of place. I bet both of you do not know downtown very well, but are trying to shape it from an outsiders perspective. There is nothing more irritating than an outsider thinking he knows what's best for a community.

You're getting a little histrionic, urbanboy. You shouldn't make assumptions about how well I know downtown, since you don't know anything about me.

[delts145]

Agree or disagree Urbanboy, I would have hoped you had paid enough attention to past posts to know that JMonkey has had a more familiar association with downtown than you or most of us for that matter.

[Future Mayor]

I'm absolutely sickened by the fact that they are removing the signs. I don't care if the bank is gone or not, those historic signs are just one more thing that makes our downtown unique, just as the Walker Center sign does.

As I travel to cities it is historic buildings and signs similar to this that help to add uniqueness to those cities, a sign of a cities past and individuality. I could care less to see the Key on the key bank building in SLC. I can see a key in nearly ever small to large city in the country, but it's signs like First Security that mold a city. IMO

Please somebody that is happy about this, explain to me why removing these pieces of history is a good thing for the overall character and feel of downtown? Are you also glad that they imploded the Newhouse Hotel and will be tearing down The Shubrick?

[goldcntry]

Brace yourselves...

I'm agreeing with urbanboy. I'm a historic neon devotee; sometimes a histrionic devotee I admit. Yes, the original bank is long gone, but the beauty of the neon has long been a staple of the nightscape of downtown. We all look at the old pics of Main and State streets and bemoan the fact of how vibrant they looked with all the neon and signage.

Vintage signs like the First Security and the Walker signs add to the night scape and help define the city. While newer lighting applications are welcome (I can't wait for the LED effects on 222), I feel a city is diminished without vintage neon gracing the night like jewels on a faded film-noir bombshell: she may be on in years, but she's still on hell of a good looking lady.

Hopefully my metaphors aren't too far out there...

[SLC Projects]

In this case I would have to agree with Urbanboy, goldcntry and Future Mayor. I am very disappointed to see the old signs come down. Having those signs up there is a big part of what makes the building histrionic.
Are they going to restore the old signs kind of like what was done to the walker building?

[John Martin]

First of all, I'd just like to say nothing bothers me more than an "insider" who complains about changes simply because they're used to what was there, and defend history just for the sake of history. They're just signs, there's no reason why you should be that attached to a sign anyway, and this shouldn't affect "the community" in any way. You can still work and live (although, I bet this will be better for the Regent's sales, I certainly wouldn't want to look at those heaps of metal every time I look out the window) downtown just as well as you could when those were there.

I wonder how many people, maybe even "outsiders," have looked at those signs and thought "eww.." A few months ago I was showing my mom some of the things going on at city creek, she pointed out the signs and said something like "yuck, are they tearing those down?" I responded "unfortunately, probably not," so she went on to say "well, can't they just update the scaffolding or something.. to make it look less rickety?" probably not again, it's "historic." In my opinion it's simply an example outdated/old-fashioned engineering, which distracts the eye from what is truly historic, the architecture of the building. I think the building looks much classier now, so the character and feel of downtown is only improved.

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Having those signs up there is a big part of what makes the building histrionic.

Heh, yes, I do have to agree that the signs made the building very histrionic.

[Orlando]

I agree with Urban Boy and the others on this one. What a tragedy!!! Why wasn't the public informed about this???!! Why did they have to remove the signs in the first place?? Why??????????? It was the public that cried out to save that building for historic preservation, and then they remove the signs????!!!!! It gave the building character. Didn't we just see the Walker Center restore their original neon signs a year ago????? We all thought it was great!!!!!!!

I'm guessing that they removed the signs to better the view of the new residential tower. But, what a shame!!

Urban Boy, how can we voice our disdain for what happened???