Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I'm not suggesting that is has to be law, just that when the mayor and city council are looking to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars, it's something they should consider. In this case, they haven't to my satisfaction. I've read the report produced by the mayor's brother in 2008 -- it didn't convince me that the city is pursuing the best site.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that in a best case scenario the city ought to do things like this, i.e. consider all options and preferably list publicly why they have gone with the option they have chosen. However, human nature is to do only what is required of us, thus unless there were some law or regulation, what is the motivation to do it?

[arkhitektor]

Well, the city hired Mayor Becker's brother to do a study, and that's what led to the Main St. site, I'm just not convinced that his report looked adequately at other sites and don't agree with the report's recommendation. But, I'm not on the city council.... so it's just my opinion and I'm entitled to think what I want about the proposal.

[scottharding]

I'll chime in, and say what I've been saying so many times now. The problem is that you're listening to the words the city is saying, and missing the subtext. This isn't about building a theater that the city desperately needs, and therefore, this isn't about finding the best place available to put it. This is about REAL ESTATE. The city wants to redevelop that block. They want to revive Main street and Regent street. So there's no question of which space to use, as that space is what this is all about, and the particular development is just a means to an end.
Before everyone storms me with their arguments, let me say this. I don't think wanting to restore Main Street and Regent Street is a bad thing. But I guess what we're witnessing here is that nothing, not even progress, is free. Someone is gonna have to pay, and it seems that in this case, it will be the local art scene and those of us who hate to see more architecture go when there's parking lots all over town.
(not to mention, the tax paying public)

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by scottharding

I'll chime in, and say what I've been saying so many times now. The problem is that you're listening to the words the city is saying, and missing the subtext. This isn't about building a theater that the city desperately needs, and therefore, this isn't about finding the best place available to put it. This is about REAL ESTATE. The city wants to redevelop that block. They want to revive Main street and Regent street. So there's no question of which space to use, as that space is what this is all about, and the particular development is just a means to an end.
Before everyone storms me with their arguments, let me say this. I don't think wanting to restore Main Street and Regent Street is a bad thing. But I guess what we're witnessing here is that nothing, not even progress, is free. Someone is gonna have to pay, and it seems that in this case, it will be the local art scene and those of us who hate to see more architecture go when there's parking lots all over town.
(not to mention, the tax paying public)

I don't entirely disagree with this thought that this is all about developing an area of the city, however, the Broadway theatre has been discussed for years so it is almost a killing two birds with one stone. The argument comes down to which bird is bigger and by how much.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Even if the Prudential Savings and Loan building was deemed worthless architecturally, I don't think we should be in the habit of demolishing and reconstructing the same few blocks every couple decades as tastes change. That's not how great cities are built. I'm entirely unconvinced that there isn't a better location that could be found if the mayor and city council put some effort into doing so. I'm not so upset that I'm going to protest at the city council meetings, but I'm also not going to get excited about the current plans, and will not be disappointed if the funding doesn't materialize and nothing is ever built at all.

They spent a year or two trying to find a location. Just because there are empty lots downtown doesn't mean the people who own them are willing to sell for that purpose.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

They spent a year or two trying to find a location. Just because there are empty lots downtown doesn't mean the people who own them are willing to sell for that purpose.

Call me crazy, but I just don't believe that is true. I think that for whatever reason, the mayor wanted it there and pursued that site at the exclusion of others that, to me at least, make more sense.

The city and landowners still haven't agreed on terms to sell the land for UPAC on Main St., it seems that the city could have negotiated with other landowners the same way they are negotiating with the owners of the current site if they really wanted to.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

How so?



http://www.downtownrising.com/DTR-media/downloads/DTRbookletFIN3-11.pdf

This map of districts is very helpful, but within these districts are areas with more refined narratives and mission statements. Even though Main Street is part of the Skyline District, it clearly has a more focused mission. One which I outlined in my large response to your objection. It has been talked about in many articles that there is a plan (pie in the sky or not) to renovate the old Utah Theatre into something useful in regards to entertainment (the city owns it). The wheels are already in motion to fix up the Capital Theatre and add a special place for Ballet West. On top of that you have the mini stand up comedy theatre further south. And then, of course, there will be the UPAC. Call it whatever you want, but three theatres within the same area of Main Street is something special on its own, something distinct like City Creek Center in personality.

Maybe UTPlanner could give us a bit more details on how the city is imaging it will magnify this area of theatres into its own cohesive sense of place.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Call me crazy, but I just don't believe that is true. I think that for whatever reason, the mayor wanted it there and pursued that site at the exclusion of others that, to me at least, make more sense.

The city and landowners still haven't agreed on terms to sell the land for UPAC on Main St., it seems that the city could have negotiated with other landowners the same way they are negotiating with the owners of the current site if they really wanted to.

That's just your own conspiracy theory and I don't believe that for a second.

Other locations would have been easier to develop, but for various reasons wouldn't work/weren't available.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Stenar

That's just your own conspiracy theory and I don't believe that for a second.

Other locations would have been easier to develop, but for various reasons wouldn't work/weren't available.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5492399&postcount=8290

Just to back up your thought here (there is no motive for a conspiracy in the instance of this project).

[arkhitektor]

I'm not saying its a vast conspiracy- My guess is that the church was willing to buy the land, then sell it at a loss becuase they want the theater there to bolster CCC. Nobody's ever explained, other than to say "for various reasons" why none of the other sites (all of which the city identified as possible locations) could work.

In my opinion, one of the sites along 300 S. would have been a better location, and actually been located in what the city has identified as its 'Broadway District.'



In the end, if you want to think that I'm a conspiracy-theory lunatic for questioning the Main St. location - be my guest, it's just my opinion.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I'm not saying its a vast conspiracy- My guess is that the church was willing to buy the land, then sell it at a loss becuase they want the theater there to bolster CCC. Nobody's ever explained, other than to say "for various reasons" why none of the other sites (all of which the city identified as possible locations) could work.

In my opinion, one of the sites along 300 S. would have been a better location, and actually been located in what the city has identified as its 'Broadway District.'



In the end, if you want to think that I'm a conspiracy-theory lunatic for questioning the Main St. location - be my guest, it's just my opinion.

Just because there's empty/parking lots in those locations doesn't mean the owners of those properties were willing to sell.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Just because there's empty/parking lots in those locations doesn't mean the owners of those properties were willing to sell.

Is there any evidence to suggest that they weren't?

[esirhgih]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Is there any evidence to suggest that they weren't?

The committee's report in 2008 actually indicated specifically that owners of the 300 S. lots were willing to negotiate a sale with the city. In the end, they may have been better locations for a theater, but the site that they selected was the only one that would also work for the office building which was mysteriously added to the scope of the project shortly after the NAC property on Main/Regent Streets was publicly announced.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

Is there any evidence to suggest that they weren't?

Dead horse = beaten. Please let it go, you are making this thread a nightmare to read.

[Orlando]

Ya, I would be annoyed by this, too. But, I agree with Architektor on this one and I'm glad someone is trying to point out some things that were overlooked due to people's eagerness to just build the theater.

The original proposal has become twisted and distorted. It landed at the current site, due to the LDS church offering a very good deal. They were going to build the Mystery Tower, but shied away from that just before the presentation of the revised version of what we now call City Creek Center. So, then there was the threat that Sandy was going to build the absurd (3) 30+ story towers plus a large theater. So, during Mayor Beckers rush to find an affordable site, the church offered the land, and the proposal was to re-use the existing buildings to save cost.

That was the original proposal....to re-use the existing buildings. IMO, I thought that was ridiculous and messy too. Anyways, now Hamilton has jumped on board and included a tower and half of Main Street on the east side of it between 1st south and 2nd south is proposed to be demolished.

I agree with Architektor 100%. Those other sites on 3rd south would have been much better. I don't like the proposal that is being set forth right now. I think the deal is shady and greedy. In fact, I contacted Simon Sorensen and expressed my concerns before the City Council meeting. So, maybe I had some influence on his decision not to approve the money.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Ya, I would be annoyed by this, too. But, I agree with Architektor on this one and I'm glad someone is trying to point out some things that were overlooked due to people's eagerness to just build the theater.

The original proposal has become twisted and distorted. It landed at the current site, due to the LDS church offering a very good deal. They were going to build the Mystery Tower, but shied away from that just before the presentation of the revised version of what we now call City Creek Center. So, then there was the threat that Sandy was going to build the absurd (3) 30+ story towers plus a large theater. So, during Mayor Beckers rush to find an affordable site, the church offered the land, and the proposal was to re-use the existing buildings to save cost.

That was the original proposal....to re-use the existing buildings. IMO, I thought that was ridiculous and messy too. Anyways, now Hamilton has jumped on board and included a tower and half of Main Street on the east side of it between 1st south and 2nd south is proposed to be demolished.

I agree with Architektor 100%. Those other sites on 3rd south would have been much better. I don't like the proposal that is being set forth right now. I think the deal is shady and greedy. In fact, I contacted Simon Sorensen and expressed my concerns before the City Council meeting. So, maybe I had some influence on his decision not to approve the money.

You people are getting ridiculous. They've been completely open and transparent, NOT SHADY. No one planning this theatre stands to benefit financially, NOT GREEDY.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Stenar

That's just your own conspiracy theory and I don't believe that for a second.

Other locations would have been easier to develop, but for various reasons wouldn't work/weren't available.

Exactly....Thankyou!

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Ya, I would be annoyed by this, too. But, I agree with Architektor on this one and I'm glad someone is trying to point out some things that were overlooked due to people's eagerness to just build the theater.

The original proposal has become twisted and distorted. It landed at the current site, due to the LDS church offering a very good deal. They were going to build the Mystery Tower, but shied away from that just before the presentation of the revised version of what we now call City Creek Center. So, then there was the threat that Sandy was going to build the absurd (3) 30+ story towers plus a large theater. So, during Mayor Beckers rush to find an affordable site, the church offered the land, and the proposal was to re-use the existing buildings to save cost.

That was the original proposal....to re-use the existing buildings. IMO, I thought that was ridiculous and messy too. Anyways, now Hamilton has jumped on board and included a tower and half of Main Street on the east side of it between 1st south and 2nd south is proposed to be demolished.

I agree with Architektor 100%. Those other sites on 3rd south would have been much better. I don't like the proposal that is being set forth right now. I think the deal is shady and greedy. In fact, I contacted Simon Sorensen and expressed my concerns before the City Council meeting. So, maybe I had some influence on his decision not to approve the money.

There is something important about this proposed site that keeps getting overlooked in every argument. Main Street needs an anchor within sight of CCC that will draw people out of the development and into the rest of downtown. I can't think of any better anchor than a world class performing arts center. An office building won't do it. Those office workers will be drawn to CCC, not the other way around. Some charming little shops and eateries might help, but that would depend on many uncontrollable variables. The theater is perfect for this function. People keep saying it could simply be moved across the street. But if that were so simple, I think it would have been suggested from the get go. Energy follows the path of least resistance, and between the two corners south of CCC, the east side won and I think there is a good reason for that. Many of the arguments against the current proposed location are based on assumptions, and to hear those assumptions blasted out again and again as fact is getting extremely annoying. If you can get some concrete evidence to back your claims, present that. Otherwise can we PLEASE move on.

[esirhgih]

Is the $18M that the city council approved this week being used for the design of the office building as well, or just the theater itself?

[arkhitektor]

Well, folks- it's been a nice ride but I think I'll make my 1500th post my last.
I've been visiting the forum for almost a decade and posting for over 6 years, but have found that I get much less out of the experience than I used to and it just isn't worth it anymore.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your pictures and opinions, I've really enjoyed it all.

Cheers!