Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by 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!

You're an asset here. And I always enjoy your personality and your posts. You'll be back.

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by DMTower

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

Please. There's like half a discussion going on here, and arkitekthor is (was) the only one bothering to put meat into it. It's like watching a high school debate where the neg kid has nothing to say so he just attacks everything his opponent says. Suppressing an argument simply because you disagree is hardly a way to make threads worth reading in the first place.

[UTAZLoVer]

We'll miss you, take care.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by John Martin

Please. There's like half a discussion going on here, and arkitekthor is (was) the only one bothering to put meat into it. It's like watching a high school debate where the neg kid has nothing to say so he just attacks everything his opponent says. Suppressing an argument simply because you disagree is hardly a way to make threads worth reading in the first place.

I don't see that at all. Many times here, I have made the mistake of throwing bombs out there that are too big for me to back up. We've all done it. arkitekthor lobbed some hefty bombs and couldn't back them up.

Throwing out assertions without premises is not meaty. Everyone does it, so I don't see what the big deal is. Sometimes you lose an argument, that's the price of being an opinionated person. Life goes on and you make better arguments and you are less inclined to overextend yourself.

[Orlando]

Alright, let's take a vote:

All those in favor of demolishing half a block of Main Street for the new Performing Arts Center and Tower vote so.

All those who think the Performing Arts Center should be built at some other location, vote so.

All those who are okay with the Performing Arts Center at the current site, but do not want the proposed tower at that location also, vote so.

All those who are not in favor of building a new Performing Arts Center at all, vote so.



Architektor, please stay on. Don't let those who disagree with you keep you from voicing your opinion on here.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Alright, let's take a vote:

All those in favor of demolishing half a block of Main Street, instead of placing the Performing Arts Center and tower on other vacant sites, vote so.

All those who think the Performing Arts Center should be built at some other location, vote so.

All those who are okay with the Performing Arts Center at the current site, but do not want the proposed tower at that location also, vote so.



Architektor, please stay on. Don't let those who disagree with you keep you from voicing your opinion on here.

We're getting ahead of ourselves, it's not certain that half of main street will be torn down.

[UTAZLoVer]

I'm in support of the project as it is currently proposed. I'm sorry Orlando.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Alright, let's take a vote:

All those in favor of demolishing half a block of Main Street, instead of placing the Performing Arts Center and tower on other vacant sites, vote so.

All those who think the Performing Arts Center should be built at some other location, vote so.

All those who are okay with the Performing Arts Center at the current site, but do not want the proposed tower at that location also, vote so.

This is ridiculous. It's like you weren't tuned in for the last two pages. You can't put the theater on any vacant lot you please. If we were playing by those rules I'm sure many of us would take that option (we'll call it the Sim City Option).

UTPlanner is right in that we cannot jump into being passionate about our preferred alternate locations without any evidence that the city could acquire the land.

The vast majority here (even SLCProjects) opposes the demolition of the Tribune Building. I think that's why there are some hard feelings. Everyone came together in their desire to keep the Tribune Building, and as soon as that became secure it was like those who didn't agree with saving the whole block were accused by some as instantly having no preservation values.

And as soon as I attempted to put my preservation values on the table, no one wanted to play anymore. That argument just sort of evaporated and the goal posts were moved to it being a conspiracy theory. People saw through that nonsense and feelings were hurt.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Old&New

We're getting ahead of ourselves, it's not certain that half of main street will be torn down.

One highrise tower plus one new decent sized theater = half a block of Main Street. If you look at the block just south of that where the One Utah Center and the Wells Fargo Tower are on, that kind of shows how much can fit on one block. There it's two towers and a plaza in between, albeit Wells Fargo is wide. Irregardless, a new highrise tower and a new theater is a lot of demolishing, especially when there is a vacant lot across the street and many others in the CBD.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

This is ridiculous. It's like you weren't tuned in for the last two pages. You can't put the theater on any vacant lot you please. If we were playing by those rules I'm sure many of us would take that option (we'll call it the Sim City Option).

UTPlanner is right in that we cannot jump into being passionate about our preferred alternate locations without any evidence that the city could acquire the land.

The vast majority here (even SLCProjects) opposes the demolition of the Tribune Building. I think that's why there are some hard feelings. Everyone came together in their desire to keep the Tribune Building, and as soon as that became secure it was like those who didn't agree with saving the whole block were accused by some as instantly having no preservation values.

And as soon as I attempted to put my preservation values on the table, no one wanted to play anymore. That argument just sort of evaporated and the goal posts were moved to it being a conspiracy theory. People saw through that nonsense and feelings were hurt.

I think this deal was made to help City Creek, which makes a lot of sense to have nearby. But, it was done at the expense of demolishing a few decent buildings, when there were plenty of vacant lots in the area. I understand the history of how this all evolved, see my previous post. I understand very much so. Just remember, the LDS church, which I am a member of, originally proposed to tear down the First Security Bank Building. They also originally proposed to make the City Creek Center another enclosed mall until people protested and the outspoken Mayor of the time raised a voice of concern. I just don't think it's the right thing to do. If I have to concede, I would much rather just see the Performing Arts Center and not the office tower built. But, it just makes me a little upset to see all the vacant lots in the CBD, and now here comes another proposal to tear down the little that we do have.

I'm done rambling now.

Okay maybe not yet...

the tower would be much better suited on Tower 8's site(NE corner of 1st and State) or on the Carl's Junior site( NW corner of 2nd and State). I will try to petition to get that moved. or why not put the tower on topof the theater and make it SLC's new tallest.

[motitas]

I would like to have a better idea of what the actual concept is be before I really stood behind a (hypothetical) vote that the proposed location is the best one, but to me that block is really hurting for street presence and the buildings being considered for demolition don't help. Walking from first to second south is almost painful, on Main St. or Regent. The design team should grasp that. This has to be done right or not done at all.
Regent Street could end up being be the one of the coolest parts of downtown.

Arch. You are one of the guys that made me want to join this conversation after 3yrs of reading religiously. A hiatus might be what you need, but hopefully you'll reconsider splitting after this particular outbreak of drama subsides. Your seem to be one of the guys whos perspective is respected most around here from what I can see.

[Wasatch_One]

I rarely get involved in these forum squabbles because it's many times useless given many on here can't take criticism (nor do they listen to reason).

I understand what Ark is trying to say and I agree that more thought could to be put into the location while weighing risk/reward.

I mean, I do see the benefit of having the PAC on Main, because it is (in theory) a permanent resident that will provide confidence to other merchants/restaurants/companies filling up the street for years to come. That being said I hate hastily tearing down things just to build something else for the sake of building (build baby, BUILD!) I actually like the Bennion Jewelers building and would hate to see it torn down.

However, I would also love to have a 25+ story office bldg between 100-200 S to fill in the skyline gap. Why cant they fill in the parking lot on the west side of Main between the old Zions Bank and Daynes bldgs? Then they could have two entrances... one on Main and the other on 100 S across from the City Creek entrance.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I think this deal was made to help City Creek, which makes a lot of sense to have nearby. But, it was done at the expense of demolishing a few decent buildings, when there were plenty of vacant lots in the area. I understand the history of how this all evolved, see my previous post. I understand very much so. Just remember, the LDS church, which I am a member of, originally proposed to tear down the First Security Bank Building. They also originally proposed to make the City Creek Center another enclosed mall until people protested and the outspoken Mayor of the time raised a voice of concern. I just don't think it's the right thing to do. If I have to concede, I would much rather just see the Performing Arts Center and not the office tower built. But, it just makes me a little upset to see all the vacant lots in the CBD, and now here comes another proposal to tear down the little that we do have.

I think we all credit the people of Salt Lake, especially the Eccles family, for saving the First Security Building. City Creek was obviously a product of both the City and the LDS Church making many compromises that ultimately gave us a much better outcome than an inclosed mall.

And even with the hype, probably greatly overplayed on this forum, that the Tribune Building would be torn down, it looks like it is going to be secure (without nearly as much fight). So I think we are clearly moving in the right direction.

I can see only one argument for saving the buildings slated to be demolished NORTH of the Tribune building (not half the block, not even a fourth of the block) and that is a sustainability argument. To me those buildings have about as much historic value as the mall that was torn down and they have even less utility as a reuse. I understand the sentiment that we should even keep lame buildings when we have parking lots, but frankly, that could take years to renegotiate and bonds will cost more by that time, and the suburbs will awaken from their recession stupor ready to start hatching plans to move the damn thing to Sandy. And if the UPAC was built in another city, whatever impact it will have on the smaller theatres will happen anyway.

I'm done rambling now.

Okay maybe not yet...

the tower would be much better suited on Tower 8's site(NE corner of 1st and State) or on the Carl's Junior site( NW corner of 2nd and State). I will try to petition to get that moved. or why not put the tower on topof the theater and make it SLC's new tallest.

I think a tower on top of the theatre could be cool. I didn't really understand the email that you posted earlier. I thought that the 222 people were going to do the tower near the theatre (they are not affiliated with PRI).

[arkhitektor]

I guess I'll make it an even 1501 posts to say thanks and that it's nothing personal and that nobody has offended me or anything. I've just been paying more attention lately to how much of my time I spend here each day and today's back and forth was a good example of how unproductive (on a personal level) that can be sometimes. (I've probably spent more time this week arguing with strangers on the internet than I have playing with my kids.)

I'll still check in occasionally, but, for the foreseeable future, probably won't be posting anymore.

Thanks again,

-JT

[John Martin]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I don't see that at all. Many times here, I have made the mistake of throwing bombs out there that are too big for me to back up. We've all done it. arkitekthor lobbed some hefty bombs and couldn't back them up.

Throwing out assertions without premises is not meaty. Everyone does it, so I don't see what the big deal is. Sometimes you lose an argument, that's the price of being an opinionated person. Life goes on and you make better arguments and you are less inclined to overextend yourself.

The problem is, arkitekthor's not the one on trial here. He raised questions which no one had a good explanation for. Maybe you don't agree with his 'answers,' but that doesn't change the fact that there's a deficiency of good reasons to support this proposal. Simply saying other options "didn't work out" is neither useful evidence nor is it a convincing explanation.. not even slightly.

The city is the one pushing this proposal. It's the one making the assertion without sufficient premise. Seeing as how no one here who supports the proposal can give a good explanation as to why they settled on this location, I don't think it's unreasonable to scrutinize this further, even if it can't possibly be conclusive. Yes, other options "didn't work out." That doesn't make this proposal a good alternative. Seeing as how they're spending upwards of $100 million and proposing to tear down several admired buildings, I think they have to have a rock solid plan. Given all the drawbacks of this proposal and this concept, frankly I just don't care if it's inconvenient for city hall to find a location that fits. I think that's a reasonable standard.

Now, I'm not gonna suggest ulterior motives or anything to explain why Becker seems to be in such a hurry to get this done. I don't think I need to, because I simply don't think the proposal is compelling on its own. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, if you don't mind me quoting the late Mr. Cain. I don't think arkitekthor's and others' questions have to stand on their own. The city's proposal does.

[motitas]

I think that's the best place for the next cool thing in SLC.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by John Martin

The problem is, arkitekthor's not the one on trial here. He raised questions which no one had a good explanation for. Maybe you don't agree with his 'answers,' but that doesn't change the fact that there's a deficiency of good reasons to support this proposal. Simply saying other options "didn't work out" is neither useful evidence nor is it a convincing explanation.. not even slightly.

The city is the one pushing this proposal. It's the one making the assertion without sufficient premise. Seeing as how no one here who supports the proposal can give a good explanation as to why they settled on this location, I don't think it's unreasonable to scrutinize this further, even if it can't possibly be conclusive. Yes, other options "didn't work out." That doesn't make this proposal a good alternative. Seeing as how they're spending upwards of $100 million and proposing to tear down several admired buildings, I think they have to have a rock solid plan. Given all the drawbacks of this proposal and this concept, frankly I just don't care if it's inconvenient for city hall to find a location that fits. I think that's a reasonable standard.

It's my understanding that the Church tried to give the land to the City, but for some legal reason they now must settle for selling it instead for a very very generous price. That seems like a pretty compelling reason to choose a location when you are trying to bond a project with tax payer money. Someone I'm sure can correct me on this.

It's also entirely possible that the Church wants to get rid of the land because they see the buildings as a liability to try and make profitable and would rather dump them into a trash bin so that they don't end up being slummy next to the City Creek Center. Either way, it makes sense for the City to move forward on the offer.

But I see what you are saying.

Now, I'm not gonna suggest ulterior motives or anything to explain why Becker seems to be in such a hurry to get this done. I don't think I need to, because I simply don't think the proposal is compelling on its own. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, if you don't mind me quoting the late Mr. Cain. I don't think arkitekthor's and others' questions have to stand on their own. The city's proposal does.

I think the rush comes from previous failures (seizing an opportunity when the stars line up). I'm not super savvy on bonds, but I think it's a pretty big deal for the city to be able to transition the Delta Center bond over to the UPAC. It seems like so many things are lining up, and with the generally high approval that Becker has, it makes sense that he is cashing in some political capital to finally just get this done. It's not a bad thing to build your legacy around.

[tygr]

I though that a few years ago, the LDS church was going to give the former Newspaper Agency press facility property to the cause of building a UPAC-type of project.

What happened with that option?

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by tygr

I though that a few years ago, the LDS church was going to give the former Newspaper Agency press facility property to the cause of building a UPAC-type of project.

What happened with that option?

Those parcels are still part of this project.

[UTPlanner]

It is interesting to read the recent posts about the UPAC. When they were initially studying locations I preferred the site off of West Temple adjacent to the Rose Wagner Theater. Looking back now I think if the facility is going to be constructed it could really help to enliven Main Street and Regent Street. I don't think this is being done to help City Creek. I don't think that City Creek will need any help at being successful.

The Mayor and the City Council have discussed locations for some time. I'm sure there decision was based on many factors. A willing seller was probably one and a willing seller that owns a huge parking facility adjacent was probably a big factor as well.

I really think there is no "perfect location" for this theater. We'd all like to see more parking lots disappear downtown but it doesn't appear that this will be the project that does that.

On a completely personal note, I don't think the theater should be built at all. I have no interest in going to a new theater as I don't visit the existing ones. I think the cost is outrageous. Having said that I realize that I'm in the minority. I hope that the design of building is beautiful and interesting and its existence can help to be a catalyst for further change and growth on Main Street.