Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by scottharding

Not to derail the debate (honestly), but I was in Sugarhouse yesterday and was impressed by all the stuff going on, particularly the Granite Building redo and the Sugar-hole. Construction has started AT LONG LAST on the hole, and the Granite Building is a skeleton. Someone should get some pictures if they're down that way. I'll snap some photos maybe if I end up down there this week. The new Westminster building is about complete as well. Does anyone know when the Wilmington development is supposed to get going?

It's about time.

[Future Mayor]

I'm sorry Comrade but you seem to be so overly argumentative that you don't see the forest through the trees on some of your arguments.

Building a theater will bring much needed traffic to Main St. Yes you are right, but the theater and it's placement on the parking lot across the street could also have the same effect. So you can't simply give that as the main reason to tear down the Metro Building. Building the theater across the street would bring the same vibrancy to Main St and could then spur someone to do something creative with the Metro Building.

To say Regent St won't develop for many years to come, if the theater isn't built there, is very short sighted. Prior to it's inclusion in the theater proposal the press building was still owned by two seperate entities, and was only consilidated right before PRI offered it to the city for the theater. So it wasn't an option for redevelopment because the Tribune and News hadn't settled on ownership arrangments. And just because nothing was announced doesn't mean companies weren't developing plans or ideas for Regent St.

If the theater stays in it's current location it will improve Regent St, which will be nice, but I don't think it will maximize the potential of Regent St. IMO

What other old and dilapidated buildings aren't being occupied on Main, just like the Metro building? No other office buildings are overly vacant, and actually not that many retail spaces are vacant anymore either. The only overly or completely vacant office buildings on Main are the Montgomery Ward, Metro and Tribune, two of which aren't going to be leased because of the impending fate, so to say nobody wants to lease there is false, because even if someone wanted to, the owners would have signed a lease in the past 4 years because of the UPAC plan. The Tribune building isn't suited well for office space anymore anyway, plus plans are already proposed for a reuse.

Will I be sad to see the Metro Buidling (formerly the tall Prudential building go)? No, not overly, considering two of the best features IMO are either gone or hindered. That being the seagull sculpture, now not as impressive with the massive "fix" of steal beams to shore up the building, and the water feature that was originally part of the building and cascaded from street level down to the basement level with a walkway goining into the lobby across the water feature. I will however hate to lose the prudential bank building ceiling, that really is a very impressive work of art and craftsmanship. Mr Mac building I'm fine with losing, and the Montgomery Ward building has lost all resemblance of it's original self.

[ajiuO]

I support the current location. There is nothing being tore down worth saving. The big prison looking building is ugly. I remember walking by that building with my grandpa when I was little and thought it was ugly even then. I have had at least 2 people turn to me while walking by that building and say "god that's an ugly building".... No joke... Just let it go.

I would like to see the empty space across the street be used for a nice (non LHM) movie theater that include several screens and a true IMAX theater which we don't have. Cinemark would be on board if a developer would build it. I think it would be cool to have 2 such places right across the street from each other.... It would really make Main Street a pooping place.

If we can't get a movie theater there I would vote for a department store. It could have both a 100s entrance across from CCC and a Main Street entrance... It might create a nice flow from CCC to Main Street.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

...It would really make Main Street a pooping place.

Originally Posted by scottharding

Not to derail the debate (honestly), but I was in Sugarhouse yesterday and was impressed by all the stuff going on, particularly the Granite Building redo and the Sugar-hole. Construction has started AT LONG LAST on the hole, and the Granite Building is a skeleton. Someone should get some pictures if they're down that way. I'll snap some photos maybe if I end up down there this week. The new Westminster building is about complete as well. Does anyone know when the Wilmington development is supposed to get going?

Update Pics of Sugar House would sure be welcome pleeease...

[Comrade]

Look, I don't know what to tell you guys. I don't know why you're all having a hard time accepting my views on this. It's just my personal opinion and nothing more. I will not miss this building and I don't care if they're going to tear it down. That's how I feel and you're not going to change my mind, no matter how many times you try to. I'm sorry. It's not going to happen. I don't like the building, I've never liked the building and won't shed a tear for its demise.

[Future Mayor]

I'm glad you commented on that because I too was

[RC14]

I don't think the Metro building should be preserved in it's current state, but I don't think it should be torn down. I think the building could be remodled into something cool. I really like the atrium and the seagulls, and I would like to see the fountin restored if possible.
From what I've seen, having worked in the building for two years, I think the building could be easily turned into something beautiful. I would give it a reclad, I don't know if that's possible but I don't see why not, and I would remove all the sheetrock on the inside.
I guess, for me it's not about how the building looks but what I think they could do with it. I would love to see it either be incorporated into the UPAC project or turned into an art museum, like Old & New has sugested.

[ajiuO]

I meant popping I type most of my post via iPhone and the auto correct tends to get me wrong. I guess I should look over stuff better.

But on a side note... What ever causes this forum to crash on ios devises has been fixed in IOS 6 :-)

[delts145]

Seriously Ajiuo, I thought you were using the latest hipster verbage. I thought okay, people like the place so much they want to stay a while, long enough to need the restroom. Now I'm laughing uncontrollably again. I guess sometimes I have a very child like sense of humor.

[chad.farnes]

I keep going back and forth on the location. I really liked the location on the east side of Main because of the idea of a vibrant Regents Street. However, after thinking about it, I just don't think that there is room, especially when it could easily be built across the street.

I don't care for the Metro building, but I could see a day when people do like it. I would also hate to loose the Prudential Federal Savings Bank Building. I like the idea of making Regent Street more vibrant because I like some of the buildings there, especially this one:



I would love to see these buildings restored and turned into some type of store. If these buildings (metro, prudential, and regent street buildings) could all be incorporated into the design of the theatre, I would totally support. However, I think its impossible (even impossible to incorporate some of the buildings). I think that Regent Street will be restored even without the theatre. It really is a prime location and a little too good to pass up (an excellent connection between City Creek and the Gallivan).

Ultimately I stand in favor of historic preservation. I understand that sometimes it takes a couple buildings to be demolished in order to preserve a couple. However in this case, I could see all the buildings be demolished for the next big thing, and in the end no restoration at all.

One of the benefits to putting it across the street is that it could create a really cool theatre block, with the addition of the Utah theatre and the Capitol. Additionally, this could really help speed up development the Utah theatre (if they improve part of the lot for the new theater which could simultaneously benefit the Utah theater).

Ultimately, I think that it should move across the street to the empty lot.

[chad.farnes]

Also if you'd like to see pictures of the sugar hole, you can check out this report from Fox 13 (http://fox13now.com/2012/08/20/construction-begins-to-build-over-sugar-hole/). It looks like it is still just a hole, but there are some tractors and ibeams. Also, there are some footage of the granite building, which is being reported to be completed by Christmas.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

From what I know about the convention hotel debate the issue has nothing to do with Earl Holding and/or his entourage. The biggest obstacle right now is that it's an election year and the Salt Lake County officials that are up for election don't want to be seen utiling tax funds for a project like this. Even if it is low risk, the general populace won't understand that. They will only hear that the county is building a hotel using tax payer funds. Politicians that are up for reelection don't want to deal with that issue. I think, depending on who is elected county mayor, you will hear more about this in early 2013 or you won't hear about it for at least another 4 years.

In today's Deseret News, there is an article, which is almost entirely quotes from Clint Ensign, of Sinclair, with a lot of exaggeration and estimates to scare the public away from supporting a convention hotel. If Sinclair is lobbying against the hotel in the media, they are also heavily lobbying behind the scenes with legislators and other leaders. I sat in meetings back in 2002 where they were strategizing how to lobby against a convention hotel back then.:

“The concern is that there would be too much government help and public subsidization to make that new hotel work,” said Clint Ensign, senior vice president, government relations for the Sinclair Companies — which owns and operates the Grand America and Little America Hotels. “Public subsidy required for a 1,000-room hotel could range from $80 million to $120 million.”

Ensign said that the total estimated cost for such a project would be in the $300 million range. He said providing such significant financial support for a convention center hotel would be unfair to other hoteliers that built and upgraded their properties with no public funding.

He said subsidization could take various forms including property tax abatements, bonding or tax increment financing. Either way, such assistance would give the new property an unfair advantage.

“A $300 million convention center hotel would require a room rate of around $300 a night to make that project (financially viable),” Ensign said. The hotel would have to charge a room rate of $200 or less to be competitive in the market, he added."

“It’s that public subsidization that (would) make up the difference,” Ensign said. “If that subsidization is far more than what has been done for existing hotels, you create a tremendous competitive inequity downtown.”

source: www.deseretnews.com

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

This is my final word on the subject because we're debating in circles now...

You have not laid out any reason, outside the fact it was the creation of William L. Pereira, to keep the Prudential Building. The building is in dire need of repair, has been a dead zone for foot traffic the past twenty-odd years and there is no evidence of that changing anytime soon. Now, it's possible someone steps in and decides to spend the millions of dollars it would take to turn that building into something functional, but I'm not betting on that. In fact, I'd wager if the building is saved, ten or fifteen years from now it's essentially in the same state - an architectural fossil that's only good at giving building nerds some eye candy when they walk up a desolate downtown.

I say demolish it, build a beautiful theater that will bring great foot traffic to the area and then turn that parking area on the other side of Main into a mixed-use development. Kill two birds with one stone.

This building has no current use. It's outdated, in need of repair and no one is investing in it. It has sat, ugly and desolate for over two decades and there is no indication of that changing.

It's taking up valuable space on Main and it's bringing nothing of quality to that area. You might like it, that's great, I sympathize, but just liking the way a building looks is not enough. I liked the Key Bank Tower, I was disappointed in its demolition - but I got over it. You'll get over this.

Its obvious we're not talking about the same building; I'm talking about the Prudential Federal Savings Bank. This one:





http://www.utahurbanforum.com/broadway-tower-25-stories-100-s-main-t348.html

[Future Mayor]

So surprising that Clint Ensign would oppose the hotel and exaggerate the room cost, this is the same group that thought that the Salt Palace should be torn down and a new convention center should be built adjacent to their hotels. IDIOTS!

[T-Mac]

There is an article in this weeks Enterprise about the Outdoor Retailers and if they are going to move or stay. It said that we should know by year-end. The short-list of cities is Salt Lake City, Denver and Las Vegas. However, they aren't leaning towards Las Vegas because it "lacks the cultural elements so prominent in Utah." The one thing that they want is the large convention hotel. They are currently contracting with 34 hotels in the area. With a convention hotel, they can cut that back to 15 it says. It also said that "GOED (Governor's Office of Economic Development) approved a one time "economic opportunity" incentive of $482,510 for Visit Salt Lake to help rent a 100,000 square foot tent to be used by Outdoor Retailer for its Summer Market show. That amount was added to $102,000 from the city and $343,000 from the county." One other thing it said is that 70 percent of the show retailers want to stay in Salt Lake City and 50 percent of the vendors want to stay.

[Old&New]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between show retailers and vendors?

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between show retailers and vendors?

Vendors are those that are selling their products, ie manufacturers, such as OGIO, Nalgene, etc. While retailers are just that, retailers, those that will be buying the products and selling them in their stores, such as REI, Kirkhams, Dicks etc.

[Makid]

With the amount of people that want to keep the show here, that is a good sign.

T-Mac, did the article give any information regarding the other questions they asked the attendees? Such as show size?

I am wondering if they have any information about how attendees feel about the current size of the show and if they wanted to increase the size or not. Increasing the size of the show while also wanting to stay in Salt Lake could help reinforce the need for the hotel.

[T-Mac]

It didn't say anything about what they thought of the size. Only that the show gets bigger and bigger each year. It said that we got the show from Reno back in 1996 and before Reno, it was in Las Vegas. It did say also that the overall economic impact of the two Outdoor Retailer shows is $70 million a year to our state.

Also, if Clint Ensign and the Little America group is throwing a fit over the subsidy, then why don't they take advantage of it and build the convention center hotel. They could even brand it under a different name similiar to what Marriott or Hilton do with their different hotel brands.

[delts145]

The whole Holding situation is a mixed bag of both positives and negatives for me. I appreciate that Holding invested in a magnificent hotel not equaled in most respects for sumptuous luxury on a grand scale. There are precious few CBD hotels in No. America outside of a handful on the extreme coasts that approach The Grand's spectacle, including the RITZ, Peninsula, Four Seasons etc. Othen, these luxury brands are either comtemporarily sparse in decor when compared to the Grand or quite worn out at the edges.

On the other hand, Holding and his heirs have been extremely bull headed in their refusal to elevate the immediate surrounding area. They have repeatedly refused to help out with issues such as the 600 So. utility lines, even just the blocks directly across from his own properties. If he's not able or prepared to invest in The Grands surroundings, and demands that the LDS Church and the city fork over all of the burden, then I'm not going to feel too sorry for his island of isolation and surrounding desolation predicament.

Hopefully, the convention hotel will prevail over Holding's perception of protecting their short term interests. I can see where they would be concerned with a couple of initial years of declining bookings for their Little America properties. However, all other cities, which have practiced this same formula being proposed for Salt Lake, such as Denver, Phoenix, Kansas City, etc., have experienced tremendous success. Not only is convention traffic up, but all CBD hotels have also experienced an increase in bookings since the construction of their convention specific hotels.

Salt Lake has experienced great success despite the lack of a large convention hotel. This is due primarily in part to it's extremely close proximity to it's major mountains and resorts. I hope that the prevailing powers will not let this mountain advantage lull them into a state of complacency and apathy regarding the need to step up on this hotel now. While we might have the advantage with out mountain proximity, we still have much need of improvement in other areas, especially this hotel situation. CCC will now make a big dent in the many complaints formerly being tossed out regarding downtown Salt Lake's lack of decent retail. Now we desperately need this specific style of hotel for the many reasons we have continually discussed. Simply, it makes absolutely zero financial sense not to build the convention hotel. Also, the UPAC would be a huge plus, in order to be able to coordinate lenghty stay tours with the schedules of major convention bookings. For me, the convention hotel is not only securing Salt Lake's future as a premiere convention destination, but it is also vital in contributing to a healthy financial future for UPAC, and Salt Lake's many other cultural attractions.