Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[RosePark]

Originally Posted by Zionide

Given that PRI is---as many of you keep harping on---purely a business and not a religion or charity, they built these towers not out of the goodness in their hearts but as sound business decisions based on likely ROI.

"Without them" doesn't mean we wouldn't have the towers; it means another BUSINESS would have recognized the potential profitability and built them.

I'd be just as annoyed if Hamilton or Cowboy owned that much of downtown; as I said before, quality urban environments require diverse and disparate development influences.

Who are these phantom investors and why haven't they stepped up to develop anything? I didn't see ANYONE else step up to do anything with ZCMI/Crossroads as they rusted away, did you? If so, please expound.

Not sure if you noticed, but the CCC is a high quality development that SLC would have had a hard time attracting otherwise. PRI made several concessions due to public input that no other developer would have made. Anyone else would have made another cheapass stucco Gateway II. They also would have ripped down the First Security Building instead of spending millions to preserve it because the public pushed back.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Comrade

That is way too bold for Salt Lake.

Oh, yes. of course. Every building outside Utah is way too good for Salt Lake.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

Oh, yes. of course. Every building outside Utah is way too good for Salt Lake.

There are plenty of boring buildings outside SLC that would fit it nicely here.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

City Creek Reserve is a for profit company that is owned by the LDS church, all transactions that City Creek Reserve engages in are taxed just as any other business is taxed. Property Reserve is funded by it's own business entities, such as City Creek Center, other parking garages, etc. Tithing money isn't used to fund the 111 tower, tithing money wasn't used to fund CCC.

The non profit LDS church builds temples, chapels and funds charitable donations around the world.

City Creek Reserve, Property Reserve, Bonneville Communications(KSL, Deseret News), etc. are all for profit entities that pay taxes on all their properties and profits.


So here's the simple version. 111 will be financed by Property Reserve (no tithing money will be involved), and the property taxes on the building will be exactly the same as if Hamilton was still developing 111.

When was Property Reserved established, and from where did it get the initial capital?

[RosePark]

Originally Posted by Old&New

When was Property Reserved established, and from where did it get the initial capital?

Who cares? Seriously.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by Old&New

When was Property Reserved established, and from where did it get the initial capital?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Assets

Scroll down to assets. In addition to those not mentioned, the church owned a significan amount of land in Utah, including some of the canyons, parts of Nevada, and California by coming west and settling this area. It was Manifest Destiny, which was wrong in and of itself, but the notion that tithing money pays for their for-profit business ventures is inaccurate. By settling the west, they owned abd subsequently sold more land than they felt they needed, or could take care of --some of that money went back into the church, while some of it went to for-profit business ventures so they could earn a return. That money is, and always has been taxed. Those business have grown into multi-billion dolar revenue streams...

I understand you being skeptical, nothing wrong with that. But, can we please get back on topic and leave religion discussions for other forums? (I understand that this religion also has arms that function as developers, but negative ignorance only brings out more negativity in others). Not singling you out. I wish the LDS people would stop throwing out the "we're so persecuted, and if you don't like us you should just leave" card.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by RosePark

Who cares? Seriously.

Obviously I do, which is why I asked. I've only been able to find little information on one of it's "subsidiaries:" Utah Property Management Associates or "Zions Securities Corporation (ZSC)" which "was organized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on February 7, 1922. The purpose of the company was to manage and operate several acquired properties. Since that time, UPMA has become a full-service real estate company and has been involved with many Church properties primarily in Utah and in several other states.

Utah Property Management Associates, LLC is a subsidiary of Property Reserve, Inc."


Still, very vague. And, there's not much info wikipedia either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zions_Securities

[RosePark]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Obviously I do, which is why I asked....

...Still, very vague. And, there's not much info wikipedia either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zions_Securities

What are you hoping for? To prove that it was founded with tithes? What exactly will that do for you and why is this an appropriate forum to discuss your quest?

This isn't a forum to discuss your bitterness or a trial to decide how the LDS Church should spend their money.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by RosePark

What are you hoping for? To prove that it was founded with tithes? What exactly will that do for you and why is this an appropriate forum to discuss your quest?

This isn't a forum to discuss your bitterness or a trial to decide how the LDS Church should spend their money.

You don't get how UrbanBoy operates do you?

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Comrade

Utah also ranks toward the middle & bottom in a great deal of other issues. Economy isn't the sole driving force behind what makes an area great. The thing is, Utah's economy, for all good it's done, still hasn't amounted to much in major development for Salt Lake City. It's also not been a force in creating inward migration. I've pointed this out already in the past - Utah's growth, the fact it's one of the fastest growing states, is not directly tied to people actually moving to the state and rather the state's high birth rate.

I think Utah is held back by our legislature and the views that this state is backwards in a lot of regards. You know, it's disappointing because we're in a desirable region. All you have to do is look at how Colorado, Idaho and Nevada have grown the last decade or so to see that there is an appetite to live in this area. But while the state ranks high in population growth, it ranks low in outsiders moving here - and that is driven by economic and social conditions.

Our state is growing and the potential is nice. But I do believe the legislature is absolutely holding Utah back and I do believe they actively work against Salt Lake City (and have in the past) out of spite over the fact that it's one of only a handful of areas in the state that conservatism doesn't have a stranglehold.

Nothing wrong with home grown.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

Nothing wrong with home grown.

Yeah, but it makes the state less diverse.

[12PAC]

Interesting.. So is HP trying to get out of SLC due to underperforming 222, or are they getting ready to build something big?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/57614278-79/lake-salt-tower-building.html.csp

[Makid]

Originally Posted by 12PAC

Interesting.. So is HP trying to get out of SLC due to underperforming 222, or are they getting ready to build something big?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/57614278-79/lake-salt-tower-building.html.csp

I think the best part of the article is these quotes:

Parties would not disclose a price, but insiders said the deal set a new record for commercial real estate in Utah’s capital city, on a cost per-square footage basis.

he sale drew national interest and multiple bids from local and out-of-state investors, according to one of a team of real estate brokers at Cushman & Wakefield | Commerce offices in Salt Lake, Denver and Los Angeles who were involved in the sale.

"We had huge traffic on this," said Kip Paul, the firm’s director of investment sales in Salt Lake. "I can’t tell you how many people flew in to see this."

These 2 quotes make me think that this is completely strategic. This also should alleviate thoughts that CCR approached HP about 111 so that they could use some space for overflow from the COB.

I do know that if any overflow from the COB was going to be consolidated into a new building, it would be on land owned by the LDS Church to qualify for tax exempt status to keep the costs down.

I do think that HP is working on something big for the Salt Lake area. The only thing that would make me reconsider this is if HP sold off any more assets downtown.

However, on another positive note, from the article about the 222 sale, hearing that multiple out of state investors were interested does say that Salt Lake is on the minds of developers around the country and this may lead to future developments.

[12PAC]

I have to say I completely agree with you Makid. Although, I am trying to temper my enthusiasm a little bit.

I would imagine that most hotels have companies that they use exclusively for the construction of their new buildings, however with our unique situation for the CCH, including both the need for more convention center space and of course the fact that we do not have a tenant lined up yet.. small detail there.

Would it be plausible to consider that HP might be positioning themselves for CCH? I have to say (rather greedily) that I hope not, I would much rather see another BIG announcement from them soon. At the same time.. I do think they could come up with a pretty unique design for CCH.

[SLC Projects]

Guess it's a good thing PR didn't also buy out 222, otherwise there would of been another five pages of comments of people crying over that.
To me this just shows that if HP has sold 222 as well as giving up 111 that they are not getting bullied by the LDS, but more likely HP is either pulling out of the Salt Lake market. That would seem almost foolish since we have a very hot commercial market right now ) or they might have bigger development in mind.

[SLC Projects]

US Bank Plaza

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=91614

Get job H4vok, keep them coming.

[Lilljemalm]

A recent article in Construction Today about Hamilton did not give a warm and fuzzy feeling about HP's finances. I like all of your positive thinking about HP maybe planning something big, but I'm not there yet.

[Atlas]

Looking at the Salt Lake City diagram, I noticed that the City & County Building and the State Capitol have drawings but aren't included in the city diagram. The City & County Building is also listed with a completion date of 1985 instead of 1894.

[Zionide]

Originally Posted by RosePark

Who are these phantom investors and why haven't they stepped up to develop anything? I didn't see ANYONE else step up to do anything with ZCMI/Crossroads as they rusted away, did you? If so, please expound.

Not sure if you noticed, but the CCC is a high quality development that SLC would have had a hard time attracting otherwise. PRI made several concessions due to public input that no other developer would have made. Anyone else would have made another cheapass stucco Gateway II. They also would have ripped down the First Security Building instead of spending millions to preserve it because the public pushed back.

Yes, I did see other developers interested in some of the parcels that now make up CCC, and I worked on plans for one of them. But PRI either paid more or had easements that made it incredibly complicated for someone else to get involved. They knew exactly what they were doing---they're developers, after all, and the business isn't one where "nice" succeeds.

And while I agree that CCC is of high quality (if hideously ugly) materials and that its build was amazingly fast because of the church, development would have still occurred in the location, albeit more organically and slowly (which is arguably better than what is essentially the McMansion version of a mall).

In addition to saving the First Security Building (for which I'm grateful), PRI also used their clout and bullied SLC Planning into allowing some terrible things along Main Street that have really destroyed CCC's potential interface with the street, including refusing to integrate the existing location of the TRAX stop and crosswalk---that's why it's so awkward to exit TRAX there and UTA had to put up ugly barriers to keep people from crossing where the natural flow is.

CCC has also ignored some of SLC Planning's intents when it comes to café life along Main. Texas de Brazil, for example, is supposed to have a major Main Street entrance (and not the afterthought, rarely used door that exists now), as well as more significant sidewalk dining, to help bring traffic to/from the street instead of over that disastrous skybridge. But they chose to ignore that design requirement (among other things) and SLC will just look the other way because they have to bend over backward for PRI politically. Planning staff will probably tell you their PRI horror stories off-the-record, but that's it; I no longer work where I have to deal with it daily though, so I don't really care anymore.

To be clear, I'm glad CCC exists because it has brought some life to the north end of downtown. But it's only accomplished a fraction of what an investment/development that substantial could have accomplished, had it been designed by actual urban planners and designers instead of church leaders and real estate developers (because, honestly, real estate developers are generally very poor urban designers). From an urbanist perspective, CCC is an opportunity somewhat wasted, and I hope the city can learn from it and avoid that with UPAC and its surroundings.

[Future Mayor]

Yes the goal and plan of City Creek Center was to bring some cafe life to Main St, but they aren't going to refuse leasing a space on Main St to someone simply because they aren't a cafe. That's just bad business.


As for HP, I find it refreshing that simply waiting a few more days, after the announcement of 111, and all of a sudden it becomes much more clear. The sale of the development of 111 was plain and simple, a business transaction from one developer to another.

One thing that has to be noted with 111 is that CCR is the principal/development partner in the overall "111 Main" investment group. Just as Hamilton was the principal partner, and there are guaranteed to be several other investors in the project, that simply kept their investment in the project when the new developer bought out HP's interest. So while the LDS church might possibly lease some space in 111 it won't become COB II and it won't become tax exempt, because it won't be a building that is wholly owned by CCR or any other affiliate of the LDS church. It is a building that will need to make a profit for it's investors.