SLC: Performing Arts Center and 111 Tower

[Zionide]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

--The tall Prudential Building - the sculpture was cool, and the original, long ago removed water feature was cool, but obviously it wasn't constructed all that well in the first place considering that when SLCC purchased it they had to install that steal reinforcement system throughout the building. IMO, a small loss.

That's not accurate. SLCC had to add seismic upgrades to make it a building sanctioned for student use. Like many historic buildings, it did not meet current seismic requirements. It was actually constructed very well, and was literally the ONLY example of this style in downtown SLC. To render SLC without a representation of an entire architectural style is a huge loss, and pretty embarrassing.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

What are we gaining? A world class performing arts center, a very tall office tower, and new life on Regent St.

You're missing the point. We could have gained two of those three things by building elsewhere (like on a parking lot!), and the third could have happened by investing in the existing, historically important structures.

[DMTower]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. It's already happening and it will bring new vitality to the area.

[Old&New]

What existed before WAS vital. The only reason the area felt desolate before was because the buildings were in limbo of being put on the chopping block BECAUSE of the proposed theater. If the buildings hadn't been designated for a new theater, the buildings we lost would be getting A LOT of use by now because of their proximity to City Creek Center. We really didn't even give those buildings a chance to prove themselves viable after the completion of CCC.

[DMTower]

It's still already happening. Who are you trying to convince, and to what effect?

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by DMTower

It's still already happening. Who are you trying to convince, and to what effect?

The course is set, the buildings are gone, but we must acknowledge our mistakes if we're ever going to learn from them.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Old&New

What existed before WAS vital. The only reason the area felt desolate before was because the buildings were in limbo of being put on the chopping block BECAUSE of the proposed theater. If the buildings hadn't been designated for a new theater, the buildings we lost would be getting A LOT of use by now because of their proximity to City Creek Center. We really didn't even give those buildings a chance to prove themselves viable after the completion of CCC.

The building had been empty BEFORE it was picked as the location of UPAC.

[gusam26]

I for one don't think the location was a mistake.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Stenar

The building had been empty BEFORE it was picked as the location of UPAC.

As were many of the buildings on Main Street BEFORE the completion of CCC; Doesn't mean they aren't viable and vital buildings now.

What existed before WAS vital. The only reason the area felt desolate before was because the buildings were in limbo of being put on the chopping block BECAUSE of the proposed theater. If the buildings hadn't been designated for a new theater, the buildings we lost would be getting A LOT of use by now because of their proximity to City Creek Center. We really didn't even give those buildings a chance to prove themselves viable after the completion of CCC.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by Old&New

As were many of the buildings on Main Street BEFORE the completion of CCC; Doesn't mean they aren't viable and vital buildings now.

They're definitely not viable or vital buildings now... but I still think they made the right choice. We can all disagree on the value of those buildings.

[delts145]

I agree with you DMTower, as do the overwhelming majority of this forum, the right choice was made. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of those experts involved with the planning and development of UPAC, not to mention those investing their own dime into the redevelopment of the block felt that the right choices have been made.

What is coming down the pipe will generate an infinite amount more activity and profitability for not only the immediate block and new Regent St., but also the other side of Main and it's future vibrancy and redevelopment.

[Old&New]

You guys are trying to have a good attitude about this, i get that. But Salt Lake did lose some of it's character in the process. This development was a one step backwards two steps forward kind of thing, rather than a giant leap forward.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by delts145

I agree with you DMTower, as do the overwhelming majority of this forum, the right choice was made.

Not really Delts. I know you are usually super optimistic about any development on here, but this whole process was wrong. Becker initially proposed this place because he could save money by using the existing buildings on Main Street. What a joke that was?! Now, look what has happened! The money spent on demolishing these buildings alone is way more than if the proposal was on a vacant lot downtown.There are so many parking lots in downtown. The City Council here is a little weak, and a little too unsophisticiated. Sorensen was their best advocate. He was the only one to question CCRI and Bishop Burton when they initially proposed the CCC in 2006. CCRI had proposed to demolish the First Security tower, and everyone on the council except Sorensen was like "cool! Go ahead! Tear down our city! This is awesome!" There should be laws that protect decent existing building stock, especially if there are a lot of empty parking lots in around downtown, and regardless of developers or land owners who want to tear down and demolish. These were decent sized buildings who defined the urban edge of the street and street corner. Sure, some of you could care less, but they were not halfass built pieces of crap. It's a disgrace when you drive by all the empty or under used lots on West Temple like the one with the gutted out eyesore Zephyr club. Shame on the city and Mayor Becker for not trying to negotiate with the developers and land owners to build the new theater on a vacant lot downtown. A good example of a new development that justifies demolishing existing buildings is the Air 7 project.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by gusam26

Guessing this building won't survive another week.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Not really Delts. I know you are usually super optimistic about any development on here, but this whole process was wrong. Becker initially proposed this place because he could save money by using the existing buildings on Main Street. What a joke that was?! Now, look what has happened! The money spent on demolishing these buildings alone is way more than if the proposal was on a vacant lot downtown.There are so many parking lots in downtown. The City Council here is a little weak, and a little too unsophisticiated. Sorensen was their best advocate. He was the only one to question CCRI and Bishop Burton when they initially proposed the CCC in 2006. CCRI had proposed to demolish the First Security tower, and everyone on the council except Sorensen was like "cool! Go ahead! Tear down our city! This is awesome!" There should be laws that protect decent existing building stock, especially if there are a lot of empty parking lots in around downtown, and regardless of developers or land owners who want to tear down and demolish. These were decent sized buildings who defined the urban edge of the street and street corner. Sure, some of you could care less, but they were not halfass built pieces of crap. It's a disgrace when you drive by all the empty or under used lots on West Temple like the one with the gutted out eyesore Zephyr club. Shame on the city and Mayor Becker for not trying to negotiate with the developers and land owners to build the new theater on a vacant lot downtown. A good example of a new development that justifies demolishing existing buildings is the Air 7 project.

When I hear a politician throw out an idea about what is best for a development I think a fairy dies. Since when did they become Civil engineers?

Looking back at this project I would wonder.

If you are using existing buildings, do these buildings work for a theater? We are talking about an old printing building, banks and so forth being turned into a theater!? Yeah right that will work.

The only option they ever had was to tear those buildings down.

Also and this is universal for all building projects. It is cheaper to building on open land. Weather that be a parking lot or an open field. You will always incur more cost when demolishing a structure. I think the La Point people found that out the hard way.

The Zion's parking lot should of been the overall cheaper building site. Now did Zion's want to sale or donate? Don't know don't care.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by gusam26

I for one don't think the location was a mistake.

It's a pity no one put a picture of Miley Cyrus on the building and struck it with the wreaking ball. Poetic Justice!

[Stenar]

Mayor Becker DID try to negotiate with landowners of empty lots.

The mayor never said he was going to use existing buildings.

Originally Posted by Orlando

Not really Delts. I know you are usually super optimistic about any development on here, but this whole process was wrong. Becker initially proposed this place because he could save money by using the existing buildings on Main Street. What a joke that was?! Now, look what has happened! The money spent on demolishing these buildings alone is way more than if the proposal was on a vacant lot downtown.There are so many parking lots in downtown. The City Council here is a little weak, and a little too unsophisticiated. Sorensen was their best advocate. He was the only one to question CCRI and Bishop Burton when they initially proposed the CCC in 2006. CCRI had proposed to demolish the First Security tower, and everyone on the council except Sorensen was like "cool! Go ahead! Tear down our city! This is awesome!" There should be laws that protect decent existing building stock, especially if there are a lot of empty parking lots in around downtown, and regardless of developers or land owners who want to tear down and demolish. These were decent sized buildings who defined the urban edge of the street and street corner. Sure, some of you could care less, but they were not halfass built pieces of crap. It's a disgrace when you drive by all the empty or under used lots on West Temple like the one with the gutted out eyesore Zephyr club. Shame on the city and Mayor Becker for not trying to negotiate with the developers and land owners to build the new theater on a vacant lot downtown. A good example of a new development that justifies demolishing existing buildings is the Air 7 project.

[utenation]

I personally think this site will be a huge upgrade over the vacant concrete jungle with the new development.. Regent street will once again be alive and well. Sure, they could have found an empty parking lot but this will be a nice tie in to City Creek and connect more of Main..

It also adds to the tower density. I think the Metro Buliding was hideous.. Happy it's getting tossed..

[DMTower]

I don't think the city was ever in much of a position to build on many of those empty parking lots. The people who own those lots are land bankers, and the budget for a city and county funded project does not have the size and flexibility to negotiate the kinds of prices those land owners are going to ask. If they had payed what was likely asked for those parcels we'd likely end up with a cheap, stucco covered theater or worse. It's likely the only reason this project is even happening (and happening with the quality it is) is because the LDS church practically gave them the property to build on.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Mayor Becker DID try to negotiate with landowners of empty lots.

The mayor never said he was going to use existing buildings.

Oh, yes, he did! Sure, he might have tried to find a vacant site initially, but ultimately decided on the current site because he could use the existing buildings to reduce building cost.

[DMTower]

Do you have a source for that claim? I don't remember him ever saying to reuse the buildings for the theater itself, only some decorative elements people wanted preserved. It makes no sense whatsoever to reuse them for a theater and it would probably cost much more to do it that way.