Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Future Mayor]

I drove by Seasons at Library Square yesterday and the concrete for the first floor is being formedd, and is starting to rise.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by CofIKid

I don't know if anyone noticed, but they have erected more steel along state street. I think it is finally up to level three.

Just curious if you know how recent the new steel is? I hope very recent, because I would assume that if that is the case that they got past the other issues that were mentioned a couple of pages back.

[utenation]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Just curious if you know how recent the new steel is? I hope very recent, because I would assume that if that is the case that they got past the other issues that were mentioned a couple of pages back.

The last pics I posted here were May 15th.. Viperlord's bad news came about a week later..

Looking today, sure enough, there is more steel in place from the 15th..

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I drove by Seasons at Library Square yesterday and the concrete for the first floor is being formedd, and is starting to rise.

That's this one right? The one off of Denver Street? Did it look like there was underground parking?

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by Orlando

That's this one right? The one off of Denver Street? Did it look like there was underground parking?

That's the right rendering, but the location is 500 S and 300 E, SE corner. Looks very similar in design to the Denver St Apartments. I believe there is underground parking and possibly some inside on ground level as well. It appeared that the entrance was being constructed on the east end of the 500 S side.

[CofIKid]

Future Mayor,

Those apartments are owned by Wasatch Properties. It is suppose to be identical or nearly identical to their "Cityscape" property on 400 East Between 100 and 200 South

[UTPlanner]

CofIKid, those apartments are being built by Wasatch Development but they will not be owned and operated by them. They will be owned and operated by the same company that built Seasons at City Creek and is preparing to build Seasons on Denver Street. Wasatch is going to build and own the Encore Apartments on 400 South where Neff Floral is located.

[Comrade]

http://www.seasonsoncitycreek.com/

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Comrade

http://www.seasonsoncitycreek.com/

Or

http://www.seasonsatcitycreek.com

[CofIKid]

UTPlanner,

That is interesting. I live in one of Wasatch's properties downtown, and the manger claimed that they would be managing the property. She could have been completely wrong though.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Comrade

http://www.seasonsoncitycreek.com/

Wow, those stock photo families sure look happy.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ToysNoiz

Wow, those stock photo families sure look happy.

They haven't seen the homeless man shoot up and stumble down the street yet.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

It was actually changed to "Seasons on Sidecreek"... Apparently the LDS church filed a lawsuit against them which required them to change the name... Which I personally think is complete BS... It wasn't called "Seasons At City Creek center".

They probably have more of a right to use the name city creek than CCC does.. Considering the fact that the city Creek aqueduct runs right in front of the building... The motel that used to be in the same place was called the city Creek inn.. I wonder if they would've gotten sued??

I love what the LDS church has done with CCC.. But that lawsuit is over-the-top and ridiculous.. CCC was named after city creek just as the Seasons At City Creek was... Just as the city Creek Inn was.. The LDS church should not hold any sway over the name City Creek... Unless of course somebody were to use the name "City Creek center".. Then they would be perfectly within their right to sue :-/

So you honestly think no one would be confused that "Seasons at City Creek" actually had no relationship at all with City Creek Center which many people shorten to just City Creek?

Protecting your brand name and its association is EVERYTHING, why do you think when you go to a restaurant and ask for a Coke they say is Pepsi okay? Because Coca-cola fights tooth and nail to ensure that their brand name isn't diluted by something that they cannot control.

This was definitely the right legal move to make.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

So you honestly think no one would be confused that "Seasons at City Creek" actually had no relationship at all with City Creek Center which many people shorten to just City Creek?

Protecting your brand name and its association is EVERYTHING, why do you think when you go to a restaurant and ask for a Coke they say is Pepsi okay? Because Coca-cola fights tooth and nail to ensure that their brand name isn't diluted by something that they cannot control.

This was definitely the right legal move to make.

I don't think any move was ever made. The development is still called Seasons On City Creek. But even if the LDS Church moved on it and squashed them from using the name, you're absolutely wrong that they would be right in doing so.

Your example of Coke is absolutely not similar because Coke is a brand name. City Creek is not - it's an actual creek in Salt Lake City. It'd be no different than if they had named the development Wasatch Center and then forbade anyone from using the term Wasatch - you can't do that because it's a name specific to nature and not specific to a brand.

City Creek, as already mentioned, was the name used for the motel on that spot - and that came long before the LDS Church ever decided to develop their mall:

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by Comrade

I don't think any move was ever made. The development is still called Seasons On City Creek. But even if the LDS Church moved on it and squashed them from using the name, you're absolutely wrong that they would be right in doing so.

Your example of Coke is absolutely not similar because Coke is a brand name. City Creek is not - it's an actual creek in Salt Lake City. It'd be no different than if they had named the development Wasatch Center and then forbade anyone from using the term Wasatch - you can't do that because it's a name specific to nature and not specific to a brand.

City Creek, as already mentioned, was the name used for the motel on that spot - and that came long before the LDS Church ever decided to develop their mall:

The preposition is the key thing here, AT City Creek, notice that it was changed to ON City Creek.

I used the Coke example because it is the most well known. I could also use the example of Barnum and Bailey Circus suing Utah for stating "The Greatest Snow on Earth" being to close to their brand of "The Greatest Show on Earth" being ultimately only one letter different. Ultimately, as you may guess, Barnum lost the case. How THIS particular case would have turned out is doesn't matter, as the name was changed and there is less confusion to the public because the word "on" seems to relate more to the Creek where as the word "at" seems to more denote the place.

Again, for the purposes of the discussion who would have actually WON the case is not the important thing since it was already won before ever reaching a court (or maybe even an actual law suit) by getting the name change.

Finally, all that had to be shown was that Season at/on City Creek was unfairly benefiting by using a name that someone else had spent time developing and promoting, etc. Thus any future "leaches" might be sued. City Creek Inn existing before thus would not fall into this type of suit since they existed beforehand. Actually, if they could show that City Creek Center was unduly profiting by using their name, they might have a suit that they could raise. Ultimately, because this is dealing with a landmark, and not a unique name that someone created, such as Kleenex or Haagen Dazs, the case is not a clear cut winner and loser. That said if you asked the average person in Utah what City Creek was, I would guess more than 50% would associate the name with the new downtown mall.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

So you honestly think no one would be confused that "Seasons at City Creek" actually had no relationship at all with City Creek Center which many people shorten to just City Creek?

Protecting your brand name and its association is EVERYTHING, why do you think when you go to a restaurant and ask for a Coke they say is Pepsi okay? Because Coca-cola fights tooth and nail to ensure that their brand name isn't diluted by something that they cannot control.

This was definitely the right legal move to make.

Do you honestly think that changing it from "at" to "on" is going to alleviate any confusion?

Regardless of who might abbreviate the name of the shopping center and how they might abbreviate it. "City Creek" is not a brand-name.. It is a creek that flows down "City Creek" Canyon, into an underground aqueduct, which travels underneath North Temple to the Jordan River. "City Creek Center" which is a brand name was named after "City Creek", as was the City Creek Inn, and the seasons on City Creek. No one in the "City Creek" area should have to get the LDS churches permission to use the term "City Creek" in their naming.. Especially when such a place has a more accurate stake to that name then City Creek Center it self.. Not to mention that the particular piece of property has used the name "City Creek" for a very long time.. much longer than the shopping mall has. Now if someone is using the name City Creek Center.. That would most certainly be brand name infringement.

Also, back on the topic of confusion. What exactly is there to be confused about? Seasons At City Creek is an apartment building on North Temple... There is not much to be confused about.

Comrade: The original name was Seasons At City Creek.. It was changed to Seasons On the City Creek.. At one point I noticed this on my rent statement and inquired to management as to why the change took place..

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Do you honestly think that changing it from "at" to "on" is going to alleviate any confusion?

Regardless of who might abbreviate the name of the shopping center and how they might abbreviate it. "City Creek" is not a brand-name.. It is a creek that flows down "City Creek" Canyon, into an underground aqueduct, which travels underneath North Temple to the Jordan River. "City Creek Center" which is a brand name was named after "City Creek", as was the City Creek Inn, and the seasons on City Creek. No one in the "City Creek" area should have to get the LDS churches permission to use the term "City Creek" in their naming.. Especially when such a place has a more accurate stake to that name then City Creek Center it self.. Not to mention that the particular piece of property has used the name "City Creek" for a very long time.. much longer than the shopping mall has. Now if someone is using the name City Creek Center.. That would most certainly be brand name infringement.

Also, back on the topic of confusion. What exactly is there to be confused about? Seasons At City Creek is an apartment building on North Temple... There is not much to be confused about.

Comrade: The original name was Seasons At City Creek.. It was changed to Seasons On the City Creek.. At one point I noticed this on my rent statement and inquired to management as to why the change took place..

The confusion being who owns and manages the property.

Owning a brand name is about public recognition. I mean for heaven sake, "McDonald" is someone's last name, how is that fair to allow a hamburger shop to control an entire last name and keep people from calling their burger joint "McDonald's Burgers" I mean it's just a last name.

And yes, "at" vs. "on" makes a difference, notice what The Regent is called on its own website. Words mean something. I could continue to explain why but it is clear that y'all are going to take whatever view point you so choose and thus explaining is a waste of typing. So we can carry on and not bother about something that is a moot point anyway as it is over and done with.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

The preposition is the key thing here, AT City Creek, notice that it was changed to ON City Creek.

I used the Coke example because it is the most well known. I could also use the example of Barnum and Bailey Circus suing Utah for stating "The Greatest Snow on Earth" being to close to their brand of "The Greatest Show on Earth" being ultimately only one letter different. Ultimately, as you may guess, Barnum lost the case. How THIS particular case would have turned out is doesn't matter, as the name was changed and there is less confusion to the public because the word "on" seems to relate more to the Creek where as the word "at" seems to more denote the place.

Again, for the purposes of the discussion who would have actually WON the case is not the important thing since it was already won before ever reaching a court (or maybe even an actual law suit) by getting the name change.

Finally, all that had to be shown was that Season at/on City Creek was unfairly benefiting by using a name that someone else had spent time developing and promoting, etc. Thus any future "leaches" might be sued. City Creek Inn existing before thus would not fall into this type of suit since they existed beforehand. Actually, if they could show that City Creek Center was unduly profiting by using their name, they might have a suit that they could raise. Ultimately, because this is dealing with a landmark, and not a unique name that someone created, such as Kleenex or Haagen Dazs, the case is not a clear cut winner and loser. That said if you asked the average person in Utah what City Creek was, I would guess more than 50% would associate the name with the new downtown mall.

Who cares what people associate it with? The LDS church does not own the rights to the term "city creek".. You can't put a local geographical feature in the title of your business and expect that nobody else will use it.. If the LDS church wanted something original that nobody else could use they should've thought of something original that nobody else could use... According to the logic that you've just described the Salt Lake brewing Company should be suing anybody that uses the name Salt Lake in their title..

And how exactly is an apartment complex benefiting off of city creek center? First of all this place was at full capacity and had a waiting list before City creek center even opened.. I would argue that CCC is benefiting off of the fact that people live here and regularly shop at their establishment.

The developer of the apartment building planned on using the naming scheme Seasons At location.. Seasons At City Creek is legally accurate.. It is not on city creek it is on North Temple..

The LDS church was not the first business to think of putting City Creek in their title and they won't be the last.. Being the most recognizable doesn't matter..

Look at all the businesses that use century in their title on 33rd south.. Has Cinemark ever sued any of them??

Seasons would've won this case if they would've taken it to court.. However.. I'm glad that they opted to just change the name and put their financial resources towards future developments and not lawyers... Which the LDS church has plenty of.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

Who cares what people associate it with? The LDS church does not own the rights to the term "city creek".. You can't put a local geographical feature in the title of your business and expect that nobody else will use it.. If the LDS church wanted something original that nobody else could use they should've thought of something original that nobody else could use... According to the logic that you've just described the Salt Lake brewing Company should be suing anybody that uses the name Salt Lake in their title..

And how exactly is an apartment complex benefiting off of city creek center? First of all this place was at full capacity and had a waiting list before City creek center even opened.. I would argue that CCC is benefiting off of the fact that people live here and regularly shop at their establishment.

The developer of the apartment building planned on using the naming scheme Seasons At location.. Seasons At City Creek is legally accurate.. It is not on city creek it is on North Temple..

The LDS church was not the first business to think of putting City Creek in their title and they won't be the last.. Being the most recognizable doesn't matter..

Look at all the businesses that use century in their title on 33rd south.. Has Cinemark ever sued any of them??

Fine, believe what you want.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by Comrade

They haven't seen the homeless man shoot up and stumble down the street yet.

I'm dying.

Anyone seen that video of 5 drug deals going down in three minutes on 400 W to the song "Don't get lost in heaven"? It's hilarious.