Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Viperlord]

Utah Theater supporters launch campaign to save the building as Salt Lake City eyes new skyscraper
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/10/...er-supporters/

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by viperlord

utah theater supporters launch campaign to save the building as salt lake city eyes new skyscraper
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/10/...er-supporters/

pete ashdown for mayor!

We should hang onto the Utah Theater / Pantages Theater until we get someone in office who is passionate about it. There's a stronger argument to save/restore an exiting vaudeville/movie house then trying to convince the public of any need to build a new venue. Once it's gone, there's no chance for a film center in downtown slc, let alone in the heart of the cultural arts district of downtown where the theater is located. Also, we'd be among the few cities to have a Pantages theater of this style (I believe there are only two others left: Tacoma and Minneapolis, Salt Lake's being the largest and most ornate of the three (if restored to it's former glory)). It would really be something to brag about.

Salt Lake City Pantages Theater:











Tacoma Pantages Theater:





Minneapolis Pantages Theater:

[bob rulz]

Sorry, I've got to be on the side of "let it die". It's great if this could be saved, yes, but not for tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, and clearly no private investor has been willing to put the money into it or else it would have happened by now. Sometimes things just don't work out. I would rather see a signature tower with homages to the old theater there.

Most people didn't even know this place existed. Funny how nobody was dying on the vine for this until now.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by SLCLvr

Development about 450 south to 600 South, 300 West to 400 West, about 1/2 block south of Pioneer Park. The article says the "Post District' has something to do with the fact they are incorporating the old Newspaper Agency Corp production facility but I don't get the tie in.

https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/sal...-exist-before/

I like this a lot and I hope it can happen. That area badly needs some life, and maybe it will help to improve that major corridor that people see when they enter the city. Maybe we can even get rid of some of the billboards!

[Viperlord]

Looks like a potential developer is asking for taller buildings by the SLC Central Station and Rio Grande area. Additional information is contained within the pdf link below:

REQUEST:
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Doug Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, to increase the maximum height of buildings within a portion of the G-MU zoning district from a current maximum of 120’ up to 190’ across portions of two separate blocks located between 500 West and the railroad tracks (approximately 625 West) and 200 South and 400 South


And of course the planning commission's recommendation is..........

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Council for the proposed text amendment because the
request does not meet the standards of review.

http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Plan...taffReport.pdf

[SLCLvr]

Originally Posted by Viperlord

Looks like a potential developer is asking for taller buildings by the SLC Central Station and Rio Grande area. Additional information is contained within the pdf link below:

REQUEST:
The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a zoning text amendment petition from Doug Thimm, on behalf of STACK Real Estate, to increase the maximum height of buildings within a portion of the G-MU zoning district from a current maximum of 120’ up to 190’ across portions of two separate blocks located between 500 West and the railroad tracks (approximately 625 West) and 200 South and 400 South


And of course the planning commission's recommendation is..........

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Council for the proposed text amendment because the
request does not meet the standards of review.

http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Plan...taffReport.pdf

I read through all this info and I'm totally in favor of the changes requested by the applicant. The height won't compete with the CBD anymore than WVU competed with Oklahoma today. And it think it would add a nice center to the Gateway/Granary districts.

[Utahn]

I also feel like more time should be taken to consider the future of the Utah theater. With the State now saying that the theater may in fact be eligible for federal and state historic tax credits (previously the RDA had said it was not), that changes the equation. Pete Ashdown's (founder of Xmission) involvement is encouraging, and several council members are still on fence about what should be done with the site. Part of the reason that we don't see a larger constituency arguing to save it is because so few people know it exists, because very few people have been inside the building in recent years.

Originally Posted by Old&New

We should hang onto the Utah Theater / Pantages Theater until we get someone in office who is passionate about it. There's a stronger argument to save/restore an exiting vaudeville/movie house then trying to convince the public of any need to build a new venue. Once it's gone, there's no chance for a film center in downtown slc, let alone in the heart of the cultural arts district of downtown where the theater is located. Also, we'd be among the few cities to have a Pantages theater of this style (I believe there are only two others left: Tacoma and Minneapolis, Salt Lake's being the largest and most ornate of the three (if restored to it's former glory)). It would really be something to brag about.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Utahn

I also feel like more time should be taken to consider the future of the Utah theater. With the State now saying that the theater may in fact be eligible for federal and state historic tax credits (previously the RDA had said it was not), that changes the equation. Pete Ashdown's (founder of Xmission) involvement is encouraging, and several council members are still on fence about what should be done with the site. Part of the reason that we don't see a larger constituency arguing to save it is because so few people know it exists, because very few people have been inside the building in recent years.

I don’t think you will get very much public support unless you get more than 50% of the cost paid by donors. I would not support it myself unless this was the case. When affordable housing is such an issue paying over a 100 million for a unneeded theater smacks of elitism and misaligned priorities.

[Utahn]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the image problem of it being seen as an elite gesture; however, I don't find the alternative proposal to be a particularly meaningful contribution to affordable housing either. I was lucky enough the last four years to get to work with refugee and homeless issues in SLC through work, and I think 10% of units in the 60-80% is nice, but not where the greatest need really is.

A renovation of the Utah theater doesn't necessarily mean forgoing affordable housing or even a tower as some here have stated. The 2015 theater renovation proposal included a tower and affordable housing as well, but was ruled out because the numbers didn't work. But now we know that historic preservation tax credits may be possible, and that foundations and philanthropists were never even approached about the project (partially because Becker, a great mayor in many respects, but not without his faults, had rammed the Eccles theater through the RDA, a project that spoke even more of misaligned priorities in my view.)

All I'm saying is that with this additional information, the city should take another look and speak with the developer, the state preservation office, local foundations, and given this information see what might be possible. Those options have not yet been seriously considered.

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I don’t think you will get very much public support unless you get more than 50% of the cost paid by donors. I would not support it myself unless this was the case. When affordable housing is such an issue paying over a 100 million for a unneeded theater smacks of elitism and misaligned priorities.

[ThePusherMan]

Remember when Pete Ashdown asked reddit to help him fund an arcade bar even though he had plenty of his own capital to spend on it. If you think Pete would spend one red cent on this project you’re crazy. Pete Ashdown for Mayor because he wrote an opinion article in the Tribune? No thanks.

[SLCLvr]

Originally Posted by Utahn

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the image problem of it being seen as an elite gesture; however, I don't find the alternative proposal to be a particularly meaningful contribution to affordable housing either.

Rather than providing low income housing in a main street luxury high rise I would rather the city sell the lot for market value and use the proceeds to build more cost effective units along TRAX lines but outside the core of the CBD.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by SLCLvr

Rather than providing low income housing in a main street luxury high rise I would rather the city sell the lot for market value and use the proceeds to build more cost effective units along TRAX lines but outside the core of the CBD.

And what are they going to ride TRAX to if you take points of interest, like the pantages/Utah theater, off the line? You get my high-level point.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Old&New

And what are they going to ride TRAX to if you take points of interest, like the pantages/Utah theater, off the line? You get my high-level point.

Who is riding Trax today to the Pantages/Utah Theater?

That is the point.

Say the City tries to go down the road of saving the theater, the development with Hines goes away. That is what many people want but at the same time, they hope that someone will come in and save the theater. But what if no one comes? How long should the theater stay in its decaying state?

As for saving the theater. If it was possible and someone stepped up to do so, I would be happy. But I also live in the real world and wonder outside of history, what is the ROI going to be for the theater?

If it is restored as everyone wants, it would be a single screen theater. How often would it be used, One or maybe two weeks a year for Sundance?

What is the programming that will draw people to the theater?

If it was used outside of Sundance for first run movies, is there enough foot traffic to support it? People aren't going drive downtown (pay for parking) or take Trax all to walk a couple of blocks to see a movie that they can see closer to home.

This is where the ROI comes into account. Heart can only get you so far but what is going to be the ROI? A theater that sits empty for 340+ days a year? A street front that is only slightly better than today?

Sure, having it saved would be great but show me how it is worth the money, either for an angel investor or even the public to subsidize.

On the other hand, we can preserve the best remaining parts of the theater and incorporate them into a development that will bring in hundreds of people daily. Increase foot traffic in the area, and increases tax revenue. It would also increase transit ridership as people would use transit to get around.

These are the harsh realities and while preservation is good, there must be some return from the investment made. This is why we are at 2 options: Move forward with a residential project or hope and pray someone comes in with a plan to save the theater as it sits idle and decaying for who knows how long making preservation even harder.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Utahn

But now we know that historic preservation tax credits may be possible, and that foundations and philanthropists were never even approached about the project (partially because Becker, a great mayor in many respects, but not without his faults, had rammed the Eccles theater through the RDA, a project that spoke even more of misaligned priorities in my view.)

All I'm saying is that with this additional information, the city should take another look and speak with the developer, the state preservation office, local foundations, and given this information see what might be possible. Those options have not yet been seriously considered.

Eccles, by any measure, has been one of the best investments downtown in decades if not all time. Amazing work by Becker and the RDA (and the council). Really one of the things we can be proud that our city did. Makid and others hit many of the salient points. Movies aren't enough. Not enough revenue. I think it could be a really good musical venue. I also think the $60 million dollar price tag from code issues is a sandbag fake number and nowhere near reality. That being said if Ashdown has such a passion for the building maybe he can tap some of our local tech oligarchs for some drip. A little overdue to squeeze a few drops of our tech wonderment and miracle back into the community no? Can't wait for that moment really. Their community has many needs and is waiting patiently. Baseball team, a real art museum, private commisioned public art, a few towers etc would be really nice. Those all rely heavily on local passion cash. I'm seeing the cash. The passion? Not so much. Sandy and South Jordan have some nice office buildings and parking lots though..

[Comrade]

Maybe they can redevelop the Utah Theater into a movie house and move the Tower Theater there since it doesn't seem they'll ever renovate the 9th and 9th site.

[delts145]

‘Next great expansion’ of Salt Lake City’s downtown could help beautify its blighted entrance and exit from I-15

Tony Semerad - Salt Lake Tribgune - https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/10/...xpansion-salt/

In what backers call the “next great expansion” of Salt Lake City’s downtown, an entire urban neighborhood is set to rise a block south of Pioneer Park on what is now an ugly spread of run-down properties that many Utah motorists glance over daily.

Developers plan to build a nearly 13-acre residential and commercial project along sections of the city’s main entry and exit from Interstate 15, on land located around 500 South and 600 South between 300 West and 400 West.

To be known as the Post District, the development would replace or refurbish a half-dozen or so unsightly, graffiti-covered cinder-block buildings and a sea of cracked pavement covering nearly all the full city block known as the NAC lot, as well as the A&Z Produce building to its north with an adjoining parking lot and other parcels.

The district is anticipated to add as many as 500 apartments and town homes, large office spaces, shops, new trees, a parking garage and a pedestrian-centered plaza to the city’s central business district, in phases constructed over the next three years or more.

“The overall size and scale we have here will allow us to really create a neighborhood,” said Alex Lowe, a principal in Salt Lake City-based Lowe Property Group, one of four companies partnering in the project...

.

[gakidave]

I love the old Utah Theater building, but I really struggle to see how it could be used even if it was saved and rebuilt.

Eccles really is the go-to place for traveling productions, and it's already built with all the of the modern amenities needed. 2,500 seats is a great size.

Capitol Theater is wrapping up renovations and comes in at 1,800 seats.

Abravanel Hall is around 2,700 seats.

Pantages was around 2,300 seats. Can Salt Lake really support four downtown venues in the ~2,000 seat range? Who would use it? Hale Sandy doesn't even have 500 seats. It's way too big for the Off-Broadway Theater. There's tons of competition for movies already. I just don't see a viable use for it as a theater right now.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Makid

Who is riding Trax today to the Pantages/Utah Theater?

That is the point.

Say the City tries to go down the road of saving the theater, the development with Hines goes away. That is what many people want but at the same time, they hope that someone will come in and save the theater. But what if no one comes? How long should the theater stay in its decaying state?

As for saving the theater. If it was possible and someone stepped up to do so, I would be happy. But I also live in the real world and wonder outside of history, what is the ROI going to be for the theater?

If it is restored as everyone wants, it would be a single screen theater. How often would it be used, One or maybe two weeks a year for Sundance?

What is the programming that will draw people to the theater?


If it was used outside of Sundance for first run movies, is there enough foot traffic to support it? People aren't going drive downtown (pay for parking) or take Trax all to walk a couple of blocks to see a movie that they can see closer to home.

This is where the ROI comes into account. Heart can only get you so far but what is going to be the ROI? A theater that sits empty for 340+ days a year? A street front that is only slightly better than today?

Sure, having it saved would be great but show me how it is worth the money, either for an angel investor or even the public to subsidize.

On the other hand, we can preserve the best remaining parts of the theater and incorporate them into a development that will bring in hundreds of people daily. Increase foot traffic in the area, and increases tax revenue. It would also increase transit ridership as people would use transit to get around.

These are the harsh realities and while preservation is good, there must be some return from the investment made. This is why we are at 2 options: Move forward with a residential project or hope and pray someone comes in with a plan to save the theater as it sits idle and decaying for who knows how long making preservation even harder.

Why do you want to make living history history?

The Hines development could always go somewhere else.

The theater is not actively decaying, measures have already been taken to maintain it's current condition.

Just because people have suggested the use be a film center does not mean that would be it's only use. Just look at the Pantages Theater in Minneapolis (which has the same stage size limitations) It's used for concerts, standup, or any sort of show that doesn't require a bunch of Broadway sets, which are the majority of shows.

Originally Posted by gakidave

I love the old Utah Theater building, but I really struggle to see how it could be used even if it was saved and rebuilt.

Eccles really is the go-to place for traveling productions, and it's already built with all the of the modern amenities needed. 2,500 seats is a great size.

Capitol Theater is wrapping up renovations and comes in at 1,800 seats.

Abravanel Hall is around 2,700 seats.

Pantages was around 2,300 seats. Can Salt Lake really support four downtown venues in the ~2,000 seat range? Who would use it? Hale Sandy doesn't even have 500 seats. It's way too big for the Off-Broadway Theater. There's tons of competition for movies already. I just don't see a viable use for it as a theater right now.

The legroom back then was nil, and as many seats as physically possible were squished into the theater. Even Capitol has reduced the amount of seats over the years to provide a more comfortable experience (I wish airplanes would do the same). So 2000 would be about right.

There are many uses for an auditorium, Meetings (Convention Center is a block away), Concerts, Traveling tours that don't require much scenery like standup and readings. Also, could be an affordable venue for local community events (ROI should not only be measured in dollars and cents).

Additionally, All theaters have downtime while shows are being swapped out. All it would take is scheduling and coordination to make it viable in an ROI sense.

[Makid]

If the theater was going to be used for anything other than movies, it could not use tax payer funds from the city due to the existing contract between the City and the County. This would put the private sector on the hook for the entire restoration project.

As for deteriorating, unless the theater is hermetically sealed, moisture and animals will be getting inside. Both of which will do damage over time to the existing structure. As above, it would be approximately 25 years before the City could use taxpayer funds to restore the theater. Do you honestly believe that no damage will be done in that time or even longer if taxpayers won't support a bond to restore it then due to costs most likely topping $100 Million?

As for convention meeting space, if the theater was across the street from the Convention Center, that may work but at nearly 1.5 blocks to get to the theater for a meeting during a convention, that just isn't going to happen. People already don't use the Capitol Theater for convention meetings because it is too far. The conventions that use off site facilities for their meetings use the Arena because they need to hold 10,000+ people.

I do understand the desire to save the theater but the reality is that there isn't a use for it. This would be the biggest part of the ROI, the return. I wouldn't care if it offered 1 movie showing a week and free tours to show off the history if it saved the theater. But that just isn't going to happen.

When anyone spends $50+ Million on a project, they want something out of it. Just telling them that they are preserving history for the sake of history isn't going to go far either. as I said before, it suffers from out of side, out of mind syndrome. Meaning if you asked 100 residents in the city, at random, you probably wouldn't even get 50% that could say where it is other than a generic "Downtown".

This is the harsh realities that the City has faced with the theater and it led them to the path they are on for preserving what they can and redeveloping the building into something beneficial for the City.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Makid

If the theater was going to be used for anything other than movies, it could not use tax payer funds from the city due to the existing contract between the City and the County. This would put the private sector on the hook for the entire restoration project.

As for deteriorating, unless the theater is hermetically sealed, moisture and animals will be getting inside. Both of which will do damage over time to the existing structure. As above, it would be approximately 25 years before the City could use taxpayer funds to restore the theater. Do you honestly believe that no damage will be done in that time or even longer if taxpayers won't support a bond to restore it then due to costs most likely topping $100 Million?

As for convention meeting space, if the theater was across the street from the Convention Center, that may work but at nearly 1.5 blocks to get to the theater for a meeting during a convention, that just isn't going to happen. People already don't use the Capitol Theater for convention meetings because it is too far. The conventions that use off site facilities for their meetings use the Arena because they need to hold 10,000+ people.

I do understand the desire to save the theater but the reality is that there isn't a use for it. This would be the biggest part of the ROI, the return. I wouldn't care if it offered 1 movie showing a week and free tours to show off the history if it saved the theater. But that just isn't going to happen.

When anyone spends $50+ Million on a project, they want something out of it. Just telling them that they are preserving history for the sake of history isn't going to go far either. as I said before, it suffers from out of side, out of mind syndrome. Meaning if you asked 100 residents in the city, at random, you probably wouldn't even get 50% that could say where it is other than a generic "Downtown".

This is the harsh realities that the City has faced with the theater and it led them to the path they are on for preserving what they can and redeveloping the building into something beneficial for the City.

Perhaps they should start tweeting about it. The Pantages theater was supposed to be restored some time around the Eccles theater being constructed as part of a larger cultural and arts district on the two blocks south of city creek center. A restoration, or at least a retrofit renovation to make it a usable space was promised to the public, and those who cared (like me) took note. Restoring the Pantages theater and building the Eccles theater was all part of the same proposal ie proposed at the same time to help push the eccles theater through the public process, planning commission, and city council. More theaters beget more theater, this is what Ralph Becker said over and over again. I get that leadership has changed since then, but that doesn't seem fair to the public for the city to not follow through. In essence the City has a contract with the public. If the city and county have some contract with a private entity that does not contemplate the Pantages, I would be very surprised to find out the public was conned. ...How many years is this contract you speak of enforceable?