Salt Lake:Official development news thread - Part 2

[Future Mayor]

Those are all very valid points. As I've said in the past I hate to lose the Montgomery Ward Building, because I like the variety it ads, but if be losing it we gain another 25 story building and a theater than I will accept it.

Having yet one more spot taken by a tower will only increase the demand for the space on the block west and something better suited for that block could be developed.

We all like to propose all these different spots for the theater, based on not wanting to lose a few buildings, or filling up a parking lot. The city and the advisory committee on the site selection did their due diligence on the initial sites to even consider, and further due diligence to make the final selection.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Those are all very valid points. As I've said in the past I hate to lose the Montgomery Ward Building, because I like the variety it ads, but if be losing it we gain another 25 story building and a theater than I will accept it.

Having yet one more spot taken by a tower will only increase the demand for the space on the block west and something better suited for that block could be developed.

We all like to propose all these different spots for the theater, based on not wanting to lose a few buildings, or filling up a parking lot. The city and the advisory committee on the site selection did their due diligence on the initial sites to even consider, and further due diligence to make the final selection.

I completely agree. The parking lot on the east side will be itching for development. So much so that I honestly see the site being home to a 25-35 story mixed use tower within 7 years of the Theater complex being complete if not sooner.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by Makid

The biggest problem with this location is the amount of available space. They would need to cut into the Utah Theater to get the loading docks in as well as add a curb cut along West Temple. This could cause problems with the Power substation nearby.

I am not saying it isn't a possible location, I am just saying that the costs are going to be a lot higher on the west side of Main as opposed to the currently selected location.

The currently selected location also has the opportunity to increase development along Regent Street.

I think that while we may lose some buildings in the process, the benefit to the surrounding area will be greatly enhanced in the current location as opposed to moving it elsewhere.

Not according to this:

[SLC Projects]

Not trying to be rude. But....
The City and Developer has already made up their minds of where the theater is going. So there's no point to keep Bitching and Whining about not having it on the parking lot across the street. Get over it.
I'm sure that parking lot will be develop into something one day. Til then just enjoy the fact that this development is happening downtown on Main Street and not in Sandy.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

Not trying to be rude. But....
The City and Developer has already made up their minds of where the theater is going. So there's no point to keep Bitching and Whining about not having it on the parking lot across the street. Get over it.
I'm sure that parking lot will be develop into something one day. Til then just enjoy the fact that this development is happening downtown on Main Street and not in Sandy.

Just like there was no use in "bitching and whining" when CCRI had already make up their minds on where their office tower was to be located (first security bank spot).

Can Zion's Securities not subdivide?

[Makid]

Just like there was no use in "bitching and whining" when CCRI had already make up their minds on where their office tower was to be located (first security bank spot).

The difference is that CCRI owned the building. The RDA and Suburband Land Reserve own the land in discussion here. They are also not the developers. Also, the city decided on the location for the theater. The developer is just planning within the cities desire and plans.

I personally would like the prudential building saved if possible, the rest I am fine with losing. I am okay with losing the prudential building if it leads to development throughout the rest of the CBD as well as filling up of empty storefronts along mainstreet.

In order to save the Prudential building and the Mont. Ward building, everyone would need to continually contact the city in an effort to get them to change the location. The developer is just building where the city wants it.

It may or may not be to late for the prudential and mont. ward building but it isn't to late for others. I am all for starting a campaign to save other buildings that are of a historic nature that are not flagged historic currently. Let's be proactive in our actions and not reactive because we may not like a development plan.

There are many fronts to this, I hope you are actively working on saving buildings that you feel are historic as opposed to creating annimosity between forumers.

[gemery]

Originally Posted by proxy

Just like there was no use in "bitching and whining" when CCRI had already make up their minds on where their office tower was to be located (first security bank spot).

Funny, I didn't think you were a forum member back then ... I thought only urbanboy was ... ?

Personally, I am fine with the theater where it is. I think the loading situation is much better, especially when the build it so that the trucks unload without blocking Regent Street. I am so excited about the theater actually being built, and I think the location is great. I feel like the rounder lobby helps make it feel like it is not a side entrance to the theater on Main Street (some of the other proposed layouts gave only a slice of Main Street presence to the theater, preferring the new alleyway for the main doors.

My question would be: if the high-rise and the theater are sharing a lobby, wouldn't that block the new side street? I don't get how that would work. Would it be on a different floor or below ground? I don't see either as a preferable option.

Also, for parking, do you think the theater would have underground parking? I sure hope so. That would help reduce the need for the parking lots that everyone hates (given, the one across the street from the theater is the one that bugs me the most downtown). It could easily be shared with the high-rise: businessmen would use it mostly during the day; theatergoers would primarily use it at night.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by Makid

The difference is that CCRI owned the building. The RDA and Suburband Land Reserve own the land in discussion here. They are also not the developers. Also, the city decided on the location for the theater. The developer is just planning within the cities desire and plans.

I personally would like the prudential building saved if possible, the rest I am fine with losing. I am okay with losing the prudential building if it leads to development throughout the rest of the CBD as well as filling up of empty storefronts along mainstreet.

In order to save the Prudential building and the Mont. Ward building, everyone would need to continually contact the city in an effort to get them to change the location. The developer is just building where the city wants it.

It may or may not be to late for the prudential and mont. ward building but it isn't to late for others. I am all for starting a campaign to save other buildings that are of a historic nature that are not flagged historic currently. Let's be proactive in our actions and not reactive because we may not like a development plan.

There are many fronts to this, I hope you are actively working on saving buildings that you feel are historic as opposed to creating annimosity between forumers.

I thought the City or the RDA didn't own the property yet, but are still in negotiations with PRI. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by gemery

Funny, I didn't think you were a forum member back then ... I thought only urbanboy was ... ?

Personally, I am fine with the theater where it is. I think the loading situation is much better, especially when the build it so that the trucks unload without blocking Regent Street. I am so excited about the theater actually being built, and I think the location is great. I feel like the rounder lobby helps make it feel like it is not a side entrance to the theater on Main Street (some of the other proposed layouts gave only a slice of Main Street presence to the theater, preferring the new alleyway for the main doors.

My question would be: if the high-rise and the theater are sharing a lobby, wouldn't that block the new side street? I don't get how that would work. Would it be on a different floor or below ground? I don't see either as a preferable option.

Also, for parking, do you think the theater would have underground parking? I sure hope so. That would help reduce the need for the parking lots that everyone hates (given, the one across the street from the theater is the one that bugs me the most downtown). It could easily be shared with the high-rise: businessmen would use it mostly during the day; theatergoers would primarily use it at night.

I was a part of that too. There weren't only people on this forum opposed to demolishing the first security bank building.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by proxy

Just like there was no use in "bitching and whining" when CCRI had already make up their minds on where their office tower was to be located (first security bank spot).

Can Zion's Securities not subdivide?

No this is completely different actually. CCRI was completely in control over that project. This project involves more than just one entity. It involves the city, the current landowners (PRI / LDS Church), HP, the Chicago firm I am forgetting the name of, as well as public funds.

The parking lot across the way is not owned by PRI, the LDS Church, or the city. Thus new deals would have to be struck with that property owner, who may or may not even be willing to sell in the first place.

Long story short, no this is not at all like saving the First Security building with regard to CCC.

[Future Mayor]

The article stated, but I didn't see it on the drawing, that a new E/W pedestrian connector would be just south of the Tribune Tower. I like that location much better anyway, it breaks up the N/S block much more evenly.

As for parking under the theater, I don't really see that as a need. The Regent St Garage is more than ample in size to accommodate the office tower parking needs. As well as the theater parking needs. There will also be parking available for theater patrons in the Promised Valley Playhouse garage, Walker Center garage, Gallivan garage, as well as CCC.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

The article stated, but I didn't see it on the drawing, that a new E/W pedestrian connector would be just south of the Tribune Tower. I like that location much better anyway, it breaks up the N/S block much more evenly.

As for parking under the theater, I don't really see that as a need. The Regent St Garage is more than ample in size to accommodate the office tower parking needs. As well as the theater parking needs. There will also be parking available for theater patrons in the Promised Valley Playhouse garage, Walker Center garage, Gallivan garage, as well as CCC.

No parking under the theater, just under the tower. Therefore there is no need to plan the two projects together. Theater first, and then future Zion's Security tower with underground parking garage.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by gemery

Also, for parking, do you think the theater would have underground parking? I sure hope so. That would help reduce the need for the parking lots that everyone hates (given, the one across the street from the theater is the one that bugs me the most downtown). It could easily be shared with the high-rise: businessmen would use it mostly during the day; theatergoers would primarily use it at night.

That block is already home to a pair of god-awful 10-story parking garages. I think that the plan is to just use those for parking:

[SLC Projects]

proxy ( AKA Urbanboy )

You don't need to re-post that same layout over and over and over again. We get it. You wish the theater would go there.
While it wasn't a bad idea, it's NOT going to happen. So you bring it up over and over again is starting to sound like a broken record. You'd made your point. I'm sorry you don't like the downtown Theater proposal, but let the rest of us enjoy this moment. Them unveiling the tower is a big step forward and it's a good sign that this project is still alive and kicking.
I think where the theater is going is a great spot since it's on main street and it will bring life back into that area of main that ( for years ) has been a rundown and unused area of main street between 100 and 200 S. That part of main street desperately needs some kind of redevelopment or development.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

proxy ( AKA Urbanboy )

You don't need to re-post that same layout over and over and over again. We get it. You wish the theater would go there.
While it wasn't a bad idea, it's NOT going to happen. So you bring it up over and over again is starting to sound like a broken record. You'd made your point. I'm sorry you don't like the downtown Theater proposal, but let the rest of us enjoy this moment. Them unveiling the tower is a big step forward and it's a good sign that this project is still alive and kicking.
I think where the theater is going is a great spot since it's on main street and it will bring live back into that area of main that ( for years ) has been a rundown and unused area of main street between 100 and 200 S. That part of main street desperately needs some kind of redevelopment or development.

Alright, stop with the witch-hunt. You can believe what you want. There's nothing wrong with the existing buildings. They are not run down. A theater across the street would enliven that stretch of Main Street too. There were changes made to UB's rendering, which is why I reposted it.


I wonder if the owners of the parking lot across the street were NOT asked if they'd be willing to subdivide.

Originally Posted by Makid

...Let's be proactive in our actions and not reactive because we may not like a development plan.

First I was told to wait to see what is actually proposed, and now you're telling me not to react. Great!

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by gemery

Funny, I didn't think you were a forum member back then ... I thought only urbanboy was ... ?

Personally, I am fine with the theater where it is. I think the loading situation is much better, especially when the build it so that the trucks unload without blocking Regent Street. I am so excited about the theater actually being built, and I think the location is great. I feel like the rounder lobby helps make it feel like it is not a side entrance to the theater on Main Street (some of the other proposed layouts gave only a slice of Main Street presence to the theater, preferring the new alleyway for the main doors.

My question would be: if the high-rise and the theater are sharing a lobby, wouldn't that block the new side street? I don't get how that would work. Would it be on a different floor or below ground? I don't see either as a preferable option.

Also, for parking, do you think the theater would have underground parking? I sure hope so. That would help reduce the need for the parking lots that everyone hates (given, the one across the street from the theater is the one that bugs me the most downtown). It could easily be shared with the high-rise: businessmen would use it mostly during the day; theatergoers would primarily use it at night.

I agree.
As for the parking, while I would like to see some underground parking, my understanding is that all the parking ( for both the office tower and the theater ) will be at that 10-story parking garage to the east.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by proxy

Alright, stop with the witch-hunt. You can believe what you want. There's nothing wrong with the existing buildings. They are not run down. A theater across the street would enliven that stretch of Main Street too. There were changes made to UB's rendering, which is why I reposted it.

1. While I agree the Utah theater will do alot of main, the city already does have plans for the Utah Theater.
2. The Utah theater is too small for it to be a "Broadway Theater"
3. Yes, alot of those buildings are rundown since they need millions of dollars worth of work to fix them up. Even the Utah Theater has been neglected for years and it needs alot of work.
4. You're Urbanboy, you're not fouling anybody. Nice try.
Cheers.

[proxy]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

1. While I agree the Utah theater will do alot of main, the city already does have plans for the Utah Theater.
2. The Utah theater is too small for it to be a "Broadway Theater"
3. Yes, alot of those buildings are rundown since they need millions of dollars worth of work to fix them up. Even the Utah Theater has been neglected for years and it needs alot of work.
4. You're Urbanboy, you're not fouling anybody. Nice try.
Cheers.

He's not proposing to use the Utah/Pantages theater, which is what you are talking about. look at the diagram above again. He has proposed a completely new theater.

Nice try with your spelling too.

[s.p.hansen]

Image by Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50...llion.html.csp
Quotes from the SL Tribune Article:

Parking for 615 cars would be available at the nearby Regent Street garage, while a mid-block path would connect Regent and Main, just south of the former Tribune tower, and continue across Main to the Utah Theater (penciled in as the home of a possible film center).

That mid-block path is going to be great for future development on Regent Street and in funneling people out of Restaurant Row in City Creek Center onto Main Street! When they use the word path I hope this excludes all spaces for movement requiring the opening and closing of doors.

I really wish they would spend the extra money and time to build a large underground parking structure so that we could move into a process of weaning the city off of the regent street parking strip.

Although the developers’ official theater plan is not expected for two weeks, key details were unveiled Tuesday. Designers, including famed architect Moshe Safdie (renowned for the city’s showcase downtown library) and Salt Lake City firm VCBO Architecture are calling for a 148,000-square-foot, 2,500-seat space at 135 S. Main.

I don't know about others here, but I'm so glad Moshe Safdie is sort of our SLC guy vs. Frank Gehry. I really like Moshe Safdie's work.

I'm excited about this. This project is going to be greater than the sacrifice required. Hamilton Partners will do a fantastic job. I'm hoping Future Mayor is right that the new office building will have a smaller base than 222 and thus require more height.

It would be really cool if they could dissemble the interior of the MAUH building and save it to be reassembled in another building in the future.

[Future Mayor]

A quick estimate on Regent St Parking looks to be approx 1,150 parking spots. More than enough to serve the tower in the day and the theater at night, if you take into account car pooling (especially for the theater), transit, and those parking at other garages to eat or shop someplace else.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by proxy

He's not proposing to use the Utah/Pantages theater, which is what you are talking about. look at the diagram again. He has proposed a completely new theater.

Me, Myself and Irene.

There's been talks in the past from people about maybe having the "Broadway Theater" at the "Utah Theater", But it's way too small. I like the idea of having the "Broadway Theater" one side of main and having the "Utah Theater" on the other side. I like the idea of having a little theater district right there between 100 and 200 S. on Main, even at a cost of having to tear a few mostly empty buildings down.

Bottom line is you hate to see old buildings torn down when there's a parking alot across the street. And that's fine. But again we get it.