Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Always Sunny in SLC]

You have posted these pictures numerous times. You are now just spamming this forum.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Why would you tear down a beautiful theater that is located in the two blocks south of ccc deemed the cultural arts district of Slc in the city’s master plan? Minneapolis has 4 old theaters in their theater district. One of them was even moved to be closer to the others (similar to odd fellows hall, but on a larger scale). If one city is willing to pay to move an old theater, why can we pay to restore this one? I guess Minneapolis will always have the superior arts scene and collection of venues.

This comparison doesn't work for me. The Twin Cities metro population (3.6M) is more than all of our states population just within the 20 miles radius of their downtown. Further they have over 2 million more than our state. That is a lot more taxpayers helping cover the tab.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Old&New

I don’t support it. The move would be contrary to the city’s master plan for the cultural arts district.

Sad to see it go but I have yet to hear of a viable alternative. Saying "we should preserve the theater" is not enough by a long shot. Movies aren't a solution. A concert venue maybe? But I have yet to see somebody stand up and propose anything.

It's really hard to gauge but my spidey sense (and some little birdies) says Eccles is under-performing. The entire F&B operation at the venue has been turned over. Fireside on Regent is CLOSED and Regent has been an uphill battle for all the tenants except for Pretty Bird. Downtown needs office and residential density. These towers provide that. The theater district idea needs another five to ten years to stew. In the meantime is the city supposed to let the theater rot and wait for the market?

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I understand your complaint if you are across the board against government incentives and programs to build "affordable" housing, but if not I don't see how this is any different than tax breaks or other schemes used to get developers to include these lower priced units in their developments.

Regardless, "One Term Perm" is brilliant. I hadn't heard that before.

With $4 million in incentives, you should be able to get a lot more than 30 units at 60-80% AMI. Make the developer buy the land the Utah theater is under, and incentivize a developer to create more affordable units.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

This comparison doesn't work for me. The Twin Cities metro population (3.6M) is more than all of our states population just within the 20 miles radius of their downtown. Further they have over 2 million more than our state. That is a lot more taxpayers helping cover the tab.

Your'e not taking into account the numerous theaters in St. Paul. Also, do you think Salt Lake Metro's population is just going to stagnate?

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Sad to see it go but I have yet to hear of a viable alternative. Saying "we should preserve the theater" is not enough by a long shot. Movies aren't a solution. A concert venue maybe? But I have yet to see somebody stand up and propose anything.

It's really hard to gauge but my spidey sense (and some little birdies) says Eccles is under-performing. The entire F&B operation at the venue has been turned over. Fireside on Regent is CLOSED and Regent has been an uphill battle for all the tenants except for Pretty Bird. Downtown needs office and residential density. These towers provide that. The theater district idea needs another five to ten years to stew. In the meantime is the city supposed to let the theater rot and wait for the market?

Yes, have you not seen the Save the Utah Theater facebook page? The theater has done well for the amount of time it has been dormant. I don't think another decade will phase it. Look at the long game.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by stayinginformed

With $4 million in incentives, you should be able to get a lot more than 30 units at 60-80% AMI. Make the developer buy the land the Utah theater is under, and incentivize a developer to create more affordable units.

With a project budget of between $125 Million and $150 Million, getting 10% of the units as affordable for 50 years, getting to preserve some of the more important items from the theater itself, this is a great deal for only $4 Million in incentives.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Makid

With a project budget of between $125 Million and $150 Million, getting 10% of the units as affordable for 50 years, getting to preserve some of the more important items from the theater itself, this is a great deal for only $4 Million in incentives.

That's what they said about the beautiful bank they tore down for the Eccles. They're not going to save the elements. just watch.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Yes, have you not seen the Save the Utah Theater facebook page? The theater has done well for the amount of time it has been dormant. I don't think another decade will phase it. Look at the long game.

And if nothing is done in 10 years, how long should we hold the property waiting for potential restoration?

With development increasing near the theater, how much damage will happen as piles are driven for future buildings? Should the City spend money to mitigate the damage? Should developers of other projects?

What would happen if preservation and restoration failed the popular vote?

When do we get to the tipping point that the theater just cannot be saved?

[taboubak]

I hope that with the addition of affordable housing to the tower, that we see a height increase for the proposal. Hines is a massive developer capable of a really spectacular building.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Makid

And if nothing is done in 10 years, how long should we hold the property waiting for potential restoration?

With development increasing near the theater, how much damage will happen as piles are driven for future buildings? Should the City spend money to mitigate the damage? Should developers of other projects?

What would happen if preservation and restoration failed the popular vote?

When do we get to the tipping point that the theater just cannot be saved?

If it fails the popular vote, it fails the popular vote. But it shouldn’t be a vote between a tower and a theater. A tower can go anywhere. And proposals fall through all the time, and all we’re left with is an empty lot.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Atlas

The plan for the hospital is very ambitious and impressive. Along with the projects you showed, there's also the Acute Care Center (nearing completion) and the Medical Education & Discovery Center (forthcoming). You can find more info on these at this link. Here are some renderings of those projects:

Acute Care Center (opening soon)


Medical Education & Discovery Center

In the last few weeks there has been changes announced to the placement of the school of medicine. In the above image the angled in between the Acute Care Center (now Area E) and the rehab hospital was going to be the new school, but after several years of trying the U. admitted they can't make the temporary relocation of all that staff work so they are now going to build the SOM on another location so they can just move over once finished and then demo the old school. The images below illustrate that change. There is still more money needed to be raised before they can pay to build the new school so my guess is we are still 2-4 years away for that to get under construction.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Old&New

That's what they said about the beautiful bank they tore down for the Eccles. They're not going to save the elements. just watch.

Some of those decorative elements in the lobby are truly intricate and are deserving to be preserved someway, IMO. Perhaps they can use that lobby as the main lobby for the tower.

[Makid]

My understanding from the articles following the RDA meeting today, the RDA has 2 options:

Option 1: Accept the markdown of the property to $0.00 allowing elements of the Theater to be preserved, the mid-block walkway and public space built and having 10% of the units flagged as affordable.

Option 2: Decline the markdown of the property. The developer (Hines) will most likely agree to pay the appraised value of just over $4 Million. They could build the tower without saving any aspect of the theater, no public space, no mid-block walkway, and very likely no affordable housing units.

Because the Mayor can discharge (sell) City property without the City Council's approval, at this point, the only options the Council can really follow are those above. Yes, the City Council could attempt to override the Mayor but it is doubtful that the City Council could get enough votes.

I think it would be best for the City Council/RDA board to work with the developer to preserve as much of the theater as possible to incorporate into the tower.

I do feel that there is just too much uncertainty outside of moving forward with Hines/LaSalle's proposed tower.

What are the other options? Hoping for a bunch of private donations or a large single donation to fix the theater, using City funds starting in 2040 (20 more years of decay), or a public vote for a bond.

If the donations don't appear and the bond fails to pass in a vote, this would doom the theater completely as the City would never fund it in 2040. The City would have to go through the RFP process to dispose of the land and building. Because of its location as being land locked and without possible assistance of LaSalle and Hines, it may be that there would be 0 proposals leading the City to just demolish the theater for a park.

This is why it is always best to go with a guarantee today rather than an empty promise for tomorrow.

Lastly, just to gauge the desire to preserve the theater, how much has been donated/gathered from people since the loss of the theater was first brought up in August? Has anyone donated to its preservation? Has a GoFundMe been started? There is always talk about private donors and donations but I haven't seen anything, nor have I heard of anyone even asking for donations.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Option one is a no brainer. A public space, walkway, some preserved history, affordable housing for 4 million? Not bad.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Makid

My understanding from the articles following the RDA meeting today, the RDA has 2 options:

Option 1: Accept the markdown of the property to $0.00 allowing elements of the Theater to be preserved, the mid-block walkway and public space built and having 10% of the units flagged as affordable.

Option 2: Decline the markdown of the property. The developer (Hines) will most likely agree to pay the appraised value of just over $4 Million. They could build the tower without saving any aspect of the theater, no public space, no mid-block walkway, and very likely no affordable housing units.

Because the Mayor can discharge (sell) City property without the City Council's approval, at this point, the only options the Council can really follow are those above. Yes, the City Council could attempt to override the Mayor but it is doubtful that the City Council could get enough votes.

I think it would be best for the City Council/RDA board to work with the developer to preserve as much of the theater as possible to incorporate into the tower.

I do feel that there is just too much uncertainty outside of moving forward with Hines/LaSalle's proposed tower.

What are the other options? Hoping for a bunch of private donations or a large single donation to fix the theater, using City funds starting in 2040 (20 more years of decay), or a public vote for a bond.

If the donations don't appear and the bond fails to pass in a vote, this would doom the theater completely as the City would never fund it in 2040. The City would have to go through the RFP process to dispose of the land and building. Because of its location as being land locked and without possible assistance of LaSalle and Hines, it may be that there would be 0 proposals leading the City to just demolish the theater for a park.

This is why it is always best to go with a guarantee today rather than an empty promise for tomorrow.

Lastly, just to gauge the desire to preserve the theater, how much has been donated/gathered from people since the loss of the theater was first brought up in August? Has anyone donated to its preservation? Has a GoFundMe been started? There is always talk about private donors and donations but I haven't seen anything, nor have I heard of anyone even asking for donations.

Why wouldn't the first option be a public vote for a bond?

And then if the public rejects the bond, move on to your "Option 1?"

Seems like that would give the public and the theater a fair chance.

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Old&New

Why wouldn't the first option be a public vote for a bond?

And then if the public rejects the bond, move on to your "Option 1?"

Seems like that would give the public and the theater a fair chance.

I think it's because the mayor controls what happens to the property and she has decided to discharge the property. So, in reality those were the only 2 options.

Does anyone know what happened in the meeting?

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Blah_Amazing

I think it's because the mayor controls what happens to the property and she has decided to discharge the property. So, in reality those were the only 2 options.

Does anyone know what happened in the meeting?

This would be true if it was only raw city-owned land. It is deeded to the redevelopment agency. This is a really important point. They already voted on the disposition. The redevelopment agency board is the city council. So it's not just the mayors rubber stamp. The vote starts with the city council and ends with the mayor signature. In truth it is the redevelopment agencies decision and it would be highly unusual ( may have never happened?) for the mayor to not approve the board's decision.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Marvland

This would be true if it was only raw city-owned land. It is deeded to the redevelopment agency. This is a really important point. They already voted on the disposition. The redevelopment agency board is the city council. So it's not just the mayors rubber stamp. The vote starts with the city council and ends with the mayor signature. In truth it is the redevelopment agencies decision and it would be highly unusual ( may have never happened?) for the mayor does not approve the board's decision.

Marvland, can you clarify the distinction here between raw city-owned land and land deeded to the redevelopment agency?

The Utah Theater: Sundance, Stand-up, Concerts, and more!

[Blah_Amazing]

Originally Posted by Pencil

Looks like the BIRDIE broke ground today

https://twitter.com/saltlakechamber/...200168960?s=19

I'm kina meh on the Birdie (I really wish it was a lot taller).

On a similar topic, I recently heard from a guy at J.F. Capital that Moda Lux should be moving ahead really soon. It's apparently been in paperwork back-and-forths with the city.