Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Future_Mayor
Your entire post was perfectly stated Comrade. It's about a unique mix of uses and buildings built in different time periods. The 300 S building being demolished is different and unique from the Green Ant building to the West and the Barbershop building to the East. These are the things that give a street character. The Morton behind it give it a sense of new.
It's not like the new building, will simply replace the retail fronting the street and the street will remain a nice walkable area.
There is more than enough room to build a highrise between the 300 S building and the Morton. It is simply developers that see no value in character, or giving a project more than a few seconds of thought.
For those saying, it's just a non interesting building with no character. Imagine that corner with the building remaining in place and a tower cantilevered over it. Best of both worlds.
In response to the "We weren't able to save the Pantages/Utah, so why try to save anything."
1) Old & New has pointed part of the reason why the City couldn't justify the costs to restore the theater, the stage depth.
2) So because we weren't able to save that we shouldn't want anything to be saved? Sorry, but that's just idiotic. |
Okay, I'm really getting tired of people not reading what I write. This is growing to be a pattern on this site. I am fully supportive of preservation. My point wasn't that we shouldn't save anything. It was that, if the city couldn't save Pantages or the dozens of other more amazing buildings in the recent past, the 300 South property is less than peanuts.
To developers, SLC and preservationists have essentially called fair game on their historic structures, as Comrade alluded to. They now know that the public, the city, and preservationists are either too distracted, too powerless, or too few to actually stop something and they would likely be right at this point. We get a few crumbs of preservation here or there, but that's it.
As it stands now, everyone is simply reacting to the announcement of a project and by that point it is too goddamn late. The developer has already bought the property, designed the project, and has often filed with the city. At this point, it is very likely to be built. The city can resist, but rarely does that work out. Think of the Trolley Square development, where the city demanded the developer move those two houses. That was years ago and the whole project seems to either have collapsed or has been seriously delayed. I would not be surprised if the large amount of money it took to move the structures was behind this delay, as it was not expected whatsoever by the developer.
My point has always been that the city, preservationists, and the pubic need to form a true game plan and what preservation requirements they are going to demand for each individual property. If they have to move a building or a house so be it. If it is okay to demolish, that's good as well (which is just as key in preservation, knowing what can go (like Konmari for preservation)). A clearer and transparent plan is desperately needed.
While I like the idea of saving buildings and houses by moving them (I personally imagine the city setting aside a street somewhere where we could assemble a cool and eclectic set of unique historic structures), the city needs to be upfront and clear to future developers of what is going to be expected of them, rather than try and spring preservation on them after the fact. This has been proven over and over that this tactic does not work. Having a real plan allows a developer to go in with full knowledge of what is expected from them at the get go, allowing them to plan, price, and finance that out.
As for the 300 South strip mall (and yes it is still fits under that definition (I checked)), it is clear that I don't think it is utilizing a corner lot in the central business district in a truly unique enough way or from a utilitarian way. I think this lot should be a tower. For me, a two floor structure on a corner lot in the CBD is not worth killing a tower project, so I Konmaried it. Could it be worked out in a way that you save both? Potentially, yes (just like with Pantages could have been). But that should have been codified and done before the developer buys the property with the intent to tear it down, not way after. Can it be done and the building saved? Yes, but that still means preservationists are reacting to the problem, not actually trying fix it before hand! Yet again!
In addition to believing the city needs to better update, clarify, and specify its preservation goals, I also think is clear is that the city may need to start thinking of ways to protect, not just affordable housing in the city, but affordable retail as well. Has something like that been done in other cities?
So it is clear I am in the minority (if not alone) in all of this so I will stop posting about it. I'm just tired of people misconstruing what I am saying just so they can get some sort of 'point' on me. I am not some evil villain trying to destroy your city. I just think it is important for the city to be as transparent, fair, and upfront about their preservation goals - codify it and show that they will follow through - rather than making demands after the fact when it is too late.
Prev
The link the Old&New posted is a treasure trove of old SLC photos. If you plug in "South Temple Salt Lake City," you might find what you're looking for.
Linear Mode
