Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Future Mayor]

Again you say council has halted funding, yet my source has no information on that, and you haven't provided proof. Zions Bank owns the property, you've mentioned this alternative site for well over a year now, if Zions wants to do it then what is the hold up?

So the architects are simply giving the current site lip service and the city is paying them to develop a plan that may or may not get done. hmmm

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by Old&New

We don't want to kill the project all together, the fear is that publicly putting it on hold might do that, so the council has halted payment instead. I can't answer all your questions on a public forum as this development also has a private side to the public-private partnership.

The current site is not a done deal! Additionally no physical work is planned to be done on that site until the end of next year. We have time We might be wasting a little bit of money in the meantime, but that could be pennies compared to the cost savings the other site could offer.

While I hope you're right, this claim seems a bit dubious....

[Makid]

My understanding is that the $18 Million already allocated was given to the contractor. They are working with and will be paying the architects directly. That $18 Million has already been allocated and the city can't stop the process without it being public as it is a public venue.

If the site is changed, the state will need to review both projects to ensure that there has been no improprieties as many people would suggest that there may be. This investigation and review would push the project and construction start date back at least 1 year from the announced partnership.

The only way to avoid that is if the project were to be completely private in nature. For that, no public money could be used as again, a review would be needed to remove the kickback thoughts.

Now, I am all for the move if it is real. However, nothing has been stated anywhere except on this board. I would like to believe it but the lack of evidence is hard to ignore. Now, if this is real and the city wants to ensure that they are not out a complete $18+ Million dollars, something needs to happen in the next 60 days if not sooner.

To me though losing $18+ Million dollars is not pennies really as it is greater than 15% of the projected cost of the project.

[Old&New]

Ok maybe not pennies, but likely more than 18 million could be saved if the theater is built across the street. The move would be worth the money lost since the theater would end up in a better long-term location. And after all is said and done, so to speak, the project could still cost less.

Please stop asking for evidence as I have none to show. Future Mayor, you said you had a contact in the city council. Have that contact talk to Soren Simonsen (the chair of the city council), as my information is only one here-say away from Sorren himself. It's just the information I've been given.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by Old&New

The only reason I'm passionate about that site is because clearly it is the better choice.

-requires less demolition and site preparation (cheaper)
-land for theater may be donated in exchange for naming rights (cheaper) Like the Eccles, the Anderson's have wanted to leave a legacy too.
-closer to the convention center (for meetings)
-ties the three main theaters in downtown together and improves loading and unloading access to the older two (an additional 3 loading docks).
-jump-starts restoration on the Utah/Pantages
-jump-starts the Dinwoodey facade restoration
-fills in a hole (does not create a new one)
-construction will not disrupt the flow of foot traffic down Main Street
-hides loading docks in the middle of the block with access off West Temple and provides off-street idle room for 6 semi-trucks


[/URL]

It's hard to fight the logic. I've agreed with the west side location for some time now. I'm baffled as to why the east side location is seen as better. As others have pointed out, Regent Street already has potential as it is (just by being in the heart of downtown, and a direct access street from CCC to Gallivan). Arrow Press Square, 100 S, West Side of Main, Salt Palace, and the already existing theaters could use some love as well. It's not like the West side of Main is 4 blocks away --it's right across the street, with no buildings to be torn down!

But like others, I too doubt that the move is even feasible at this point, and that's a damn shame. I hope this can be a lesson for those of us who will be the future developers of our fair city; how many times must we redevelop the same blocks? Why are our historical buildings treated with contempt, while our parking lots are offered protection?

[DMTower]

Why is everyone arguing about it as if we have any final say in the matter. It will end up on one side of the street or the other and beating it to death on this forum is not going to influence it one way or another. Is there really nothing else going on in Salt Lake to occupy our attention?

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

What other mixed use options would be suggested, apartments? Not a huge difference as the rents will probably pretty much the same as a condo mortgage.

Actually, there is a huge difference, hence this is why City Creek Landing has been full since it opened. Condos have HOA's and require down payments, and even when one has a down payment and excellent credit, their debt/income ratio is analyzed differently. When renting an apartment, student loans aren't seen as damaging to one's debt/income ratio, but when applying for a mortgage it is crucial (even if you have a very low monthly payment). I think the core of downtown (CBD skyscraper area) should have more apartments available than it does. I would live there.

[livedowntown]

Originally Posted by DMTower

Why is everyone arguing about it as if we have any final say in the matter. It will end up on one side of the street or the other and beating it to death on this forum is not going to influence it one way or another. Is there really nothing else going on in Salt Lake to occupy our attention?

More than half of the discussions on this forum fall into the category of things none of us has the power or influence to change. The point is that we like development, including all its decision making, negotiation, and arguing. At least that's why I poke around here.

[Makid]

On other development news:

Does anyone know what is happening between 4th and 5th South on the west side of West Temple?

I ask this because this morning there was a crew taking down the parking structure between the Sheraton and "The Bay" building. There has been a fence around the area for the last week or so and are now taking down the parking structure.

I can't remember anything going there and it would seem silly to remove a parking structure for surface parking.

[Future Mayor]

I may be way off on this, but if I remember correctly, the upper parking of the structure has been closed off for many years now, maybe it was time to take it down to avoid damage to cars in the lower section.

[UTPlanner]

FutureMayor, you're definitely not way off. That parking structure has actually never been "opened". After its initial completion, the structure was found to have built in violation of certain building codes. The city never gave the strucuture a certificate of occupancy and it has just sat there vacant all of these years. I'm not sure if they intend on building a new parking facility or if they have different plans.

Just an FYI-- the Council Chair is Søren Simonsen. He's pretty particular about spelling his name correctly.

I would like to say quickly that I think developing the UPAC on the southwest corner of the intersection is a great idea. It would remove a surface parking lot and certainly create synergy between all of the theaters on that block. (I personally hate the word synergy but I couldn't think of a better replacement.)

But personally working with the Council staff and the RDA, I haven't heard a single word about the UPAC considering new locations. Councilman Simonsen is the chair of the Council but his vote still only counts as one. I have attended or watched on tv the most recent Council meetings. The UPAC has been discussed but a new location has not. That does not mean that they haven't discussed it. There have been a few closed meetings. The Council can hold a closed meeting if they're discussing the purchase of land among other reasons.

All I can really says is, if it's going to happen, they better get moving because the architects are moving very quickly to design this theater and they're working with the assumption that it will be located on the east side of Main Street.

[Future Mayor]

Some non UPAC related news. 155 S Main has plywood on the front of it, and has been like that for a couple of weeks. According to the building permit site, EVA's Bakery has a building permit in for review. 155 S Main is the store front next to McKay Diamonds, I believe it used to be the Peruvian Place.

Another space occupied on Main. There really aren't that many vacant spaces on Main any more.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

Actually, there is a huge difference, hence this is why City Creek Landing has been full since it opened. Condos have HOA's and require down payments, and even when one has a down payment and excellent credit, their debt/income ratio is analyzed differently. When renting an apartment, student loans aren't seen as damaging to one's debt/income ratio, but when applying for a mortgage it is crucial (even if you have a very low monthly payment). I think the core of downtown (CBD skyscraper area) should have more apartments available than it does. I would live there.

Same with my apartment building. Perhaps they should even consider doing some rentals at 99 West and the Regent. They can always sale them as condos later on...

[ajiuO]

Or even a rent to buy option... I would be very interested in something like that.

[scottharding]

As would I.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by livedowntown

More than half of the discussions on this forum fall into the category of things none of us has the power or influence to change. The point is that we like development, including all its decision making, negotiation, and arguing. At least that's why I poke around here.

I enjoy discussing development as well, and I come on here to keep updated on the latest development news. There's a line though, when it goes from a development discussion to a nuisance. Page after page after page of arguing over something that is only conjecture at this point clogs up the forum and makes it a chore for people to read who are visiting the forum for actual development news.

[livedowntown]

Originally Posted by DMTower

I enjoy discussing development as well, and I come on here to keep updated on the latest development news. There's a line though, when it goes from a development discussion to a nuisance. Page after page after page of arguing over something that is only conjecture at this point clogs up the forum and makes it a chore for people to read who are visiting the forum for actual development news.

Yea I get that. I guess I like it but I can see not everyone would.

[ajiuO]

The way I see it (and I'm not trying to be rude). A forum is a place to share, discuss, and debate ideas while establishments such as the salt lake tribune are a place to gather news... Not to say that this is not a great place to get the heads up on news... But forums are not really about news... And people love to debate on them... So I don't know what to tell you :-)

Although I get annoyed when people start to make things personal.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

The way I see it (and I'm not trying to be rude). A forum is a place to share, discuss, and debate ideas while establishments such as the salt lake tribune are a place to gather news... Not to say that this is not a great place to get the heads up on news... But forums are not really about news... And people love to debate on them... So I don't know what to tell you :-)

Although I get annoyed when people start to make things personal.

I never said that this wasn't a place to discuss things. I said it had gotten out of hand and was becoming a nuisance. There was no reason for the argument to go on and on, page after page when there was absolutely no new evidence, or even new arguments presented. It's just being regurgitated again and again and I may be wrong but I don't think I'm the only one annoyed by this. I'm speaking for myself, but I think it becomes off-putting so that people who might normally wish to contribute don't because it's already become a dead horse topic. With that, I'll leave it be so that this doesn't become the same thing.

[Future Mayor]

This has future development news potential. My start up company, IRUS Developers, is into the second round of the Grow America Entreprenuer Challenge. A winner is selected from each category, Idea, StartUp and Growth, and awarded a cash prize. Hopefully it will help me to announce a development on here sooner rather than later.