Please get on with it.
That skybridge is a huge safety factor - keeps some of the nature lovers from standing on Trax - gives them a place to oooh and ahhh over a 10-degree-wide 'view'.

Taubman should never have been chosen to do the project. They are mall builders, stuck in the 80's. Salt Lake City itself needs to be revitalized. We don't need any more secure, seperated destinations for shopaholics. We need a city, a true neighborhood with everyday needs on a human scale. Not another high-end place for people to run up their credit cards, increase their debt and "help" the economy.

I personally don't care one way or the other re the bridge. But isn't it amazing that these plans were not approved before issuing the building permit? Threat--Threat-- Threat--Power-- Power-- Power. What a Joke. Tear everything down and award a contract to someone that wants to play by the rules. The Church has no business being involved in this project. Spend your tens of millions on your welfare projects, they are going to be needed by many in the near future because of BIG BUSINESS like yourselves attitudes towards the low income and dis-advantaged citizens of this great country.

I love the Skybridge. I think it's a great idea and I like the design they currently are using.

WHY do they micromanage the Church and Partners developing this? As long as it is a safe bridge and that there is some sort of access to main street then what right do they have to regulate it?

Unnecessary control over it's construction when they have ALREADY met conditions given is ridiculous.

The Economy is shot. The Church is willing to give downtown a good makeover and breath new life into this market and people want to cut it down.

The people (are supposed to) regulate our government and have say in what our government does. We don't control private enterprise. It isn't our right as long as it doesn't affect us.

If there is access to Main Street and it is safe, then no one can claim that it affects us. Thus the state should not be involved.

In fact, it's not just 'not affecting us' by having access to main street but providing safer options for pedestrians. Many Utah citizens want this. What about my voice?

Discussion should end when saftey is an issue. If the skybridge will make it less likely that someone will be injured or killed, why are we having second thoughts. Its not about the view, it's all about money just like the Legacy Highway was about money. Amazing how the environmentalists let Legacy Highway proceed when they were paid their extortion money. Pay them tow million dollars and you will get your approval to build.

To joseph: The Church couldn't be farther from wanting debt for people. MAYBE... JUST MAYBE this has to do with the fact that many people will live there. A lot of housing will be part of this structure. Have you not considered that this will affect those residents just as well. Your statement is very irrational. It has no logic.

To Ridiculous: Play by the rules!? The Church IS playing by the rules. They have followed ever single little stupid thing the state has given them and STILL some of you cry injustice.

If it were anyone else it wouldn't matter. But because it's the church there are people who fight it who just don't want it because the church is doing it.

I don't see how revitalizing downtown is bad.

Cities include businesses. The Malls were ALREADY THERE!!! They are just giving it a makeover. Rebuilding what already existed is NOT a ploy for debt. Stupid comment. This is only about the Skybridge.

You people need something better to do with your time.

Take it away and cripple the project. The state does this and I'm no Utah from here on.

I support the bridge!! Stop controlling the Church!

Some of the comments like the city council don't make sense. Rocky was always crying about how the downtown needed to be revitalized as does the current council. To Ridiculous, the Church is involved because they own the land. They are funding a project to revitalize the downtown. The city isn't putting any money into it. Is it too much for them to ask to have a project that makes economic and financial sense. Some of those on the city council want them to proceed with an uneconomic plan out of the goodness of their hearts. If they want that, then the city should put up the money for the project. If the city council is so concerned, then let the city buy the two city blocks for hundreds of millions and then they can turn it into two blocks of grass and parks.

the city council can't have it both ways. They either want a revitalized downtown and they don't.

Aren't skybridges so 1970?

Imagine a quiet walk past a gurgling brook and strolling shoppers. Suddenly you come to busy street choked with traffic, pedestrians, traffic lights, trains, and noise. You have to cross this to get to another quiet place. Is there something wrong here? Lets put it this way: Main Street doesn't belong in the City Creek Center. Let's take Main Street out of it. Build the skybridge.

Memo to SLC: While you complain about a lame bridge, Sandy is stealing your broadway theatre.

Hey, guys, just do the sky bridge. Quit using this as a weapon and just get er done. You've got to have faith that the orgs that are ponying up the billions know what's best for the project.

If an entity wanted to push millions of dollars into a project to revitalize a decaying downtown, why is there so much resistance and nit picking? Let them have 4 skybridges if they want.

If for no other reason than to improve traffic flow in the area. How many times have you waited 30 seconds or more for the pedestrian light to change when there's no pedestrians? All the while you sit there idling and your car burns gas (and money) and pollutes the air.

If it were up to me, there would by skybridges at every intersection and we would do away with pedestrians at street level altogether.

Doesn't Trolly Square have a "skybridge" going over 6th south? Been there for years.

Any organization cannot fund welfare projects without income - duh.

SLC and the posters that frequent these forums decrying anything that doesn’t resemble Shangri-la need to understand the downtown revitalization has everything to do with economics and nothing to do with creating a quasi theme park.

I think a quaint downtown area with lots of parks, open space, small shops and lots of ‘human scale” would be very nice indeed. HOWEVER, it is not self-sustaining without the tax revenues of a large scale development unless the city is willing to subsidize (or charge theme park admission). Since the likelihood of that is nil, get over it and support the downtown re-development project! Also, the significant residential component of this project will inject life and neighborhood feel into a downtown that has not experienced that in decades.

Anyone with an ounce of concern for downtown SLC, should be elated that someone is willing to step up and improve/prevent the blight that was underway there.

Taubaum is primarily a suburban mall developer who demanded a sky dridge "or else" from day one - they refused to seriously consider any other alternative. Any other devloper could have done a better job without it (just look at Michigan Avenue in Chicago).

You say the church has no business being involved in this project. Where have you been hiding, in your mothers basement? They are FUNDING the project on land they OWN. If it was up to the city alone this would not even be happening. The church is revitalizing downtown why the new mayor focuses on critical issues, like changing the city logo and creating a partner registry.

The city council is being obstinate just to show that the Church cannot "push them around. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Grow up city council.

Are you claiming big business is to blame for all of our woes. I would bet your family is supported by a job in business. I would also bet that your health care is largely paid for by that same business. And, oh yeah, big business is probably helping you save for retirement. If this model doesn't fit you, it does fit most Americans. Lastly, you are not forced to support big business. You remain free to choose other avenues for all of these, plus your goods and services.

If anything is too big it's the government. While business contributes it's own money to help employees, and other organizations, government doesn't have it's own money to give. Government takes money against your will. You do not have freedom to choose to go elswhere.

Just because you may be the receiving end of government sponsered programs doesn't mean the government provided it. They took it from someone else and gave it to you.

Speaking as a person who uses a cane and a wheelchair, I find it would be a great blessing to have a sky bridge. It is VERY hard to navigate outside especially in the winter. A skybridge gets me where I want to go without facing all the hazards of winter. You selfish people who have so much to say and who keep trying to hinder this should look at things from all aspects and not just your selfish petty concerns. You people amaze me. You practically get this new wonderful build handed to you on a silver platter and all you do is complain, complain, complain! Build the skybridge - for everyone's sake and lets get this job DONE!

Why does it matter that the church is a partner in this project?

This project should be handled just like any other development project. The project shouldn't be given special privileges just because the church is a partner in the project, nor should this project get extra grief from the public or SLC government, just because the church is a partner in the development. It should be treated just like any other developer trying to build a 1.5 billion dollar development in SLC.

Are SLC residents and government going to give the developer of the new theater the same grief? Are we going to get endless letters to the editor and government officials trying to block them at every turn because they don't like some element of the project because it is "too 80's" or other subjective problems like that? If I were a developer I would hate to do a project for these bickering snobs.

This has nothing to do with the Church and everything to do with revitalizing our downtown. Even if the new mall does well on its own, if it doesn't leak shoppers out into the surrounding areas it's not going to help downtown in the long run. If City Creek becomes the destination in and of itself, it'll last a few years but then start to go the way of Crossroads/ZCMI (which, true, were already there...and downtown kept dying anyway). But if we can make City Creek part of the larger destination that is downtown, then the whole area will prosper.

As it stands now, the design promotes the former scenario. City Creek is the destination, and the skybridge is undeniably going to keep at least a few people inside the mall - and therefore off the streets. And that keeps downtown from becoming the destination...

I can understand and appreciate Taubman's economic interest in keeping City Creek from leaking shoppers into the rest of downtown. But this is why we have government - to look out for the interests of Salt Lake City as a whole. And it's not in our interest to have just another destination mall downtown.

It's great to see the City Council concerned about what is best for the CITY as a whole. It is disingenous for Bruce Heckman of Taubman to threaten the whole project over this issue. Many cities around the country are REMOVING skybridges that went up in the 70's - they have realized that a vibrant downtown needs people actually on the street and not in glass-enclosed walkways in the sky.

Consider the cities that have extremely successful ones--Des Moines, IA for instance.

To: To joseph and ridiculous: High-end shopping destinations are not what our community or country need. It's not a ploy for debt - you misunderstood me. That's the nature of our consumer society. I don't understand your point about people living there. My point on that would be they need a video store, a dry cleaner, a drug store, a post office, etc. for the people in the neighborhood so it can be a neighborhood and not a mall. So the hoards from north and south can drive in as tourists, fill their shopping bags with more stuff and leave. That does not a real place make.

This is insane - are you seriously opposed to a sky bridge?

Who cares, if the development needs one, then give it to them. They are spending $1.5 Billion! Salt Lake City's downtown is going to become magnificent when all this is completed. Most major cities downtown's are dangerous to go into after dark. As a transplant to SLC, I say let'em have the sky bridge.

Seems like such an ignorant thing to have such a big issue over.

We are talking about a pedestrian access bridge that crosses a road (with two sets of train tracks)! I thought the useless days of Rocky (can't see Ensign Peak, er. hill, from some angles) were gone... I guess not.

Brilliant idea to hold up a huge project to discuss something this stupid.

Hmm I wonder what the city council has done recently (or over the past 8 years) to develop downtown into a destination... Anyone know? Take a look down main street now and you'll see the fruits of their labors - boarded up businesses and empty streets.

If the people of Salt Lake City hate the Church so much, maybe the Church should move it’s headquarters to Provo. Then Salt Lake could the Church Office building into low income housing and have a nice neighborhood feeling. Provo would welcome the new jobs and office buildings and the nice influx of redevelopment and cash from the Church. Downtown Salt Lake could then be more like Detroit. Let’s get real and build the sky bridge.

To: Successful sky bridges
Des Moines Iowa, street life dead. Reno, Nevada Street like dead. Spokane, Washington Dead Downtown only being revitalized by reviving street level away from the skywalks.

It must be nice to have such serious social concerns as a sky bridge to fight over. From the outside looking in it seems that perhaps there are many more serious things that Salt Lake needs to take a look at. Economy, jobs, safety, housing or fighting something besides the Mormon Church.

Many SLC residents want their cake and to eat it too. People like Joseph 10:50 don't want the thundernig hoards from the North and South comming to SLC to fill their shopping bags and then leave. Others writing in this forum want to block the Broadway type theater project in Sandy, because all cultural projects should be Downtown, and if people from the North or the South want some culture, they should have to come downtown to get it.

You can't have it both ways (SLC is the center of the Utah universe and all shall flow unto her... but keep those suburb-people from the North and South from comming and going).

Rocky had the same problem. Which do you want? People to come there to work and to shop or people to stay out and quit fouling your air.

If you really want the new mall in SLC to not have any high dollar items, nothing off the main-street level and have more of a small-town down-home feel (just liquor store, video store & other necessities) maybe you should propose a project like that. You could name it the bagdad market.

Here's a thought - If you don't want to use the skybridge, don't use it! There will still be street level access for the shops on Main. If there are shops on Main worth shopping at, I'll shop there. If there's 6" of slush on main, I'll gladly use the bridge and stay warm. What's the problem?

I just returned a trip out of good old SLC. The thing that gives San Francisco, Portland, even Boise vibrant downtown areas is diversity. Thye have a wide varity of thing to do for a wide variety of prices. This is much different than SLC where most of our effort seems to be spent on discussing whether "the" city counsel, "the" church or "the" legislature is the omnicient being of the day. I go Downtown or (more often)out of town to see and do something new and different.

When I come to SLC I do not want to walk around the streets or shop downtown. Downtown SLC is a scary place. The ONLY thing I want to visit downtown is Temple Square and the Conference Center. I visit SLC three to four times per year. The LDS Church owns the land, the LDS Church is funding the project, the LDS Church is honestly trying to revitalize your downtown so let them build the sky bridge. When you residents are willing to buy the land and pay for the project then, and only then, should have the right to delay/amend/trouble this project.

to: jmdspk
First, you seem to be quite the expert in street life of small cities...

To you and others that keep bringing this up - Do you really think that a SINGLE skywalk is going to kill SLC downtown revitalization? You really think that dead street life in Spokane is completely due to skywalks... come on now folks.

If the proposal was for several skywalks (or even tunnels) over several streets then I would agree with the objection. But we are talking ONE pedestrian walk way.

Forcing mall traffic (which was paid for by development and subsequent marketing to entice shoppers to come downtown) to walk past derilict bulidings or out of date (and irrelevant) businesses to "revive street level traffic" is short term stupid thinking. If the businsses around City Creek want to be successful, they simply need to become attractive to the shoppers who head to CC as their main destination. An ecclectic speciality shop, a comfortable coffee shop, a cool cafe you can't find in Sandy, etc. will be worth walking down a flight of stairs. A downtown relic of a business will not. The first thing they will claim is... the skybridge killed my business!

So, Bill from SD, what you're saying then is that there's no reason for any of the downtown retailers to support this skybridge scheme.

It will be an eyesore and will only serve to isolate the SuperStore from the rest of the downtown area.

Even if they do manage to make the project a "regional draw," if the only people it's likely to attract are those who, like you, are terrified of downtown (I guess because there are people here who look scarily different from the workers on Temple Square), the project will be of no benefit to the city.

Its laughable to think they can't come up with any options. They need the city's approval for this sky bridge, and the city should deny it until they've made a genuine effort to explore those options.

What we really need is pragmatic politicans with a little vision.

A mall is far from being the be all end all of a downtown. But in this case, a development like CC in conjuntions with Temple Square (#1 tourist desination in Utah wheter you like it or not) can act as a seed, a true catalyst to a better Downtown. Good entreprenuers will open cool shops, eateries and entertainment venues that people will actually want to stay for. Walking a block for a great NY style pizza or to get great Lebanese food will be easily accetped. Staying for a movie, play or concert over at Galivan will work too. It will become a complex eco system that feeds on itslef or just dies again.

I just hope the merchants dtown join in and try (and that the city doesn't just protect all the current legacy (usually name for out of date businesses) that just need to go away.

Yes, you are. None of the comments I have read show an understading of the real, underlying issue for this whole project. Regardless of whether you are LDS or not, regardless of whether or not you agree, regardless of whether or not you understand (and it's obvious you, and most of the other commenters do not understand) the reason the Church is doing this is to protect the environment around the temple. But, since it IS the Church doing this, they then have the right to plan, design, build and manage this project, within the laws and ordinances governing the project, ALL of which they have followed. One of the great things about this nation is that you are entitled to your opinion, even when it is ignorant and asinine. But, please, do us all (yourself included) a favor by NOT EXPRESSING IT!

I've read many articles about the demise of downtown's brought about by a skybridge. It is a terrible thing that one building is connected to another when there are so many other vibrant parts of the downtown but that one connection over one street has led to the destruction of many beautiful and once vibrant downtowns.

In fact, I recently read an article that proved that the building of skybridges has led America into this current economic crisis. Oh, I hope we are wiser in SLC then to connect those two buildings, across that one little street or it will destroy our whole wonderful and vibrant downtown area.

Rocky's gone this issue doesn't need to be trumped out again... time to move on to things that matter.

I say the City says no to air rights and lets main street stay just like it is.

Let's see what they do with the two new holes in the ground on either side of Main - fishing ponds for the homeless on Main?

I would like to note to the author that the last two paragraphs belong to another article on Gay Rights.

"destroy our whole wonderful and vibrant downtown area."

Please point out where these wonderful and vibrant areas that need to be protected are. I am downtown everyday and don't see them anywhere near where the ONE SINGLE skybridge is proposed.

Anyone who thinks a single bridge that people walk on will destroy an entire city (or a nation's economy) is way off in la-la land. (I think that post must be a delayed April Fools joke).

Let's say it would destroy downtown vibrancy and it's proven in every other city that has one skybridge (which it isn't) - then why would the developer and backer then push the use of it? (when the purpose of the development is to revitalize). I guess they are just looking for ways to fail and/or loose millions or billions of dollars.

....whining.

"If we don't get what we want, we're taking our ball and going home"

Time for the LDS Church and it's developers to start playing by adult rules, and not kindergarten ones.

It's interesting to note that they're now trying to blame delays, on the city, for losing Dillards, yet when Dillards initially pulled out it had nothing to do with delays, and everything to do with a lack of space made available by the developers.

Obviously they're willing to say anything and use any tactic to get what they want....including threats.

The investment by these "whiners" was made when the overall plan was accepted (and welcomed) by the city. The city is now talking about changing the rules.

You may soon learn that "those that have the money, also have the leverage." They can pack up their tent and go. Its their money and they can decide. They owe nothing to the city (other than all the taxes they were going to help generate and jobs to build, man and maintain the huge and complex investment).

So yep, you're right they're just babies....

I think the devlopers should stop construction for a month or two and then see how the city feels about a walk way...

Money talks, city officals walk...

It's a single bridge that has always been part of the master plan...

Sound's like the whiners are the Rockyites that are left on the council and the Roky wannabes on this dicussion board.

Waaaaa... it's our airspace and I want to see ensign peak!!!

Just build the bridge already!

It's not going to destroy any kind of fantastic view (been there and fail to see what this "view" is exactly), it's going to make things more pleasent and safer for those coming to City Creek to shop etc., and I don't see how it's going to kill traffic on Main Street itself (if people really want to get to the shops lining the street then they'll go outside to them of course... the bridge isn't going to keep them from doing that).

LDS Church haters can even find a venue on the City Creek board for their spew.

Get over it. The LDS Church owns the land, was willin to make the plans, execute the plans and maintain the project (with all sorts of conditions added by the city). Yet it is still the big bad chruch's fault for , um , eh, oh yeah what was the problem this time - the walk way yep that's it it's the walk way I care about.

Your motives are transparent and as flimsy as the agrument against a walkway.