Reader comments
Odd Fellows Hall's move in downtown Salt Lake put on hold

Jnuts | 8:34 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008

Really what a surprise! What a joke 5.9 ut to 6.7 million to move a abandond piegion infested building? whats the rush than to condem the "shubrick" its still a viable business.
I bet the "market street" does not want to risk the possibility of the odfellas falling over in the middle of the holidays and ruining thier business.
I want to see it fall>

BotchedExperiment | 9:54 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008

J.J. has a solution: DYNOMITE!!

Sunk cost analysis: Would you pay 7 million to build that building?
If not, put it on KSL in the "free" section: "Free to good home: We can no longer keepy our 100 year old red building, "Oddy". He's totally house broken and has no bad habits, other than he leaks a little from the top and bottom. He's been a great building, but it's just time to move on."

urbananimal | 10:55 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008

I think moving the building is just fine -- we've lost so much downtown, why not save this one? Why lose another beautiful Victorian structure when the judges refused to have their new courthouse located at the east end of Exchange Place (removing one SLC's numerous ugly surface parking lots) or across the street on a vacant TEN ACRES. One of the plans for the new courthouse would have left the Shubrick intact. Ultimately (and sadly), this option didn't carry the day.

Comments continue below

Gary | 10:56 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008

Why is this building important enough to spend nearly $7 million? Who is going to use it and for what after it's moved? We cannot afford to hold on to every piece of 100 year junk. What is the cost to upgrade the building to be usable and safe? Another great use of tax payer money.

Boyd | 11:34 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008

I am amazed that they want to tear down the Shubrick (and I assume this also means the elimination of Port O Call) which is still used, but spend millions to move a vacant building that is currently up for auction. If I had millions of dollars, I'd wait for them to move the building, buy it, then demolish it. How utterly entertaining would that be?

On a more humorous note, I do notice that Layton Construction was quick to remove the "Planning Promotes Perfection" sign which was hung on the chain-link fence. The irony was too thick.

John | 1:47 p.m. Dec. 18, 2008

This is a waste of money, time and resources. Blame the historical society for forcing the government to keep it and wasting tax money. Why don't they fund this thing on there own and buy the building. But I guess it is easier to say it is historical if you are not using your own money. Itï¿½s even up for sale. Moving junk from one place to another.

Just Look At It!! | 2:29 p.m. Dec. 18, 2008

It's a fantastic buidling worthy of saving. Sure, it costs more money to do it, but historic preservation usually does. If we dont' save some of these gems, then we'll just have modern, low-cost concrete and glass Orwellian pods. I am 45 years old, and remember as a child the wonderful old J.C. Penney Building in Ogden on Washington Boulevard -- 3 floors and wonderful memories of Christmas shopping. Then, they "tore it down" because it was cheaper and make room for new ugly mall, that's now, also torn-down. We're all the lesser for it. Can't bring the old JC Penney building back now... It's part of our heritage, people! Can't save everything, but can save some. We should save some.

To: Just Look At It!! | 3:06 p.m. Dec. 18, 2008

Wow... "Orwellian Pods" huh? Either you are the type who love to throw those phrases around, regardless of whether the phrase fits, or you have been waiting for a chance to use that phrase for years, and finally had your chance.

Historic Preservation: a nice way of saying you get to force the rest of society to pay because you personally dislike the more modern architecture.

Architects design what building owners want, so if your favorite style of building isn't being built anymore, save your pennies, and commission a building that has your preferences. Until then, stop forcing the rest of us to pay to preserve the last few buildings that you like.

samhill | 7:29 p.m. Dec. 18, 2008

As much as I like trying to preserve some of the more interesting older buildings, I must admit that shelling out almost $7 Million, just to MOVE one of them, seems like a poor use of that money. Who knows how much more it will cost to get this building up to useable condition after it's moved.

I can't help thinking of all the people struggling just to find money for rent...or food. I mean, just 3/10s of one percent of that money would fund ALL of my expenses for an entire year!

benburdett | 11:07 a.m. Jan. 2, 2009

I personally am impressed with the whole project. Not only are we saving an important part of our heritage, but we're doing it in a very interesting way. We in this country are way too interested in what will save us the most money, or what will make the bottom line look the most attractive. The fact that we're trying to preserve some of our history is definitely a step in the right direction. The unfortunate part of the story is the decision not to save the Shubrick.
The engineering being used to save this building is also fascinating. This is akin to building the freeway bridges in a "convenient" area, and then moving them to their ultimate destination. The decision to fully study the ability of the ground needed to support the building during the move is well worth the time and effort required. I will be one of the first to visit the newly moved building once it reaches its new home.

R we Cra Z ??? | 9:49 p.m. April 5, 2009

Why not preserve the historical building and use it as part of the new U.S. District Court Building? - If we are going to spend millions on moving it, why not have the government assist with the cost of preserving history instead?
Or - better yet, why don't we spend millions on moving it, selling it, and turning it into a restaurant or club or who knows what!?!

nuffalready | 8:38 p.m. May 26, 2009

OK $7 million is a lot of dough. But we know the feds just print the stuff anyway.

So they print up a small batch of bucks to save our Oddfellas Bldg. Better than seeing them print up a trainload to bail out more millionaire bankers.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.