Deseret News | Reader comments: City Creek Center won't have Dillard's

Reader comments
City Creek Center won't have Dillard's

i disagree | 3:29 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Where am I going to get my fancy shirts and ties if there is no Dillards? Huh?

Way to go Salt Lake! | 5:53 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Get rid of that third anchor and build more light rail so we can all shop and eat elsewhere and ride the rails to the Jazz instead of going downtown to a first class shopping location and make an afternoon and evening of it! Instead of shopping in Salt Lake after a Ute football game, we can just head home to our local malls which ALL have three anchors (except the soon-to-be-demolished Cottonwood Mall.

Nice move!

Where is Dee Dee Corradinni when we need her?

Charlemagne | 6:24 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I'm excited for this project.

Comments continue below

Annie | 6:25 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I would rather have Dillards that Macys. Bummer!

MerLynn | 6:47 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I'm very very disappointed Dillards will no longer be included in the City Creek Center. The project had the opportunity to be much more attractive to shoppers with the three anchor department stores.

Downtown Fan | 7:37 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I like hearing that public and government feedback is being considered in this development, but I am sad to see that Dillards will not have a presence downtown. Perhaps a developer with property just south of the development could work out a deal with the deparment store to build in their location--somewhere along Main Street.

SLC Rocks | 7:57 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Quit trashing SLC, Way to Go Sucker. Why don't you keep you money in your trashy suburb and never come into our fine city. If the lack of a Dillards is going to stop you from shopping SLC, we don't mind. We have more unique shops that are locally owned than anywhere else. How about trying one of those shops. Forget the big box stores.

Cliff | 8:15 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Why not replace Dillards location with a giant Deseret book store...that would really bring the throngs back downtown. I thought this city had potential to be a first class place...but I wonder?

Kevin | 8:47 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I'm happy with this change. I, too, would like to see a Dillards or other major anchor built further south to encourage pedestrian movement along Main Street, but I think CCC will be successful without this tenant. Dillards is well represented in the suburban malls and would not, IMHO, draw many suburbanites into downtown that wouldn't be comming anyway. Gateway doesn't have any traditional department store anchors and seems to draw well.

SomeGuy | 8:57 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Who cares about Dillards? It's way more exciting that they are putting in a new residential tower there instead!

1st class? | 8:57 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Sorry, but Dillards is NOT 1st class...it's not.

This is no big deal.

The proposal for more residential space mixed with increased space for restaurants and specialized shops sounds much more intriguing and inviting.

Tortfeasor | 8:57 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I'm just thrilled about the increased number of residential units and restaurants. That will probably add at least another 200 residents to downtown. More residents = a more animated downtown, and larger customer base for the existing businesses.

Nick | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Still excited about the project, just wish they could keep Dillards. My family likes shopping there. I don't know how you make everybody happy in a project like this. It is very important to make as many people happy about the project as possible. I think they are trying to do that. I don't when they finish the City Creek Project if I will continue to shop at Fashion Place Mall, especially with the Cheesecake Factory there, or be spending my money at City Creek. Fashion Place has made every effort in keeping their current stores and adding more in their re-development. It will be interesting to see both completed projects and which Mall is more appealing to me and my family.

Bill | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Maybe we could have space for a Dillard's if the historical preservationist extremists weren't so adamant about saving the decrepit First Security Building, which will look ridiculously out of place in midst of this new development anyhow.

The Boss | 9:18 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I think the entire project should be scrapped; the Church should leave things as they were before this thing started; Look at what they did in Independence, Missouri in the 1830s than you will know what I mean. They have been talking about going back to Missouri, now is as good a time as any for then to leave Utah.

Curious | 9:20 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

You know the residential units will be used to house more missionaries who will be serving missions for the Church the Church office building, temple square, etc. Not the type of people who light up the night life.

Skeptic | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

What were the comments that lead to the decision to exclude Dillards? I have shopped Dillards and they seem to be a reasonable store from my perspective. I hope this exclusion was not made on someone having issues with the store's crossing some blurry moral code. In the public comment group were there any parties who defended the store's inclusion. These types of slights only serve to continue the great divide in Utah. Too bad.

Not from SLC | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Please make lots of big new stores so I can spend lots of money for things I don't need and put it all on my credit card so I can keep the economy of this great nation going.

Mike | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

As an out-of-towner who travels to Salt Lake on business I continue to be surprised at the public response to the projects the LDS church has done to beautify and keep your city vibrant. I can think of no other city where a group, at their own expense, has been willing to make this happen. The previous downtown was dying and the facilities poor. It is obvious to me that without the Mormon church putting their money into the city to keep the area around their temple square clean and beautiful you would all have an ugly town. Be grateful -- this is an amazing project because it's purpose is to improve the city not do what will make money -- and it's free to you. I wish my city had a tenet like that.

Anti "The Boss" | 10:01 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

What your comment has to with this project and Dillards is beyond me. Your comment displays narrow minded thinking; and given the power of the 'net, you have the ability to huck a cheap shot becasue the keyboard makes you tough.

Quit speculating | 10:09 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Why must the skeptic speculate on something which you have no inside knowledge of. Did they explain why Dillards is not included in the article?

And to curious why do you think it will be missionaries who live there? The prices those units will command are way out of the price range for missionaries. Where did you knowledge come from.

And the boss, how can you compare 1830 to now! What a bunch of ignorant comments. All you do is make yourselves look foolish.

Way to SL person. Are you a developer? Do you know what works? They are working with one of the biggest and best developers of malls in the world. I think they know what they are doing.

The money used to build this project comes from the business holdings of the church. It is their money and they can do with it as they please. If they want to try to improve downtown with it let them. They have the biggest tourist attraction in the state next door to the development and therefore have the most vested interest in the area.

BH | 10:20 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

While it is unfortunate that Dillards cannot be included, the addition of several smaller shops sounds much more attractive than just another big box.

I know I would rather shop small specialty shops instead of one more huge retailer. Besides, what could Dillards offer that will not already be available in the other anchor stores?

Curtis Blanco | 10:21 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

One less big store, several more apartments, shops and resturants. Sounds good to me.

jtm | 10:23 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Funny how people can get so excited/disappointed about a Dillard's store. You guys know they have several other Dillards in the valley? This isn't a big loss. How bout a store like Bloomingdale's, which doesn't exist at all in Utah? Put that instead of Macy's.

Tom | 10:25 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Curious | 9:20 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007
"You know the residential units will be used to house more missionaries who will be serving missions for the Church..."

We know this, huh? Would it be too much to ask you to cite your source here?

How about... | 11:13 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

For a smaller anchor store, how about a Crate & Barrel?!? Honestly I was so disappointed that they were planning on putting a lowly Dillards in City Creek. I was hoping for something upscale like a Saks or Neiman Marcus... I'm glad they scrapped Dillards.

WHY NOT... | 11:23 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Why don't we just kill two birds and move the Blue Boutique from Sugarhouse where everyone is worried about it being near a school and a park, and put it downtown??

Arturo | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 30, 2007

I am fine with thees changes, as the residents will make downtown sucessful. My suggestions is for Macy's to abandon their typical store for their more exciting Blommingdale's. PLEASE..................

Dave Mangine | 12:38 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

At this point, Utah does not have the spendable income base to attact the likes of Neiman Marcus, Saks or Bloomingdales. When a retailer looks at the debt ratios, size of families and critcal massing of Salt Lake, it is difficult to pencil out for them.

Well.... | 12:53 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Boo Fricken Hoo...

eddy | 1:48 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

just get rid of all of them and put in a WAL-MART

Mike | 2:25 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Cabella's. That way we would have a reason to go to the down town.

Proud SLC resident | 2:49 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Dillard's will not be missed. The City Creek Center should focus on offering someting unique that cannot be found in a suburban mall. That is what makes downtown a destination. Aligning Regents street and offering more living opportunities in the city is good urban planning.

Stevan | 3:01 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

How about a paycheck cashing / quick loan store?

How about.... | 4:19 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

The Blue Boutique?........Just an idea.......LOL!!

Who Cares?? | 5:49 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

Man, I'm sure disappointed that I can't go to Dillard's downtown five years from now!!!

AsU-Wish | 8:41 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

OK, Now we have space for anther Walmart!

Develop Something | 3:29 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

No Dillard's? Who cares. They'll probably be baknrupt by 2011 anyways. Sure they have great sales, but they're a terrible company to work for.
I would like to see a more classy department store be developed instead.

Cali Observer | 1:55 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

My advice to you Utahns is to keep out the big-boxes and keep the smaller stores! Here in San Fran, we have 1 large Macy's and that's about it - mainly smaller and localized stores - which works for us. A city becomes more vibrant when the people are taken out into the street rather than being couped up in a box all day!

Salt Lake is a nice town, and has the potential to become even better with some good planning, which apears to be happening! Keep up the good work, and you'll be on your way to looking like a world-class urban oasis in the tops of the majestic Rockies!

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.