Deseret News | Reader comments: Eerie display calls attention to Provo demolitions

Reader comments
Eerie display calls attention to Provo demolitions

troutman | 1:34 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Welcome to Utah. I hate it too! That is why I go to Montana all the time I can is because they don't tear them down. they leave them and you really get into the spirit of the 1880's. Utah doesn't care! They started tearing these building down right after the depression, and in order to get one preserved you have to go through all kinds of red tape, know someone, and then all kinds of red tape again. The generation of kids and so called leaders that the LDS leaders rave about all the time, scares me to death, thinking that the one I know are just dipnards! They are only concerned with one thing in life themselves! They are a me generation, and if it means tearing down an old building and putting up a trendy Mormon arts and crafts store, a clothes store that would make Brigham and Joseph shake their heads, a Big Box furniture store in order for them to feel better than the neighbors, they we do it in a heart beat. I really loathe this generation of kids, they will ruin this country, and they don't care.

EscapedfromNY | 4:18 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Yes, most certainly this happens ONLY in Utah. It never happens anywhere else Troutman.

Marky | 5:17 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Of course. Blame the Mormons. Everything is the Mormon's fault. Or Bush. Can't we blame Bush, too?

Comments continue below

JERRY | 5:19 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

WHO CARES ABOUT THE OLD BUILDINGS. HOW MANY PEOPLE EVER STOP TO GO INSIDE THEM? THEY ARE COSTLY TO MAINTAIN. BUILD NEW BUILDING.

Dear Jerry | 7:33 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Here's a list of old buildings that are "costly to maintain". Let's tear them down with YOUR rule!

All buildings on Temple Square in SLC
The "Joseph Smith Memorial Building"
The Rio Grande depot

mom | 8:28 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I am originally from Phoenix and they have been tearing down perfectly good buildings for years. It is not just Utah who does it. In LA they buy lovely homes and tear them down to build bigger and fancier. It is what comes from looking at buildings as investments rather than history or beautiful architecture.

JERRY | 8:56 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

IN REPSPONSE TO COMMENTS BY DEAR JERRY. NO COMPARISON BETWEEN ALL BUILDINGS ON TEMPLE SQUARE AND THE HOTEL ROBERTS IN PROVO.

SLC gal | 9:10 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I applaud this guy.. I wonder if he has any good ideas for Crossroads....

Batgirl | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Over the years the Hotel Roberts had morphed into nothing more than a haven for transients and drug users. It's occupants brought with them an unsavory element of crime to nearby neighbors. Not every historical building needs to be preserved. Having personally been inside the place (being a former social worker), the place had already been destroyed by it's occupants, long before the building itself was razed to the ground.

a moe | 9:21 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

you preservationists are all talk.....if you want to preserve these buildings, then I suggest you put your money where your mouth is.....buy them and then shut up!

Innocent bystander | 9:24 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

As someone who works in the Facilities Management field, let me just say that is isn't that simple. These 'treasured' building are very costly to maintain. And the liabilty on them is extreme. For example, consider all the asbestos they contain, which has to be dealt with everytime an improvement or remodel is performed. It's very costly and makes repairs and upgrades triple in cost.

The fact is, that in many cases, it is more ecconomically feasible for the owners to demo the old buildings and build new. Let alone the increases in safety, Fire, ADA, and other uses.

Consequently, the reason the buildings on Temple Square are preserved are due to the Church's dedication to their legacy. These buildings cost millions to upgrade and maintain, but the church is willing to spend it for prosterity's sake. But most cannot spend the money to keep the buidlings around, especially in a competitive market place.

cbf | 9:44 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

In 1993, our high school track team ended up staying the night at the Hotel Roberts, because of a last minute mixup. TALK ABOUT SCARY! Just because it had the word hotel in the title, didn't mean that anyone should have treated it as one. The plumbing was horrendous, the electrical wasn't far behind... The beds, carpet, woodwork, etc... all belonged in the local landfill. There was a bullet hole through the front window, covered with a piece of tape... And the local patrons (minus our track team which did not fit the stereotypical patron) appeared to be more interested in drugs, booze, and sleaze than a good nights sleep.

The people in this article surely have good intentions. However, they need a basic lesson in economics. Economics will always govern historical features... If these people wish to save older buildings, they need to get out their wallets rather than their sleeping bags and lawn chairs. The only way to save any historical structure is to have the cash to make the necessary structural upgrades (to meet modern safety codes) and living upgrades (plumbing, electric, etc.) Otherwise, despite the age, it is nothing more than a rundown building.

Tim | 10:00 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Anyone who set foot in that hotel in the years before it was destroyed applauded at it's demolition. Like the previous posters it was a haven for transients, meth, and heroin. Good riddence.

Salem | 10:12 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Provo has long since shown significant disregard and insensitivity to the historical arcitecture in its city....take the NuSkin building for example! Hideous and out of place. In some areas of the country, any new construction in a city has to fit the outward historical design of its original buildings. Not Provo! Just a hit and miss hodgepodge of ugly concrete and glass eyesores. Drive northward from Center Street on University Avenue and you'll see all the ugly student housing! In other cities the older homes have been used by small businesses for specialty shops. Very few of those beautiful old homes have survived! Shame on Provo!!!

Jonathan | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Tim,
Yes, because getting rid of the building will get rid of the transients, meth, and heroin...That kind of ridiculous mentality is why Provo has never cared about itself. Maybe if Provo ever had a responsible, intelligent city council... I love the art installation - too bad no one in Provo could figure it out.

Tear it all down | 11:33 a.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Old buildings are not history, they are a safety hazard, and waste natural resources. What should happen next is all the homes built before 1960 should be leveled, and re-built with more efficient materials, to save our planet. No expense should be spared to save this wonderful world.

Rich | 12:56 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Ryan Neeley! Glad to hear more about you dog. It's been so long.

What? | 1:03 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

What are you talking about "Tear it all down"? You're talking about saving the planet but ignore the important concept of reduce, reuse, reclycle. Old building can be easily reused and with a few modifications, made energy efficient as well.

Old buildings ARE history. It's silly to suggest otherwise. It's like saying old people have no value because they are a safety hazard (their driving), waste valuable social security money, and offer nothing to society. Maybe all old people should be euthanized to save natural resources for young people. After all, "no expense should be spared to save this wonderful world".

Susan Davis Rice | 1:39 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

It is sad to see our History thrown out like yesterday's garbage who are these people who do these things I come from a long list of family who were the first people to live in this valley it just makes me sick the same thing happen to the farm house I grew up in Alpine utah our Home was one of the first homes in Alpine it was said that is was Brigham Youngs Brothers Home at one time after many year's living there and good times our family had we sold and moved away a few year's later the fire Dpt of Alpine Burnt it down for training to put fires out sick sick sick they burnt down all that history with it now it is just a field next to the main street creek oh they did build a new Charter school across the street where a gas station use to be. Hum.

BYU Acadamy | 1:41 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Provo does save old buildings. The BYU Acadamy building was a run down building were the homeless and drug users would hang. Now it has been turned into Provo Libary. I quess they just pick and choose.

Rich | 1:53 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

When buildings outlive their usefulness, they should be torn down unless the owners want to bring them up to current codes, including earthquake and fire codes. When the taxpayers own the buildings, their duly elected representatives can decide either to spend millions in refurbishing old buildings or to tear them down and eventually build something else in their place or to sell them to the highest bidder, who then has the same rights as the previous owner. Most old buildings have very little historical significance. Those that do, such as the first capitol of Utah in Fillmore, I'm all for spending money to save. But does it always have to be taxpayer's money? No. Vountary contributions can preserve them. If they're not so important that people want to sit down and write out a check to save them, then don't take my money away by force to save the old buildings you want saved. And just because a building's old doesn't make it historical.

provoman | 1:55 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

a moe, the funny thing is, we did put up the money with the st. francis of assisi catholic church. 1.2 million dollars, bought and paid for with our personal fortunes. the building was bought and in escrow when they experienced a "computer glitch" and said the deal was off. the church was plowed in the middle of the night.

matt wood | 2:32 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I applaud those that can see the significance of preserving a small city's culture. While the hotel was in fact dying long before the demolition took place, I believe it was worth fixing and preserving.

A number of comments mention that it is more economical to tear down any building that requires tax-payer money to preserve. While some buildings lack any social significance and should be put to rest accordingly, others hold a great deal of history, and should be promoted as the monuments they are. Provo would increase in economic value as those buildings were held onto. Center street still holds a number potential gems.

If you need proof of the economic gain that follows preservation, then the earlier cited Brigham Young Academy is a perfect example. It has created higher value for that entire area.

Hotel Roberts and The St. Francis of Assisi church should have both been preserved. Water the garden of Provo and watch it grow. Those that assume replacing the buildings is more economical do not have a true grasp of city planning or long term growth.

Shame on those responsible for being so shortsighted.

juls | 2:42 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I was very upset about the incrediable Wistera. It was recognized as one of the best examples of that species in Utah. I wish they could have saved it.

Anonymous | 3:11 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Interesting that buildings like the Catholic Church and the historic hotel were demolished secretly in the night. What kind of powerful and courageous corporation does this? Watch out where they might strike again!

Mark in AZ | 4:02 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Without evidence of your past you are nothing. Where did you come from? Life is NOT just all entertainment and fun. Or, at least, it shouldn't be!

Peter P | 4:24 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

What I've seen in some cases are the facades rebuilt on the new buildings, to preserve some of the past. Isnt that what its about...the handicraft of the past that needs to be preserved, not the lack of structural integrity, and the unsavory nature of it. Look at Davis High for example. Historical yes. A deathtrap yes. A rebuilt facade showing what it once was, yes.

Anonymous | 4:49 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Temple Square does not equate to the Hotel Roberts! Seems in Utah there are the Mormons and those who aren't. Can't yins all get along? I'm LDS, but all your bickering drives me nuts. So here's the message: Mormons...follow the Church leaders and be nice to people. Not everyone wants to joins us (re-read the Articles of Faith). Non-Mormons, take a deep breath. Be nice to people even if they aren't nice to you. We don't plan on leaving the state soon. AND yes, old buildings go. Sometimes they should stay. New buildings come. Maybe they shouldn't. Life moves on. Save what you can, and welcome what you can't.

Architect | 6:34 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

People who look at a building only in terms of it's structural integrity and handicap accessibility are shortsighted.
People who look at a building for it's historical significance, craftsmanship, ability to revive neighborhoods, and contribute to society, are enlightened.
I would love to see proof that it is more costly to maintain a building than to tear it down. I submit that to build the Hotel Roberts or St. Francis back brick for brick and timber for timber would cost a silly fortune. You can't find the same materials anymore. You would have to look very very hard for the skilled craftsmen to build an historically accurate copy.
Our city needs more great people like Ryan who can call a greater attention to these attrocities. Way to go Ryan! I knew what it was long before this article. Keep it up.

History moves on.. | 7:10 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I personally like and love keeping all the old buildings around and about Utah. It keeps some of the good times from the old days in my mind. The old buildings are sort of like looking at history. PLEASE STOP DESTROYING THEM! Salt Lake City looks NOTHING like what it did when I was a kid growing up. The SLC Temple and few other small buildings are all that is left.... Very sad!

Provo Academy | 7:45 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

It wasn't the City of Provo that kept the Provo Academy, it was a group of citizens who came together to raise the money. There were several deadlines when the City was on the verge of demolishing that building as well, because it would have been cheaper to tear it down and build a new library, than retrofitting the old building. Do not give the Mayor/City council credit for that act.

Spookie | 8:02 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

Ya! The Mayor/City council get no credit! The building is gone now, and it is a absolute shame! The people who tore this wonderful building down will probably be haunted by Christmas pass ghosts forever.

REMEMBER | 9:37 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I heard someone on here say: Who Cares about old buildings!
I remember as a very small child living in Salt Lake City, when they tore down the old SL temple square museum so that the church could build a new one in the same place. I have some very strange memories of that old Temple square museum. Like the Indian mummies, mummy of a Mother and child in a papoose, stuffed seagal birds, the rare two headed lamb, and a really neat crystal temple made out of salt. There were many other interesting things in that old museum building, like some old relics of Brother Brigham's that were scattered throughout the building... and so on. I never hear anyone ever mention these things. It was part of the old Salt Lake City temple square that I most remember. It just goes to show that each of eventually become ancient relics as well. Perhaps, no one will ever remember these things, but I certainly have, and they will remain within my mind till the day I die.

Swen | 9:51 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I participated in a project to try to clean up and save the old hotel, but it was a nasty place and I don't miss it. Photographs or possibly even 3D, digital reconstructions can preserve a lot of the history without the filth and tied up resources. Time moves on. No one proposes that we restore Orem to its previous fruit orchard status, although the trees were beautiful. A few relic pieces are probably worth saving, but why try to freeze the entire city in time. How do you pick the right time, anyway? Eventually the NuSkin building will be "historical" too. Personally, I think that old athletic building across University Avenue from the library needs to go too.

re remember | 10:25 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I remember the old museum on temple square too..I miss it. We traveled down to Salt Lake to do ordinance work and see temple square..when I was 12...There were little alcoves on each side with a round table and very stuffed couch benches built in around it..kind of like a restaurant booth. I remember all the Joseph Smith furniture, etc. and other artifacts...I'm glad they saved the Hotel Utah and Brigham Young's houses. I miss that drug store that used to be across the street from temple square..we ate there...I'm glad we can eat in the Lion House though.

susan rice davis | 10:59 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I to think that Nu skin building on center looks out of place and please do not tear down the old BYU girls gym down on university Ave in provo come on people slow down in this fast pace life stop being so selfish about keeping our History alive for our children and grand children not all people think it is cool to tear everything down so try and slow down and think about the old days and what it means to the next person you might find out that it isn't so Bad.

Time Flies | 11:41 p.m. Dec. 27, 2007

I had fond memories of a building where I worked 20 years ago - until I visited it again recently. It was uncomfortable and repellent. What we preserve most are the memories - sometimes the building itself is a poor repository for those. Some buildings, like the pioneer museum, are sort-of fun to go through now and then, but frankly - when was the last time you went? My kids think the Pioneer museum is boring. I knew the current Provo library building as well as the old Academy, and while the form is familiar, it really isn't the same building. I like the library because it is an interesting building - but my memories of the old academy are not very closely connected with it.
Is it worth the money to preserve an old building? That's always going to be debatable.

interested reader | 3:27 p.m. Dec. 28, 2007

Troutman and all the other folks from other states who don't like Utah and Provo should move on or go back to where they came from. I'm glad that both buildings were demolished. I grew up in Provo and love living here. This is the best place to live in all the places I have ever lived!! That includes, Seattle, Orem, Las Vegas, Santee, Calif for 25 yrs. (15 miles East of San Diego.)

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.