Deseret News | City Creek Center can start rising, below ground

Reader comments
City Creek Center can start rising, below ground

Josh | 3:54 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

This is great. It will be a positive for tourism and it will make our downtown more modern and beautiful. The atmosphere downtown will be more alive and upbeat. Like I said, it will be a great asset for people who come to visit our city and it will be very accessible. It shows faith in our future and that we are competitive.

Trout | 6:16 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Let the big dig begin!

Mark | 6:31 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

It would be smart for CCRI to put the video up on the web--us regular shmoes would also like to see what the project may look like.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 6:40 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

I'm glad this can finally begin. I'm a volunteer at the Church Museum. Last week a tourist told me, "I used to like to come to Salt Lake, but your downtown is so dead!" Of course visitors can go to the Gateway, but it isn't as close to the traditional sites people come to see that are unique to our city.

I believe that other cities struggle with what to do with the inner city now that malls are out in the suburbs, but with our historical landmarks downtown we really need some shops and restaurants close by these places. Let's get busy!

JCH | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Oh, yeah, this will be great. New monolithic mall-heaps can't go wrong. At least not for the first 6-8 years. Then, when the City Creek appeal goes stale, we'll let the buildings rot for a few years before we build another monolithic mall-heap.

That's called "development."

Some cities insist on allowing their downtowns to grow organically, to let the history and culture of their communities bloom through decades of interactive commercial, residential, and light-industrial uses, separated by walkable distances and cross-pollinated by accessible public transit. Boston, or Paris, or San Francisco, or Portland come to mind.

Bah!

Such a scheme would require patience, austerity, a dedication to beauty, an appreciation of meaningful public space.

Better to let the Church's "development arm" make a quick fix. Again.

Dwight J. Barrett | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

The Salt Lake City commission has way to much say. The project is being paid for by the L.D.S. church. The L.D.S. church owes the land. The L.D.S. church is the one who is doing the work on the project. The commission has no business getting involved so much. The project does not belong to them. The commission is over stepping there authority. The commission is a good example of big government over stepping their authority. I suggest that the commission stay out of the private sector. Salt Lake City needs to mind their own business. I have not heard a thank you from Salt Lake City to date. The L.D.S. church came to the rescue to the whims of Salt Lake City balling about not having a down town. Salt Lake City does way to much crying and not enought helping on this project. I am not impressed with Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City should be bending over back wards to help get this project going. Salt Lake City commission is comprised of mad people who must the hippies of days gone past. They apparently have very few brains and make very few good decisions.

For JCH | 8:29 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Yeah, great examples of flourishing downtowns: Boston, Paris, San Fran, Portland. Separated by "walkable distances". The reality is, if you did try to walk across downtown in any of those cities, you'd be mugged before you reach the other side.

Yeah, that's just the kind of place I want SLC to become.

The LDS Church has a good track record of elegant beauty in its architecture - maybe you can put your prejudices aside and at least wait to see what it looks like before criticizing? Or perhaps you'd rather leave our fair city and walk through downtown Paris (I'd carry mace if I were you though)?

Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Are you joking me. I have spent substantial time in all of the aforementioned cities. The likelihood of getting mugged in SLC, especially the west side, is just as equal as in any of them.

Boston? are you kidding me? Definitely one of the safest cities I have spent many long nights in. I agree with JHC. Not only are we manipulating development into an "all-the-same-nothing-unique"type of growth (just like sugarhouse), we are taking away from the public sector, and natural green spaces.

If you consider big market shops that fit the agendas of the church to be elegant beauty I feel bad for you, because you truly haven't seen the beauty that cities like san fran., boston, and paris have in their unique villages and independent type stores, bars, and diners.

but if the LDS church wants something, it will get it...

Build it | 9:21 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Anonymous 9:09,

How is City Creek Center taking away from "the public sector"? The LDS Church owns the land! It was never "public sector" (at least, not since 1850).

How is City Creek Center taking away from "natural green spaces"? Do you know what was there before? Buildings. Before that it was dirt and cheatgrass. There hasn't been any "natural green space" there since the Mesozoic Era.

Why shouldn't the LDS Church get what it wants in this case? I'm not LDS, but they own the land and they're paying for the project. I don't know how they did things back home in the USSR, but here in America you can build with your own money on your own land.

Laurie | 9:21 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

I have lived in downtown Salt Lake City off and on since the early 80's. I love our fair city! But I am overjoyed at the prospects of having such a beautiful new center that will bring life and beauty to our jewel. I am so grateful for the LDS Church's immense generosity and foresight. There is no other city that I know of that would have a private entity come in and beautify a city to the tune of one and a half billion dollars at no cost to tax payer. Thank you LDS Church!

green mormon architect | 9:50 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

What's sad is there is no concern for sustainability in all of this. What an enormously missed opportunity! SLC has an opportunity to make an important statement to the world of how they have a concern for the earth and the stewardship we have been given.

BT | 9:53 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

When the property in question was in the hands of the public sector, it was all paved over (no green space at all), all-the-same-nothing-unique architecture (outside of the old ZCMI facade, which was an early LDS church contribution, and is being preserved), and economically stagnant. That is the public sector's legacy of land use downtown. So the church bought it. Now they propose adding green space where none was, including restoring the old city creek (or a semblance of it), adding parking space - but putting it under ground, and investing huge amounts or private capital to reinvigorate growth and enterprise. I can't speak to the architectural variety of the new buildings, as I haven't seen any concept art, but given the beauty of the properties the Church already maintains downtown, I am not worried about it. So they aren't Frank Lloyd Wright. At least the new buildings will be up to seismic code, which most of the old ones weren't. I fail to see how anything they have proposed isn't an improvement over what was there before.

Sorrel | 10:14 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Now that Rocky Voldemort has left town, things can start moving.

re: JCH - Great Cities | 10:24 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

To be sure, Boston, San Francisco and Portland are great cities. (Canï¿½t speak for Paris having never been.) However, please note the common thread ï¿½ relatively small downtown areas blocked in by water and/or hills combined with significant commerce dependent upon their ports. Since they only had some much land to start with, they had no other choice than to optimize.

The demise of the vibrant downtown areas in the West (not just SLC) was cast with the pervasive dependence upon the automobile that occurred post WWII. Suburban sprawl became ripe for supermarkets and malls. With retailers bringing goods to consumerï¿½s doorsteps, there was no real motivator to frequent downtown areas for shopping. Without shopping, downtown areas become vibrant 9-5 but ghost towns other hours.

Although less than ideal, huge downtown malls such as City Creek Center will bring life to an otherwise dreary downtown. Itï¿½s unfortunate but true that we are dependent upon commercialism and consumerism at so many levels.

Hats off to the Mormon Church and CCRI for taking the risk of this development.

wjgramma | 10:24 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

I just want to say "Amen" to the positive comments made by BT (9:53 am); Laurie (9:21 am); Trout (6:16 am); Josh (3:54 a.m); and Anonymous (6:40 am). This is a worthwhile effort by the LDS Church, who owned most of downtown SLC since the 1800's.

I fail to see how this will not be an improvement over what was there before, but there will always be those who criticize the LDS Church no matter what they propose to do.

Let the work begin!!!!

Carol P. Warnick | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

The sky bridge is a wonderful idea. I can visualize it in my mind and see it as a drawing card to downtown Salt Lake. Delays only cost money. Everything has been approved. Let the work go forward. People are always afraid of change. But those who have trust in the LDS Church know they won't be involved in anything that doesn't bring beauty and unity to Salt Lake and be for the good of the city.

Sky Bridge? | 10:57 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

The term sky bridge needs to go. Aren't all bridges in the sky? Pedestrian bridge is a more accurate description. I move that the city of Salt Lake City replace the term sky bridge with pedestrian bridge. All in favor say Go Utes.

SLC Resident | 11:23 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

As a city dweller, I, too, say thank you to the LDS Church for investing such a large amount in our downtown. It should be a great benefit to our city. The plans so far look very good, and much better than the ugly ZCMI/Crossroads center malls.

lost in DC | 11:36 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Having worked in Spokane in the winter, where much of the downtown is linked by sky bridges, or pedestrian bridges if you prefer, I can personally attest to their desirability. Not only do they allow pedestrians safe access across streets, thereby better facilitating traffic flow, but they encourage foot traffic downtown by making it dryer, warmer, and safer.

green mormon architect | 11:40 a.m. Jan. 10, 2008

It will definitely be an improvement. But it will do little to bring life to the downtown of SLC. It will bring life to those four blocks, but because they are subdividing the large blocks into lots of smaller ones, it will basically still be an enclosed mall with little spillage to the surrounding blocks. People will drive to the mall, park in it, shop, walk around a little, and then leave. What you want is a walkable/vibrant downtown, not a walkable/vibrant mall.

Having people live there will definitely help, but if it is anything like other downtowns, they will be very expensive and will turn into 2nd homes for the wealthy. Not having any of the housing as affordable will hurt this development.

And out of all the buildings for City Creek, at this point none will be green or sustainable, which is sad.

Finally, disagreeing with the execution of this development is not criticizing the LDS church.

Miles Laetus | 12:25 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

JCH, there are plenty of examples within Salt Lake City of areas that have grown "organically" to have their communities "bloom." One that comes to mind is the Gateway District. That area was blooming like a wildflower in the 80s and 90s. Then big bad development swooped in and made an awful, mixed use thing that draws people (which means crowds--we don't like crowds, do we?), investment (another bad word) and (gasp!) new business. Don't you wish it was still a bunch of weeds, warehouses and railroad tracks?

Oliver | 12:30 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Thanks to JCH and green mormon architect for their perceptive remarks.

Among a host of problems with this project concept, the most critical is its lack of economic viability. The fact that the developers were unable to draw any new anchor tenants says that the project isnï¿½t financially attractive which, in turn, says a lot about its prospects for success. Furthermore, City Creek Center will be competing for the smaller specialty tenants with Gateway, the new Sugarhouse project, and Fashion Place Mall (which dominates the retail marketplace in the Salt Lake Valley).

The fundamental reality is that the Salt Lake market just canï¿½t sustain this much ï¿½upscaleï¿½ retail development, so somebodyï¿½s going to lose. Based on the developersï¿½ inability to attract new anchor tenants and the fact that the mall wonï¿½t come on line for at least another three years (during which time shoppers will find other places to shop), it looks like the City Creek Center will be one of the losers.

Steve - Re: For JCH | 12:54 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

San Francisco isn't a city riddled with crime where it's unsafe for you to walk through it, I've done it with no problems. In the daylight I walked clear from the twisted part of Lombard to the Pier 39 area on Fisherman's Wharf just fine. Many times after dark I've walked a few city blocks to get to our hotel, no problems there either. I've never felt unsafe in any part of that city I've been in.

Good old days | 12:59 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

I'm going to miss going to the downtown malls on a Friday night and having the whole mall to myself. Same goes for Cottonwood Mall.

Steve - Sky Bridge is fine | 1:02 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

I think what they're doing with this project is great and it should be an awesome addition/make-over for downtown SLC.

What I don't get is the fuss over the sky bridge. What's the big deal?? Let them build it and quit stalling and trying to prevent it. People complain it will block views. Views of what? Many times I've stood there in the middle of the road by TRAXX where the bridge would be going across and I can't figure out what great view would be blocked. Right now you can't really see the mountains up northward anyhow, so what's the difference? Anti-bridge people act like there is some magnificent and pristine view, as if that spot were perched high and gave you an awesome view of the valley... that isn't the case.

And will the bridge really keep EVERYone off the street and "trapped" in the shopping area? I doubt it. Provide something worth going out there in the weather for on the street and people will make the effort to go down there. Easy... simple.

Let them have their sky bridge already.

Steve - Indoor malls are best | 1:13 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

What I don't like is the current and popular trend of outdoor "malls" like The Gateway. First off, to me a "mall" is an all indoor collection of stores.

An outdoor mall might be and probably is fine and good in climate that is warm/warmer year round... such as most of California and Florida. But here in Utah where we have our freezing winters and snow, why would I or anyone desire to be out in that to shop or "windowshop" as many mall goers do? I much prefer the indoor malls where I can escape the elements as I wander from store to store... to me THAT is the appeal of a mall.

I wish City Creek was going to be all indoor... couldn't they just have many sky lights and such to create the feel of being outside instead? They could even design the walking areas inside to look just like outdoor city streets.

Not exactly malls | 1:16 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

I wonder how many people have actually viewed any of the plans for this project. I don't think it's accurate to descibe this project as replacement malls, nor do I think its fair to complain about another mall being built downtown. This isn't just a shopping center. There will three high-rise residential buildings, four more mid-rise residential buildings, loads of resteraunts (not counting the "food court) and plenty of green space (especially when compared to what was there before) along with optimum parking and retail. This isn't a mall. It's cutting edge uban development, and it will do plenty to revitalize not only these two blocks, but downtown as a whole, as it will add a good 1000+ residents to the central business district. I'm not gonna complain. It's an improvement in every aspect discussable.

Re: For JHC | 1:57 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

"Yeah, great examples of flourishing downtowns: Boston, Paris, San Fran, Portland. Separated by "walkable distances". The reality is, if you did try to walk across downtown in any of those cities, you'd be mugged before you reach the other side."

The ACTUAL REALITY is that "For JHC" has obviously never stepped out of the happy little bubble that encompasses "For JHC."

I have lived in San Francisco for more than 10 years, and I work downtown, and not once have I ever been mugged or approached by anyone in a menacing manner.

Until you venture off your little farm in whatever armpit of Utah you live in, you DO NOT have an opinion regarding anything off your sorry little quarter acre you think is the world.

SF is safe?? | 1:59 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

For those commenting on the beauty and security of SF, apparently you haven't lived/worked there. To walk from downtown/shopping areas like Union Square to the financial district or the piers day or night can be an interesting experience. Just try going to a show at one of the theatres just off Union Square at night and you need a bodyguard.

SLC Resident | 2:32 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Not exactly malls--thanks for clarifying that for everyone here. I have seen the plans, and with the residential and commercial components, as well as restaurants, it looks like a winner. Let's hope it all comes to fruition.

Re: Build It | 2:41 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

". . . here in America you can build with your own money on your own land."

Oh, yeah? Tell that to Dr. Wendell Gibby about his property in Mapleton. Then, you can shut up, because you don't have a clue what it is you're talking about. Get the facts before you shoot off your mouth.

green mormon architect | 3:13 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

What do you mean by "interesting experience" in San Fran? If that means lots of diverse groups of people enjoying their city and streets in diverse ways, then that is a good thing. The fact that lots of people are around is what you want when it comes to security and safety. An amazing book on this subject is "The Life and Death of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs who discusses the point of 'eyes on the street' being a desireable aspect of cities. With no eyes on the street, it is possible that downtown SLC is actually more dangerous than San Fran or Portland because very few people are around.

major city downtowns | 4:12 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

anyone comparing downtown salt lake (where i lived for 18 years) and its securities to places like portland (where i have lived for the last 5 years), san fran, boston or paris knows jack about downtown space. the downtowns of those cities are so alive and vibrant its amazing. downtown salt lake is and has been dead for a long time. the only point in the last 15 years i can ever remember feeling like i was in a downtown setting in slc was during the olympics. people were out walking the streets enjoying the sites, filling bars and resteraunts, and enjoying each others company. that just never happens in slc like it does in other downtowns. downtown portland is beautiful and i walk through it every day on my way to and from work. i could probably spend a whole day walking around (and have before) and not walk the entirety of downtown portland. i could (and have before) spend a couple hours and see all of salt lake. salt lake needs a lot more development like this to rejuvenate its downtown space. oh ya, sky bridges are awesome and efficient, build more.

Jordan T. | 6:50 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

Why was downtown Denver left off the list of vbrant cities--it's one of the most vibrant cities I've ever been to. They've got great restaurants, bars and nightclubs downtown.

And of course, in addition, all of their sports stadiums are located downtown, not in the suburbs like in Salt Lake--with lightrail and everything--and they've got all these cool shops.

Why there is a height restriction for a 265 foot building in the area, is beyond me! That said, downtown Salt Lake needs taller, landmark buildings to redefine and balance the skyline, and make it look and feel more vibrant.

Anonymous | 7:30 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

To JCH:

I have walked downtown in New York, Boston, Paris, San Francisco, Madrid, London, Lucerne, Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland, and grew up in Portland where I have recently walked downtown. Tourist business is very important everywhere. Although one must be careful in any public place, downtowns, with their history, should be preserved. If you don't think you could be mugged in some areas of Salt Lake, you are wrong.

Miguelito | 10:52 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

I think it will be awesome if the mall is a success and I would like to visit it atleast once, as I don't live in Utah anymore. This, perhaps, is a good thing the LDS church is doing... however, it just seems odd that a church of "Jesus Christ" is building a multi-billion dollar mall... who knows, maybe Jesus does approve of contributing to commerce and material benefits... I don't know for sure, but it does cast the church into a whole different light for me, as to it's mission and focused efforts in the world.

Don't get me wrong, as I think this could be a good thing for SLC but I am surprised that members of the church do not see this as a bit odd for a church to be so involved in material contributions to the world... When I visited the beautiful city of Rome as a child, I was in awe and distrubed at the same time as I would reflect on what I knew of the early christians and Jesus and what they said about material things.

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.

2 photos

Keith Johnson, Deseret News

Bill Williams, right, CCRI director of engineering and architecture, addresses Salt Lake Planning Commission. At his side are Alan Sullivan, left, CCRI legal counsel; and Mark Gibbons, CCRI president.

Gallery (2 photos)