HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #761  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 5:02 AM
arkhitektor arkhitektor is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Clearfield, UT
Posts: 1,656
I'm as excited as everybody else some shiny new buildings rise, but it's depressing that we just keep tearing down and rebuilding in the same locations over and over again. I'm sad that we couldn't come up with a better location to build this theater.

Salt Lake has a terrible, throw-away sense of place-making. We'll give a building 25-40 years, then we blow it up and start over. This may be working for us in the short-term while the city is experiencing a relative boom, but it's a horrible long-term strategy for creating a community. I'm dissapointed that mayor Becker didn't have the foresight to pursue this project on one of literally a dozen or so other suitable sites in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #762  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 6:43 AM
blazefirelight's Avatar
blazefirelight blazefirelight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
I'm as excited as everybody else some shiny new buildings rise, but it's depressing that we just keep tearing down and rebuilding in the same locations over and over again. I'm sad that we couldn't come up with a better location to build this theater.

Salt Lake has a terrible, throw-away sense of place-making. We'll give a building 25-40 years, then we blow it up and start over. This may be working for us in the short-term while the city is experiencing a relative boom, but it's a horrible long-term strategy for creating a community. I'm dissapointed that mayor Becker didn't have the foresight to pursue this project on one of literally a dozen or so other suitable sites in the city.
I couldn't agree more. As soon as I found out who had designed the Prudential Building I had a lot more respect and admiration for the building. The fact that we're just going to tear it down to build something new hurts my soul.

I feel like a lot of people on the forum are being kind of silly--we all talk about how angry we are about Salt Lake citizens of the past, who decided that old buildings were ugly and decided to demolish them to build new buildings. But now we're all for demolishing a building that really adds to Salt Lake's architectural portfolio and adds a little more history to our city.

I'm sad to see the Prudential Building go. Excited for whatever is next, but ultimately sad to see the building's demise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #763  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 6:53 AM
UTvision UTvision is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 124
Interesting read.
William L. Pereira's Historic Prudential Building May Be a Casualty of Salt Lake City's Renaissance

http://artinfo.com/news/story/819332...ys-renaissance


Image from artinfo.com

Found this facebook group also. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-s...60538223990498
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #764  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 6:55 AM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
Indeed, the HKS partnership with Pelli is very interesting and exciting. I am now an even bigger proponent of this location for the Theater and Tower project. That specific Bennion-plus corner in that specific location, adj. to CCC in it's current massing, is incredibly underdeveloped. This is especially accute, given the potential of what could now be an amazing and vibrant Regent Street. We must understand that the UPAC/Tower project is the necessary synergy for creating what will be an amazing Regent St. Project. Without this UPAC/Tower Project, Regent would be underserved in it's scope, and it's timeline would be extended for many years into the future.

I am as anxious as anyone to see the parking areas surrounding the historic Zions Bank corner also reach it's potential. I believe that developing the anemic Bennion area corner into a jewel of a spectacular venue/tower, along with a vibrant Regent St. will also speed up the development of the Pantages and the parking areas surrounding the Zions corner. Not using this current location would fail to push forward the potential of Regent St., and would be a major misfire IMO.
Again, Regent Street will Not reach its full potential if the theater is placed in its current proposed location, because there just isn't enough space to fit the large theater and retail space facing regent street that is large/deep enough to be viable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #765  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 6:58 AM
Old&New's Avatar
Old&New Old&New is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazefirelight View Post
I couldn't agree more. As soon as I found out who had designed the Prudential Building I had a lot more respect and admiration for the building. The fact that we're just going to tear it down to build something new hurts my soul.

I feel like a lot of people on the forum are being kind of silly--we all talk about how angry we are about Salt Lake citizens of the past, who decided that old buildings were ugly and decided to demolish them to build new buildings. But now we're all for demolishing a building that really adds to Salt Lake's architectural portfolio and adds a little more history to our city.

I'm sad to see the Prudential Building go. Excited for whatever is next, but ultimately sad to see the building's demise.


It's not too late
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #766  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 1:16 PM
Reachforthesky Reachforthesky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 148
I know this is kind of random, but can someone put up a picture of what our skyline would look like today had the key bank tower not been demolished? I would if I was (tech savy) able to. Seeing that HOLE in the skyline just bothers me. Maybe the new theater tower will help fill the gap? Is there any word on how tall its suppose to be?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #767  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 3:10 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,960
Yes unfortunately, Salt Lake City has had a checkered past with throwing away what we should have saved. This is true with pretty much every major metro in the country from New York to even San Francisco, and many metro CBD's have a much more destructive history than Salt Lake. There are hundred's of lost treasures from New York's past, such as the Penn Station or the Waldorf Astoria which defy reason for their demise. It would be akin to SLC's destruction of City Hall or the Temple Square Tabernacle. Even San Francisco is filled to the brim with non-descript University Club style towers, that replaced beautiful, ornate mansions and midrises. Fortunately, Salt Lake is hitting it's stride as one of the most dynamic national growth citys of this century, at a time when sentiments for historical preservation are strong and healthy.

IMO, the new CCC is a huge improvement over it's 70's version. If today's planners and contributing citizens had planned the original Crossroads/ZCMI Center, we wouldn't have lost Richards, Regent and many of the lovely fronts of Main in the first place.

That prevailing mentality of the majority rule, that destroyed and covered up beautiful craftsmanship, was unique and indicative of a generation that had experienced two Apocalyptic World Wars, a pandemic that killed millions, and a great depression that still defies description, even compared to today's great recession. As I have, I'm sure that all of you have seen certain members of your own generational family, that shunned an Avenue's Victorian as simply 'old looking'. I remember my own relatives, who were horrified when my buddies and I moved in to the coolest (well maintained) old house south of the BYU campus. The house was in excellent condition and had many charming details. However, you would have thought that I had moved into a ghetto flat by the reaction of some of my relatives. They couldn't understand why I liked this 'OLD' house vs. a newer non-descript 70's rambler. Much of that generation has now passed. Today, there is a healthier climate for history, charm, and craftsmanship. It isn't perfect, and many developers still don't understand what rim and color should be placed on their particular auto(so to speak). Hey, there will alway's be developers whose talent is better at book keeping than designing the next classic Rolls Royce or Jag. However, the climate is markedly improved.

So first, don't even try to discuss with me, and I mean this in a disarmingly friendly way, the glowing attributes of the Bennion Building. IMO, as with many to most of the local forumers, we have discussed that building ad nauseum. It has been historically destroyed, aesthetically compromised to a mediocre presentation, and it is a tremendous waste of valuable space.

However, most of us agree, that if we can save the Prudential, then let's save it. So, instead of focusing so much energy lamenting the current location of the UPAC/Tower Project, put that energy on improving the design of the UPAC, which would be the inclusion of the Prudential. Why can't these internationally acclaimed and awarded firms, which will be designing this project, come up with solutions? Have any of you who are objecting the loudest, and I respect those objections regarding the Prudential, had detailed discussions with those in the know? Have any of you discussed this at length with the Mayor or Pelli or HKR, etc? On the surface, I see the unique, vast and significant space of the Prudential as a plus for an iconic theater entry. Certainly, the creative, award winning Pelli can come up with a marvelous solution for incorporation of Prudential's strong points as a stunning foyer-plus. Perhaps though, there are unavoidable reasons other than financial greed driving it's demise. I would like to hear from someone with access to these people give me the facts, other than emotional reasons. We all know that the Deseret/First Security Tower was slated for demolition. It took community outrage, and a generous donor to save it. The Trib. received much of that same type of backlash. The Prudential doesn't seem to be generating that same type of involvement. Anyway, what are the bottom-line reasons for wanting to replace the Prudential? Also, what are the solutions, including extra financial contribution from someone such as a Huntsman, Marriott or Eccles to save it?

We are being told by responsible people, who have a good track record, that the UPAC will be an iconic jewel on Main. In other words, they're saying that they are going to sacrifice the Prudential for something far more grand and iconic. Okay now, we're not talking about the destruction of 19th century Victorians and Italianate mid rises, in order to put up something that is a horrible fortress, like the exterior of the former Crossroads. I think Pelli/HKR is seriously going to create something spectacular. So again, some of you quit wasting what could be valuable time lamenting the location, and focus on the facts and means of incorporating the Prudential into the future massing of UPAC. Let's find out the facts of why it is either possible or impossible.

Regarding the small facade of the old Bank Building and it's coffered ceiling, the probabilities are pretty limited. It looks as if the ceiling must be disassembled. This would be entirely plausible, but of course, at an extra expense. So who is going to pony up with the extra monies? Again, we need another generous Eccles-style donor. Then again, maybe we could get away with simply diassembling the facade only and placing it elsewhere, and then incorporting the ceiling into a beautiful and needed public space, associated with the theater's commercial aspects.

Anyway, the whole point is as has been stated countless times before. The probability of the status quo as the future UPAC site is pretty much decided. The odds of saving and incorporating the interiors of the Prudential and the Bank are far greater than moving the entire project across the street. So let's focus our fact gathering and time and energy on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #768  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 6:47 PM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 5,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reachforthesky View Post
I know this is kind of random, but can someone put up a picture of what our skyline would look like today had the key bank tower not been demolished? I would if I was (tech savy) able to. Seeing that HOLE in the skyline just bothers me. Maybe the new theater tower will help fill the gap? Is there any word on how tall its suppose to be?
Or better yet. What the skyline would look like with Towers 2 & 8 and the theater tower.
__________________
Top Three Tallest Buildings in downtown SLC
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT
3. "The Promontory @ City Creek" 30-stories 375 FT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #769  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 8:19 PM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhitektor View Post
I'm as excited as everybody else some shiny new buildings rise, but it's depressing that we just keep tearing down and rebuilding in the same locations over and over again. I'm sad that we couldn't come up with a better location to build this theater.

Salt Lake has a terrible, throw-away sense of place-making. We'll give a building 25-40 years, then we blow it up and start over. This may be working for us in the short-term while the city is experiencing a relative boom, but it's a horrible long-term strategy for creating a community. I'm dissapointed that mayor Becker didn't have the foresight to pursue this project on one of literally a dozen or so other suitable sites in the city.
I agree with you, but at the same time, I wholeheartedly support the current location for the Performing Arts Center because the 2 main buildings under discussion have been destroyed by remodeling.

The thing that surprises and annoys me is when I look at old photos of SLC and see that there were 4-5 story buildings where today there are 1-2 story buildings. That is definitely moving backwards.

Last edited by Stenar; Aug 18, 2012 at 2:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #770  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 10:16 PM
Comrade Reynolds's Avatar
Comrade Reynolds Comrade Reynolds is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 7,500
I say bring on the wrecking ball. I've never liked the Prudential Building and the sooner it's gone the better. It's an ugly building with a cold feel to it that would probably look better in some small Eastern European town and not on our Main Street.
__________________
"Citizens of Utah: stimulation of the C-WORD is not recommended"

It's an undefeated thing...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #771  
Old Posted: Aug 17, 2012, 11:05 PM
stevena07's Avatar
stevena07 stevena07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City- University
Posts: 444
I'm glad they tore this down too, because people didn't like it back then either.




Guess we should have gotten rid of this one too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #772  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 12:01 AM
T-Mac's Avatar
T-Mac T-Mac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bountiful, Utah
Posts: 1,138
I am with you Comrade, bring it down. I guess I don't see what people like about this building. I can throw up some windowless walls with some posts sticking out the top and a narrow window in the front and call it an amazing piece of architecture. Maybe we could keep it and turn it into a local downtown jail since it has that certain prisonesque look to it.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #773  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 12:13 AM
Comrade Reynolds's Avatar
Comrade Reynolds Comrade Reynolds is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 7,500
Now come on...let's not compare the Prudential Building to the Newhouse & Deseret Buildings - the latter of which, of course, was saved because of public outcry.

I get some people like the Prudential Building, but I'm gonna guess there are far fewer here who like it compared to other historical gems that were saved.

As for not liking the Newhouse, I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't like it. It was torn down because it was cost effective to do so.

You like the Prudential. That's great. But I think we can concede the style is far less universally easy on the eyes than those other two buildings mentioned.

Let me add that I would be opposed to tearing it down just for the sake of tearing it down. But I believe we're gaining something pretty extraordinary in that spot and it would be hard for me to get that upset over losing this building.

Now if it was the Transamerica pyramid in San Francisco, you'd have a point - but it's not. It's, as T-Mac put it, a windowless box. I think it's brute and I think it's ugly. Would I miss it? No. I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel and I know there are buildings I would miss that some of you wouldn't, so, I understand where you're coming from. But for me, its replacement is far better suited for that area than a building that is falling apart on the inside and goes through tenants with ease.
__________________
"Citizens of Utah: stimulation of the C-WORD is not recommended"

It's an undefeated thing...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #774  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 12:57 AM
DMTower's Avatar
DMTower DMTower is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
^^^ Agreed! Just because something is built by a famous architect or is an example of an architectural era does not mean that it is a prime example of that era or architecture in general. If it was that beautiful I don't think it would have such a hard time keeping tenants. Keeping something just because it's already there is like a hoarder complex... sometimes you just need to learn to let go. If by some miracle they worked out a way to place the theater on the west corner I'd be all for it, but if it's a choice between the theater in its full scale or the Prudential building I say light the fuse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #775  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 4:06 AM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 603
I thought I was the only one who looked at the Prudential building as a jail or prison. I am glad to know that I am not the only one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #776  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 5:14 AM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 5,200
The thing is the Newhouse Hotel was replace by a parking lot. So it was truly a waste.
The Prudential Building will be replace by a world class Broadway theater plus tower.
__________________
Top Three Tallest Buildings in downtown SLC
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT
3. "The Promontory @ City Creek" 30-stories 375 FT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #777  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 5:33 AM
ajiuO's Avatar
ajiuO ajiuO is offline
A.K.A. Vigo
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 810
Good riddance to the prudential building. I will be a bit sad to see the building on the corner go... But oh wel. It will be replaced by somthing nicer.


I think it would be better if they ripped down the shilo inn and built it there, but then again, I think it would be better if they ripped down the shilo inn and built a much needed parking lot... Or perhaps just let weeds grow there
__________________
On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a
throne of blood! What was will be! What is will be no more! Now is the season of evil!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #778  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 5:43 AM
stevena07's Avatar
stevena07 stevena07 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City- University
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds View Post
I get some people like the Prudential Building, but I'm gonna guess there are far fewer here who like it compared to other historical gems that were saved.
So these buildings will soon be historical gems then soon right?

I'm just arguing that we think people were stupid for demolishing and covering up things that we now like. So why should we do the same??? I don't think any of these buildings are amazing, but they do have value, so they deserve the debate to be saved. I would rather density and energy over a few nice buildings and parking lots surrounding them (thats what a suburb is anyway).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #779  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 6:41 AM
Comrade Reynolds's Avatar
Comrade Reynolds Comrade Reynolds is online now
They all float down here
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hair City, Utah
Posts: 7,500
I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees there were some buildings we shouldn't have demolished. However, to use that as an argument to keep the Prudential Building doesn't fly because, frankly, I don't think all buildings are architecturally equal and the situations aren't always the same.

If the Prudential Building was being demolished for a parking lot, I would absolutely agree with your point. But it's not. It's being demolished for something that should, ultimately, bring more to Main Street than a building that has difficulty keeping tenants and is in need of a large amount of repairs.

Look, like it or not, you can't save every building. I'm guessing the Prudential Building replaced a fairly historical structure on Main Street when it was built in the 1960s. That's how cities evolve. Your hope is that you can retain a great deal of your historical architecture while also not being hamstrung by 'em. You have to pick and choose what you save.

I really have a hard time believing in 30 years we'll be bemoaning the demolition of the Prudential Building like we do the Newhouse Hotel.
__________________
"Citizens of Utah: stimulation of the C-WORD is not recommended"

It's an undefeated thing...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #780  
Old Posted: Aug 18, 2012, 11:09 AM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,960
Does Salt Lake City need a convention-center hotel?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/neighbo...hotel.html.csp

By Tom Wharton, The Salt Lake Tribune

More than a few Salt Lake County residents and politicians have expressed skepticism about the benefits of taxpayers investing in a convention-center hotel adjacent to the Salt Palace.

They worry that a public investment would not be fair to privately developed downtown hotels or the potential that such a facility could be a drain on already-tight tax dollars.

Visit Salt Lake President and CEO Scott Beck argues that such a facility could actually reduce taxes for county residents and, if studies from other cities who have taken the plunge and built such hotels are accurate, would help fill area hotels by drawing more and larger conventions.

He said that the Salt Palace Convention Center that draws about 350,000 out-of-state visitors a year actually reduces property taxes paid by the average Salt Lake County homeowner by $1,012 annually...


...Currently, the Salt Palace operates at 42 percent to 44 percent of capacity each year. Beck and convention planners think adding a convention hotel would increase that use. A recent study maintains that Salt Lake has lost $255 million through 866,473 lost room nights over the past five years due to lack of such a facility.

But would such a facility penalize hotels built with private funds?

Beck said hard numbers from the hotel industry show that a "high tide floats all boats." He said hotels in markets with convention-center hotels outperformed those with no such facility over the five-year national average in every case.

As someone who has attended more than 20 national conventions as well as some major trade shows involved with my professional organization, I’ve always appreciated being in a hotel or conference center adjacent to meeting spaces and ballrooms. I have stayed in Denver’s Hyatt adjacent to its convention center, and it was a wonderful facility.

.
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.