Liquor licenses at Church's City Creek Center?

[Sullyute]

I don't think it is about crime or poverty. I think the Church keenly feels the exodus of Mormons from downtown SLC. The number of LDS is in dramatic decline and the number of active LDS is in even more dramatic decline. The saints are hemorraging out of the Avenues and Marmalade and flowing to other locales.

Since 2001 I have watched 3 vibrant stakes become two stakes and now one of those stakes is down to 5 units. In that time period I have seen members of the quorum of the 12 (two different members) and many members of the 70 come to stake and ward conferences and talk about how we need to "take back downtown SLC." They aren't talking about taking it from the poor and needy, they are talking about taking it from the non-Mormons.

The people who are willing to pay incredibly high prices to have a condo that overlooks the temple are members of the Church. Moreover, they are members of the Church who have a high level of devotion, a high level of affluence, and no aversion to living downtown. I believe the Church was willing to fund the urban renewel at the CCC because it would allow them to move those people into the neighborhood who could turn the neighborhood around.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

Maybe the church needs to take a look at its own history and see how well this same rhetoric worked for (or against) them in Missouri.

[Portland Ute]

I don't know, either, which is why I am asking.

I think this is why there have been no express rationalizations to support this expensive project. The Church would have a tough time justifying any of them, so it simply stays quiet (which is its right, of course) and spends its money as it sees fit.

The crime thing is bogus, though. Sounds like something right out of the script from those Apex security sales people in everyone's ward.

Look, I am uncomfortable with what is going on at the City Creek Center. It doesn't sit well with me.

HOWEVER, downtown SLC to the south of temple square was dying. Main Street was becoming an area of blight with various abandoned buildings, little foot traffic. I say it was becoming that way.

State Street has always had it's fame. It's not many blocks south of TS that you've got an adult bookstore.

Gateway dealt a pretty big blow to the city center. Nobody was going t there anymore except for work. ZCMI center was a ghost town and Crossroads was dying. Nordstrom was leaving. The place was dying.

Granted, I think the church was, in part to blame. Blocking Main Street was and will continue to be a completely STUPID idea as far as traffic flow downtown. It's idiotic. It's made it a royal pain in the ass to get downtown from the north. It used to be a quick drive up Victory Road and then down main with a turn into Crossroads or into ZCMI center.

Following the barricade of Main Street, you had to take a circuitous route to get to Main Street and the malls. It royally F-ed up traffic downtown.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. There was a lot of vacancy on Main Street and State, very little ped traffic, few retail outlets, no restaurants to speak of and very little residence. There was a problem and a bigger problem was brewing.

I guess, the bigger questions is this: Does downtown SLC really have the need for two huge retail spaces with CCC and Gateway? I still think CCC is going to have issues. Getting there is going to be a PITA compared to getting to Gateway.

[Portland Ute]

Maybe the church needs to take a look at its own history and see how well this same rhetoric worked for (or against) them in Missouri.

I see a flaw here.

[Sullyute]

I see a flaw here.

Only one? I'll take it!

[NorthwestUteFan]

The people who are willing to pay incredibly high prices to have a condo that overlooks the temple are members of the Church. Moreover, they are members of the Church who have a high level of devotion, a high level of affluence, and no aversion to living downtown. I believe the Church was willing to fund the urban renewel at the CCC because it would allow them to move those people into the neighborhood who could turn the neighborhood around.

Speaking of condos, are they going to follow the standard set by the city for Gateway regarding the minimum number of these condos will be set aside as 'low income' housing units? I didn't think so.

Also if Bene Life is moving to CCC, what will they do with the old building over at TriAd?

It WILL be nice to have a Harmon's GC downtown...

[KillerDog]

Speaking of condos, are they going to follow the standard set by the city for Gateway regarding the minimum number of these condos will be set aside as 'low income' housing units? I didn't think so.

Also if Bene Life is moving to CCC, what will they do with the old building over at TriAd?

It WILL be nice to have a Harmon's GC downtown...

I thought the Gateway needed the "low income" housing units to qualify for government assisted financing. If you know something that I don't about that, please let me know. My understanding is that the developers of Gateway agreed to a certain percentage of low income housing as a way to secure cheaper financing through government assistance. I further understand that the Gateway developer defaulted and/or found ways around the financing constraints and frustrated many people in the process. I don't have any understanding that the Church utilized such public financing.

[UtahDan]

I guess, the bigger questions is this: Does downtown SLC really have the need for two huge retail spaces with CCC and Gateway?

I am persuaded that there are defensible reasons for the project and even that it is going to produce some measurable goods for people. Building an Egyptian scale pyramid in the Salt Flats would too. Think of the jobs and economic impact that would have.

The question (partly) is this: if I handed $3B and told you to do the most possible good for the human race with it, what would give you the biggest bang for your buck? Of course, no one was trying to solve that riddle and in a moment of insanity decided the answer was to build a mall. Building the mall obviously addressed several things that were pressing concerns or they wouldn't have done it. I don't think that can be denied. The question is one of priorities and opportunity cost.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I thought the Gateway needed the "low income" housing units to qualify for government assisted financing.

Interesting. I thought it was tied to zoning and was required to obtain the permits. The financing aspect makes a lot more sense.

FWIW when I was a student I looked into getting one of the 'low income' housing units. The location would have been perfect. I could ride Trax to school, and I worked over by the Fairgrounds.

Combined we made something like $28k, and made too much to qualify! (note I could have leased the exact same unit for ~$1450, but didn't qualify for the $600 price or whatever it was). I thought it was 'interesting' to have expensive upscale shopping and half-million dollar 3 bed condos mixed in with people who make less than $20k.

Back to the topic. In the 'mall business', the malls are typically considered to be profitable for ~3 years. This is the reason most developers will build and then sell within a year or two. This development will be somewhat different because a few self-owned companies will relocate their HQ to the site, and a few other very large companies will be involved as well (eg Questar) and big-cashflow stores (eg Harmon's).

I understand why they want to establish 'Fortress SLC' around Temple Square and HQ. However do they intend the mall portion of this project to return a profit in perpetuity? Conventional wisdom and industry standards say it won't. Perhaps this development will contain enough anchor stores, restaurants, business offices, and housing units to become somewhat self-sustaining?

Some of the jackholes will call me an ALUF for this, but I agree strongly with UtahDan and others on this. The church spending $3 Thousand-Million + on this project is not the best use of the funds. It makes me very uneasy as a contributing member.

[venkman]

I think they're worried about Temple Square becoming a fortress in the midst of Sodom and Gomorrah. You get bars and strip clubs on South Temple and are members going to want to drive in from the suburbs? What will visitors think? Things like Main Street Plaza, City Creek, moving BYU SL downtown are attempts to create sort of a buffer between TS and the rest of the city, to retain some of the mormon-ness around TS. Call it image, PR, missionary work, but that's the thinking as far as I'm concerned.

The Trib agrees with me.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51...-lake.html.csp

Interesting article...apparently the Church has a similar strategy in Ogden.

[Sullyute]

The Trib agrees with me.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51...-lake.html.csp

Interesting article...apparently the Church has a similar strategy in Ogden.

I didn't realize they were going to enforce the no sunday shopping. I guess it keeps with the prior policy on the ZCMI center. How will this affect restaurants or will they be exempt?

It will be anchored by Nordstrom and Macy's and up to 80 specialty stores - all to be closed on Sundays.

[pellegrino]

I didn't realize they were going to enforce the no sunday shopping. I guess it keeps with the prior policy on the ZCMI center. How will this affect restaurants or will they be exempt?

I'll come out and say it now. that's perhaps the dumbest thing about this whole project.

[RC Vikings]

I'll come out and say it now. that's perhaps the dumbest thing about this whole project.

I bet you see this slowly change. Either they can't fill the space or tenets start complaining and threatening to move out and once again the church will struggle trying to figure out if they are a business or a religious organization.

[UtahDan]

I bet you see this slowly change. Either they can't fill the space or tenets start complaining and threatening to move out and once again the church will struggle trying to figure out if they are a business or a religious organization.

It is clearly not a money making venture for the church. But yes, it will be interesting to see them caught between their principles and their desire to not see it completely fail financially. But in the end they are not going to let it fail. The church will prop it up financially forever if it has to.

[Non Sequitur]

It is clearly not a money making venture for the church. But yes, it will be interesting to see them caught between their principles and their desire to not see it completely fail financially. But in the end they are not going to let it fail. The church will prop it up financially forever if it has to.

They will disassociate themselves from it before they allow common sense to prevail. And they won't lose a cent.

[fresca]

Just caught up to speed on the thread here. I've been wondering about this project a lot and am glad to find this useful thread.

This city creek project has got me thinking a bunch about my tithing money. I know they claim none is being used, but it does seem like a problematic display of priorities.

I read some arguments defending the church's stance in amassing wealth in order to allow more good to be accomplished. And I realize the church has an amazing humanitarian arm. But compared with this project, the humanitarian dollar amount looks like pocket change.

Think about the positive reaction to using this $3-4b on humanitarian efforts. That would be something I'd love to get behind. And besides, there are business owners who are church members, if the church is worried about adjacent properties being influenced by "mammon", can't they encourage members to invest in the area?

This "for profit" stuff the church has going on just grates on me. It's like when GA's sell books for profit. That's crazy to me.