Jump to content
rockpond

Church to build another office tower in SLC

Recommended Posts

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/11/12/lds-church-developer/

The Church has announced plans to build another office tower in downtown SLC.  No timeline given yet for the 28-story edifice but it will be built across from City Creek Center and will bump the Church's most recently completed tower (111 Main, in 2016) from it's spot as SLC's third tallest building.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/11/12/lds-church-developer/

The Church has announced plans to build another office tower in downtown SLC.  No timeline given yet for the 28-story edifice but it will be built across from City Creek Center and will bump the Church's most recently completed tower (111 Main, in 2016) from it's spot as SLC's third tallest building.

What's crazy is that i've lived in Utah, 15 minutes from downtown SLC, since 2013 and I didn't even know the church had an office tower at 111 Main.  I also can't think of any vacant lots near City Creek Center so I wonder if they are going to tear something down?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What's crazy is that i've lived in Utah, 15 minutes from downtown SLC, since 2013 and I didn't even know the church had an office tower at 111 Main.  I also can't think of any vacant lots near City Creek Center so I wonder if they are going to tear something down?

I don't live there but based on the aerial images, there is a plaza on the corner of State and 1st South next to Harmon's Grocery and just south of the Social Hall... it appears to be going into that plaza spot.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What's crazy is that i've lived in Utah, 15 minutes from downtown SLC, since 2013 and I didn't even know the church had an office tower at 111 Main.

Maybe I should have clarified:  111 Main is a church-owned, not church-occupied office tower.  I assume this new structure at 95 State will be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe I should have clarified:  111 Main is a church-owned, not church-occupied office tower.  I assume this new structure at 95 State will be the same.

Ah, that makes more sense.  So they are building a building and then going to lease out the units.  Given the current real estate market, that's probably a very good financial move.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't live there but based on the aerial images, there is a plaza on the corner of State and 1st South next to Harmon's Grocery and just south of the Social Hall... it appears to be going into that plaza spot.

Oh, I thought you were saying it would be built directly across from City Creek.  That's a tiny little lot next to Harmon's but you're probably right.  It's probably going in there.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ah, that makes more sense.  So they are building a building and then going to lease out the units.  Given the current real estate market, that's probably a very good financial move.

Yes, it's an investment.  Reports are that there is still a lack of large office space in downtown SLC.  I assume that they have either filled 111 Main or leasing progress is on a good trajectory -- otherwise, I don't think they'll break ground on this... wouldn't make sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This was posted in the Trib on public forum, saw on another board. It is true we do need housing. But the church seems to need to make more money than that venture might make.

 

 

VEG4Q1Z.png

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post

Zoning laws might have something to do with it.

Having driven much around a certain part of SL due to my daughter's doctor's appts., there is no way I would live in that area due to parking issues.

It needs to be made easier and cheaper to commute, imo, rather than put housing in areas already maxed out on parking.

I would love to see the historic buildings renovated, but unless they don't need a car, not seeing middle to higher income moving into these, so probably not a lot of motivation for owners to rebuild.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This was posted in the Trib on public forum, saw on another board. It is true we do need housing. But the church seems to need to make more money than that venture might make.

 

 

VEG4Q1Z.png

Low income housing would be a cool project for the church to take on.  The economies of building on this particular lot could make that tough for this spot but it’s certainly something they could do elsewhere.  Lately, however, they seem to be showing an interest only in higher end residential, retail, and office. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This was posted in the Trib on public forum, saw on another board. It is true we do need housing. But the church seems to need to make more money than that venture might make.

 

 

VEG4Q1Z.png

Amen and Amen....it is beginning to look like an Oral Roberts church.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Well, we could always do what has been tried in the past with less than stellar results. Public low cost housing has some serious unintended consequences.

https://newsone.com/1555245/most-infamous-public-housing-projects/

Who said anything about housing projects. Also, Rockpond is right, maybe the spot this high rise is, isn't a good place for housing. But elsewhere would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Who said anything about housing projects

Was it not you who posted the " where would Jesus rent" article????

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Was it not you who posted the " where would Jesus rent" article????

Housing project to me is somewhat different than affordable rentals.

Share this post


Link to post

Best way to make city living affordable is to go the Detroit route and disincentivize people living in the city in the first place.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Best way to make city living affordable is to go the Detroit route and disincentivize people living in the city in the first place.

In the following manner:  1- homes/apartments become affordable;  2- when previous owners are forced to move out;  3- due to over taxation;  4- caused by progressives;  5- voted in by gullible snowflakes.

When sufficient residents move out and city hall continues to run up massive debt, the neighborhood fall into ever worsening decay.  But who would want to fix up dilapidated buildings in the middle of a war zone?  Would the government continue to exact their "pound of flesh" from the new property owners?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, longview said:

In the following manner:  1- homes/apartments become affordable;  2- when previous owners are forced to move out;  3- due to over taxation;  4- caused by progressives;  5- voted in by gullible snowflakes.

When sufficient residents move out and city hall continues to run up massive debt, the neighborhood fall into ever worsening decay.  But who would want to fix up dilapidated buildings in the middle of a war zone?  Would the government continue to exact their "pound of flesh" from the new property owners?

Thank you. I was hoping someone would show up and politicize my joke.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Thank you. I was hoping someone would show up and politicize my joke.

How can that be if there are progressives in BOTH parties?

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, longview said:

How can that be if there are progressives in BOTH parties?

You only being able to see politics through the lens of a partisan struggle does explain a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You only being able to see politics through the lens of a partisan struggle does explain a lot.

I am surprised at you.  There are a lot more lenses to see through.  Advocating for morality in community, nation and the world.  Defending the integrity of the basic unit (the family) that has been horribly affected by subversions of many elements in society (including, sadly, the government).  Safeguarding the financial stability of individuals and families from confiscatory policies of social engineers.  Thwarting attempts to redefine society through insane social experiments such as mandating a "third" bathroom to accommodate the less than 1% of the population, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...