Was My Mormon Ancestor'S Tithing Used To Build City Creek Mall?

[Facsimile 3]

City Creek Center is an Urban Planning Marvel. While it will never be possible to please the haters who have left the Church but who cannot leave it alone, new urbanist liberals everywhere are giving the Church high fives. Trust me when I say this is like the coolest week to be both an urban planner and a Mormon.

It has been a great week for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

City Creek Center is an Urban Planning Marvel. While it will never be possible to please the haters who have left the Church but who cannot leave it alone, new urbanist liberals everywhere are giving the Church high fives. Trust me when I say this is like the coolest week to be both an urban planner and a Mormon.

It has been a great week for me.

On a larger scale and in a more contemporary sense, it is reminsicent of what was accomplished 100 years ago, when the Church, in partnership with secular, community and business interests, built a first class hotel in Salt Lake City, the Hotel Utah.

[Facsimile 3]

On a larger scale and in a more contemporary sense, it is reminsicent of what was accomplished 100 years ago, when the Church, in partnership with secular, community and business interests, built a first class hotel in Salt Lake City, the Hotel Utah.

I agree, there is context out the wazoo for this happening in the past with the Church, and they just keep getting better and better at it as we go.

I really enjoyed this article that recently covered the whole project.

http://enr.construct...osite-Sides.asp

Bishop Burton is the man. He really kept Taubman from making this project pretty mediocre and he actually listend to suggestions from urban planners and the city. I think the world of him.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Facsimile 3

[Calm]

In Salt Lake City, seismic design loads are 25% higher than in San Francisco.

Meaning?

[Facsimile 3]

Meaning?

That if the big one hits, City Creek Center is one of the safest human built places you could hope to be in.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Facsimile 3

[Calm]

I was wondering if it meant SLC had higher safety standards than San Fran (I am a SF native so can appreciate the effort).

Reading the article made it sound like they were attempting to build multiple jigsaws at the same time, all stacked on each other. Must have been both very frustrating and exhilarating when it worked.

[Facsimile 3]

I was wondering if it meant SLC had higher safety standards than San Fran (I am a SF native so can appreciate the effort).

Reading the article made it sound like they were attempting to build multiple jigsaws at the same time, all stacked on each other. Must have been both very frustrating and exhilarating when it worked.

When everyone was thanking Bishop Burton for his vision and he said, "no, no, I actually just got all the people to work together," that really wasn't a put down on himself, doing that was a herculean effort.

Utah's seismic standards for building are lower than those in the Bay Area. The Church built this thing with the idea of it lasting 100 years, and my guess is that they didn't want earthquake standards to eventually eclipse the quality of the build during that 100 year lifetime. The whole project is very informed and forward looking. It's very ahead of its time.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Facsimile 3

[Calm]

Interesting, thanks for posting the article.

(I have to admit reading the comments made me laugh, couldn't really understand the details but it seems the overall gist of it was the same as almost every other comment on any subject I've read. )

[Mark Beesley]

At any rate, if the funding came strictly from the corporate arm of the church, than I suppose we have no need real need for common consent on this line item. The little devil on my left shoulder does point out that while we shouldn't criticize or question our leaders, even if correct, the mall is a business venture, not an ecclesiastical one, aimed to attract spending to downtown SLC. It is fair game for scrutiny, just as any other capital project should be.

Why? Why is a strictly business venture "fair game" if no tithing funds were used? The Church's "for profit" ventures are not beholden to stockholders. I can think of no other privately funded business venture that has ever been subjected to any type of scrutiny other than environmental review. Did City Creek get approvals without environmental review? I don't know. Does Utah require environmental review of projects subject to discretionary approvals?

Anyway, to criticize the Church for spending its money to keep the area around Temple Square decent is to stick one's nose in a place where it doesn't belong.

Being a buttinski is still unreasonable.

[Cobalt-70]

Good grief. There is no martyr mode; it's a matter of practicality and fact. We won't change the situation no matter what we do as there are people who hate the church and will always find some reason to find fault.

It's martyr mode to frame this as an "us versus them" scenario. Anti-Mormons are a very small group of people. Efforts at transparency are not directed to them. They are directed to the 99+% of people in the world that are neither Mormon nor anti-Mormon. But if we claim that nobody (including potential converts) will appreciate our efforts to be transparent, simply because a very few anti-Mormons don't really care, that's counter-productive.

[Cobalt-70]

However, I don't view it as the church's responsibility to curry the people's trust, particularly in matters that are none of those people's business. The church's responsibility is to trust in God.

True, the church is not legally or scripturally required to be transparent. But why on earth wouldn't it want to be as transparent as possible? If this is an "offending eye" that interferes with the church's proselytizing, then why not simply pluck it out? "It's none of your business" may be true, but it's horrible PR.

[Cobalt-70]

And I'm saying the primary business of most restaurants -- inside of or outside of Utah -- is the preparation and serving of food, not the sale of alcohol. It's bars, which have little if any other purpose than selling liquor or beer to people, that are incompatible with the environment surrounding Temple Square.

You're talking as if bars are brothels. Only Mormons and Muslims have a moral problem with drinking alcohol. Muslims don't go usually to Utah at all, and when Mormons visit Temple Square, they won't be visiting the bars anyway. Just looking at a bar from the outside doesn't contaminate your soul. Besides, if you are visiting the Square to go to the temple, you enter and exit the north of the Square, which is where the parking is. You never even see any bars that might have existed on the south side.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Deborah]

Efforts at transparency are not directed to them. They are directed to the 99+% of people in the world that are neither Mormon nor anti-Mormon.

Who don't care how the church spends their money because they are not part of it!

[Cobalt-70]

City Creek Center is an Urban Planning Marvel. While it will never be possible to please the haters who have left the Church but who cannot leave it alone, new urbanist liberals everywhere are giving the Church high fives. Trust me when I say this is like the coolest week to be both an urban planner and a Mormon.

It has been a great week for me.

I do agree, from what I know about it, it's a very good design, and will be an improvement to the downtown area. The church is pretty good at the construction business, and always has been.

[Cobalt-70]

Who don't care how the church spends their money because they are not part of it!

If we want someone to become a convert, we want them to trust that their money will be used ethically and in accordance with the church's mission. I think it is, but the less transparent we are, the more room there is for doubt. Doubt is not a missionary's best friend.

[KevinG]

It's martyr mode to frame this as an "us versus them" scenario. Anti-Mormons are a very small group of people. Efforts at transparency are not directed to them. They are directed to the 99+% of people in the world that are neither Mormon nor anti-Mormon. But if we claim that nobody (including potential converts) will appreciate our efforts to be transparent, simply because a very few anti-Mormons don't really care, that's counter-productive.

We invited some friends to a missionary lesson tomorrow evening. The first thing she asked me about our religion was if the financials in Salt Lake City were open to her inspection.

[KevinG]

I just invited another neighbor to use LDS employment services to improve his job status. The first thing he asked me was " what is the percentage of tithing funds that goes into salary and overhead"?

[zeez]

Quick question. Sorry if this has already been said somewhere.

Has the church ever officially declared that only profits from the business arm were used to fund the mall?

[LeSellers]

Has the church ever officially declared that only profits from the business arm were used to fund the mall?

What do you mean by "officially"?

They file tax returns, the same as any for-profit business, with the IRS. That's about as official as one can get.

Lehi

[JAHS]

Quick question. Sorry if this has already been said somewhere.

Has the church ever officially declared that only profits from the business arm were used to fund the mall?

Yes they did:

"Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

http://www.deseretne...oject.html?pg=2

[Jaybear]

Yes they did:

"Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures."

http://www.deseretne...oject.html?pg=2

That was in 2007, before the real estate market collapsed, and the stated estimated cost in the article was $1Billion. Anything more recent?

[Scott Lloyd]

If we want someone to become a convert, we want them to trust that their money will be used ethically and in accordance with the church's mission. I think it is, but the less transparent we are, the more room there is for doubt. Doubt is not a missionary's best friend.

I"m not persuaded expenditure of tithing funds is, by and large, an issue for people who are investigating the Church. Those who are members, and those who become members, as Deborah has pointed out, believe the Church is governed by divine inspiration (what Bushman called the "routinization of charisma"; see my prior post). Again, this is only an issue for chronic haters, doubters and critics.

I doubt you can demonstrate that people are deterred from joining the Church merely because it doesn't open its financials to public gaze.

[Scott Lloyd]

That was in 2007, before the real estate market collapsed, and the stated estimated cost in the article was $1Billion. Anything more recent?

To my knowledge that assurance has never been rescinded.

Do you have information to the contrary? I mean something more substantial than your own conjecture?

Edited March 28, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You're talking as if bars are brothels.

They're pretty much compatible.

Only Mormons and Muslims have a moral problem with drinking alcohol. Muslims don't go usually to Utah at all, and when Mormons visit Temple Square, they won't be visiting the bars anyway.

Just looking at a bar from the outside doesn't contaminate your soul. Besides, if you are visiting the Square to go to the temple, you enter and exit the north of the Square, which is where the parking is. You never even see any bars that might have existed on the south side.

People who want a wholesome environment distance themselves from bars. That's why municipal planning and zoning boards won't allow construction of bars within a specified distance of a school.

At any rate, it's not for you to determine for the Church what constitutes a suitable environment. And if the Church is financially robust enough to build an environmental buffer around its sacred spaces, it is within its rights to do so.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Deborah]

If we want someone to become a convert, we want them to trust that their money will be used ethically and in accordance with the church's mission.

When someone is trying to find a faith, the last thing they are worried about is how the church will use their money. Obviously you have a problem with trust. That is your problem not everyone else's.