A recent survey on slcgov.com's Open City Hall website posed the question 'Should the Council support construction of the Utah Performing Arts Center?' Of 102 respondents, fewer than 10 expressed support for the project. Yet the mayor and the city council have voted to move forward with the project despite this overwhelming show of opposition. And the online survey question has since been closed to further comments. (Although you can still get on the site and read the comments for yourself.)

Salt Lake City residents have a variety of reasons for opposing this plan. Some feel that public funding should not be used for a project which includes a large commercial office building. But the majority of residents oppose this specific plan because it requires that four historic buildings in the heart of downtown, two of which have significant historic value, be razed to make room for the project. Some who, in principle, do not oppose the idea of an arts center are against this specific plan because of this irresponsible destruction of our heritage. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of sites in the downtown area which could benefit from a building project of this type. So why raze important cultural landmarks which, once gone, can never be replaced?

It's clear that the city is in such a rush to create this arts center that not enough care has been taken to understand the full impact of this plan. What's the hurry? There are dozens of theaters in the city, virtually none of which operates without subsidies of one sort or another. These theaters range from as few as 100 seats to 2800 in the case of Abravanel Hall. The Capitol Theatre and Kingsbury Hall, both of which are larger than a typical Broadway theater in New York City, have successfully attracted traveling Broadway productions for years. UPAC would add approximately 500 seats over what each of these theaters can provide for a total of 2500 seats. This is much too large to provide an enjoyable theatrical experience. Many speculate that it will prove difficult to impossible to keep the seats filled night after night for 100+ performances a year. Moreover, several prominent local actors and musicians have expressed opposition to this plan because they don't feel it will support the local arts community.

We do understand that the historic buildings that are in danger because of this project have been under-utilized in recent years. However, removing them would constitute a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Creative thinking has saved hundreds of similar treasures around the country from being lost while generating investments which bring new life to old neighborhoods. This can be done here, too.

Let's work together to develop a better plan that serves the interests of the community as a whole.