Talk:City Creek Center

"20 acres"

20 acres (81,000 m2) is redundant and awkward. Intro paragraph should be rewritten to make it smoother and flow better. Serkul (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Architect

ZGF was not the project's architect, but a design consultant. The architect of Record was Hobbs+Black Architects in Ann Arbor, Michigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.110.153 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Funding of City Creek Center

With recent continued assertions and edits, a user contends that a problem exists in saying no tithing funds were used for the construction of the City Creek Center because "the problem with this is that the church's investment portfolios stem directly from tithing donations.." The user does not understand, among other things, that there is a clear distinction between taxable and non-taxable entities of the LDS Church, or any other similar organization. Any church or corporation can't just co-mingle funding that would be taxable with those that are not. It is true that the church has reserves that are established by policies related to tithing funds. Those are separate from the funding of taxable business and other investment funds that would be used for the construction of City Creek. Although an assertion was made that I don't understand tithing or the mode of investment practices the church employs, that's fine. If the user wants to provide a source as to the truthfulness of the statement and address tax and other issues, so be it. Until then, the changes should not be made without such a source or appropriate discussion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of the "non-tithing" money that the church currently owns is derived from testamentary gifts given to the church, not from tithing donations or other offerings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I came to this article because I had noted a distinct disatisfaction about the way this project had been handled, especially by the LDS(Mormons). On finding no reference to the controversies, I checked the history and noted that several sections criticising the project had been removed as original research or unreferenced (Including one that had in fact been referenced). I note that several sections of this article as it stands are unreferenced and presumably original research. I have refrained from removing the material just now, (but I am happy to do so in future if a satisfactory way forward) instead I have tagged the sections for improvement. The fact that only criticism of the project has been removed makes me think that this article has been edited in a non neutral manner. Op47 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the neutrality tag as I have completely rewritten, fixed and referenced the entire article. I also found no notable references concerning controversies. Wrightie99 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That is my point, The City Creek Centre has been the subject of controversy and when they are placed in this article, they are removed. Even when referenced. Op47 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Is your concern with the small 'public sentiment' paragraph or another source that has been removed. I rewrote the entire article and it was mentioned that there was controversy however,I was advised to remove that because it was said to be a 'not notable' attack on the development with no reliable sources. If you give the sources I would be more than happy to to put it in the article. Thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrightie99 placed the following message on my talk page. I am reproducing it here for transparancy.: Op47 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Following your recent quires with the City Creek Center article, I would like to make the appropriate changes you feel necessary. Is your concern with the small 'public sentiment' paragraph or another source that has been removed? I rewrote the entire article, a while back however, it was mentioned that there was controversy however; I was advised to remove that because it was said to be a 'not notable' attack on the development with no reliable sources. I was forced remove it (I am not sure if that info deleted is what you are talking about), nevertheless if you give me the sources I would be more than happy to to put it in the article. thanks again Wrightie99 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

At a superficial level, you are correct, I am unhappy with the Public Sentiment section. At a deeper level, the way that section has been handled makes me doubt that the article is a balanced article. To give a topical example, if the Conservative Party (or Labour) were to repeatedly remove material that was embarassing from an article then eventually you would doubt the integrity of the article and ultimately Wikipedia would be brought into disrepute. At this distance, I cannot say whether critics of the COJCLDS are right or wrong in this instance. Like you I live in the UK. What I can say is that there is a certain unease as to the use the COJCLDS is using its money. As best I understand it, people nearer the situation feel that money given to the church to "do the Lord's work" has been instead used as a money making venture. This is something that the church is appears to be embarassed about. When other editors have placed these concerns on this page then the concerns have been rudely removed. It is clear from the editing history of the editors that remove the content that they are either connected with the church or have a big intrest in the church. This makes it seem like the article is being edited to make the church appear in good light. Given the way the material is being removed, I do not feel like re-instating it as it is clear an edit war would ensue. You are entitled to write what you like, but I would advise against just adding information just now. I had hoped the warring factions would come to the table so that a concensus may be determined. Unfortunately, sometimes articles become like this. As someone who has no real axe to grind, I would like to see both sides of the argument represented in an encyclopedic manner. Sorry about the wall of text. If you like, I will propose something here and you can see what you think. Or you can propose something. Its up to you. Op47 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I do think that what you have done is a big improvement to the article. Op47 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I did not realize how much of a controversial impact this has had; I do agree with you and I have looked through the edit history. Personally I would like to resolve the issue but I don't know how to approach the matter. I would love to see what you propose and hopefully this article will be fixed, hopefully for the long term. thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement that "The LDS Church has stated that no tithing money was used ..." is probably as neutral as we can get here. I think this should be followed by "Critics note, however, that Property Reserve, Inc. was funded in the first place by tithing money" with 1 or 2 of the citations that have been removed. That way, an objective reader will know that there has been a controversy surrounding the mall. Objective readers may then reach their own conclusions as to the truth. Op47 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rich jj has implemented my proposal above. User:Wrightie99 has been through the article independantly. Therefore, I am happy to remove the neutrality tag. Thankyou for your help. Op47 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Major Edit

I have rewritten and resourced some sections as there are many problems. There are many external websites in the main article which doesn't actually link to anything. The way the article is written seems a bit biased and the neutrality tag is a result of lack of citation and references. City Creek Center is a redevelopment that includes the 2 storey mall but the article seems inconsistent. The info box is for a mall but the first paragraph says its a redevelopment. If any other editors would like to help please do as this article will most likely be deleted despite having alot of relevant information, thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

DONE, I have fixed all the major issues in this article and removed all external links, as they were dead links. Wrightie99 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Aditional info

There is so much more info that can be added including 'tithing money and funding (in depth)', previous site and if it has actually helped Salt lake City. I will be making a little edits as I go but I think this article can be much more detailed. Wrightie99 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on City Creek Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502005941/http://www.downtownrising.com:80/city_creek/CC_scope.php?view=view1 to http://www.downtownrising.com/city_creek/CC_scope.php?view=view1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City Creek Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220203527/http://www.utahbusiness.com/articles/view/salt_lake_city_marriott_downtown_renamed to http://www.utahbusiness.com/articles/view/salt_lake_city_marriott_downtown_renamed
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_276193839.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hobbs-black.com/city-creek-center.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City Creek Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225025639/http://www.jacobsenconstruction.com/portfolio/city-creek/city-creek-skybridge to http://www.jacobsenconstruction.com/portfolio/city-creek/city-creek-skybridge
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623104929/http://archives.religionnews.com/blogs/jana-riess/the-lds-church-the-prophet-amos-and-the-city-creek-mall to http://archives.religionnews.com/blogs/jana-riess/the-lds-church-the-prophet-amos-and-the-city-creek-mall

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)