Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USA Climbing project at Rio Grande: board weighs adaptive reuse versus reconstruction for historic Mattress Company building
Summary
CRA staff and USA Climbing presented two options for the Salt Lake Mattress Company building in the Rio Grande District: adaptive reuse (estimated $7.3M) or reconstruction with historic brick (estimated $6.25M–$6.5M), with staff discussing funding gaps and trade-offs; no action was taken.
Salt Lake City staff and representatives for USA Climbing briefed the Community Reinvestment Agency board on Jan. 13 about two paths for the historic Salt Lake Mattress Company building within the Rio Grande District project: an adaptive reuse approach that would shore and retrofit the existing shell, and a controlled deconstruction and reconstruction that would reapply cleaned historic brick onto a new concrete masonry (CMU) backup wall.
Staff said the CRA previously committed up to $6,000,000 to reimburse USA Climbing for rehabilitation to a warm-shell condition. USA Climbing and its construction consultant presented cost estimates: adaptive reuse carries a total cost estimate of about $7,300,000 (roughly $1,300,000 above the CRA commitment), while reconstruction with CMU and re-applied historic brick would require an additional approximately $250,000 to the CRA-supported budget. Steve Brown, a development consultant representing USA Climbing, said his contractor was "fairly confident that that $6,250,000 budget would satisfy all needs," and explained that the primary cost difference relates to additional steel and reinforcement required for adaptive reuse.
Board members focused on safety, seismic integrity, precedent for future historic preservation decisions and the project’s broader catalytic role in Station Central. Multiple members said reconstruction appeared to be the more reliable and lower-cost path; others urged caution about setting a precedent and recommended establishing high standards for any reconstruction approach. Staff noted the mattress building was purchased with CRA funds for preservation, that the project sits on a 99-year ground lease, and that USA Climbing had already absorbed substantial expense as part of the larger development. No formal motion was taken — the item was presented as informational — though staff said they would explore funding options and potential term-sheet amendments and return with additional analysis, including detailed seismic information requested by board members.
Board members also asked about the city’s prior investment in temporary structural stabilization (superstuds) and whether any resale or offset value existed for that equipment; staff said they would investigate surplus options. Several members requested more detailed cost/line-item breakdowns and the structural analysis in a follow-up briefing.
