When it comes to a new location for the Hansen planetarium, the folks in charge are posing the wrong question. Instead of asking themselves where to put it, they should be asking themselves which location would attract as many visitors as possible and make the venture a success.
The difference is subtle, but it has a profound impact when choosing between the two sites under consideration.At the moment, the planetarium has been offered free land at two locations. One is in Research Park at the University of Utah. The other is in Salt Lake City's downtown Gateway project.
True, the university site would provide a geographical tie to the planetarium's mission of educating the public, placing it next to the Museum of Natural History. That is a mission not to be taken lightly. The state provides money to the planetarium on a yearly basis for this purpose. Utah's school children, like those in the rest of the nation, lag woefully behind children in other nations when it comes to science and mathematics. A planetarium can spark meaningful interest in young (and old) minds, leading to a greater appreciation and understanding for the earth and the cosmos.
But the downtown site would provide easy access. It would be close enough to other attractions that families could include a Planetarium visit along with several other activities, including visits to museums or Temple Square. And, really, doesn't the ability to attract large numbers of people help the mission, as well?
Critics say the downtown site would turn the planetarium into an entertainment venue rather than a place for learning. That is a rather confusing criticism. It implies that learning should not be entertaining. In fact, the best way to reach today's youth may be through a touch of amusement.
One distracting point keeps coming up in this debate. It is that the Hogle Zoo thrives nicely despite its location on the eastern edge of town, far from downtown. Therefore, the argument goes, the Planetarium could thrive in a distant location, as well. The trouble is, planetariums and zoos are not interchangeable. People pack lunches and set aside an entire day to visit the zoo. The typical planetarium visit is much shorter and more tied to convenience.
Add to this the fact that Boyer Co., the developer offering the downtown land, plans to build an IMAX theater there as well and the decision should be obvious. The IMAX could compliment a downtown planetarium. It would only compete with one across town at the U.
Certainly, this is an issue worthy of further study. A decision isn't needed for awhile. But given the choices available today, the downtown site clearly is the winner.