Mountain View Center Update April 2025 A Message From the RCSC Board of Directors • Progress • Next Steps • Member Engagement • What Comes Next • We Need Your Help Be informed here: https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/RCSC-Mountain-View-April-Update.pdf Source: April 15, 2025 RCSC E-blast: https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=100083ab001c5179fefc4e0a7&id=e4f6c70e12
WOW - The words used by CN in the MountainView update are excellent. The architect will have access to data on current and future uses of Mountain View and will conduct targeted interviews to determine future uses. This information will form the basis of the conceptual design (singular). Sounds great! The question remains who is talking with the architect when they have questions or in the background? Who is whispering in their ear that the highest and best use of the Mountain View property includes a very pricy special purpose Theater that is primarily used by one small group currently. Who or what determines how much space/money is allocated to each competing special interest group? And whatever became of the Board's "approved elements" which included an orchestra pit? And why are we focused on a singular conceptual design? As a member whose money is being spent, I want to see the Board compare alternatives and estimated cost and benefits. For example, can we compare the quantity of uses and costs a special purpose sloped floor fixed seats theater with an orchestra pit would have versus a multi-purpose building with retractable seating which can host performances? Those are the tradeoffs an architect cannot make in isolation. To be perfectly honest, those are the tradeoffs that the board should be transparent about. Instead, I suspect, certain board members are working with certain groups to make sure the group they are most interested in serving is getting their way. My suspicion was validated when CJR's resignation speech said she regretted not being able to see the completion of a sloped floor theater. Open minded? Yea right.
The theater is a multimillion dollar white elephant. See previous post somewhere about what interests Gen X have. A theater was not on the list, so what does that tell you?
In my humble opinion, Chris N just might be the best thing that happened to the board in a long while. Not blowing smoke, because not all that long ago she told me i was full of crap (cleaned it up for those of you overly sensitive folks). And when she explained why, she was right. I was making a comment regarding something i had only heard one side of the story on. Her approach on the MV project is nothing short of spectacular and as someone pointed out to me, the difference in triArc's Lakeview presentation compared to the MV presentation was stunning. The further speculation was the difference was more based on the board's approach that changed from 2024 to 2025. I look squarely at the board's makeup which is clearly different. It's important we give credit where credit is due. I know John is steadfast on his no tiered seating, and honestly i get it. I also get that tiered seating could be beneficial, but the potential usage has to go way beyond the Players. It's always been the problem because the loudest and longest heard voice has been from the Players. As John said, data has to be the driver. The two or three plays with 6 performances for each hardly justifies a single use PAC. It's why along with whatever happens at MV, we need to fully review our other flat space utilization numbers. We know Sundial is our go-to large gathering space, and one can only speculate if we moved all of the RCSC meetings to a venue with 300 seats (at Mountain View) if we will hurt attendance because it's too far to drive (said with a smile). To John's point, the board should ask triArc to present the costs of both fixed tiered seating and or retractable? We know sloped floors changes utilization potential so that's a factor as well. In the end, the mantra about data mattering has to become our bible. If the costs are relatively close, then utilization becomes even more critical.
Bill, I could not agree more with the point about data. I hope you are right about C N. I continue to encourage the board to broadcast the stakeholder meetings with triarc as it would benefit everyone to understand the tradeoffs considered and evaluated. As I understand the process outlined, the Board, Management and the Stakeholders will meet secretly with Triarc and then the next thing the members will see is a conceptual design. Members will not have the benefit of understanding the tradeoffs or deals made. For example, one remaining director has made her position abundantly clear: The "theater" will fulfill all the demands of the Player's club regardless of whether there are more flexible cost-effective solutions that meet some but not all of the demands. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion but would argue those types of positions do not fulfill this director's fiduciary duties. Just saying - one man's opinion.
Bill, I can give you a relativly accurate price on "motorized" retractable tiered seating. That means the seating can be folded-up to only occupying 4 1/2 foot of floor space and pushed back-up against the wall. Just tell me the ceiling height and I'll tell you how many tiers high the seating will be. I'll bring something to show you at Thursday's Board meeting.
My biggest problem/objection with retractable seating is when they open there are steps rather than a slanted walkway. I have an aversion to steps anywhere for seniors, so if they have overcome that challenge, then it matters not. I do know from Gary O, those seats in retractable are every bit as comfortable as fixed tiered seats. I have been to the small Sun City West theater and it is quite nice, comfortable and well used. I also remember during SAC, the Players were complaining about replicating that venue here because it was too small. And to be clear, there is no orchestra pit there and any suggestion we need one in Sun City is NUTS.
My biggest problem/issue with a special purpose theater is expense and usage. To commit $14M+ to a portion of a project without solid data to support its usage is NUTS with or without an orchestra pit. Retractable seating is not a perfect answer, but having a flat floor building allows it to be used by many more groups. During the SAC the only person that presented data involving more than one group's usage of a special purpose was Karen M. I thought she did a great job of throwing the "kitchen sink" of possibilities into her presentation. IMHO even as effective of an advocate as Karen is, and I respect her for her advocacy, the justification presented was a stretch. My suggestion to the board for the next steps was: Video record each stakeholder session with TRIARC Ask each stakeholder group to present data supporting the amount of capital needed to fulfill their needs and the membership usage of their activity Have a member of the LRP verify the data presented. Have a presentation about what amenities newer communities are putting in to attract home purchases Before asking TRIARC to develop an expensive conceptual design have them present alternatives with ballpark costs and survey the membership. We have the capability to conduct electronic surveys, use it. I openly admit that I prefer to actively seek out the will of the majority before making large irreversible capital decisions. I always considered transparency to be my friend. Call me cautious. I am OK with that.
The RCSC YouTube channel has five playlists by subject available, including one for 19 SAC meetings! Interested? Scroll down the list, it’s the last one. https://www.youtube.com/@suncityaz7348/playlists
