An opposition movement has materialized questioning Park City’s vision for municipal land in Bonanza Park, something that seemed likely in recent weeks amid calls for leaders to revisit the concept for the acreage.
A website was created using the moniker PLACE PC. The name was apparently crafted from the words “parks,” “local arts,” “community” and “essential housing.” The website is highly critical of the municipal government’s vision for the land and covers a series of opposition points that recently emerged.
Kelly Pfaff, one of the people involved in PLACE PC, said the group involves approximately 10 core members. Another 100 people have approached the group expressing support and inquiring how they can assist with the effort.
Pfaff, who lives in Park Meadows, said she has followed the talks about the land as the municipal government gathered opinions about the possibilities.
She said the concept “cuts off” an artery linking Prospector with the Main Street core.
She also said there is a significant amount of housing already planned, mentioning the EngineHouse Apartments, which opened in late 2025, and Studio Crossing as examples.
The municipal government owns approximately 5 acres stretching inward from the southwest corner of the intersection of Kearns Boulevard and Bonanza Drive. The land was acquired nearly a decade ago, initially with the idea to develop an arts and culture district with the Sundance Institute and the Kimball Art Center as anchors.
That concept never came to fruition, and officials, working with a development partner, armed with several years and thousands of bits of input from the public, now plan to develop 106 units of workforce or otherwise income-restricted housing, along with restaurants, art studios, a community plaza and 2 acres of open space, including an arts and community pavilion.
The prospects of a major development have drawn some detractors, and ideas are circulating to instead create a park at the location.
The PLACE PC website outlines a broad case in its opposition, labeling the decision about the acreage “A Once-in-a-Generation Choice” and saying “Park City is at a crossroads” regarding the land.
In one section, under the headline “Why This Decision Matters,” the website offers six opposition points that have circulated in the community.
One of the points called the land “irreplaceable” and said, “it should reflect the city’s identity, not be defaulted into a dense housing project.”
Some of the other points, as presented by PLACE PC, include:
- The amount of housing that could be located on the land: “We support affordable housing for Park City’s workforce. This site would deliver only 5.5% of our housing target — easily achievable on parcels designed for density, without sacrificing our one opportunity for a true central park.”
- The conceptual designs at the high-profile intersection: “The concept plan provided by the developer shows 10 to 11 buildings, reaching four stories, at an already-strained intersection. That kind of density would wall off mountain views and create a canyon effect at one of Park City’s most visible entry points.”
- The concern of the land becoming privatized in some fashion: “When public gathering space disappears, people don’t mix — they retreat. Private clubs, courts, and parks fill the void for those who can afford them, and Park City loses the common ground where people of all backgrounds actually share a town together. That’s a harder loss to quantify than square footage, but it’s a real one.”
- The taxpayers’ knowledge of the concept: “A $60M project with little public awareness and even less public support. Community enthusiasm for a park here is strong; awareness of this alternative is not.”
The concept has changed radically in the nearly nine years since the municipal government’s announcement that it reached a nearly $20 million agreement to acquire the land.
The original idea of creating an arts and culture district was seen as a way to boost Park City’s status as an arts destination and to be a step in diversifying the community’s economy. There was limited progress toward developing a district as envisioned before the Sundance Film Festival left Utah, and the Kimball Art Center opted for a location in the Snyderville Basin, leaving the original concept without the two anchors.
Park City leaders instead have pressed ahead with significant housing as part of the mixed-use development as they continue an aggressive push to create options for people otherwise priced out of the community’s resort-driven real estate and rental markets. Housing supporters have for decades argued that the efforts boost socioeconomic diversity and reduce commuter traffic.
The PLACE PC website notes the history of the talks, saying the current concept “betrays the original vision.”
“The city bought this land to anchor Sundance and Kimball Arts Center. Both left. The community-oriented purpose was never replaced — it was quietly abandoned,” it says.
However, Park City Councilor Tana Toly disputed the PLACE PC assertion that the concept is a betrayal of the original idea.
“The concept hasn’t betrayed the original vision, it has responded to it. The core has remained consistent throughout: a mixed use community gathering space with year-round activation, large open space component, commercial, arts/culture elements and housing. What has evolved is the how, shaped by public input, feasibility realities, and changing circumstances. That’s not betrayal, that’s responsive governance,” she said in a prepared response to a Park Record inquiry.
The idea of creating park space is a relatively new entry into the debate about the land.
The PLACE PC website includes a visual showing what it calls a “community gathering place” inspired by open space. It describes a “welcoming gateway park with mountain vistas, community gathering spaces, and peaceful open areas for all to enjoy.”
It also says: “Three and four story development on this gateway location would forever eliminate our chance to create a central park, add dangerous traffic to an already failed intersection, and waste our limited affordable housing dollars on fewer units than a revised plan could deliver.”
It has seemed that the sides are preparing for what could be a contentious review process for a development proposal. Issues like the traffic a project would generate and the layout of a development will likely be heavily debated at that point.
Some of Toly’s other points:
- “This project has had one of the most extensive public processes in recent Park City memory: open meetings, study sessions, community engagement events, stakeholder groups, websites dedicated to the project, and significant media coverage over three years. The process has been transparent from the start. Not every resident follows every phase of a long-term planning effort, and that’s understandable, but the opportunity to engage has been consistently available. Mixed use space was consistently the highest ranking idea from the over 1k people who weighed in. Projects of this scale rarely generate universal agreement, and I’ll keep listening to see where changes can happen.”
- “Funding this project is not using property tax dollars. This is TRT (transient room tax) funding. In 2017, the lodging and hospitality community came together to enact a tax on their guests specifically with the understanding that it would support a mixed-use arts and culture development. Ten years later, we still haven’t delivered on that promise to them.”
- “I do support the vision. I wanted commercial space, arts and culture, housing and 2 acres of park space — think the size of the library field and right in the middle of it. What I couldn’t get behind was the unit count. I wanted fewer units with a better mix; some for sale, some rental, some market rate and master leases from employers. And most of all I wanted a large performing arts center on that site — we don’t have one in town.”
