148 replies to this topic

[cw68]

I'd like to see it spruced up but mostly remain as is.

Also, I think it should be pedestrian only. I don't understand the reasoning that the shops and restaurants won't survive if you can't drive cars in front of them. It's not like you can park in front anyway. I'm sure the delivery problem can be worked out.

I also don't understand the whole tree thing. I have a Magnolia in my yard that is probably older than those on Sutter Street and it's not anywhere near the end of its life.

Different trees have different lifespans, especially if they are not well suited to the climate in which they live. I would support Sutter Street as pedestrian-only, but I guarantee the residents of the Historic District wouldn't want it because the traffic would be diverted to their streets.

I don't want Sutter Street to be a bland street, but I think it desperately needs some work. I am not a big fan of the shed awnings. I think they look bad and I don't like how you can't see the buildings, just the cover. I'm an architecture lover and love to look at buildings, especially when they are historic. The sidewalks need major repair, are a safety hazard and and rightful ADA lawsuit invitation. While I kind of like the medians, I would prefer larger sidewalks with more outdoor eating space; I love to eat outside. So if has to be one or the other, I take the sidewalks for people over medians. One thing that bothers me is when people say they want the street historic, but want to leave the medians in. The medians are about as old as I am, and that's peanuts when talking about the history of the street.

[ducky]

It doesn't matter to me personally whether the medians are historic or not. It doesn't matter to me if the awnings are historic or not. I guess I'm not a purist. I like the way Sutter Street looks now. Other people seem to like the unique-ness of the "dangerous" sidewalks that have been working just fine for the last 50 years.

I think everyone who has worked hard to come up with this new plan truly care about the Historic District and deserve to have their efforts commended, but I think this is a case of pruning a tree without stepping back once in a while to make sure you haven't done too much and the integrity of the tree structure is now compromised.

[john]

It doesn't matter to me personally whether the medians are historic or not. It doesn't matter to me if the awnings are historic or not. I guess I'm not a purist. I like the way Sutter Street looks now. Other people seem to like the unique-ness of the "dangerous" sidewalks that have been working just fine for the last 50 years.

I think everyone who has worked hard to come up with this new plan truly care about the Historic District and deserve to have their efforts commended, but I think this is a case of pruning a tree without stepping back once in a while to make sure you haven't done too much and the integrity of the tree structure is now compromised.

+1
Steve, your logic that the medians and wood overhangs are not historic seems to be the only real reason the historic commission is trying to change it. However fabric awnings are in every suburban town in the United States. It would kill anything we have.

Someone had an excellent point that it seems like the whole idea to revitalize Sutter Street came after the Dam Road closure. Why don't we wait until the new bridge is built (about a year) befor making any drastic changes to our historic area? We'll be able to get rid of all the "traffic calming" nonsense and see how it impacts.

[Steve Heard]

+1
Steve, your logic that the medians and wood overhangs are not historic seems to be the only real reason the historic commission is trying to change it. However fabric awnings are in every suburban town in the United States. It would kill anything we have.

Someone had an excellent point that it seems like the whole idea to revitalize Sutter Street came after the Dam Road closure. Why don't we wait until the new bridge is built (about a year) befor making any drastic changes to our historic area? We'll be able to get rid of all the "traffic calming" nonsense and see how it impacts.

The person who suggested this revitalization idea was a result of the dam closure is incorrect.

Business folk, historic distric residents, elected officials, and yes, the dreaded developers realized years ago, long before the dam was closed, that the historic district was in decay and disrepair, and that it was an unpolished gem that was shamefully wasted (my words, not theirs). They see other cities with historic 'old town' areas with thriving businesses.

They realized, as has been mentioned countless times before, that tourism, dining, and entertainment can provide much-needed revenue to the city in the future, and that if Sutter Street is left as it is, much of it will only continue that slide.

This was not a knee-jerk reaction to the closing of the dam. Far from it. It has been discussed for years.

These forward thinking folks had to analyze what it was that would make that district attractive. Major retail isn't the answer, as the modern stores want to be close to the freeway, in strip malls on main thoroughfares, or in malls.

What does the historic district have to offer? History. Charm. Unique buildings.

What does it need? Repair. Renewal. Parking. Improved traffic circulation. Opportunities for tourists, visitors and residents to enjoy the things they'd like to; food, entertainment, shopping, and history.

I recently had the opportunity to meet an old ex-mayor of Folsom, who appears to be somewhere around 80 years old. He spoke of how the area used to be our down town, with banks, grocery stores, theaters, post office and even a gas station at Sutter and Riley, and how the area started to decline after the shopping area where DMV is was built, and how commerce keeps heading south toward 50.

It is my understanding that the shed-roof awnings were put up primarily because most of the buildings had no shelter from sun and rain, and that was pointed to as one of the factors in the decline of the district, so sometime in the 60's they were put up.

It is also my understanding that the medians were put up years ago, after Sutter Street was no longer part of US Highway 50, to slow traffic in the area.

The plan was to revitalize the district, which includes returning as much of the area as is reasonable, to its original condition. That isn't always practical, to be sure. We don't want gas lamps, dirt streets and wooden sidewalks.

With the plan to repair the sidewalks and widen them for increased access for pedestrians and for use of the sidewalks for other than just walking, it was decided that the relatively recently installed medians, already in disrepair, with tree roots popping through, should be removed.

I've heard a couple of people mention their opposition to fabric awnings. I have not heard fabric awnings proposed, but I don't oppose them, either. Building owners can have them made of any suitable material, to my knowledge.

They are not trying to make Sutter into a Disney-esque version of a historic district. By removing the awnings, they will reveal the beauitiful buildings now hidden by them. By widening the sidewalks, they hope to make it a more walkable pedestrian friendly street. By removing the medians, they will be able to have the room to do so.

I wonder, and perhaps we should start another poll about it and ask this question of those who have sounded off in this and several other threads, opposing the improvements:

How many of you have attended any of the public meetings, announced here on myfolsom, on the city website, in the city newsletter and in the Telegraph, to find out more about the plan, and to put forth your opinion about it?

Show of hands. Anyone?

[john]

Steve, this is not a thread to see who's attended meetings and who hasn't. I personally am on the mailing list and I have not had a chance to make a meeting yet. Yes, it's unfortunate. I really would have loved to voice my opinion about this. However it's not a done deal yet.

This is the facts. So far, 38 people have responded, and less than 1 in 5 are in favor of the proposed solution. This is a problem.

My intention is not to derail the work of the commission - I'm sure you all put many hours of hard work in to this... however this impact is truly the heart of Folsom. We must make every effort not to destroy the heartbeat of this city.

[DrKoz23]

This is the facts. So far, 38 people have responded, and less than 1 in 5 are in favor of the proposed solution. This is a problem.

I really don't think 38 people is a good sample size for a poll or survey. I would even argue that the participants on this website do not represent the overall thinking of the population of Folsom. Just go back and look at the poll for city council elections... and who actually got the most votes.

http://www.tomatopag...showtopic=10481

[john]

I really don't think 38 people is a good sample size for a poll or survey. I would even argue that the participants on this website do not represent the overall thinking of the population of Folsom. Just go back and look at the poll for city council elections... and who actually got the most votes.

http://www.tomatopag...showtopic=10481

Not to be a nit, but I deal with surveys very regularly in my work. 30 people is all you need to be statistically valid. Granted, the results are skewed toward readers of MyFolsom.com, but you can't ignore the results.

/just sayin'

[Steve Heard]

Steve, this is not a thread to see who's attended meetings and who hasn't. I personally am on the mailing list and I have not had a chance to make a meeting yet. Yes, it's unfortunate. I really would have loved to voice my opinion about this. However it's not a done deal yet.

This is the facts. So far, 38 people have responded, and less than 1 in 5 are in favor of the proposed solution. This is a problem.

My intention is not to derail the work of the commission - I'm sure you all put many hours of hard work in to this... however this impact is truly the heart of Folsom. We must make every effort not to destroy the heartbeat of this city.

Of course it's not a thread to see who's attended meetings. I am wondering, however, how many of those opposed to the changes have all of the facts.

They are making assumptions, such as; the district will lose its charm and character, it will be sanitized and modernized, it will be a mall, it will have a generic corporate look and feel, the awnings will all be fabric, without the medians there will be no trees, the medians are historic. None of these things are true, yet they are fears of and claims made by people who may not have seen the plans nor attended the meetings.

If I talk to people who haven't been to meetings, the majority are opposed. When I talk to people who have been to the meetings, be they business owners, residents, or city officials, they are mostly excited and enthusiastic about it.

I have attended the meetings for my own curiosity and interest, as well as representing the Folsom Arts and Cultural Commission, to make sure that the city has a plan to preserve and enhance the history and culture of the Historic District, as well as plan for art and cultural opportunities for residents and visitors.

I am frustrated that after years of planning and holding many public meetings which they were careful to spread over week nights, week days and week ends to give everyone an opportunity to learn and to speak, and which were often poorly attended, that after many different plans were drawn up, discussed and revised, that now that one plan has been developed as being the one that best meets the goals and needs and vision for the future of the historic district, now there is opposition.

If this thing gets cancelled because of protests at City Hall, countless hours of work, countless meetings, the work of consultants, the will of the residents and businesses, and lots of money will have been wasted. And for what? To go back to the drawing board? What do they do, create a new plan and present to each individual in town to get their approval?

I know a lot of folks in city government and politics in general, and it is a common frustration among them to see this kind of thing happen. They work hard, planning, meeting, holding open forums and public meetings, then when its time to move forward with the plan, suddenly there's all sorts of opposition. Where was the opposition when the planning was going on? Where was the opposition when the public was asked for its opinion?

Even more frustrating is the misinformation and assumptions being thrown about.

Folks, if you want to make Folsom a better place to live, or if you want a say in what goes on in this or any town, find the time to talk to those in position to make the changes or preserve whats already there. Step up. Attend. Volunteer. Read. Listen. Go to City Hall. Talk to our civic leaders. You'll be well informed, and your voice will be heard.

[john]

I can absolutely understand why many would be frustrated if this is shot down. But you can't avoid the fact that this proposal is unpopular.

This is the thing, we may pour thousands of dollars in to improving the look & feel of Sutter Street; whether it's drastic or minor, I'm not sure it will attract many new tenants. We have several BRAND NEW retail centers sitting completely vacant right now, not a single tenant. The demand simply is not there.

We can speculate all we want about what it's going to do, but we don't know. What we do know is this proposal is a drastic overhaul of Sutter Street, the heart of this historic city. You can't spin that.

[Steve Heard]

I can absolutely understand why many would be frustrated if this is shot down. But you can't avoid the fact that this proposal is unpopular.

This is the thing, we may pour thousands of dollars in to improving the look & feel of Sutter Street; whether it's drastic or minor, I'm not sure it will attract many new tenants. We have several BRAND NEW retail centers sitting completely vacant right now, not a single tenant. The demand simply is not there.

We can speculate all we want about what it's going to do, but we don't know. What we do know is this proposal is a drastic overhaul of Sutter Street, the heart of this historic city. You can't spin that.

Unpopular? With who? Based on what? I'd say it is quite unpopular with those who have arrived at their opinions without having read or seen the plan.

You are correct that pouring money into the Sutter Street does not guarantee new tenants, and that there are lots of empty retail spaces throughout the city. You can't compare the empty spaces at the brand new strip mall with empty spaces in the Historic District. They are not the same.

The plan is not to remove the medians and awnings then walk away. The plan is to improve, renew and restore. There are plans underway for marketing Folsom to residents and visitors alike.

Merchants will want to be part of the refurbished vibrant historic district.

Yes, it is a drastic overhaul. Exactly what's needed.

What is your answer? Do we have more meetings, more planning? Who will attend? When those who do agree on the plan, what do we do about the next crop of folks who will oppose it?

[john]

My answer is to repair the wooden overhangs and repair the medians. If they are falling apart, then fix them! A drastic overhaul is not exactly what is needed. That is your opinion.

[Steve Heard]

My answer is to repair the wooden overhangs and repair the medians. If they are falling apart, then fix them! A drastic overhaul is not exactly what is needed. That is your opinion.

At the risk of turning this into the Steve and John show, I'll reply once again.

Perhaps using your words of 'a drastic overhaul' is incorrect. The buildings on Sutter Street will not be overhauled. Some of them will have the shed roof awning removed. The rest of the street will be repaired and improved, and as part of that process, the medians built on top of the existing road will be removed, along with the trees which are dangerously close to toppling over and killing someone.

More than dangerous and in need of repair, the medians are not original and are not historic and their presence prohibits the widening of the sidewalks.

More than just in need of repair, the shed roof awnings hide the unique character of the buildings and make it seem more mall-like, where you can't distinguish one building from another.

It is not my opinion that these changes be made. No, this opinion of change comes from thousands of man-hours of research and planning, with every possible solution considered, including leaving it alone, repairing the medians and roofs, digging deeper and building new median, making the street accessible to pedestrians only, building a bridge over Sutter on Riley, digging a tunnel under Sutter on Riley, razing the whole thing and starting over (not seriously considered, but all options were on the table).

With input from residents, merchants, consultants, and city folk, they've come up with a fantastic plan that will make the district safer, easier to get around and park, more attractive, vibrant and alive, and preserve the historic character of the district, making it a destination for locals and visitors alike.

Yes, it is their opinion, and a well thought out one at that.

It's not a done deal, but I am hoping it passes, and that in just a few years, we'll be able to make the most of one of Folsom's most valuable assets.

Booyah!

[Ras712]

Ahem...

Change does not equal bad. People really need to get informed. Just because someone wants to update and improve does not mean it will be generic and corporate.. I am as cynical as the next poster (ok, not as much as some...) but at least people should go to the meetings and try to affect things before trying to derail them from afar. It's easier to throw stones than to be part of a solution. Now, I don't know which side I fall on yet, because I don't totally know what the 'sides' are. I, for one, will go to some meetings or find a way to get informed before I decide. I do know this though, Sutter street needs an overhaul, the streets/sidewalks are unfriendly and the medians look like crap. That does not have to mean it loses all of it's charm, but I find no charm in dilapidation.

What do you two say, live debate, giant boxing gloves?

Steve, are the proposals on-line somewhere? Where can we look to see what's really being discussed. Thanks.

[cw68]

I do know this though, Sutter street needs an overhaul, the streets/sidewalks are unfriendly and the medians look like crap. That does not have to mean it loses all of it's charm, but I find no charm in dilapidation.

I think this sums up my opinion very well.

[Steve Heard]

Steve, are the proposals on-line somewhere? Where can we look to see what's really being discussed. Thanks.

http://historicfolso...revitalization/

Pay particular attention to phase 2

For further info, contact: ferreirapro@earthlink.net