148 replies to this topic

[Dave Burrell]

Does anyone know where the funds are coming from and/or where the budget is being spent? I'm assuming that some of it comes from redevelopment funds which couldn't be used, for instance, to hire more police officers. Does this figure also include the Riley Street improvements, which the City is already doing separately? I would be very interested in seeing the specifics on the funds. Looks like I'll have to do a bit of digging.

good questions, we'll have to ask Jeff, I'm sure he can answer all these questions.

[Steve Heard]

Is there a place for deliveries to the shops on the other side of the Sutter?

No there isn't. That is one of the many things discussed in the planning process.

[Germ-RicanGrl]

Personally, I like the idea of wider sidewalks for outdoor dining. However, if the street is still open for traffic then it defeats the purpose doesn't it? It doesn't seem like it would be very appetizing to have lunch with traffic noise, car exhaust, and the variety of music booming from car stereos.

[ChipShot]

$115 Million ???

[mylo]

I understand that the money is coming from the redevelopment fund, along with state and federal monies for redevelopment.

[Steve Heard]

Reminds me of the approar when they were planning the new library. Remember all the fears and claims about it? How the park should be left alone, how the library would destroy it, how it would increase traffic, how the money could be better spent elsewhere, about how they were ruining the city, about what an eye sore it would be, how it wouldn't fit in, etc. etc.

[john]

Reminds me of the approar when they were planning the new library. Remember all the fears and claims about it? How the park should be left alone, how the library would destroy it, how it would increase traffic, how the money could be better spent elsewhere, about how they were ruining the city, about what an eye sore it would be, how it wouldn't fit in, etc. etc.

um, a run-down softball field is not the same as Sutter Street...

[Revolutionist]

My concerns, based on the plans I have read and seen, and the conversations of which I have been involved, is that there is much care over preserving the "charm" and "(historical) character", and significantly less around the actual history of the district.

Sutter Street (and the closely surrounding area) is our direct link to the foundations of this town during the gold rush and that should not only be preserved, but emphasized.

I've seen entire downtowns built around "historical charm" without an ounce of history in it (check out downtown Windsor in Sonoma County as an example, or even EDH below the theater). And to be honest, I see too much of those types of "improvements" in the current Sutter Street plan.

Folsom doesn't need another McDowntown.

Outdoor dining? I love it. Fancy facades? Wonderful. Let the Palladio do that. But for my taste, as historical purist, I prefer the gritty originality (as much as possible) to the sanitized sameville that Folsom is fast becoming.

And in response to STD's frustration (hmm I better not make that abbreviation stick for Steve) about people not getting involved until the end. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. To be honest, in the early stages of planning, there's not much for the public to latch on to. During the middle phases (and this plan is moving from Ph2 to Ph3), after many decisions have been made and finally concrete concepts are put forth is when the public really has a chance to understand the changes on the table. And even then it usually takes some media or word-of-mouth attention to get people looking.

Now there is a real plan for people to look at. Just be glad people are finally looking.

Full disclosure: I represent Folsom, Isleton, and Galt on the Sacramento County Commission for History and Science.

[Steve Heard]

um, a run-down softball field is not the same as Sutter Street...

The opponents of the library insisted that the park was not run-down, was part of our history, and would be destroyed by the presence of the library.

[cw68]

My concerns, based on the plans I have read and seen, and the conversations of which I have been involved, is that there is much care over preserving the "charm" and "(historical) character", and significantly less around the actual history of the district.

Sutter Street (and the closely surrounding area) is our direct link to the foundations of this town during the gold rush and that should not only be preserved, but emphasized.

I've seen entire downtowns built around "historical charm" without an ounce of history in it (check out downtown Windsor in Sonoma County as an example, or even EDH below the theater). And to be honest, I see too much of those types of "improvements" in the current Sutter Street plan.

Folsom doesn't need another McDowntown.

Outdoor dining? I love it. Fancy facades? Wonderful. Let the Palladio do that. But for my taste, as historical purist, I prefer the gritty originality (as much as possible) to the sanitized sameville that Folsom is fast becoming.

And in response to STD's frustration (hmm I better not make that abbreviation stick for Steve) about people not getting involved until the end. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. To be honest, in the early stages of planning, there's not much for the public to latch on to. During the middle phases (and this plan is moving from Ph2 to Ph3), after many decisions have been made and finally concrete concepts are put forth is when the public really has a chance to understand the changes on the table. And even then it usually takes some media or word-of-mouth attention to get people looking.

Now there is a real plan for people to look at. Just be glad people are finally looking.

Full disclosure: I represent Folsom, Isleton, and Galt on the Sacramento County Commission for History and Science.

I don't think this plan talks about installing fancy facades. It wants to remove the shed awnings to let the original facades of these cool old buildings shine through. I don't want new fancy fronts to buildings either. I want to see the cool work underneath. In fact, I think tomorrow I'm going to take a few photos and post 'em up here.

If you do want historic, we can start with removing the "improvements" made in the form of medians from the 60s.

[Steve Heard]

Outdoor dining? I love it. Fancy facades? Wonderful. Let the Palladio do that. But for my taste, as historical purist, I prefer the gritty originality (as much as possible) to the sanitized sameville that Folsom is fast becoming.

Part of the plan is to address the fact that we have some beautiful old buildings in decay, and hidden by shed roof awnings. Doesn't removal of the rather recent, in historic context, shed roofs and and repair and painting of these historic buildings return the district to its 'gritty originality'?

Don't forget that part of the plan is to address the concerns of residents who are tired of traffic and parking issues on their streets. There are solutions offered in the plan.

Part of the plan is to address safety and ADA compliance. Doesn't the repair and/or removal of crumbling medians, uneven sidewalks, unstable trees, weak balconies and railings, and curb improvements meet these safety and compliance goals.

Part of the plan is to make the merchants more viable and profitable, by increasing access, and improving the streetscape.

Full disclosure; I represent Folsom as an Arts and Cultural Commissioner.

[cw68]

Don't forget that part of the plan is to address the concerns of residents who are tired of traffic and parking issues on their streets. There are solutions offered in the plan.

Part of the plan is to address safety and ADA compliance. Doesn't the repair and/or removal of crumbling medians, uneven sidewalks, unstable trees, weak balconies and railings, and curb improvements meet these safety and compliance goals.

Full disclosure: I represent Folsom as a member of Folsom's Traffic Safety Committee. This includes pedestrian and cyclist safety, not just vehicular traffic.

[Chad Vander Veen]

John has, under threat of things most unpleasant, demanded I add my opinion.

The problem with Sutter St. is not the the street or the buildings, it's some of the shops. Many are either irrelevant or do nothing to attract customers. Any money for Sutter st. proper should go to restoring, not replacing, the existing structures. Same goes for the rail area. But crucial to this project is an influx of useful businesses - antiques and random, no-name banks don't qualify.

Also, check out that Darth Vader thread, it is really amazingly well done

[cw68]

Any money for Sutter st. proper should go to restoring, not replacing, the existing structures.

Restoring the buildings or the shed?

[mando]

I feel I might have seeded the wrong idea with the term "mall", for lack of a better term. I was thinking of the word in a similar context to "Independence Mall" in Philadelphia, or the "National Mall" in DC -- a public space where people can congregate and stroll, etc.

Also, my personal preference for the median is about the tree canopy... not the preceived (falsely or not) historic value. I wonder if anyone else feels this way, too. If sidewalk plans called for a similar canopy from trees along the sidewalks, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.