[john]

I'd like to know what the MyFolsom.com community feels about this situation. If we get enough votes, I'd like to present this to City Council before they vote on it.

[October15]

I'd like to know what the MyFolsom.com community feels about this situation. If we get enough votes, I'd like to present this to City Council before they vote on it.

I did hear something from one of the merchants about how difficult/expensive it would be to do this due to the fact that there are old mine tunnels underneath the buildings so that leveling the sidewalks could be really complicated. Anybody know how they're planning on doing that?

[mando]

I'd like to keep the medians (the trees) but also extend the sidewalks to accommodate sidewalk cafes.

Has the option of turning Sutter Street into a permanent pedestrian-only "mall" been considered? Pros and cons?

[4thgenFolsomite]

taking out the century old sidewalks would change the historic character of the street for the benefit of only a few businesses. that's a big loss. it wouldn't feel like it was historic any more. there is plenty of room in Folsom for new looks. there are only three short blocks of old Folsom left and if we loose that, we've lost our historic center.

not only that, there are tons of people down there. day and night. I think this whole "let's change sutter street" thing started when the dam road closed and visitors dropped off. It's come back up now.

I think this is more about matching the new construction down the street on the railroad block. A few years ago, it was imperative that the new construction match and compliment the historic street. Now they want to change historic street to match the new construction.

[folsmnancy]

I did hear something from one of the merchants about how difficult/expensive it would be to do this due to the fact that there are old mine tunnels underneath the buildings so that leveling the sidewalks could be really complicated. Anybody know how they're planning on doing that?

I bet they did not think about that ! (old mine tunnels)

I am thinking the trees help keep down some of the pollution !??

[davburr]

I hope it stays mostly the way it is - with some slight improvements - but I don't want it to turn into Jerry's world with a squeaky clean modern day appearance like he did with the bank - as soon as you get to Pachanaga's that seems to be where old town ends and new town begins

sure its great to have some nice places being built but at the same time it feels like we're losing our historical feeling in old town.

I'd vote to keep old town as authentic to history as possible - we don't need another area in town turned into another shiny new shopping center (we have enuf already)

[Deb B]

I'd vote to keep old town as authentic to history as possible - we don't need another area in town turned into another shiny new shopping center (we have enuf already)

Ditto.

[stevethedad]

I think the poll options are skewed.

How would you like to see Sutter Street changed:

Option 1: Remove medians, covered awnings, and extend sidewalks.

Although those are major components of the plan, it is much more complicated than that.

Perhaps it could have been explained that that we have a treasure that is the historic district, that it is under-utilized and fallen into disrepair over the years, that buildings which have burned down have not been replaced, the streets and sidewalks are in various spots uneven, narrow, and broken, that people have tripped and fallen, that curbs are not ADA compliant, that there are numerous empty storefronts, that merchants have complained about lack of business, that we will rely more and more on sales taxes to keep our city services funded, that that means attracting more tourists, that tourists want more than what is offered, that the disrepair is also unattractive, that the medians were built upon the existing street, and that the roots of the trees are shallow and in such condition as they could fall, that traffic circulation and parking can be a nightmare, and that the desire is to address and improve as many of those issues as possible, while retaining the charm, character, history and cultural heritage of Folsom.

The medians are not historic. They are a modern addition, as are the shed roofs which are crumbling. By removing the long, contiuous shed roofs, the unique character of each building will be revealed, and the building owners will have the option to put their own awnings or other shade structures up, and that there are city funds available for storefront improvements.

Widening the sidewalks will allow more pedestrian traffic, seating, gathering spots, trees, public art, and the increasingly popular sidewalk dining. Sidewalk extension and repairs will also make it safer, particularly for children and the elderly, the two most likely to trip and fall, or step off a curb that is too high about the street.

Removing the medians and trees will help return the street to it's historic look, and allow for the widening of the sidewalks, and make it safer.

The plans have been carefully thought out and considered for years. There have been regular planning meetings, open to the public, where ideas and opinions have been welcome and shared.

The plan to be presented is the one which makes the most sense, IMO.

[lifeinfolsom]

I'd like to know what the MyFolsom.com community feels about this situation. If we get enough votes, I'd like to present this to City Council before they vote on it.

Fabric covered awnings. No way. Over a year or two, the fabric awnings will fade and will only make Sutter street look sad. If the city decides to change those, its only added cost. No fabric awnings. Thats not even a historic look. I also support the pedestrian only idea, why do we want automobiles in a historic area. Plus can anything be done to the new eye sore=bank on Sutter street? Give it some external touch to make it look like an old building. Sutter street is such a beautiful part of Folsom that I am proud of! I hope we can keep it historic.

[supermom]

Fabric covered awnings. No way. Over a year or two, the fabric awnings will fade and will only make Sutter street look sad. If the city decides to change those, its only added cost. No fabric awnings. Thats not even a historic look. I also support the pedestrian only idea, why do we want automobiles in a historic area. Plus can anything be done to the new eye sore=bank on Sutter street? Give it some external touch to make it look like an old building. Sutter street is such a beautiful part of Folsom that I am proud of! I hope we can keep it historic.

+1

I too think that historic folsom should be pedestrian (or horse) only.

Yesterday I went down to historic Sac. and was surprised by the traffic jam of masses of pedestrians refusing to let vehicles get through (ok-yeah pedestrians get the right of way--but cars should not have to stop IN the lane (not the intersection) every 3 or 4 seconds for a pedestrian J walking.

Yeah it's great that there were that many people but......cars destroy the whole "historic value"

So, I didn't vote John---'cause I think that the Poll should include "how would you feel about closing historic Folsom to Vehicles". I could care less about the awnings---that should be the judgement of the owner. and if there weren't any vehicles in Historic Folsom--we wouldn't need to worry too much about the sidewalks.

[cw68]

I don't think it can be closed to vehicles because the street is needed for deliveries to businesses.

[4thgenFolsomite]

I don't think it can be closed to vehicles because the street is needed for deliveries to businesses.

in many places deliveries are restricted in specific hours, like before 10 am. That would leave the street without cars later on.

[ducky]

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.

[kev1006]

Sutter Street gives Folsom some heart and soul, gives us charm, and makes us unique. It serves as our link to the Gold Rush past and the 49er culture.

The plans being proposed make us lose our uniqueness and now puts us in the Orwellian, me too list of California towns that are not unique and ignore their past. What is to separate us from Lincoln, Rocklin, Elk Grove, and the rest of the bay area sprawl if we lose this historic street to blandness modernization?

[chris v]

I don't think they should change a thing.

[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.

[stevethedad]

+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.