Signatures 328 total
-
1
Name: Mark St. Andre on Apr 16, 2007Comments: 2260 Lake St.Flag
-
2
Name: Anonymous on May 3, 2007Comments: Sugarhouse is a utopia to local business owners, and down-to-earth people. Can we really let commerce destroy another of our little sanctuariesFlag
-
3
Name: Darin Marx on May 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Loretta Guerra on May 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Loretta Guerra on May 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Travis Cooper on Jun 23, 2007Comments:Flag
-
7
Name: Sam on Jul 12, 2007Comments: If there is any way to save this culture spot please do it... I love this place and it's the only place I can truly call home.Flag
-
8
Name: Adam Castleberry on Jul 15, 2007Comments: Please do not destroy Sugarhouse. It is the only reasonably eclectic and interesting place to visit in the Salt Lake area, now that downtown SLC has been dismantled. The combination of Suagrahouse shops, culture and vibrance is found nowhere else in Utah. It would be a complete shame to demolish these buildings to simply put in more soulless big-box stores which can be put anywhere in the area. Please, please, please. Act with compasion and do not destroy Sugarhouse. Adam CastleberryFlag
-
9
Name: Golee Abrishami on Jul 15, 2007Comments: As a newcomer to Salt Lake City I was shocked to learn of the plans to demolish the buildings around Sugarhouse, to put up more retail stores that will no doubt ruin the nature of this sane little enclave in the midst of Salt Lake City. It is a shame that the city feels the need to ruin an area that attracts so many, and which will surely lose its special essence once the changes are made. I have no doubt that those that live in the area and which actually care about it will be the real losers once the big box behemoths show up. I also have no doubt that those looking to profit from this deal could care less about Sugarhouse or the depth that these types of eclectic neighborhoods provide soulless cities like Salt Lake. Grow up and realize what you'd be destroying! Stop the madness. GoleeFlag
-
10
Name: Anonymous on Jul 26, 2007Comments: Stop! Leave Sugarhouse the way it is!Flag
-
11
Name: Anonymous on Jul 26, 2007Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: David St Andre on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Jim French on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Please save Sugarhouse. Please restore, don't demolish.Flag
-
14
Name: Soren Simonsen on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Thanks Susie and Mark for not giving up hope. I'm with you all the way.Flag
-
15
Name: Lynne Olson on Oct 20, 2007Comments: For information about this and many other historic buildings in the SH Business District, ask the City for the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property documentation completed by Bea Lufkin for SLC Planning in January 2003. (Also available at State Historic Preservation Office.)Flag
-
16
Name: Laura Hanson on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Anonymous on Oct 20, 2007Comments: I don't live in Sugarhouse area but have loved the area since I moved here in 2002. I would live there if I could afford it. I do not want to see the neighborhood destroyed by so called mixed use condo loft developments. The area will be ruined!!!Flag
-
18
Name: Lisa O'Brien on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: Tonya Runnels-Fodness on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Sugarhouse currently has so much charm and has a great balance of unique stores - please don't allow anyone to tear down these great buildings.Flag
-
20
Name: Marcia C. Dibble on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: David Jensen on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: Alice Edvalson on Oct 20, 2007Comments: I've never been very happy with the Blue Boutique business in this area or other businesses of this nature, but am sympathetic to preserving the old buildings that do have historic value. I support local businesses, but not the kind that do not support the good family values that was at the root of the beginnings of theSugar House community.Flag
-
23
Name: Alice Edvalson on Oct 20, 2007Comments: I've never been very happy with the Blue Boutique business in this area or other businesses of this nature, but am sympathetic to preserving the old buildings that do have historic value. I support local businesses, but not the kind that do not support the good family values that was at the root of the beginnings of theSugar House community.Flag
-
24
Name: Alice Edvalson on Oct 20, 2007Comments: I've never been very happy with the Blue Boutique business in this area or other businesses of this nature, but am sympathetic to preserving the old buildings that do have historic value. I support local businesses, but not the kind that do not support the good family values that was at the root of the beginnings of theSugar House community.Flag
-
25
Name: Cassie Olson on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Fred Conlon on Oct 20, 2007Comments: As a small business owner in Sugar House, I am all in favor of [reserving, maintaining, and restoring any and all historical building that are left. The last thing we need is another lifeless business centerFlag
-
27
Name: Nancy Devenport on Oct 20, 2007Comments: I spent much of my youth in Sugar House, as my grandparents lived on Harvard Ave. I remember trips with them to Granite and Southeast Furniture Stores, popcorn from NuCrisp and visiting Santa at Christmas time. Those are such wonderful memories. We as a community need to do everything we can to stop the planned destruction and devastating changes that are proposed for Sugar House.Flag
-
28
Name: Shu Saito on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: David W. Mulder on Oct 20, 2007Comments: 1755 E. Stratford Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut. 84105Flag
-
30
Name: S. Annie Harrell on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Shelley Mulder on Oct 20, 2007Comments: 1755 E. Stratford Ave. Salt Lake City, Ut. 84106Flag
-
32
Name: Anonymous on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
33
Name: Darren Corey on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: Kirstin Scott on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Please preserve the character of this neighborhood!Flag
-
35
Name: Irminsul on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Stripmall fever is a disease that needs a vaccine. Here in Utah I have seen it chew away the body of more than one unique business community. It's time to stop continually chasing such communities away to satisfy the pockets tasteless, greedy developers.Flag
-
36
Name: Laurie Bray on Oct 20, 2007Comments: My business is located in the Rockwood Building, next to the Blue Boutique. The artists in this building plan on staying here. I am strongly in favor of preserving the Blue Boutique Building. It could be transformed into an artist's coop or school. I visitied Ashville, North Carolina this year and they have done this with many of their old buildings and it has become a tourist destination as a result. I am strongly opposed to having an entrance to the underground parking in front of where the Blue Boutique is located. This will impede pedestrian traffic and is dangerous. I believe it is important to keep Sugar House a walking community with some local merchants in some of the shops and preserving this historic building would contribute to the overall ambience of our community.Flag
-
37
Name: Morris Rosenzweig on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Janice Brittain on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Most of historic Sugar House has already been demolished. There is no reason to finish it off. If Mr. Mecham has such a love of historic Sugar House, as he professes, why is he in such a hurry to knock down what makes it historic, even while he has no concrete plans for a replacement structure. His drawing is pretty, but there are no plans behind it. It's just a painting from someone's imagination. He should have to meet the intent of the rules before he can proceed.Flag
-
39
Name: Spencer C. Woolley on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: Kathryn St. Andre on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Sherrie Bakelar on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Too often, history is lost to progress. Now is our chance to act and save a unique set of buildings. The loss of these buildings is a loss of our identity as Sugar House. Any building built in their place will fall far short of the eclectic charm that makes Sugar House such a desirable neighborhood.Flag
-
42
Name: Ryan Stanfield on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Tracey Clayton on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
44
Name: Rick Clayton on Oct 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
45
Name: Rebecca Wood on Oct 20, 2007Comments: Grew up at 1819 S. 900 E.Flag
-
46
Name: Cameron Richards on Oct 21, 2007Comments: It's a shame all of this is happening. I recall times in my youth coming down from wyoming (where I was raised) and going to blue cats coffee. Fond memories even from an out of towner.Flag
-
47
Name: Judi Short on Oct 21, 2007Comments: There is no reason why this development couldn't incorporate the old buildings, it would be much more interesting. We haven't seen any detailed plans, only a few drawrings of what is proposed.Flag
-
48
Name: Laura Martinez on Oct 21, 2007Comments: The building located at 1080 East 2100 South is safe and sound. It is old but will stand another 100 years with some simple attention. I have been leasing it for 18 years and know that the main problems are in the plumbing and electricity. Craig has bullied all other tenants out of here so he can demo but his project is only going to ruin the pedestrian traffic, overfill the street traffic and destroy what is left of Sugarhouse history. Downtown is already destroyed, What is going to be left of Salt Lake History and the peace of Sugarhouse residents. You are already taking a life risk crossing the street due to the overkill of traffic that "The Commons" brought to Sugarhouse.Flag
-
49
Name: Michael G. Kavanagh on Oct 21, 2007Comments:Flag
-
50
Name: Ellen Bridger on Oct 21, 2007Comments:Flag