Reader comments: Sugar House carriage house is spared from wrecking ball for now
9 comments | Read story
Charles | 6:43 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I find it interesting how people feel they can tell you what to do with your property.If the new buildings meet zoning ordinances, then let the land owner build as he wants or buy the property at market value and do as you would like. I see a fire in the future of this building unless the loudmouths come up with some money. FREEDOM OUT
history lover | 8:50 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
How about moving it up to Olde Deseret Village? The owner could share the expense with the owners of the village and use it for a tax right off. It would be well loved and well used up there where many people could see it and enjoy it. I haven't been up to the park for awhile but I am willing to bet that there isn't another carriage house like it up there. Seems to be a better solution then demolishing it.
samhill | 9:26 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The remedy seems simple.
All those who wish the structure to be preserved can pool their money to buy it and move it to some property that they own.
If, for whatever reason, a solution as simple as this one is not suitable, then the present owner may do with the building as they wish.
Very simple and the property rights of all are preserved. A much more important thing to preserve than any building.
All those who wish the structure to be preserved can pool their money to buy it and move it to some property that they own.
If, for whatever reason, a solution as simple as this one is not suitable, then the present owner may do with the building as they wish.
Very simple and the property rights of all are preserved. A much more important thing to preserve than any building.
Comments continue below
Woboski | 9:34 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The issue here isn't the owner's right to develop the property to the base zoning - he is asking for additional modifications to the project beyond what would be ordinarily be allowed - that's why he went to the SLC Planning Commission. In such a case, the city is well within bounds to do some horse trading. Retaining the building might even enhance the owner's property value, once it's remodeled as a dwelling, and the owner can potentially qualify for historic tax credits for restoring the building(so the "loudmouths" are, in effect, coming up with some money that way). If he doesn't like the terms of that deal, he can go forward without the concessions that the city is making. However, I think that a better project can result through this process.
re; woboski | 11:45 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
it is nieve to think that is the case. Zoning ordinances are purposely written to be very restrictive for the intent reason of having any project come before them. Even to erect a single family home you would be required to get XYZ use permit.
A historic church, home, landmark of somekind maybe but to limit this guys ownership over something thats only historic quality is its age takes it a step to far. If age alone is the standard watch out.
If a comprimise can be worked out great if not it is his property to do with as he pleases.
A historic church, home, landmark of somekind maybe but to limit this guys ownership over something thats only historic quality is its age takes it a step to far. If age alone is the standard watch out.
If a comprimise can be worked out great if not it is his property to do with as he pleases.
Anonymous | 2:18 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Built in 1855? It is unlikely to have been built before the 1880s or 90s.
pohaku-1 | 2:56 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Did anyone live in Sugar House in 1855
much less live there [in a "hope house"]
AND have a 1600 s.f. carriage house ???
Sounds strange, strange, strange...
much less live there [in a "hope house"]
AND have a 1600 s.f. carriage house ???
Sounds strange, strange, strange...
Dave in Midvale | 3:40 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I'm much inclined to believe this building is NOT 153 years old. I really believe that IF this building were built in 1855, and still standing, there would be no way any of this would be happening. The state historical society would be up in arms. Heck, it would be one of the oldest structures in Sugar House!
If it is, in some way, close to 150 years old, then YES, dismantle it and take it up to Olde Deseret Village. There should be plenty of entities will to foot some or all of the bill.
If it is, in some way, close to 150 years old, then YES, dismantle it and take it up to Olde Deseret Village. There should be plenty of entities will to foot some or all of the bill.
Been there | 5:37 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The barn burned years ago and is hardly original (including the decorative woodwork on the roof). It violates zoning (too close to the street); one of the reasons the abandoned and unsafe property hasn't been redeveloped. I'm a very strong proponent of historical preservation and adaptive re-use, but it doesn't fit here. I oppose duplexes in single-family neighborhoods, but would be a big improvement here. Please report on the history of it. It was sure fun to play in as a kid!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
