Jump to content


Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

South Pass Development


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41 shaddo

shaddo

    Unincorporated Area

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:23 AM

The market is not as dead around here as some people want to believe!

M



I agree. The only thing dying is the "doom and gloomers" false prophesies!

 

#42 cocothief

cocothief

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 09:54 AM

.

Edited by cocothief, 22 May 2008 - 09:56 AM.


#43 strmchsr77

strmchsr77

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,918 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 20 July 2008 - 07:40 AM

Southpass could come to the Planning Commission as early as this month. It is good to finally see this project start moving forward. The city sized development will contain 4300 residential units, a commercial core, churches, schools, and a 200+ acre community park.

Here is the article from the Times: Southpass

#44 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 29 July 2008 - 03:27 PM

The city is starting to take a closer look at the development. I knew it was big but I guess I just didn't realize just how big it will be. It's 910 acres, basically the size of a small town. The developers plan on doing it in 8 phases in the next 20-25 years. The first phase is planned to take about three years to complete once it is approved by the city and would include part of the regional park and the Crescent Park neighborhood. The project will have 809 single familiy lots, 2,881 multifamily units, 630 condos, the 200 acre regional park and 344,000 square feet of nonresidential space. Sometime I need to look around and see if I can find a map of the land that will be involved in all of this.

#45 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 12 August 2008 - 04:50 PM

A recent traffic study done for the Southpass development shows that once the project is fully complete in the estimated 20-25 years there would be over 40,000 vehicles counts. So the city is already looking into widening Cato Springs Rd. Granted it's going to be a while before the development will be completed, and that's assuming nothing happens and it's completed on time. But I guess it does tend to take a while to get roads widened as well so maybe it's not a bad idea to plan this far ahead.

#46 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 26 August 2008 - 02:25 PM

Looks like Southpass has been tabled for the third time by the city. I guess with it being such a large development theirs a lot to be worked out. But I'm also wondering if this is a sign that the city might not give it the go ahead. The developers might have to keep compromising to get the the city to eventually approve it.

#47 thewizard16

thewizard16

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Location:Little Rock, AR

Posted 27 August 2008 - 06:11 PM

Part of this is backlash from the Ren. Tower. Did you see in the most recent article that a council member/members had mentioned concerns about the "credibility" of the developers, Nock and Alexander, and their connection with this project? We knew it would start to happen eventually.

#48 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:51 PM

Part of this is backlash from the Ren. Tower. Did you see in the most recent article that a council member/members had mentioned concerns about the "credibility" of the developers, Nock and Alexander, and their connection with this project? We knew it would start to happen eventually.

Good point. Maybe this will be even more incentive for them to get something going over there. I admit it is a bit frustrating to see them having so many developments going at once when the Renaissance sit is just sitting there.

#49 mzweig

mzweig

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:54 PM

Part of this is backlash from the Ren. Tower. Did you see in the most recent article that a council member/members had mentioned concerns about the "credibility" of the developers, Nock and Alexander, and their connection with this project? We knew it would start to happen eventually.


Right are wrong, this backlash from incomplete projects is bound to be a factor......

#50 butttrumpet

butttrumpet

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts

Posted 28 August 2008 - 01:10 AM

Kessler Mountain is a very beautiful part of our city, or soon to be part of.

I don't necessarily think a huge development out there is what's best for that land. I hope if this goes forward, that a LOT of that land is dedicated to parkland and preservation. The trails on Kessler Mountain make you feel like you're in the middle of nowhere.

#51 cowbreath

cowbreath

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, AR

Posted 28 August 2008 - 09:42 AM

Kessler Mountain is a very beautiful part of our city, or soon to be part of.

I don't necessarily think a huge development out there is what's best for that land. I hope if this goes forward, that a LOT of that land is dedicated to parkland and preservation. The trails on Kessler Mountain make you feel like you're in the middle of nowhere.

I personally think it is too much development on one exit, not to mention how it seems like a separate locality if they build it out that big. Anyways I don't like the idea of that land being developed either because I like how remote things look not so far from the city. It seems like an "outfill" project.

#52 strmchsr77

strmchsr77

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,918 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 28 August 2008 - 03:04 PM

You do have to remember that this project has a very long timeline. I believe it is on the order of 20-25 years. There will be alot of change in the infrastructure of the entire city and I-540 (I-49) during this entire buildout. This is not something that is going to pop up in the next 2-4 years. It will probbly just be getting started by then.

Edited by strmchsr77, 28 August 2008 - 03:05 PM.


#53 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 28 August 2008 - 03:14 PM

I can understand some not being in favor of this project in comparison to others. To some this is sprawl. But I guess for some reason I just never quite felt that way about it. I haven't actually been up to the top of Mt Kessler. Maybe it would be nice if they preserved some of the natural beauty on Mt Kessler. As a side not if the developers own this land then isn't going up to Mt Kessler basically trespassing? But anyway while I do think we need to preserve some nice green areas for the city, I don't think we have to limit development to only flat areas either. And as Colby has mentioned this will be a long drawn out process. But as I said before, I can better understand people not in favor of this development compared to say ones like Ruskin Heights.

#54 butttrumpet

butttrumpet

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts

Posted 28 August 2008 - 03:29 PM

I can understand some not being in favor of this project in comparison to others. To some this is sprawl. But I guess for some reason I just never quite felt that way about it. I haven't actually been up to the top of Mt Kessler. Maybe it would be nice if they preserved some of the natural beauty on Mt Kessler. As a side not if the developers own this land then isn't going up to Mt Kessler basically trespassing? But anyway while I do think we need to preserve some nice green areas for the city, I don't think we have to limit development to only flat areas either. And as Colby has mentioned this will be a long drawn out process. But as I said before, I can better understand people not in favor of this development compared to say ones like Ruskin Heights.


All of Mt. Kessler land isn't owned by developers. A lot of it is in trusts, etc as far as I can tell. Still, having a big development in that area will change the feel a lot. Of course I expect a lot will change around here in 25 years.

#55 zman9810

zman9810

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,155 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, AR

Posted 30 August 2008 - 01:27 AM

This development has so many strong positives and strong negatives that is hard to figure if it will be approved or not.

Positives

  • Regional park- this would be a great asset for the city. It would provide needed facilities for the citizens and be a tourism draw that would help the local economy. The developers knew what they were doing when they made this a central theme of their pitch to the city( and I don't mean that in a negative way).
  • New Urbanism style development - the renderings and written plans for this project are great. The town center is very attractive and the mixed use plans with different residential types fit what the city should strive for.
  • City control of land development- this property could develop in ways that the city would not want if it isn't annexed. If it is left in the county or even if Greenland annexed it could become an opportunity lost.

Negatives

  • It is SPRAWL- it is not infill or redevelopment and is not connected to the city now. It is taking greenfield land (even though there is a buried landfill on it) and developing it. It's location out in the country will require the extension of infrastructure including utilities, police and fire protection, etc out to it. The money spent doing this will not be able to be spent improving the existing city proper or the land immediately adjacent to it. The only saving point here is that in the 25 year buildout the surounding land may develop so that it is indeed infill, but that is a big maybe.
  • Access problems- the only way to access the land is Cato Springs Road (State Hwy 265) which is now a narrow 2 land road in that area. The road has been widened to 5 lanes north of I540 but I don't think it has been determined if the overpass or underpass is wide enough to carry 4/5 lanes. The plan to extend Shiloh Dr. will not resolve access issue as it comes out at the heavily congested I540/ 6th Street intersection. I drove through that intersection on a Sunday afternoon recently and eastbound traffic waiting to turn north on I540 had backed up to Shiloh Dr- until that problem is fixed planning to add more traffic is a bad idea.
  • Will the developers follow through on it? The economic downturn has hit everybody hard but until the Rennaisance Tower project is completed the public's confidence in the developer's ability to see this huge two and a half decade plan through is shaky at best. This may not be the best time or place for it.

Edited by zman9810, 30 August 2008 - 01:45 AM.


#56 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 30 August 2008 - 07:12 AM

This development has so many strong positives and strong negatives that is hard to figure if it will be approved or not.

Positives

  • Regional park- this would be a great asset for the city. It would provide needed facilities for the citizens and be a tourism draw that would help the local economy. The developers knew what they were doing when they made this a central theme of their pitch to the city( and I don't mean that in a negative way).
  • New Urbanism style development - the renderings and written plans for this project are great. The town center is very attractive and the mixed use plans with different residential types fit what the city should strive for.
  • City control of land development- this property could develop in ways that the city would not want if it isn't annexed. If it is left in the county or even if Greenland annexed it could become an opportunity lost.

Negatives

  • It is SPRAWL- it is not infill or redevelopment and is not connected to the city now. It is taking greenfield land (even though there is a buried landfill on it) and developing it. It's location out in the country will require the extension of infrastructure including utilities, police and fire protection, etc out to it. The money spent doing this will not be able to be spent improving the existing city proper or the land immediately adjacent to it. The only saving point here is that in the 25 year buildout the surounding land may develop so that it is indeed infill, but that is a big maybe.
  • Access problems- the only way to access the land is Cato Springs Road (State Hwy 265) which is now a narrow 2 land road in that area. The road has been widened to 5 lanes north of I540 but I don't think it has been determined if the overpass or underpass is wide enough to carry 4/5 lanes. The plan to extend Shiloh Dr. will not resolve access issue as it comes out at the heavily congested I540/ 6th Street intersection. I drove through that intersection on a Sunday afternoon recently and eastbound traffic waiting to turn north on I540 had backed up to Shiloh Dr- until that problem is fixed planning to add more traffic is a bad idea.
  • Will the developers follow through on it? The economic downturn has hit everybody hard but until the Rennaisance Tower project is completed the public's confidence in the developer's ability to see this huge two and a half decade plan through is shaky at best. This may not be the best time or place for it.

Very nicely laid out.

#57 strmchsr77

strmchsr77

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,918 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 09 September 2008 - 09:24 AM

Southpass finally got approved by the Planning Commission last night by a 7-1 vote. It will now be forwarded to the City Council sometime next month with approval support. Hopefully the council will continue the approval process.

#58 butttrumpet

butttrumpet

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts

Posted 09 September 2008 - 09:52 AM

Southpass finally got approved by the Planning Commission last night by a 7-1 vote. It will now be forwarded to the City Council sometime next month with approval support. Hopefully the council will continue the approval process.


I will have to watch the replay on local access. I am really concerned about the nature areas on Kessler Mountain. I do hope they preserve a lot of it.

#59 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 09 September 2008 - 02:42 PM

Southpass finally got approved by the Planning Commission last night by a 7-1 vote. It will now be forwarded to the City Council sometime next month with approval support. Hopefully the council will continue the approval process.

I was a little surprised there was only one dissenting vote. As much as it's been talked about and tabled I sorta thought there might be a little more problem getting it passed. But like you said now comes the actual City Council. I'm sure we'll hear more about it in the upcoming month.

#60 Mith242

Mith242

    Gigalopolis

  • Moderators
  • 18,769 posts
  • Location:Fayetteville, Arkansas

Posted 07 October 2008 - 02:35 PM

More talk about Southpass coming up soon for the city. I've seen links to article about Southpass but don't recall seeing a link to the actual website for the development. Although maybe the website itself could be relatively new or revamped.

http://southpassdevelopment.com/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users