141 replies to this topic

[skirby]

LRU1967, on Sep 9 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

The Arkansas Times Blog has a report on the vote by the River Market Design Review Committee on approving the A Loft design. Regardless of your pro or con opinion of the proposal you have to wonder about the vote by certain members of the committee and some of the statements by the proponents.
It seems like a poor way for the city to make decisions.
http://www.arktimes....n.aspx#comments

If you read the comments on the blog you have to wonder about people who would prefer a parking lot over a hotel providing people 24/7. I guess they don't think people and stores to be an advantage to the area. By looking at the tax receipts for Sonny Williams'  I would venture to say they can't wait until the hotel is built. I would also guess that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody rides the trolley.

Edited by skirby, 09 September 2008 - 12:49 PM.

[turboturtle]

LRU1967, on Sep 9 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

The Arkansas Times Blog has a report on the vote by the River Market Design Review Committee on approving the A Loft design. Regardless of your pro or con opinion of the proposal you have to wonder about the vote by certain members of the committee and some of the statements by the proponents.
It seems like a poor way for the city to make decisions.
http://www.arktimes....n.aspx#comments

You're right. However, the City is only taking this vote into consideration. It is not the deciding vote on the building.

It was a mistake for the developer to let that split vote occur. So, the split vote means the City Board is on its own.  If the River Market Design Review Committee had a unanimous vote, it would have made it easier on the City Board. Even in that scenario, the City Board doesn't have to go along with the recommendation.

This will be an interesting test for Stodola. He is a proponent of DODs and believes that they should be followed. At least, that is my take on him. Also, it will be interesting for Stacy Hurst. The Midtown DOD is in her ward. She worked to get the developer to make some concessions and meet more of the Midtown DOD. The Midtown Redevelopment Advisory Board also made concessions.  

I think Keck and Kumpuris have already voted for it.  I thin the City Board vote will be close either way, unless the developer shows something we haven't seen.  What would be nice is a better design, ground-floor tenant commitment, or compelling facade.

Should be fun to watch this unfold...

[turboturtle]

skirby, on Sep 9 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

If you read the comments on the blog you have to wonder about people who would prefer a parking lot over a hotel providing people 24/7. I guess they don't think people and stores to be an advantage to the area. By looking at the tax receipts for Sonny Williams'  I would venture to say they can't wait until the hotel is built. I would also guess that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody rides the trolley.

Yeah. There are some folks that think LR is in a snow globe (cept there is no snow).  

Long term... we need more hotels. This would have boader support if we were talking about a hotel like this www.21chotel.com.

Edited by turboturtle, 09 September 2008 - 02:05 PM.

[LRU1967]

skirby, on Sep 9 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

If you read the comments on the blog you have to wonder about people who would prefer a parking lot over a hotel providing people 24/7. I guess they don't think people and stores to be an advantage to the area. By looking at the tax receipts for Sonny Williams'  I would venture to say they can't wait until the hotel is built. I would also guess that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody rides the trolley.

My post did not refer to the comments on the blog but to the factual report of the meeting. The fact that one of the committee members is an employee of Moses/Tucker and another a city employee and that they were the two yes votes gives pause to the impartiality of committee members.

[skirby]

LRU1967, on Sep 9 2008, 04:47 PM, said:

My post did not refer to the comments on the blog but to the factual report of the meeting. The fact that one of the committee members is an employee of Moses/Tucker and another a city employee and that they were the two yes votes gives pause to the impartiality of committee members.

According to the city's website the committee is to be composed of three members recommended by property owners within the district. One member "representing the entity hired by the City to manage the River Market" and one member who is  "a design professional with experience in historic preservation such as an architect, engineer, planner or landscape architect."  Therefore any review would contain a city employee and that is the  manager of the River Market.
It would be interesting to know who owns property in the district. With only four blocks being owned by private interest there can't be a large number of them.

[LRU1967]

skirby, on Sep 9 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

According to the city's website the committee is to be composed of three members recommended by property owners within the district. and one member who is  "a design professional with experience in historic preservation such as an architect, engineer, planner or landscape architect."  Therefore any review would contain a city employee and that is the  manager of the River Market.
It would be interesting to know who owns property in the district. With only four blocks being owned by private interest there can't be a large number of them.

My preference for this committee's membership would not include a majority of property owners and certainly not "one member "representing the entity hired by the City to manage the River Market".

[turboturtle]

LRU1967, on Sep 9 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

My preference for this committee's membership would not include a majority of property owners and certainly not "one member "representing the entity hired by the City to manage the River Market".

For comparison purposes...

The Midtown Redevelopment Advisory Board is modeled on the River Market District Design Review Committee.

Members are appointed by the Mayor and Little Rock City Board of Directors after written qualifications are received in response to a public notice that has been published by the City once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks. The Board shall consist of the following:
Four (4) Owners or duly authorized representatives of owners of commercial property within the boundaries
One (1)  Representative of the Little Rock School Board
One (1)  Resident of property within two (2) straight line miles of the boundaries
One (1)  Representative of the Little Rock Planning Commission

It is intentionally weight to property owners.

[skirby]

This is the view MR. Roberts said would be lost. I don't know about you but I wouldn't miss it.

[turboturtle]

skirby, on Sep 16 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

This is the view MR. Roberts said would be lost. I don't know about you but I wouldn't miss it.

I would not miss that view either. I do recall that CALS had to get a variance to display the banners on the outside of the Cox building.

What about the view looking north if you are on the south side of the Cox center.  Not to say that an obstruction would sway me, cause I don't see the height issue keeping this thing from happening.

[Aporkalypse]

turboturtle, on Sep 16 2008, 11:08 PM, said:

I would not miss that view either. I do recall that CALS had to get a variance to display the banners on the outside of the Cox building.

What about the view looking north if you are on the south side of the Cox center.  Not to say that an obstruction would sway me, cause I don't see the height issue keeping this thing from happening.

Man, I hate those tacky banners.  That and the logos on the CAT buses are so 1982.

[turboturtle]

Aporkalypse, on Sep 16 2008, 11:11 PM, said:

Man, I hate those tacky banners.  That and the logos on the CAT buses are so 1982.

The banners remind me of early 90s... Ice Ice Baby.

[theman]

I don't understand why Roberts is so against this.  The River Market's main goal is to bring people to that area of dowtown.  The library, restaurants, museums, condos and hotels bring people to the area.  I would much rather see a convention hotel near the convention center, but I guess since the city has interest in both of the main convention hotels they don't want any competition.  If new hotels are needed (and this is a good thing if this true because more people are visiting the area) then this corner is a good place to put a hotel.  It's in the middle of a thriving area of downtown.  It is blocks away from the convention center so people can walk their and not have to drive.  It also brings more people to shop in the stores, eat in the restaurants, visit the tourist attractions and visit Robert's library, Cox building and the Butler Center.  Presidence has been set.  A variance for height was given for First Security Center and the River Market parking garage.  I can't see how this can't happen.

[hogwash]

Am I the only that thinks the proposed hotel is ugly, at least based on the one in Rogers? When I see pictures I think of the Double Tree.

[turboturtle]

hogwash, on Sep 17 2008, 08:51 AM, said:

Am I the only that thinks the proposed hotel is ugly, at least based on the one in Rogers? When I see pictures I think of the Double Tree.

Renderings of the proposal for this site have been released... the Arktimes blog had them.

You are not the only one who thinks the design is fugly. Your in the same city that allowed the Witt Stephens Nature Center to be decked out in siding.

[hogwash]

I blame the state on the nature center. Generally, a city can't require enforce regulations on state or federal projects. Don't know if that was the case with nature center or not.

[turboturtle]

I think I just got Robert's real concern by reading the Ark Times Insider. His concern is the potential for the shorter buildings in the River Market to be demolished and replaced with taller buildings should the height restriction be removed.  For example all the buildings on the north and south side of President Clinton Avenue between LaHarpe and the River Market Pavilion could be demolished and replaced with taller buildings. In doing so, the "character" of the River Market would likely be destroyed.

In order to discourage this from happening, the original design overlay made new construction shorter than most of the existing buildings. This is how the revitalization of downtown started. Otherwise, everything would have likely been bulldozed. (I'm speculating here)

Also, all of the CALS projects would become dwarfed in the future. There will probably never be an opportunity to redevelop any of the CALS projects in the future.

Edited by turboturtle, 17 September 2008 - 02:33 PM.

[skirby]

One of the first things Mr. Roberts said about the hotel was that he was not against the design but now he has changed his tune. The article from the Arkansas Times says he wants to see a set back design which the  hotel developer has already said will happen. He also calls for retail on Commerce. That is the first I have heard of this.  The argument up to now has been retail on President Clinton Ave. which the hotel is offering. Maybe he thinks he has lost his argument against the height issue and now is turning to any other issues he can come up with. The height issue has also changed from the hotel being too tall for the Butler Center to now being too tall for the Cox Building.

[Aporkalypse]

skirby, on Sep 17 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

One of the first things Mr. Roberts said about the hotel was that he was not against the design but now he has changed his tune. The article from the Arkansas Times says he wants to see a set back design which the  hotel developer has already said will happen. He also calls for retail on Commerce. That is the first I have heard of this.  The argument up to now has been retail on President Clinton Ave. which the hotel is offering. Maybe he thinks he has lost his argument against the height issue and now is turning to any other issues he can come up with. The height issue has also changed from the hotel being too tall for the Butler Center to now being too tall for the Cox Building.

Roberts just doesn't want it to be built, he's finding issues with everything.

I don't like the design, either.  I hope that the city can gently push them towards conforming more with the neighborhood, though it's hard to argue that when the Butler Center itself is pretty radical in design.

[Architect]

Aporkalypse, on Sep 21 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Roberts just doesn't want it to be built, he's finding issues with everything.

I don't like the design, either.  I hope that the city can gently push them towards conforming more with the neighborhood, though it's hard to argue that when the Butler Center itself is pretty radical in design.

I was in NWA this weekend and noted the Aloft in Rogers (granted at 70 MPH), and I believe there is a great similarity between it and what is proposed.  I thought it looked quite nice actually, at least for something of this type - certainly better than many of the other random "bland" hotels in the area.

Much like my post about Arvest Ballpark-Dickey Stephens, I'm more concerned about whether its is built with exceptional execution/quality rather than what style it is.  Modern would be fine if it is done well.  We would all agree that the Butler Center is an example of this.

[skirby]

The Central Arkansas Library System board voted to oppose the Aloft today. At the meeting were representatives from Stephens Inc. also opposing the hotel. One made the remark that too much money had been spent on the Peabody and Capital Hotels to allow a new player on the block. Is this the beginning of a feud between Stephens and Moses/Tucker?