Fayetteville, Arkansas

[Mith242]

I was curious does anyone know how the tree ordinance works on existing businesses and such and the loss of trees? I know when new development happens they have to keep a certain percentage of trees and such. But what about some of these places that have lost a lot or maybe even all their trees because of the ice storm? Are they required to replant trees or does the ordinance only apply to a new development?

[butttrumpet]

I agree I also like bring out out the old names as well. I'm not sure what area they'll do next. So far they've been really focusing on the south part of town. I'm not sure how things will progress with the new mayor.

I think it would be cool if the neighborhood identities were emphasized in street signage, sidewalk materials, etc. Like how in Springdale's east side, some of the street signage shows rodeo stuff. It would be neat if Fayette Junction street signs had an FJ on them, or a train or something. Walker Park could have a maple leaf with a WP on it.

[Mith242]

I think it would be cool if the neighborhood identities were emphasized in street signage, sidewalk materials, etc. Like how in Springdale's east side, some of the street signage shows rodeo stuff. It would be neat if Fayette Junction street signs had an FJ on them, or a train or something. Walker Park could have a maple leaf with a WP on it.

That would be interesting but they would have to revise a city ordinance. I believe a while back ago a particular neighborhood or subdivision tried to do something like that and ended up having to change the signs. The way it is now apparently all the city's signs have to be the same to avoid confusion to emergency vehicles and such.

[zman9810]

This is typical language of ALL local ordinance historic districts. And yes, the commission has final say. Otherwise, what purpose would they serve.

First, before the local ordinance district is established, I believe there has to be a local referendum on adopting it, so this addresses the education, awareness and "voice" in adopting it by those property owners in the proposed district.

Second, once enacted, buyers of property are responsible for all laws and ordinances that govern their property, including historic district guidelines. In other words, you buy it under these conditions - that's the deal - so there's no legitimate claim for ignorance later.

But fundamentally, this is about legislating "appropriateness". And since the general public at large has failed miserably in this respect, these districts often serve their purpose well, insomuch that they help preserve appropriate development and upkeep in the urban areas that deserve such.

I haven't read anything about a vote about this other than by the planning commssion and city council. According to OnDickson's post, the local property owners have been left out of the process of creating this disrtict. This has been by the non-elected individuals that we no nothing of their backgrounds or qualifacations.

According to the city's website the Historic District Commssion serves an advisory role and not a all powerful governing role- this a deceptive description and should be changed to reflect the true role of the commssion..

In this age of every government agency, business and individual having a website, blog or at least a MySpace page it is shocking that the proposed Dickson Street Historic District has no presence online. There is no information about it on the city's website, not even a mention other than the required meeting notices. There is no map of the district's boundaries or what structures are contributing and non-contributing, much less how the district will operate. For such important decisions to not be online easily viewed by the property owners and all the citizens of Fayetteville makes it seem as they are being kept as secret as possible. If this is any indiciation of how the district would operate then is more inportant than ever that it not be established.

[butttrumpet]

I guess the new "People's Government" under Jordan is only "open" when it won't prevent them from doing whatever the hell they feel like.

[zman9810]

I guess the new "People's Government" under Jordan is only "open" when it won't prevent them from doing whatever the hell they feel like.

Well...I don't think we can blame the Jordan administration entirely for the lack of openness- the ordinance district has been in the process of establishment for some time now. The political climate in town hasn't been favorable to it happening and now after the change in leadership both in the mayor's office and on the council is much more so. This would be a good opportunity for the Jordan administration to demonstrate it's commitment to being responsive to the general public and to showing that the buck stops at the top by making sure that all aspects of the proposed district are on display online for all to see.

This is the first attempt to establish a local historic district by ordinance. The Washington-Willow, Wilson Park and Mount Nord residential districts are recognized by the National Register of Historic Places the same as the present commercial Dickson Street Historic District is. This designation does not give a non-elected group of individuals the total control over what happens in the area- it is a simply a list of what historic places are worth preserving. It helps property owners in realizing the historic value of their property and what they can do to preserve it. This is why Mark Zweig is able to continue his great work in renovating properties in the central part of town without the interference from a commission.

Edited February 9, 2009 by zman9810

[Snaple4]

Historic District Commission will meet Thursday, February 12 room 111 at 5:30pm.

Should we have a separate topic for the Historic committee discussion?

[Mith242]

Historic District Commission will meet Thursday, February 12 room 111 at 5:30pm.

Should we have a separate topic for the Historic committee discussion?

I don't have any problem with a new topic. Especially if it keeps getting this much attention. Do we make a specific one for just this specific Dickson St District or a more general one?

[Snaple4]

The way I understand it, the Dickson St area is under question but the committee would have the potential of overseeing other areas. I would say a general one that just happens to have a focus on the Dickson St. area.

[zman9810]

The only thing is that when something is in the Fayetteville topic it seems to get more views. I think that is because a lot of people are subscribed to the Fayetteville topic and get email notices when a new post is made where as a separate topic may not have the subscribers and so get less views. The proposed district is already under publicized- I'd hate to see it get lost on here also.

I'd add that the district discussion is also a part of the bigger overall topic of how Fayetteville is going to address future development and how the new city leaders will govern the city.

Edited February 9, 2009 by zman9810

[Mith242]

Apparently Fayetteville has a new ad campaign. The slogan is 'Are you feeling Fayetteville?' The word Fayetteville being Razorback red. Apparently one ad mentions Fayetteville's 'top draft choices' the drafts on Dickson St not the sports draft players. Another ad mentions watching the Hogs go wild, but not the Razorbacks but the Harley Davidson 'hogs' during the BBB Festival.

[hogwash]

I was curious does anyone know how the tree ordinance works on existing businesses and such and the loss of trees? I know when new development happens they have to keep a certain percentage of trees and such. But what about some of these places that have lost a lot or maybe even all their trees because of the ice storm? Are they required to replant trees or does the ordinance only apply to a new development?

I'm fairly certain it applies to new development or redevelopment only. I could be wrong though.

Edited February 10, 2009 by hogwash

[Mith242]

I'm fairly certain it applies to new development or redevelopment only. I could be wrong though.

That's my guess. Either way I'm not sure if the city is ready to go after every business and development that lost trees in the recent ice storm. I think in some ways this has helped clear out some of those Bradford Pear trees. Yeah they are nice in the Spring with all their blooms. But they really aren't very hardy trees and developers really went crazy using them especially in the 80's and 90's.

[Mith242]

Well I did see some press on the preservation of Dickson St in one of the local newspapers. So at least some word is starting to get out a little more. Apparently there would be two sets of criteria set up. One for buildings over 50 years old. and a more lenient set of guidelines for younger buildings. I think overall there will be problems on getting people to agree on the older buildings. Some people want the 'atmosphere' of Dickson St to be preserved. But at the same time there's probably a number of buildings that are older than 50 years old that honestly don't really stand out on their own and aren't architecturally unique. Seems like there's going to be a hard balancing act between those two positions. I do thing there needs to be some protection against any developer coming in and tearing down any structure on Dickson St they wanted. But at the same time a lot of buildings on Dickson St might be old but really not particularly 'significant' buildings. I don't think you necessarily save every single building just because it's old. I'm also curious to see how this is going to unfold to the owners of property on Dickson St. I imagine some will welcome the idea but others aren't necessarily going to want limitations put on them because their structure is older than 50 years old. I guess I'd like to see a more decisive move made on what would be saved and what areas of Dickson St would be available for future redevelopment. I realize you might not be able to simplify it and say this block of buildings is worth saving and this block isn't. While I do think there are some buildings of Dickson St that need to be preserved I also think there needs to be made areas of Dickson St that are open for redevelopment. I think you have to allow some growth and redevelopment or else eventually things stagnate.

[butttrumpet]

As much as I hate infringing on private property owner rights, I'd like to see a "core" of Dickson Street preserved.

That said, 3 Sisters is a great building and it would never have happened had something like this been in place.

It seems to me that the general "feel" of Dickson could just as easily be preserved by having strict design standards.

[Mith242]

As much as I hate infringing on private property owner rights, I'd like to see a "core" of Dickson Street preserved.

That said, 3 Sisters is a great building and it would never have happened had something like this been in place.

It seems to me that the general "feel" of Dickson could just as easily be preserved by having strict design standards.

Yeah that's the difficult thing. While I would like to have parts of Dickson St preserved like you said you also realize that it would also could also keep potential developments like the Three Sisters development from happening. While I also would like to see some sections of Dickson St preserved I also don't know if I like the idea of having to preserve any building if it's older than 50 years old. While a number of them would be worth saving I'm not so sure all buildings that age are really worthy of saving. I just don't know if all of the older buildings on Dickson are special and unique enough to be worth saving. If someone built a sub par building should it be saved just because it's old? I also think areas right off Dickson should be made available for redevelopment. While The Legacy isn't a favorite by many I still think it's far enough back that other new developments should be allowed right off the street level. I think more people might be more favorable if we had something like another Underwood Lofts type building in that location. But I imagine there are a number of people who would want to keep all 'taller' developments well away from Dickson St.

[butttrumpet]

It seems to me that some of the most vocal people in this city as far as preserving the feel of Dickson Street may have not been around long enough to remember the area prior to the WAC.

I'm all for quality development and redevelopment, but I really don't consider much of Dickson to be historic. At least not in the way the Square is. And even then, the Square is a mix of old and new.

I think a better approach would be to regulate facade materials, MAYBE building heights, and just be strict about maintaining (and improving on) the character of the area in a general sense. Hog Haus, for example, at the time it was redeveloped, was sorely needed. Today, I'd hope that the kind of stucco facade that it has might be discouraged.

I feel like the historic designation is just another backdoor way of trying to keep everything in Fayetteville the way it is forever.

[mzweig]

It seems to me that some of the most vocal people in this city as far as preserving the feel of Dickson Street may have not been around long enough to remember the area prior to the WAC.

I'm all for quality development and redevelopment, but I really don't consider much of Dickson to be historic. At least not in the way the Square is. And even then, the Square is a mix of old and new.

I think a better approach would be to regulate facade materials, MAYBE building heights, and just be strict about maintaining (and improving on) the character of the area in a general sense. Hog Haus, for example, at the time it was redeveloped, was sorely needed. Today, I'd hope that the kind of stucco facade that it has might be discouraged.

I feel like the historic designation is just another backdoor way of trying to keep everything in Fayetteville the way it is forever.

I do agree that the historic designation is just another attempt to keep F-Ville just like it is. Can't happen! Change is inevitable. We need good change, done smart, with taste, and sensitivity to maintaining character. Dickson will change and evolve. If it doesn't, it will become obsolete in the future.

M

[Mith242]

I do think that's the bigger problem with all of this. Like it's been mentioned in the previous posts. While trying to preserve a part of Dickson St is a noble idea, it seems like it's more a way for a group of people to try to prevent change happening. It's unfortunate that some people can't seem to just accept change. I'm not saying all of Dickson St need to be razed and redeveloped. But you just can't keep everything the way it is. Things just don't work that way. You can't try to make Fayetteville into some sort of living museum. If you don't allow for change things begin to stagnate. I don't have a problem with trying to preserve parts of Dickson St. But I do worry about what this group of people are actually trying to do.

[OnDickson]

I do think that's the bigger problem with all of this. Like it's been mentioned in the previous posts. While trying to preserve a part of Dickson St is a noble idea, it seems like it's more a way for a group of people to try to prevent change happening. It's unfortunate that some people can't seem to just accept change. I'm not saying all of Dickson St need to be razed and redeveloped. But you just can't keep everything the way it is. Things just don't work that way. You can't try to make Fayetteville into some sort of living museum. If you don't allow for change things begin to stagnate. I don't have a problem with trying to preserve parts of Dickson St. But I do worry about what this group of people are actually trying to do.

It is interesting to note that some of the people who have been pushing the hardest for this district (including some board members and a past and the present charperson) are principal investors in several large developments in the downtown area (most recently, the Underwood building). If this historic district passes, there will be no more large condo developments of this nature allowed in the heart of the Dickson Street area. Obviously this would be of great benefit to existing structures such as the Underwood building. In time, the property value of buildings like the Underwood could skyrocket while the property value of less densely developed property containing historic structures could take a severe hit due to the loss of potential for future major development. Now I'm not advocating allowing major developments like Legacy and Divinity on every corner, but I question the wisdom of allowing certain developers and investors to have complete authority over development on Dickson by use of a 'historic' district.

I don't mean to question the motives of some people who really might have good intentions, but to me at best, this at least raises some questions about a possible conflict of interest. I can't help it, but this whole thing smells fishy to me.

[zman9810]

It's interesting that even in the Morning News article the commssioners say that a public buy-in is essential although they have made most of the decisions without the all of property owners' input or putting the process out on display for the public to easily see what is going on. The article also mentions that the commission will oversee changes to the facades of buildings, which makes it seem somewhat innocous. In fact, it will control whether or not a building is even built. Future development will be entirely in the hands of these non-elected individuals.

Morning News article

Edited February 18, 2009 by zman9810

[aerotive]

'"So I want to encourage a certain amount of that eclecticism"

I'd like to know how eclecticism is quantified. This all seems bogus, a front to prevent anyone from building either any new, upscale buildings, or anything else that's too eclectic or weird that might, God forbid, lower property values.

"It is interesting to note that some of the people who have been pushing the hardest for this district (including some board members and a past and the present charperson) are principal investors in several large developments in the downtown area"

Agreed, very interesting.

Edited February 20, 2009 by aerotive

[Mith242]

Looks like Nightbird Books will be moving into the former Ozark Smokehouse from it's former location at the Old Mill District. While it seems like good news it just seems to me that overall it seems to be hard keeping businesses in over at the Old Mill District. Although it sounds like space was the main reason for moving in this case.

[Mith242]

According to Forbes Fayetteville is the 6th best College Town in America. Pretty nice ranking considering some of the competition. Now I'm just wondering where Forbes got that picture and where exactly that is.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/college-s...iteglove_google

[jdevers]

According to Forbes Fayetteville is the 6th best College Town in America. Pretty nice ranking considering some of the competition. Now I'm just wondering where Forbes got that picture and where exactly that is.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/college-s...iteglove_google

It kind of looks like a house off of 112 between Johnson and Tontitown, but I'm not positive at all.