Jump to content

Fayetteville, Arkansas


Recommended Posts

There will be a meeting this Monday for the Dickson St property owners to attend dealing with the historical district. While some like the Underwoods are happy to have it declared a historic district to help keep their recent development having too much competition. I'm curious to see what a lot of the other property owners are going to have to say about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Fayetteville's Dickson Street Bookstore gets a worldwide honor from Buzzfeed.  Would if the store become as big and airy as some of those others, but regardless, congratulations to them.

Fayetteville city government is a mess.  Because of our weak mayor and a city council that is obsessed with creating scooter insurance laws/mailbox parking laws/pushing their own social agenda as oppo

I favor urban infill and less sprawl, and I really, really dislike Sara Marsh as a council member.  She goes way too far with her idealism to the point of not being practical.

Posted Images

There will be a meeting this Monday for the Dickson St property owners to attend dealing with the historical district. While some like the Underwoods are happy to have it declared a historic district to help keep their recent development having too much competition. I'm curious to see what a lot of the other property owners are going to have to say about it.

Just a little more detail...it's at the UARK Bowl on Dickson (just a few feet from the Lofts at Underwood Plaza <_< ) at 5:30 PM Monday. I've heard both that it is open to the public and also that it's for affected property owners only. Maybe I'll make up a sign and if they don't let me in I'll picket the meeting. That should help draw a little bit of attention. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my sentiments are the same as most everyone else about the historic district. Most historic districts remind me of the movie "Cars" where the old town in the desert suffered from a highway bypass. The dream is to bring the people and commerce back, but most of the time it is unrealistic. We have a good thing going on Dickson street and I'd hate for something to interrupt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little more detail...it's at the UARK Bowl on Dickson (just a few feet from the Lofts at Underwood Plaza <_< ) at 5:30 PM Monday. I've heard both that it is open to the public and also that it's for affected property owners only. Maybe I'll make up a sign and if they don't let me in I'll picket the meeting. That should help draw a little bit of attention. LOL

The letter I received said that the meeting was being held for information purposes for affected property owners but that it was also open to the general public--so no picketing necessary! It will be interesting to see what kind of turnout there is for the meeting and what the feedback is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter I received said that the meeting was being held for information purposes for affected property owners but that it was also open to the general public--so no picketing necessary! It will be interesting to see what kind of turnout there is for the meeting and what the feedback is.

Thanks for the information. I also wonder about how big a turnout there will be. When I read that the Dickson Street Book Shop owner was unaware of what the historic district entailed it became clear of how little the city and commission has included the propery owners and general public in creating it. This meeting and many others should have happened three years ago when the discussions started- not after the fact. The notices on the city website may have met the legal requirements but not the need of the community to be informed.

Edited by zman9810
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I will attend. Not sure if it will be the full length of the meeting or not though; I have a RIC meeting on campus that starts at 6:30.

Anyone have any suggestions of what to say to people? Anyone want to provide arguments for/against? I guess it would be a recap of previous posts and anything new that comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The historic district meeting lasted about an hour and 20 minutes. They started with Introductions of the people involved and then with the audience. They started with a slide show that showed pictures of the Rogers historic area and went into detail about some of the "effects" of that (I thought it was a waste of my time after the first 5 minutes or so. I was not impressed with this part of the presentation but I also had a meeting that I was missing so it might have been just me). We then had a gentleman (he is a liaison for historical areas and the state?) (He also used some quotes from this forum, though he did not provide recognition) speak about Rogers and Little Rock. I was impressed with his speaking. He presented several facts about tourism and some financial numbers. There was also some other talking from the people upfront.

During questions (And this really bothered me, a lot), we had a moderator to direct the questions who was part of the committee. He ended up answering most of the questions and interjecting his ideas before the others had a chance to answer a question. Several points came up, the most common was the restrictiveness that his would create. I just can not get over the moderator, that really bothered me. A woman also pointed out that this was to protect against a neighbor and future generations from doing something that could harm property values.

The meeting was more of just a quick, we have a district here and here and these are some pictures. Little was actually said about the structure of the commission, where they would locate, who the members are and their views, how they would determine if a contributing structure was worth demolishing (they spoke about that happening somewhere else but our commission gave no input). They did provide some background. They referred back to the Dover review for why the commission was originally started. All in all, good points were raised during questioning but the meeting itself was not very well planned or informative.

I know I have left out a lot and put in my opinion so anyone else who attended, please feel free to expand or correct me.

----

We also had a forum member provide handouts before the start of the meeting. I thought he was an organizer until I got inside and started reading the info... It made me smile. So, thank you for that.

Edited by Snaple4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The historic district meeting lasted about an hour and 20 minutes. They started with Introductions of the people involved and then with the audience. They started with a slide show that showed pictures of the Rogers historic area and went into detail about some of the "effects" of that (I thought it was a waste of my time after the first 5 minutes or so. I was not impressed with this part of the presentation but I also had a meeting that I was missing so it might have been just me). We then had a gentleman (he is a liaison for historical areas and the state?) (He also used some quotes from this forum, though he did not provide recognition) speak about Rogers and Little Rock. I was impressed with his speaking. He presented several facts about tourism and some financial numbers. There was also some other talking from the people upfront.

During questions (And this really bothered me, a lot), we had a moderator to direct the questions who was part of the committee. He ended up answering most of the questions and interjecting his ideas before the others had a chance to answer a question. Several points came up, the most common was the restrictiveness that his would create. I just can not get over the moderator, that really bothered me. A woman also pointed out that this was to protect against a neighbor and future generations from doing something that could harm property values.

The meeting was more of just a quick, we have a district here and here and these are some pictures. Little was actually said about the structure of the commission, where they would locate, who the members are and their views, how they would determine if a contributing structure was worth demolishing (they spoke about that happening somewhere else but our commission gave no input). They did provide some background. They referred back to the Dover review for why the commission was originally started. All in all, good points were raised during questioning but the meeting itself was not very well planned or informative.

I know I have left out a lot and put in my opinion so anyone else who attended, please feel free to expand or correct me.

----

We also had a forum member provide handouts before the start of the meeting. I thought he was an organizer until I got inside and started reading the info... It made me smile. So, thank you for that.

Thanks for the update on the meeting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The historic district meeting lasted about an hour and 20 minutes. They started with Introductions of the people involved and then with the audience. They started with a slide show that showed pictures of the Rogers historic area and went into detail about some of the "effects" of that (I thought it was a waste of my time after the first 5 minutes or so. I was not impressed with this part of the presentation but I also had a meeting that I was missing so it might have been just me). We then had a gentleman (he is a liaison for historical areas and the state?) (He also used some quotes from this forum, though he did not provide recognition) speak about Rogers and Little Rock. I was impressed with his speaking. He presented several facts about tourism and some financial numbers. There was also some other talking from the people upfront.

During questions (And this really bothered me, a lot), we had a moderator to direct the questions who was part of the committee. He ended up answering most of the questions and interjecting his ideas before the others had a chance to answer a question. Several points came up, the most common was the restrictiveness that his would create. I just can not get over the moderator, that really bothered me. A woman also pointed out that this was to protect against a neighbor and future generations from doing something that could harm property values.

The meeting was more of just a quick, we have a district here and here and these are some pictures. Little was actually said about the structure of the commission, where they would locate, who the members are and their views, how they would determine if a contributing structure was worth demolishing (they spoke about that happening somewhere else but our commission gave no input). They did provide some background. They referred back to the Dover review for why the commission was originally started. All in all, good points were raised during questioning but the meeting itself was not very well planned or informative.

I know I have left out a lot and put in my opinion so anyone else who attended, please feel free to expand or correct me.

----

We also had a forum member provide handouts before the start of the meeting. I thought he was an organizer until I got inside and started reading the info... It made me smile. So, thank you for that.

Here is the article about the meeting:

http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/74475/

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also had a forum member provide handouts before the start of the meeting. I thought he was an organizer until I got inside and started reading the info... It made me smile. So, thank you for that.

Now that I have a little more time.....

I was curious who was handing out info on UP. Guess I hadn't realized anyone else had received any UP pamphlets to hand out other than me and the former moderator Matt. Whoever it was thanks for helping to get the word out about the forum. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the article about the meeting:

http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/74475/

Yeah from what I had read earlier it made it sound like quite a few of the business owners weren't too thrilled with the idea. In fact I don't recall really seeing any mention of any of the business owners for it. You'd think the Underwoods are for it. It helps potentially keep future competition away for the Underwood Lofts. Just seems to me that if they are going to try to go forward with this idea they need to scale the covered area back. I think there's too many buildings that just don't need to be covered in this historical district. Then you also get back to the argument of just you try to save every building just because it's old? While I certainly think some buildings probably should be saved on Dickson St, there are others that just don't stand out what so ever other than the fact that they're older buildings. But none of them come close to the quality type older buildings on the Square. There's no historical district for the Square is there? Shouldn't they move to protect that are first then worry later about preserving parts of Dickson St? It just goes back to what a number of people have already stated on here. This just seems more of a move to try to prevent development occurring for those people who are afraid of change and want to try to keep Fayetteville exactly as it is now. They know there isn't as much demand for redevelopment on the Square so they don't make any moves there but are making big pushes for Dickson St.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah from what I had read earlier it made it sound like quite a few of the business owners weren't too thrilled with the idea. In fact I don't recall really seeing any mention of any of the business owners for it. You'd think the Underwoods are for it. It helps potentially keep future competition away for the Underwood Lofts. Just seems to me that if they are going to try to go forward with this idea they need to scale the covered area back. I think there's too many buildings that just don't need to be covered in this historical district. Then you also get back to the argument of just you try to save every building just because it's old? While I certainly think some buildings probably should be saved on Dickson St, there are others that just don't stand out what so ever other than the fact that they're older buildings. But none of them come close to the quality type older buildings on the Square. There's no historical district for the Square is there? Shouldn't they move to protect that are first then worry later about preserving parts of Dickson St? It just goes back to what a number of people have already stated on here. This just seems more of a move to try to prevent development occurring for those people who are afraid of change and want to try to keep Fayetteville exactly as it is now. They know there isn't as much demand for redevelopment on the Square so they don't make any moves there but are making big pushes for Dickson St.

I agree that this is a veiled attempt to stifle development in the area.

I'd like to know the average age of the committee members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this is a veiled attempt to stifle development in the area.

I'd like to know the average age of the committee members.

Yeah I hate to make it sound like I'm anti preservation. But I just can't support this with the way they're going about it. I do wish there had been something to help preserve parts of the Square in the past so that we'd have better representation of historic buildings on the Square. But those buildings also stood out a lot more of buildings with architectural significance. I just don't think that same situation exists on Dickson St. There are older houses on the south side of Fayetteville. Sure none of them stand out architecturally, but hey they're somewhat old therefore they all need to be saved. In fact maybe south Fayetteville needs saving as well. :rolleyes: It's just silly how you can turn their argument into something like that. I just don't see all the buildings on Dickson St being of architectural significance that they need to be preserved. I think you could reduce the historical district to maybe a couple of small concentrated sections of Dickson St. Then allow the rest to be areas for potential redevelopment. There are building ordinances in place now for Dickson St making harder for certain types of developments to happen. I realize I'm preaching to the choir here. But I still wanted to throw all that out there anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also had a forum member provide handouts before the start of the meeting. I thought he was an organizer until I got inside and started reading the info... It made me smile. So, thank you for that.

Did they have their screenname on their nametag? :silly:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monday evening meeting was very successful in terms of feedback from the property owners and public to the the commission and city. There was good attendance and the some of the owners asked very good questions and made pertintent points that the panel of experts didn't rebutt very well. The panel experts from Rogers and NLR gave presentations of their historic districts although as one owner pointed out Dickson Street isn't a run down area like those city's districts were. He also made the points that it has been private individuals using their own resources that have made Dickson the great place that it is and that the sense of place has been created without interference from a commission. I also wonder how much the construction of Alltel Arena and the Dickey-Stephens Ballpark contributed to the redevelopemnt of that area in NLR and how much was because of the historic district establishment.

One of the panel members made a point of how property values go up with the establishment of a historic district. This is a deceptive argument though - it may go up for the special few who are in the right place at the right time but for that property owner who has a large lot slated for a new development but can't build it because of a contributing structure that takes a a small portion of the lot -it is a bust. If the old Dave's on Dickson or University Auto repair had kept the Lofts at Underwood Plaza from being built the value of that lot would be a fraction of what it is now.

Another point was made that by having non-elected commissioners make the decisions instead of the city council it takes politics out of the process. It's a little naive to think that being non-elected means that the private indivduals don't have political leanings or are immune to political pressure. That isn't to say that is the case with this commission at this time but in reading about commissions in other cities that is indeed the case. The claim that the city council members may not have the historical expertise can be remedied by having the commission as an advisory group- much like the description on the city website.

Thanks to Karen Minkel for providing a clue as to where on the city website the district information could be found- it took some digging but here are some links. The use of the words guidelines and recommendations is misleading- they are mandates backed up by the threat of $3,500 per week fines if you don't follow them.

Map

Guidelines

Address list

The handouts were about the historic district- not about UP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monday evening meeting was very successful in terms of feedback from the property owners and public to the the commission and city. There was good attendance and the some of the owners asked very good questions and made pertintent points that the panel of experts didn't rebutt very well. The panel experts from Rogers and NLR gave presentations of their historic districts although as one owner pointed out Dickson Street isn't a run down area like those city's districts were. He also made the points that it has been private individuals using their own resources that have made Dickson the great place that it is and that the sense of place has been created without interference from a commission. I also wonder how much the construction of Alltel Arena and the Dickey-Stephens Ballpark contributed to the redevelopemnt of that area in NLR and how much was because of the historic district establishment.

One of the panel members made a point of how property values go up with the establishment of a historic district. This is a deceptive argument though - it may go up for the special few who are in the right place at the right time but for that property owner who has a large lot slated for a new development but can't build it because of a contributing structure that takes a a small portion of the lot -it is a bust. If the old Dave's on Dickson or University Auto repair had kept the Lofts at Underwood Plaza from being built the value of that lot would be a fraction of what it is now.

Another point was made that by having non-elected commissioners make the decisions instead of the city council it takes politics out of the process. It's a little naive to think that being non-elected means that the private indivduals don't have political leanings or are immune to political pressure. That isn't to say that is the case with this commission at this time but in reading about commissions in other cities that is indeed the case. The claim that the city council members may not have the historical expertise can be remedied by having the commission as an advisory group- much like the description on the city website.

Thanks to Karen Minkel for providing a clue as to where on the city website the district information could be found- it took some digging but here are some links. The use of the words guidelines and recommendations is misleading- they are mandates backed up by the threat of $3,500 per week fines if you don't follow them.

Map

Guidelines

Address list

The handouts were about the historic district- not about UP.

So is this committee and district in place and functioning, or is it all still up in the air as to whether its going to be established?

I don't have a dog in the hunt perse (not a D St property owner), but I hate to see any political red-tape crap that is put in place just to stifle development and progression.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this committee and district in place and functioning, or is it all still up in the air as to whether its going to be established?

I don't have a dog in the hunt perse (not a D St property owner), but I hate to see any political red-tape crap that is put in place just to stifle development and progression.

The Historic Commission is in place and has been for many years. The Dickson Street Historic District by ordinance has not been established but has everything in place for it to be voted on by the city council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monday evening meeting was very successful in terms of feedback from the property owners and public to the the commission and city. There was good attendance and the some of the owners asked very good questions and made pertintent points that the panel of experts didn't rebutt very well. The panel experts from Rogers and NLR gave presentations of their historic districts although as one owner pointed out Dickson Street isn't a run down area like those city's districts were. He also made the points that it has been private individuals using their own resources that have made Dickson the great place that it is and that the sense of place has been created without interference from a commission. I also wonder how much the construction of Alltel Arena and the Dickey-Stephens Ballpark contributed to the redevelopemnt of that area in NLR and how much was because of the historic district establishment.

I'm pretty certain that in NLR, Alltel came first, historic district development 2nd and Dickey Stephens last. So Alltel pretty much drove the Argenta resurgence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Historic Commission is in place and has been for many years. The Dickson Street Historic District by ordinance has not been established but has everything in place for it to be voted on by the city council.

Do we know when they might vote on this, and how they City Council is leaning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know when they might vote on this, and how they City Council is leaning?

They were shooting for a vote within 6 months although I don't know if that is still the plan. I think with the change in makeup of the city council and in the mayor's office after the last election there is a better chance of the district being established. I suspect that is why the decision has came up at this time- the proponents of the district see an opening to push it through. There may be some city leaders who see the district as a way to avoid having to make controversial decisions on development issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this committee and district in place and functioning, or is it all still up in the air as to whether its going to be established?

I don't have a dog in the hunt per se (not a D St property owner), but I hate to see any political red-tape crap that is put in place just to stifle development and progression.

The way I understand it, the historical district has been around for a while now. But it's pretty loosely structured and only recognizes the older buildings in that area. But right now they have no input on what people can do to their buildings on Dickson St. That's what they're trying to change. I could be wrong but I think part of what started this was how the Old Railroad Station was renovated on Dickson a few years back. The developer apparently made enough changes and didn't use the right historically accurate materials like the roofing tiles. So now unless there's a major overhaul to the building it can't be listed as a historic building anymore. I see that point to a certain degree and it would have been nice had they been able to keep it a historic building. But I don't know having it sit empty for all those years was any better alternative. Had the developer been told the changes they could make were limited and specific more expensive materials could only be used for the redevelopment there's a good chance it could still be sitting there empty. I think there has to be some sort of fine line to be drawn in that particular instance. The Old Railroad Station is architecturally unique. But do you try to preserve things to the degree that no developer wants to fix up a location like that and it sits empty instead? I don't know how many years it sat there empty before finally someone did something with it.

The Monday evening meeting was very successful in terms of feedback from the property owners and public to the the commission and city. There was good attendance and the some of the owners asked very good questions and made pertintent points that the panel of experts didn't rebutt very well. The panel experts from Rogers and NLR gave presentations of their historic districts although as one owner pointed out Dickson Street isn't a run down area like those city's districts were. He also made the points that it has been private individuals using their own resources that have made Dickson the great place that it is and that the sense of place has been created without interference from a commission. I also wonder how much the construction of Alltel Arena and the Dickey-Stephens Ballpark contributed to the redevelopemnt of that area in NLR and how much was because of the historic district establishment.

One of the panel members made a point of how property values go up with the establishment of a historic district. This is a deceptive argument though - it may go up for the special few who are in the right place at the right time but for that property owner who has a large lot slated for a new development but can't build it because of a contributing structure that takes a a small portion of the lot -it is a bust. If the old Dave's on Dickson or University Auto repair had kept the Lofts at Underwood Plaza from being built the value of that lot would be a fraction of what it is now.

Another point was made that by having non-elected commissioners make the decisions instead of the city council it takes politics out of the process. It's a little naive to think that being non-elected means that the private indivduals don't have political leanings or are immune to political pressure. That isn't to say that is the case with this commission at this time but in reading about commissions in other cities that is indeed the case. The claim that the city council members may not have the historical expertise can be remedied by having the commission as an advisory group- much like the description on the city website.

Thanks to Karen Minkel for providing a clue as to where on the city website the district information could be found- it took some digging but here are some links. The use of the words guidelines and recommendations is misleading- they are mandates backed up by the threat of $3,500 per week fines if you don't follow them.

Map

Guidelines

Address list

The handouts were about the historic district- not about UP.

Thanks for the info and links.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain that in NLR, Alltel came first, historic district development 2nd and Dickey Stephens last. So Alltel pretty much drove the Argenta resurgence.

Thanks for the confirmation- I think the River Rail extension has helped also hasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with the gentleman from the State the presented and one of the things I mentioned was the rail system. He said that was part of the historic district and what has revitalized the area. They were not very well prepared at our meeting to confront what should have been an obvious concern. They mentioned that this is for protecting the feel and atmosphere of Dickson. It really has nothing to do with revitalization like most other historic districts are created for. The gentleman did focus on facts, as I pointed out, but they were based on revitalization of an area. The area generally appreciates faster in value is one example. But with LR and NLR, they also created the trolley (they may have even upgraded the roads such as on Dickson and now 71B). So they were not prepared to present a Historic district to this type of an area. I applaud those who have worked (I do understand that a lot of work has been done) on this but it really was such a poor presentation.

It is great that we have a Historic district here along Dickson and other parts of the city. Moreover, I understand that we can receive tax credits and such for properly working on a building that is designated as historic or within the historic area. They tried to say that in order to get the tax credits we had to have an enforced district.

I am still having issues with the Moderator. That really bothered me. Nothing shows professionalism like that. Having a committee member moderate the questions like that, shame on them. I guess it wouldn’t have been bad if he would have kept his opinions and directed the questions to the appropriate people. Sorry, but I am sure I will complain about this again later.

Edited by Snaple4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.