Fayetteville, Arkansas

[Mith242]

There had been a lot of talk of the city spending even more changes to Block Ave because there's been so many complaints. While a number of them have already been addressed there's still the back in parking that some are still complaining about. But looks like the city is planning on leaving it for now. They opted not to spend any more money. Personally I still don't see the back in parking as that horrible. Yeah it is different. What bugs me more is the attitude that people here just can't/won't get it. So other parts of the country have been using this type of parking for years. But people here just can't or won't get used to it here?

[zman9810]

There had been a lot of talk of the city spending even more changes to Block Ave because there's been so many complaints. While a number of them have already been addressed there's still the back in parking that some are still complaining about. But looks like the city is planning on leaving it for now. They opted not to spend any more money. Personally I still don't see the back in parking as that horrible. Yeah it is different. What bugs me more is the attitude that people here just can't/won't get it. So other parts of the country have been using this type of parking for years. But people here just can't or won't get used to it here?

I think the city needs to listen to what the business opwners along the street are saying. If the back in parking and the big curb outs are hurting business it is a good idea to adjust them. The old Block Ave. was much friendlier to drive down and park on - I avoid it now.

[Mith242]

I think the city needs to listen to what the business opwners along the street are saying. If the back in parking and the big curb outs are hurting business it is a good idea to adjust them. The old Block Ave. was much friendlier to drive down and park on - I avoid it now.

Maybe I don't drive it as often as you do, but I really haven't had any problems driving Block Ave. It's different than it was before, but for me at least it really hasn't been any hassle to it. While drivers don't seem to care for it, I wonder what the pedestrians in that area think. That's really why most of the changes were made, to make that section between Dickson St and the Square more pedestrian friendly. Perhaps a better compromise can be found. But I still don't think it was a bad idea to try out the back in parking. Especially as I said before other areas have it already and some have had it for decades. I don't want to see businesses in that are hurt, but I still think more time should be given to help people adjust. I just find it funny that some almost seem to suggest that people here just can't adjust to it while other cities have.

[wmr]

Maybe I don't drive it as often as you do, but I really haven't had any problems driving Block Ave. It's different than it was before, but for me at least it really hasn't been any hassle to it. While drivers don't seem to care for it, I wonder what the pedestrians in that area think. That's really why most of the changes were made, to make that section between Dickson St and the Square more pedestrian friendly. Perhaps a better compromise can be found. But I still don't think it was a bad idea to try out the back in parking. Especially as I said before other areas have it already and some have had it for decades. I don't want to see businesses in that are hurt, but I still think more time should be given to help people adjust. I just find it funny that some almost seem to suggest that people here just can't adjust to it while other cities have.

One of the biggest problems I have with the design is that the back in parking makes trucks, etc hang over the sidewalk on Block, making it even less pedestrian-friendly than it was before. The fronts of cars and trucks don't hang over as far as the rears.

The city tried to make this street better for cars and for people on foot. I'd say they failed in all attempts. Quite an accomplishment to spend $250,000.00 to ruin the functionality of a city street.

[zman9810]

One of the biggest problems I have with the design is that the back in parking makes trucks, etc hang over the sidewalk on Block, making it even less pedestrian-friendly than it was before. The fronts of cars and trucks don't hang over as far as the rears.

The city tried to make this street better for cars and for people on foot. I'd say they failed in all attempts. Quite an accomplishment to spend $250,000.00 to ruin the functionality of a city street.

I have to partially agree- the only thing they needed to do to make it more pedestrian friendly was to lay new sidewalks and to create traffic calming they could have added curbouts and trees like they did on Dickson. Like Mith said- I don't think the emphasis was to make it more vehicle friendly but more pedestrian friendly. The back in parking is one of those ideas that is great in therory but not practical in this specific situation. The city staff and street committee that came up with the current plan are being stubborn instead of flexible and doing what is needed to make Block the best it can be.

[wmr]

I have to partially agree- the only thing they needed to do to make it more pedestrian friendly was to lay new sidewalks and to create traffic calming they could have added curbouts and trees like they did on Dickson. Like Mith said- I don't think the emphasis was to make it more vehicle friendly but more pedestrian friendly. The back in parking is one of those ideas that is great in therory but not practical in this specific situation. The city staff and street committee that came up with the current plan are being stubborn instead of flexible and doing what is needed to make Block the best it can be.

I don't think any of them think the design is good at this point. They have spent the money and it would cost 25-30k to fix it at this point. That's money that can be used elsewhere, and in these tight budget times, they can't really justify spending more money on a project that hasn't lived up to expectations.

[aerotive]

There's an excellent post over at fayettevilleflyer about all the vacancies between North & Sycamore.

http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2010/11/08/college-avenue-stretch-receives-another-vacancy/

All these defunct properties seem to be generating new ones as the area becomes more barren.

[wmr]

Anybody concerned about the future growth of Fayetteville needs to go take the CityPlan2030 survey here: http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/strategic_planning/projects/City_Plan_2030_.cfm

[Mith242]

Anybody concerned about the future growth of Fayetteville needs to go take the CityPlan2030 survey here: http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/strategic_planning/projects/City_Plan_2030_.cfm

Thanks for the link. You know I barely heard anything about the City Plan 2030 as compared to the City Plan 2025. I imagine the economy put a damper on things. But it also just seemed like the city didn't make it as big of a priority this time round. I don't think they really even had very good times set up for the meetings.

Fayetteville's been awarded a $500,000 grant, part of which will go towards extending the trail to Walker Park.

Corrected link:

http://www.ozarksunbound.com/fayetteville-awarded-50000-through-sustainable-cities-institutes-pilot-program/12677

This was posted in the trail system topic. But the link and article deals with other things than just the trail extension. Thought I'd post it over here as well. Only two cities in the country got this grant and Fayetteville was one of them. Nice to see Fayetteville get something like this.

[Mith242]

The city has released it's sidewalk improvements for 2011. Although the city has also said it tends to schedule extra so that if other projects slow down city personnel have something else to work on. But most of these should be worked on for next year. If all completed it would be about 5 miles of sidewalk costing $1 Mil. Unlike the past two years, this time they will do work in all four wards of the city.

Eden Circle from the cul de sac to Clover Dr.

Huntsville Rd from Blair Ave to Morningside Dr.

Morningside Dr from Huntsville Rd to Fairlane and then to 15th St.

South St from West Ave to Archibald Yell Blvd.

Spring St from College Ave to Fletcher Ave.

Davidson St from College Ave to Washington Ave.

Gregg Ave from Sycamore St to Spruce St.

Lafayette St from Washington Ave to Willow Ave.

Lawson St from Porter Rd to Sang Ave.

Mt Comfort Rd from Stephens Ave to Garland Ave.

Oakland Ave from Sycamore St to Mt Comfort Rd.

Old Wire Rd from Broadview Dr to Broadview Dr (it's an odd layout for Broadview Dr)

Park Ave from North St to Prospect St.

Willow Ave from Maple St to Rebecca St.

Hilldale Dr from Loxley Ave to Stanton Ave.

Loxley Ave from Rolling Hills Dr to Hilldale Ave.

Mission Blvd from Vandegriff Dr to Old Wire Rd.

Stanton Ave from Hilldale Ave to Old Wire Rd.

Center St from Hartman Ave to Razorback Rd.

15th St from Beechwood Ave to Razorback Rd.

Razorback Rd from Cleveland St to Maple St.

Salem Rd from Old Town Ln to Earnhart Dr and then from Bentgrass Rd to Clabber Creek Blvd.

[thewizard16]

The city has released it's sidewalk improvements for 2011. Although the city has also said it tends to schedule extra so that if other projects slow down city personnel have something else to work on. But most of these should be worked on for next year. If all completed it would be about 5 miles of sidewalk costing $1 Mil. Unlike the past two years, this time they will do work in all four wards of the city.

Eden Circle from the cul de sac to Clover Dr.

Huntsville Rd from Blair Ave to Morningside Dr.

Morningside Dr from Huntsville Rd to Fairlane and then to 15th St.

South St from West Ave to Archibald Yell Blvd.

Spring St from College Ave to Fletcher Ave.

Davidson St from College Ave to Washington Ave.

Gregg Ave from Sycamore St to Spruce St.

Lafayette St from Washington Ave to Willow Ave.

Lawson St from Porter Rd to Sang Ave.

Mt Comfort Rd from Stephens Ave to Garland Ave.

Oakland Ave from Sycamore St to Mt Comfort Rd.

Old Wire Rd from Broadview Dr to Broadview Dr (it's an odd layout for Broadview Dr)

Park Ave from North St to Prospect St.

Willow Ave from Maple St to Rebecca St.

Hilldale Dr from Loxley Ave to Stanton Ave.

Loxley Ave from Rolling Hills Dr to Hilldale Ave.

Mission Blvd from Vandegriff Dr to Old Wire Rd.

Stanton Ave from Hilldale Ave to Old Wire Rd.

Center St from Hartman Ave to Razorback Rd.

15th St from Beechwood Ave to Razorback Rd.

Razorback Rd from Cleveland St to Maple St.

Salem Rd from Old Town Ln to Earnhart Dr and then from Bentgrass Rd to Clabber Creek Blvd.

Very nice. I see they're putting some focus on the Willow neighborhood area, which is nice, and the Razorback Rd section definitely needs work- it doesn't have any continuous sidewalk at all right now. I wish they'd put a bit more focus on Mission, but I guess the pedestrian demand isn't as high there. There are also a lot of streets that connect to Dickson that I would love see get sidewalks/sidewalk improvements in the near future. I know they spread things out a bit to make everyone feel loved, but I think sidewalk and streetscape improvements are more critical in areas like downtown where they want to encourage infill than most other places.

[Mith242]

Very nice. I see they're putting some focus on the Willow neighborhood area, which is nice, and the Razorback Rd section definitely needs work- it doesn't have any continuous sidewalk at all right now. I wish they'd put a bit more focus on Mission, but I guess the pedestrian demand isn't as high there. There are also a lot of streets that connect to Dickson that I would love see get sidewalks/sidewalk improvements in the near future. I know they spread things out a bit to make everyone feel loved, but I think sidewalk and streetscape improvements are more critical in areas like downtown where they want to encourage infill than most other places.

Yeah it is nice to see them working on some of the areas they've chosen. But as you've said, there's still a lot left off the list. I'm not sure how they determine where to work on and such. I do think for the 2011 schedule they wanted to try to address areas in all wards of the city.

[zman9810]

The City of Fayetteville is considering a "streamside protection" ordinance that is scheduled to be in front of the City Council in January. The Planning Commission has already approved it. This ordinance will affect around 1,300 present property owners and many thousands more of future property owners and developers. It has been in the works for some time but has escaped much public scrutiny during this downtime in development.

This ordinance is promoted as a way to preserve water quality in city streams at little expense. This is true to a point- it would not cost the City anything but it would come at great expense to the present and future property owners. The ordinance essentially is the exercise of eminent domain (the right of a state to confiscate private property for public use) without the compensation or right to appeal that comes with eminent domain. The ordinance would give the City almost complete control of any property within 50 feet of any stream that the City decides it wants to apply the ordinance to. A property owner will still have to pay property taxes on their property but be banned from even clearing it to keep the snakes away. A property owner could not plant a vegetable garden in the land taken by the ordinance- agricultural uses will be prohibited. If one has a 150 feet deep lot that backs up to a stream this ordinance will take a third of that lot and restrict most any private use of it. Anything from building a swimming pool in your backyard to building a shed to keep your lawnmower in would be prohibited.

The cost of this ordinance, if passed, will be huge for future development. It means that anyone developing acreage with a stream through it will have to increase the lot sizes to include the extra 50 feet for each lot next to the stream. The cost of that additional land will be passed on to the buyers of whatever is built on the lots. This ordinance seems to be pushed by the anti-growth elements of Fayetteville city government as a way to stifle future growth while development is at a low point.

The ordinance ignores the fact that most pollution in area streams in not from land next to the streams but from the hard surfaces such as roads and parking lots. Most land immediately next to streams in the city is grassy and already filtered. It isn't like the farms out in the country where chicken litter and other fertilizers are applied to large acreages and run off into the streams. This ordinance reaches much too far and should not be passed in it's present form if at all.

Here's a link to the ordinance. Regardless of the stated good intentions this ordiance is a terrible misuse of government power and certainly should not be passed into law.

Streamside Ordinance

[zman9810]

There is some dispute as to where or not a vegetable garden could be planted under the Streamside Protection Ordinance. Under the section (2) item © clearing of existing vegetation is prohibited, so in order to plant a garden you would have to already have a bare dirt plot with no vegetation and that is unlikely. This ordinance has several misleading clauses that can be used at will by the city. It is a bad ordinance that should not be passed by the City Council.

[comreguy]

There is some dispute as to where or not a vegetable garden could be planted under the Streamside Protection Ordinance. Under the section (2) item clearing of existing vegetation is prohibited, so in order to plant a garden you would have to already have a bare dirt plot with no vegetation and that is unlikely. This ordinance has several misleading clauses that can be used at will by the city. It is a bad ordinance that should not be passed by the City Council.

Completely agree.

[Mith242]

This seems to me to be one of those things that sounded good on paper. But in actual practice just over does it. I like the fact that Fayetteville is trying to do something to protect creeks and streams. But I don't think this is the right way to go about it. Just seems like some compromise needs to be made. Or some way to meet a little more in the middle. Find some way to provide incentives for people to protect areas near creeks and streams that are on their property.

[zman9810]

This seems to me to be one of those things that sounded good on paper. But in actual practice just over does it. I like the fact that Fayetteville is trying to do something to protect creeks and streams. But I don't think this is the right way to go about it. Just seems like some compromise needs to be made. Or some way to meet a little more in the middle. Find some way to provide incentives for people to protect areas near creeks and streams that are on their property.

I agree, they seem to have good intentions but this is simply a land grab that goes way too far. There are other ways to ensure that the streams are protected without forcing property owners to give up the right to use their land as they need to. Seeing that it is aimed more at future development and it is coming at a time when there will be little opposition they are trying to sneak it in. It is a very heavy handed attempt to extend goverment control where it is not wanted or needed.

[wmr]

It sounds to me like they asked for the moon (50 feet!) and anticipate rolling it back to something more reasonable.

I could see a 15 foot buffer being something people are more comfortable with. 50 feet takes away people's entire back yard.

[Mith242]

Sounds like Fayetteville is still working on doing some tweaking with paid parking. Which I think is a good deal and the way the city should handle it. I know there's still some who want the whole paid parking idea done away with. But I still think it's too early to make a decision like that. Especially when figures seem to indicate overall Dickson St seems to be doing okay. Now I won't go as far to say that the whole thing hasn't hurt some businesses. But it's hard to take some of these claims seriously when overall the figures don't seem to indicate that.

[zman9810]

Sounds like Fayetteville is still working on doing some tweaking with paid parking. Which I think is a good deal and the way the city should handle it. I know there's still some who want the whole paid parking idea done away with. But I still think it's too early to make a decision like that. Especially when figures seem to indicate overall Dickson St seems to be doing okay. Now I won't go as far to say that the whole thing hasn't hurt some businesses. But it's hard to take some of these claims seriously when overall the figures don't seem to indicate that.

With the WAC decision to move it's main facility from the Dickson Street area I'm not so sure paid parking is a good idea now. Regardless of what assurances the WAC makes about the programming that will be at the old facility I don't see how they can not favor the Bentonville site- both for image sakes and simple good business reasons. That will decrease the attendance at whatever is at the Fayetteville facility and relieve the pressure that led to the parking problems. It is very unlikely that the 600 seat theater will be built anytime soon if it is built at all. For all the friction that the paid parking is causing and plus the indications that it may be hurting some businesses it may be best to at least temporarily halt the program until the economy improves and the WAC situation is entirely resolved.

[Mith242]

With the WAC decision to move it's main facility from the Dickson Street area I'm not so sure paid parking is a good idea now. Regardless of what assurances the WAC makes about the programming that will be at the old facility I don't see how they can not favor the Bentonville site- both for image sakes and simple good business reasons. That will decrease the attendance at whatever is at the Fayetteville facility and relieve the pressure that led to the parking problems. It is very unlikely that the 600 seat theater will be built anytime soon if it is built at all. For all the friction that the paid parking is causing and plus the indications that it may be hurting some businesses it may be best to at least temporarily halt the program until the economy improves and the WAC situation is entirely resolved.

Even taking into account the whole WAC situation I'm still in favor for the paid parking. Even if the WAC never expands anything at the current facility I still think Fayetteville needs to work on a parking deck in that area. I think a parking deck might reopen possible talks of another hotel moving to the Dickson St area like was mentioned a few years ago. It also makes it easier if the city ever decides to do something with the current WAC facility themselves.

[Mith242]

Quite a powerful storm came through NWA this morning. I thought most of the damage was elsewhere in the area but Fayetteville had it's share of damage too. Looks like the storm ripped off some of the black marble exterior tiles in the AG Edwards Bldg down on the Square. You can actually see a bit of the old facade underneath. I hate to see local buildings damaged but you'd almost hope that maybe this would get the idea of trying to restore this building back to it's original 1800's design going again. Instead of just fixing up that 1950's remodel on the outside.

[Mith242]

Got out and took a few pics of the damage. The last two show some detail to the old facade behind the remodel.

[zman9810]

Nice pics, Mith- thanks. I'm sure it won't be restored back to what it was orignally but something similar to what was done with the old theater over on College (the one just north of the old county courthouse)would be nice. I hope we don't get to the point where the skins are seen as desirable and people want to keep them.

[Mith242]

Nice pics, Mith- thanks. I'm sure it won't be restored back to what it was originally but something similar to what was done with the old theater over on College (the one just north of the old county courthouse)would be nice. I hope we don't get to the point where the skins are seen as desirable and people want to keep them.

I admit it was wishful thinking from my part. I realize the insurance company won't be paying out anywhere the amount of money needed for the type of renovation many of us would like to see. While I don't think that particular style of architecture back in the 60's gets much respect. I wonder if some might worry about losing a somewhat unique architectural style if it's changed from what it is currently. Doing something different won't get you the old original style back and then you'd also end up losing the current architectural look as well. Although I'm not really much of a fan of that 60's style I'm not sure if it's any better if we end up with some bland generic remodel. Guess we'll just have to see what happens. I almost wonder if the current owner just goes for the easy fix and simply puts some more stone tile back up so that it looks like it was before the storm. On another note I never really heard any news about this on any of the local media. Seems odd that wind did damage like that but didn't really do much of any other damage down on the Square. Or is it possible there could be some other stone tiles getting loose on that building?