Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

vbfl85

Little Rock Metro Developement Patterns

Recommended Posts

vbfl85    4

Being an outsider and someone who doesnt really know the area well I have always wondered why the Little Rock metro developed in such an awkward shape. I mean there's almost no developement to the east and southeast of the city. Heading west on I40 into NLR you go from farmland to downtown LR in what seems like 5 minutes. It seems like much of the land east of NLR on the I40 corridor would be cheap and extremely easy to develope. Why are people commuting all the way from Conway, when they could live in east Pulaski county from much less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


skirby    59

Being an outsider and someone who doesnt really know the area well I have always wondered why the Little Rock metro developed in such an awkward shape. I mean there's almost no developement to the east and southeast of the city. Heading west on I40 into NLR you go from farmland to downtown LR in what seems like 5 minutes. It seems like much of the land east of NLR on the I40 corridor would be cheap and extremely easy to develope. Why are people commuting all the way from Conway, when they could live in east Pulaski county from much less?

Land is starting to be developed east of NLR towards Scott. The reason development happened to the west of LR was this land ws not good for farming. It is made up of hills and hardwood land. East of LR is very good farmland and therefore not too long ago was more expensive. Also, this land does not drain as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mith242    69

I think the city is growing to the southeast because there has been much incentive to grow towards Pine Bluff. Maybe it's just pyschological but I think people would rather live on a side of the city away from that economically depressed area of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land is starting to be developed east of NLR towards Scott. The reason development happened to the west of LR was this land ws not good for farming. It is made up of hills and hardwood land. East of LR is very good farmland and therefore not too long ago was more expensive. Also, this land does not drain as well.

Not to mention the western parts of town have hills and are prettier.

The house on the hill is always more desireable to the one in a flat field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mith242    69

Not to mention the western parts of town have hills and are prettier.

The house on the hill is always more desireable to the one in a flat field.

Especially if it's closer to an area like Pine Bluff that has a very bad image problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Architect    31

Especially if it's closer to an area like Pine Bluff that has a very bad image problem.

Guys, get real. It doesn't have anything to do with Pine Bluff. Sheesh. This development pattern was set back in the late 1800's early 1900's. The reason that the city didn't grow east, and more specifically south was because of the presence of wetlands (south) and flooding (east). The parts of town that "stop" directly east and south of downtown are 80 years or older. Honestly though, at that time, there wasn't anything asymetrical about that growth pattern as the city didn't extend out any further than this on any side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mith242    69

Guys, get real. It doesn't have anything to do with Pine Bluff. Sheesh. This development pattern was set back in the late 1800's early 1900's. The reason that the city didn't grow east, and more specifically south was because of the presence of wetlands (south) and flooding (east). The parts of town that "stop" directly east and south of downtown are 80 years or older. Honestly though, at that time, there wasn't anything asymetrical about that growth pattern as the city didn't extend out any further than this on any side.

But it would seem that Little Rock is easily big enough to jump over that bit of wetlands to the south. Most of the south of Little Rock isn't wetland it's pine forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Architect    31

But it would seem that Little Rock is easily big enough to jump over that bit of wetlands to the south. Most of the south of Little Rock isn't wetland it's pine forest.

Consider then that the freeway development pattern set in the 60's followed this trend set early on, which further solidified the development west, southwest and north. None of Little Rock's federal Interstates extend directly south or east from downtown. I-440 does extend east, but was built much later and primarily for access to the airport and riverport. You should note that practically this entire freeway is elevated over wetland areas. The development then followed the freeways west, northwest and southwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vbfl85    4

I understand that development will follow the primary roads, even though i530 (a newer freeway) does travel due south out of the city. But i still dont see how i40 east of NLR is so barren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aporkalypse    1

The reason LR was built on the site it was was because it was the first site heading West down the river that had enough elevation that mosquitos were less of a problem back in the days of endemic malaria in the South.

I think whoever said that West LR was prettier was right. The hills out on Highway 10, Pleasant Valley, and Chenal, as well as in older parts of town like Hillcrest and the Heights, have been the areas where real estate was priciest and the nicest subdivisions were built.

Now I think there's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. More people want to build near existing retail and restaurants in West LR and few want to build near the crime-ridden areas of Granite Mountain, College Station, Sweet Home, etc East of LR out near the airport. These areas are a long distance from the city's retail centers and other decent residential. SE Little Rock's not very pretty, either.

More nice development is going up in the eastern NLR/Scott/Keo corridor and I bet that continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tim2462    0

Along I-30, there are areas that are so swampy, that they aren't even in the city limits. Little Rock is beginning to grow to the east more...directly east of dowtown. Just the other day, they had on the news that there was about to be an explosion of development out past the clinton library and heiffer. They are going to build a parkway out there and plans are in the works for a lot of non profit businesses, retail, apartments, and condos. I wouldn't count on that going further south, though. I'm sure NLR will start using some of its land to the east. NLR is really booming. I can't believe all of the development going on there now...not to mention what is going to happen with the new ballpark. Even with all of that, I still like living in WLR because it's more scenic and reminds me of other big, scenic cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aporkalypse    1

Along I-30, there are areas that are so swampy, that they aren't even in the city limits. Little Rock is beginning to grow to the east more...directly east of dowtown. Just the other day, they had on the news that there was about to be an explosion of development out past the clinton library and heiffer. They are going to build a parkway out there and plans are in the works for a lot of non profit businesses, retail, apartments, and condos. I wouldn't count on that going further south, though. I'm sure NLR will start using some of its land to the east. NLR is really booming. I can't believe all of the development going on there now...not to mention what is going to happen with the new ballpark. Even with all of that, I still like living in WLR because it's more scenic and reminds me of other big, scenic cities.

That area between the Clinton Library and the airport is pretty beat down and dumpy industrial. There's a sketchy housting project over there that needs to be removed. Bond St may be the ugliest street in the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.