Ruskin Heights

[cowbreath]

Looks like a few changes have been made to try to make the neighbors happy. Some of the density has been rearranged. Also looks like the tower is gone. Although if what I heard is correct they will still pay for a tower but at another location. What I hadn't figured out is if it's still going to be on Ruskin Heights land or somewhere else in the area. I'm not sure but I got the impression it would be somewhere else nearby. I'm glad the tower will still be built even if it has to be somewhere else in the surrounding area.

It looked like from an article in NWANEWS.com, that the tower would be at Mount Sequoyah gardens near the intersection of Summit and Fletcher Avenues. That would be really awesome to have an observation tower on that side of Sequoyah. I have been hoping for one for a while somewhere around the Cross and this might do just as well.

Tower Gone For Ruskin Heights

[cocothief]

It looked like from an article in NWANEWS.com, that the tower would be at Mount Sequoyah gardens near the intersection of Summit and Fletcher Avenues. That would be really awesome to have an observation tower on that side of Sequoyah. I have been hoping for one for a while somewhere around the Cross and this might do just as well.

Tower Gone For Ruskin Heights

I think an observation tower is a great idea, especially if put somewhere by the city, public for all to use.

I think Mt. Sequoyah retreat overlook would do just as well with some kind of raised platform, just enough to provide views above the trees.

This could be something which doesn't necessarily have to be called a "tower".

Regardless, I'm sure something like that would create significant uproar from those who choose to live nearby.

[Mith242]

I think an observation tower is a great idea, especially if put somewhere by the city, public for all to use.

I think Mt. Sequoyah retreat overlook would do just as well with some kind of raised platform, just enough to provide views above the trees.

This could be something which doesn't necessarily have to be called a "tower".

Regardless, I'm sure something like that would create significant uproar from those who choose to live nearby.

The original Ruskin Heights tower was going to be a three story stone structure. I'm not sure if this other location will be the same tower. But I agree with you about the overlook. A tower there or just something a little higher to get you above the trees would be great. But I doubt it will ever happen. Those people on Mt Sequoyah don't want even more people coming up to 'their' area.

[Ruskin]

Looks like a few changes have been made to try to make the neighbors happy. Some of the density has been rearranged. Also looks like the tower is gone. Although if what I heard is correct they will still pay for a tower but at another location. What I hadn't figured out is if it's still going to be on Ruskin Heights land or somewhere else in the area. I'm not sure but I got the impression it would be somewhere else nearby. I'm glad the tower will still be built even if it has to be somewhere else in the surrounding area.

The tower won't be at Ruskin Heights.

All in all, I am pleased with the way the City worked with us. It is going to be a great neighborhood and we look forward to building it.

[Mith242]

The tower won't be at Ruskin Heights.

All in all, I am pleased with the way the City worked with us. It is going to be a great neighborhood and we look forward to building it.

Now I've been wondering who's doing the tower? Are you guys still involved with it but simply putting it at another location outside of Ruskin Heights? But anyway hopefully the concessions you're making will really help push this development through and silence some of the critics.

[cowbreath]

The original Ruskin Heights tower was going to be a three story stone structure. I'm not sure if this other location will be the same tower. But I agree with you about the overlook. A tower there or just something a little higher to get you above the trees would be great. But I doubt it will ever happen. Those people on Mt Sequoyah don't want even more people coming up to 'their' area.

The article said:

The money that was to be used for the tower will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Department for another tower at Mount Sequoyah Gardens, at the intersection of Summit and Fletcher avenues, Thiel said.

She said there have been longtime plans for a lookout at that location. The Parks and Recreation Board has already approved designed plans for a tower there, she said.

[Mith242]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I need to look that location up on Google earth sometime.

[Mith242]

Don't mean to get us off topic here. But for those interested. Looks like the tower will be around the intersection of Summit and Fletcher. Here's a map showing the general location. Not too far from the water tanks. Downhill from the overlook area though.

[itk]

You know, I think the proposed new location of the tower makes much more sense. At the north end of East Mtn, what can you really see? At the new location, you can at least get a view of downtown and the UA/Dickson.

[Mith242]

You know, I think the proposed new location of the tower makes much more sense. At the north end of East Mtn, what can you really see? At the new location, you can at least get a view of downtown and the UA/Dickson.

It's hard for me to judge because I'm not sure how much we'll be able to see from these towers. Supposedly from the north end you could see all the way to Benton County. Might have made a nice sight at night with all the lights. But as far as just seeing Fayetteville this new location might be better. But it is further down in elevation as well than the overlook. But I guess the big difference could be if it's above the trees.

[cowbreath]

You know, I think the proposed new location of the tower makes much more sense. At the north end of East Mtn, what can you really see? At the new location, you can at least get a view of downtown and the UA/Dickson.

I think it makes sense because the people on Skyline Dr. won't want the traffic. Also this location keeps traffic from winding up the hills and residential streets but is basically right off of the end of Dickson St.

[Mith242]

I think it makes sense because the people on Skyline Dr. won't want the traffic. Also this location keeps traffic from winding up the hills and residential streets but is basically right off of the end of Dickson St.

Yeah but the people on that section of Mt Sequoyah probably don't want the traffic either. I still wouldn't mind having something either at the overlook or possibly on the land the city bought from the Methodist retreat.

[mzweig]

Yeah but the people on that section of Mt Sequoyah probably don't want the traffic either. I still wouldn't mind having something either at the overlook or possibly on the land the city bought from the Methodist retreat.

I'm disappointed. As a potential future property owner at Ruskin, I wanted that tower over there.

Rod--what land did the city buy from the Methodists? None of the island surrounded by Skyline, is it?

M

[Mith242]

I'm disappointed. As a potential future property owner at Ruskin, I wanted that tower over there.

Rod--what land did the city buy from the Methodists? None of the island surrounded by Skyline, is it?

M

They purchased some undeveloped land a while back. I think they call it Sequoyah Woods or something like that. I believe it's on the east side of the mountain. The residents talked the city into buying it so no one would develop it. Because of course we can't allow any development what so ever around Mt Sequoyah.

[strmchsr77]

Don't mean to get us off topic here. But for those interested. Looks like the tower will be around the intersection of Summit and Fletcher. Here's a map showing the general location. Not too far from the water tanks. Downhill from the overlook area though.

Hey I can see my house in that picture.

So the Tower is going way over there? Who is building this tower and why in this area? I don't have a problem with it, but it just seems kind of strange to move it from Ruskin Heights to here.

[Mith242]

Hey I can see my house in that picture.

Uh oh. I'll find out and mark it so I can start a new topic called Party at Colby's House, everyone's invited.

[strmchsr77]

Uh oh. I'll find out and mark it so I can start a new topic called Party at Colby's House, everyone's invited.

Anytime, just let me know when and I will be in Tulsa that night.

[Mith242]

Anytime, just let me know when and I will be in Tulsa that night.

Hey I can see my house in that picture.

So the Tower is going way over there? Who is building this tower and why in this area? I don't have a problem with it, but it just seems kind of strange to move it from Ruskin Heights to here.

From what I heard the city was already considering a tower at this location. Maybe there are better views from that spot than I thought. Or maybe it's far enough away from most of the Mt Sequoyah residents. Putting something like that on Mt Sequoyah would be a nice feature. I wouldn't have minded it being over on Ruskin Heights either.

[strmchsr77]

From what I heard the city was already considering a tower at this location. Maybe there are better views from that spot than I thought. Or maybe it's far enough away from most of the Mt Sequoyah residents. Putting something like that on Mt Sequoyah would be a nice feature. I wouldn't have minded it being over on Ruskin Heights either.

Oh, that makes more sense then, if the city is planning on doing it. I just could not imagion why the Ruskin Heights Developers wanted to put a tower over here. I just guessed that they really wanted a tower bad.

[jiggyK]

They purchased some undeveloped land a while back. I think they call it Sequoyah Woods or something like that. I believe it's on the east side of the mountain. The residents talked the city into buying it so no one would develop it. Because of course we can't allow any development what so ever around Mt Sequoyah.

there are nice trails and natural area of the east side of the mtn. good on them for fighting its development. surely some of you can realize that natural areas add lots of desireability to a city. it's not all about development, development, development.

[Thia]

Don't mean to get us off topic here. But for those interested. Looks like the tower will be around the intersection of Summit and Fletcher. Here's a map showing the general location. Not too far from the water tanks. Downhill from the overlook area though.

The land northeast of Mith's "future tower" mark, the light colored land between Summit Ave and Oklahoma Way, is city "park" property. I don't remember the circumstances but it became the city's about 6-8 years ago. At the north end of this big open sloping lot are the city's greenhouses for all the city gardens.

Take a ride up to this area next time you are in the area. The roads are narrow and hilly- worse than Assembly and Skyline. Some portion of Fletcher (Mission turns into Fletcher south of Lafayette) will be getting some kind of curb/gutter/sidewalk improvements in 2007.

If the city builds a public tower there the view will be great but there will have to be some kind of major traffic management. And I suspect there will likely be much discussion about privacy, traffic, and NIMBY.

[mzweig]

The land northeast of Mith's "future tower" mark, the light colored land between Summit Ave and Oklahoma Way, is city "park" property. I don't remember the circumstances but it became the city's about 6-8 years ago. At the north end of this big open sloping lot are the city's greenhouses for all the city gardens.

Take a ride up to this area next time you are in the area. The roads are narrow and hilly- worse than Assembly and Skyline. Some portion of Fletcher (Mission turns into Fletcher south of Lafayette) will be getting some kind of curb/gutter/sidewalk improvements in 2007.

If the city builds a public tower there the view will be great but there will have to be some kind of major traffic management. And I suspect there will likely be much discussion about privacy, traffic, and NIMBY.

I know exactly where that is. Yes--it is a cool area, tho. I like those crazy streets with switchbacks. There is some open land up there....

[Mith242]

there are nice trails and natural area of the east side of the mtn. good on them for fighting its development. surely some of you can realize that natural areas add lots of desireability to a city. it's not all about development, development, development.

Yes, I don't mean to sound like I don't appreciate having natural areas. I think what irritates me more is how Mt Sequoyah and it's residents are treated compared to the rest of the city. I also saw how now people are wanting the city to buy land just east of Evelyn Hills to preserve it from development. I guess that would be considered the western slope of Mt Sequoyah. I guess I just don't have any problems with allowing some development to occur on Mt Sequoyah although I'm not sure much is going to be allowed. If Ruskin Heights wasn't so well planned out I have no doubts it would be quickly denied.

[cocothief]

I know exactly where that is. Yes--it is a cool area, tho. I like those crazy streets with switchbacks. There is some open land up there....

A real estate guy...

Yes, I noticed a few empty lots around those areas as well.

Excellent spot for a tower. I'm confident the city will do something beautiful there.

This is not your Mayor Hannah's Fayetteville...

[Thia]

I also saw how now people are wanting the city to buy land just east of Evelyn Hills to preserve it from development.

The Brooks-Hummel 14 acres are a subject for some other forum. Yes, the homes around Lake Lucille are old-school (70-90s) elite. For years I've wanted to walk the area north of Lake Lucille/east of Evelyn Hills but always thought I would be trespassing. If this area was incorporated into Fayetteville's trail/green space inventory... it would NOT be an error. I hope the issue finds a successful, public solution. Good infill is expected; conservation of special places is Fayetteville.

URL: http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/47317/