Ruskin Heights

[NWAnewby]

So true. The Ruskin Heights developers even used some of the neighbors ideas in their final plans designed at the charette (especially more trees than required by the tree ordinance), but it doesn't seem to be enough. Unfortunately, not many, if any, of the City Council and Planning Commission members attended the public charette in July to learn first hand what Ruskin Heights aims to be. I hope that these developers can convince the powers that be that their project IS Fayetteville 2025 and will be a huge boon to the city.

[cocothief]

I have been watching some of the planning commission meeting about this development on the cable access channel.

The city doesn't seem as unreasonable as I first thought. There do seem to be some legitemate concerns about traffic, etc in the general area, particularly turning left onto Mission Blvd.

Still, I don't think this is anything that cannot be addressed by the addition of a traffic light at one of the access points along Mission. The way some on the PC talk about this development, they don't seem to understand that it will not happen overnight, and that it will gradually be built out.

Traffic in Fayetteville, while worse than 5-10 years ago, still is nothing compared to big city traffic. Mission needs to be widened. Pushing development further and further out of town is NOT the way to avoid traffic congestion. I wish someone on the PC recognized that.

I really liked what I heard about this development from the developers during those meetings, and the comparisons to developments in Pasadena, California from early last century.

This project needs to happen. I wish there were four or five projects happening like this in the city.

If it were in MBY, I would support it fully. I don't live on the mountain, though...

P.S.: One of the Planning Commissioners referred condescendingly to this development as "spot zoning".

How else do they think they will achieve the goals of CityPlan2025. Aren't all PZDs spot zoning to a degree??

If this commissioner wants to see spot zoning, he need only drive ten miles north to Springdale to see some truly bad spot zoning.

Sometimes it seems like these people just like to feel powerful and don't really see the big picture with regards to overall city development.

[strmchsr77]

Will they be adding a turn lane onto Mission in front of the project or a light?

[NWAnewby]

Will they be adding a turn lane onto Mission in front of the project or a light?

I think it's a state highway isn't it? If so, who is responsible for implementing change and how can it be done?

Having lived in Washington, DC, the traffic complaints in Fayetteville make me laugh! How long does anyone turning left onto Mission really have to wait--a few minutes? I've sat on Sycamore attempting to turn left onto Garland and have waited 5+ minutes. New Urbanist design will cut down on traffic because of the mixed use of the land. I think Ruskin Heights is the way to go, and I hope the naysayers are proven wrong. These developers seem so excited to implement City Plan 2025. Keep up the fight Ruskin!

[strmchsr77]

I think it's a state highway isn't it? If so, who is responsible for implementing change and how can it be done?

Having lived in Washington, DC, the traffic complaints in Fayetteville make me laugh! How long does anyone turning left onto Mission really have to wait--a few minutes? I've sat on Sycamore attempting to turn left onto Garland and have waited 5+ minutes. New Urbanist design will cut down on traffic because of the mixed use of the land. I think Ruskin Heights is the way to go, and I hope the naysayers are proven wrong. These developers seem so excited to implement City Plan 2025. Keep up the fight Ruskin!

Agreed, traffic in NWA is getting worse but it is nothing like most major cities and I think that we have a long way to go before we can compare ourselves. But are we worse than other cities our size?

[Mith242]

I have been watching some of the planning commission meeting about this development on the cable access channel.

The city doesn't seem as unreasonable as I first thought. There do seem to be some legitemate concerns about traffic, etc in the general area, particularly turning left onto Mission Blvd.

Still, I don't think this is anything that cannot be addressed by the addition of a traffic light at one of the access points along Mission. The way some on the PC talk about this development, they don't seem to understand that it will not happen overnight, and that it will gradually be built out.

Traffic in Fayetteville, while worse than 5-10 years ago, still is nothing compared to big city traffic. Mission needs to be widened. Pushing development further and further out of town is NOT the way to avoid traffic congestion. I wish someone on the PC recognized that.

I really liked what I heard about this development from the developers during those meetings, and the comparisons to developments in Pasadena, California from early last century.

This project needs to happen. I wish there were four or five projects happening like this in the city.

If it were in MBY, I would support it fully. I don't live on the mountain, though...

P.S.: One of the Planning Commissioners referred condescendingly to this development as "spot zoning".

How else do they think they will achieve the goals of CityPlan2025. Aren't all PZDs spot zoning to a degree??

If this commissioner wants to see spot zoning, he need only drive ten miles north to Springdale to see some truly bad spot zoning.

Sometimes it seems like these people just like to feel powerful and don't really see the big picture with regards to overall city development.

Thanks for the update. I agree with you. It does sound like there can be some negative aspects to this development, but like you said pushing it to the edge of the city limits doesn't help anything. Maybe what some of this boils down to is with mixed use neighborhoods and such will people leave their vehicles behind to at least some degree?

[cowbreath]

Agreed, traffic in NWA is getting worse but it is nothing like most major cities and I think that we have a long way to go before we can compare ourselves. But are we worse than other cities our size?

Our city traffic infrastructure is very poor because of a lack of east to west roads. This is largely due to our topography with the North-South hills. It is a growing problem they need to address anyways. Traffic can't be a issue with this development unless our city board members are not progressive in their thoughts towards city growth.

I have yet to really hear a reason why this is so bad to implement. Can anyone explain it? Obviously I've heard that some power peoples are not liking change close to them, but it is infill not a landfill, right? If there are waste water runoff issues I think that could be handled. I think the positives of adding character and new urbanism sensibilities is something worth trying. Fayetteville CAN stay small but it will need some changes to get by.

In Istanbul, Turkey, I can't believe how many towers they had on hillsides. Knowing a project manager there I knew that infrastructure issues are always a concern over there. Obviously America may never come to that but I think we can allow a few more houses developed over there. To be charged 10% sales tax and to not have these things be added because of lack of infrastructure would be gross negligence on their part.

[Mith242]

I think it's a state highway isn't it? If so, who is responsible for implementing change and how can it be done?

Having lived in Washington, DC, the traffic complaints in Fayetteville make me laugh! How long does anyone turning left onto Mission really have to wait--a few minutes? I've sat on Sycamore attempting to turn left onto Garland and have waited 5+ minutes. New Urbanist design will cut down on traffic because of the mixed use of the land. I think Ruskin Heights is the way to go, and I hope the naysayers are proven wrong. These developers seem so excited to implement City Plan 2025. Keep up the fight Ruskin!

I agree, it's really a shame that someone finally really tries to implement what Dover-Kohl said and then the city gives them a hard time about it. As far as traffic goes I agree. I think what makes it bad is that people can easily remember how little trouble they had getting around just a few years ago. One think that is perhaps a bit off topic. I wish people would plan ahead where they are going. I realize there are times you just have to make a left hand turn but so many times left hand turns can be avoided or done on a less busy area.

[Ruskin]

Great comments and questions:

On the traffic issue, the City has sent a letter to the State supporting our proposal to install a traffic light and turning lane (at our cost) on Mission. According to our traffic study, which the City supported in their letter, the traffic service level on Mission would be much higher with these two improvements AFTER we fully develop the property. We are pushing to get approval as quickly as possible so we can help the traffic issue for everyone.

We plan to stick to our guns on the central New Urbanist philosophies, but we are making some modest plan changes to respond to neighbor concerns. We have pushed back our Planning Commission date to January 8th to make these changes and to try and make progress on the Mission improvements.

By the way, we are having an open house on site this Sunday from 1 to 4. Everyone is invited!!

[thewizard16]

Great comments and questions:

On the traffic issue, the City has sent a letter to the State supporting our proposal to install a traffic light and turning lane (at our cost) on Mission. According to our traffic study, which the City supported in their letter, the traffic service level on Mission would be much higher with these two improvements AFTER we fully develop the property. We are pushing to get approval as quickly as possible so we can help the traffic issue for everyone.

We plan to stick to our guns on the central New Urbanist philosophies, but we are making some modest plan changes to respond to neighbor concerns. We have pushed back our Planning Commission date to January 8th to make these changes and to try and make progress on the Mission improvements.

By the way, we are having an open house on site this Sunday from 1 to 4. Everyone is invited!!

That's great news, Ruskin. I hope it gets approved and this plan moves forward. I think it's a great site, will look nice there, and with a stop light, it's not going to make traffic on Mission any worse than it is now.

[Mith242]

Great comments and questions:

On the traffic issue, the City has sent a letter to the State supporting our proposal to install a traffic light and turning lane (at our cost) on Mission. According to our traffic study, which the City supported in their letter, the traffic service level on Mission would be much higher with these two improvements AFTER we fully develop the property. We are pushing to get approval as quickly as possible so we can help the traffic issue for everyone.

We plan to stick to our guns on the central New Urbanist philosophies, but we are making some modest plan changes to respond to neighbor concerns. We have pushed back our Planning Commission date to January 8th to make these changes and to try and make progress on the Mission improvements.

By the way, we are having an open house on site this Sunday from 1 to 4. Everyone is invited!!

Thanks for updating us. I'm really glad you're planning on sticking to your New Urbanism and trying to make a few changes to appease the neighbors. I think it's unfortunate you have to make changes but hopfully something can still be ironed out and keep most of your ideas intact.

[itk]

Pushing development further and further out of town is NOT the way to avoid traffic congestion. I wish someone on the PC recognized that.

Bingo. And well put.

[Thia]

I have been watching some of the planning commission meeting about this development on the cable access channel.

The city doesn't seem as unreasonable as I first thought. There do seem to be some legitemate concerns about traffic, etc in the general area, particularly turning left onto Mission Blvd.

Still, I don't think this is anything that cannot be addressed by the addition of a traffic light at one of the access points along Mission. The way some on the PC talk about this development, they don't seem to understand that it will not happen overnight, and that it will gradually be built out.

Traffic in Fayetteville, while worse than 5-10 years ago, still is nothing compared to big city traffic. Mission needs to be widened. Pushing development further and further out of town is NOT the way to avoid traffic congestion. I wish someone on the PC recognized that.

Sometimes it seems like these people just like to feel powerful and don't really see the big picture with regards to overall city development.

NO!! Do not widen Mission!! Here's a look at the "big picture of overall city development":

If Mission is widened it will carry more traffic. And Mission and Lafayette will turn into more of a speedway. And when Lafayette can

[thewizard16]

NO!! Do not widen Mission!! Here's a look at the "big picture of overall city development":

If Mission is widened it will carry more traffic. And Mission and Lafayette will turn into more of a speedway. And when Lafayette can

[cocothief]

NO!! Do not widen Mission!! Here's a look at the "big picture of overall city development":

If Mission is widened it will carry more traffic. And Mission and Lafayette will turn into more of a speedway. And when Lafayette can

[strmchsr77]

I disagree about Mission. I think widening Mission to North Street from Crossover makes sense.

That portion of Mission is absolutely not walkable due to it still being a rural type two lane highway with no curbs or sidewalks for the most part. This is the portion that would be directly affected by Ruskin Heights.

The further south portion of Mission Blvd shouldn't be greatly affected by this development.

I travel to the Mission and Crossover intersection frequently from central Fayetteville, and it never occurs to me to get there any other way besides taking North Street over the mountain and a left on Mission.

Street improvements to North Street and Old Missouri can futher reinforce this dominant travel pattern. I don't believe Mission needs to be a 4 or 5 lane street, but adding a turn lane at certain points as well as better sidewalks and crosswalks could actually improve the pedestrian envionment on the portion of Mission NE of North Street.

Aside from some additional drive time traffic from downtown, I really don't see how the portion of Mission you are talking about will be affected. Assuming that half of all of the residential units here will have one car traveling from downtown Fayetteville via the Lafayette/Mission connection during drive time, you will have a grand total increase of 150 cars due to this development twice per day.

Thats an exaggerated amount because most people will likely not work downtown.

I live on a quiet street that has maybe one car every five minutes during off peak travel hours. At rush hour, however, we have quite a bit more traffic and cut throughs.

Its the tradeoff for not living on a cul de sac, IMO.

I have to agree. I don't think Mission needs to be a 5 lane highway but it is a major collector street and a state highway and it needs to be 3 lanes. Having a turn lane cuts down on suddenly stoping traffic and would cause fewer accidents. Just 3 lane it from North to Crossover.

[NWAnewby]

I just saw this article online today! Excellent!!! Very supportive of Ruskin Heights. Sorry to cut and paste but I didn't know if a link would work.

Art Hobson [email protected]

Despite the successful processes

leading to Fayetteville

[Mith242]

Great article, thanks for posting that. I think that really sums up how I feel. I was also at those 2025 meetings and it really seemed everyone there seemed to get the idea of density and such. I guess I'm trying to figure out, did only the pro-density residents attend those meetings? But yes it would seem that people want density along as it's in some other part of the city. I really liked the comments about sprawl being more of a problem with traffic there. I hope people get to see that article and it at least makes some of these people against this development something to think about.

[itk]

NO!! Do not widen Mission!! Here's a look at the "big picture of overall city development":

If Mission is widened it will carry more traffic. And Mission and Lafayette will turn into more of a speedway. And when Lafayette can

[Mith242]

Yeah there's going to be some hard questions to decide with all the growth going on. At some point roads are going to be widened that not everyone is going to want widened. Also unfortunately some older homes could also be lost. I know it's not popular but I think at some point some older homes are going to have to go. I really hope some can be moved and be saved. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't preserve anything. But I can't say I agree with people like Ms. Marioni (sp?) and believe 'everything' before 1960 has to be saved. I think at some point we need to take a hard look and decide what's the most important to be saved and work our way from there. Sorry to get a little off topic here.

[mzweig]

We went to the Ruskin Heights open house today. All I can say is this is without a doubt the single most important battle we need to fight in Fayetteville right now. It is all about good planning and will be a nationally-known project if it gets built. We must help the developers get this project approved so they can show everyone what's possible. I think the market will respond in-kind as I predict strong demand for what these guys are doing. It will be completely different from any other development in our area. Fantastic--an herb garden, a pavillion, shops for artists and craftsmen (they are pondering a custom guitar maker for one of them), art shows, trails, a community pool, greens behind the houses for children to play--on every level this will be an amazing project.

[thewizard16]

We went to the Ruskin Heights open house today. All I can say is this is without a doubt the single most important battle we need to fight in Fayetteville right now. It is all about good planning and will be a nationally-known project if it gets built. We must help the developers get this project approved so they can show everyone what's possible. I think the market will respond in-kind as I predict strong demand for what these guys are doing. It will be completely different from any other development in our area. Fantastic--an herb garden, a pavillion, shops for artists and craftsmen (they are pondering a custom guitar maker for one of them), art shows, trails, a community pool, greens behind the houses for children to play--on every level this will be an amazing project.

I really wanted to make it to that today, but it didn't work out. I'm glad that someone from the forum was there at least.

[Mith242]

Crap, I forgot about the open house. I was a little busy anyway but I could have at least stopped by for a little bit to find out more about it. Anyway thanks for updating us on it.

[Ruskin]

Crap, I forgot about the open house. I was a little busy anyway but I could have at least stopped by for a little bit to find out more about it. Anyway thanks for updating us on it.

Just because you didn't make the open house doesn't mean you can't stop by and learn more!! Heck, we may still have some wine left over.

Our office is the house on the top of the hill (the highest of the two homes), with the driveway across from Mission Baptist. My phone number is 422-2955. Give me a call to let me know when you can visit.

Ward

[cowbreath]

Our city traffic infrastructure is very poor because of a lack of east to west roads. This is largely due to our topography with the North-South hills. It is a growing problem they need to address anyways. Traffic can't be a issue with this development unless our city board members are not progressive in their thoughts towards city growth.

I have to change my mind here about saying traffic problems caused by Ruskin Heights is an objection by the city board members. I think they don't care, but they are just being difficult by policy to hold out for more concessions by the developers. It makes sense because they are in the power position. They probably held out so long with the Divinity project to convince the developers if they didn't change their design they wouldn't approve it. In the end they probably would not have been able to turn it down because of the tax revenue.

Anyways, that might not be true what I'm saying because it's a risky strategy that may scare away development, but who knows what we might do in their position. The new parking deck thing sucks for them because they'll have to make it a pay one and no one wants to pay.

Thia was probably right that it is difficult to consider widening Mission without destroying some of the essence of the historic district with traffic. Although her feelings might be right, practically what else can we do and where else can we do it?

I always like towns with grid streets and no subdivisions, but obviously that doesn't happen much in hilly towns, and it didn't happen much here. Are there any more major arteries? Maybe they'll get creative and create a network of chair lifts for transportation.