Jump to content

Ruskin Heights

CellarDoor135

By CellarDoor135
in Northwest Arkansas

Recommended Posts

hogwash Whistle-Stop

hogwash

Posted
Posted

Yeah it's Rolf. Like I said earlier, I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure he's the owner of Eureka Pizza. But yeah it's nice to hear him support this.

Maybe we can have him play some piano in lieu of letter writing. Considering his particular aptitude as displayed on the Muppets...

sorry I'm terrible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply
cowbreath Hamlet

cowbreath

Posted
Posted

Maybe we can have him play some piano in lieu of letter writing. Considering his particular aptitude as displayed on the Muppets...

sorry I'm terrible

Hehe... somehow reading it late at night makes it hilarious.

Oh...and Rolf is the owner of Eureka Pizza, and I should have mentioned that earlier when I posted, but I guess it seemed obvious from the editorial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mith242 Gigalopolis

Mith242

Posted
Posted

I agree very nice. But I'm not going to just assume this will be passed. The residents of Mt Sequoyah seem to almost always get their way and most of them aren't interested in more developments in 'their backyards'. But yes this would be a great addition to Fayetteville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mzweig Hamlet

mzweig

Posted
Posted

Hope you don't mind Colby if I just go ahead and add some of those renderings directly.

ruskinheights017qp.jpg

ruskinheights028pc.jpg

ruskinheights031yi.jpg

ruskinheights044so.jpg

ruskinhieghtstower5lc.jpg

ruskinheightstreehouses0dv.jpg

Okay here we go. Not sure how I posted that in another topic.....

It's a very cool development and completely unique for our area. I am planning on buying one of the lots on the bungalow court myself. I am sure the architects such as Marlon Blackwell will love the treehouse lots.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mith242 Gigalopolis

Mith242

Posted
Posted

It's a very cool development and completely unique for our area. I am planning on buying one of the lots on the bungalow court myself. I am sure the architects such as Marlon Blackwell will love the treehouse lots.

Mark

Well hopefully you'll get the chance and this will be passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mzweig Hamlet

mzweig

Posted
Posted

Very cool renders. I wonder what the cheapest little 1 bedroom bungalow would go for, $200K I guess. But hey if it sells more power to them.

The small lots will be in the high 50s to maybe high 60s. With the architectural standards that you will have to meet such as no vinyl anything, no aluminum soffits, wood windows, wood storm doors, and other very specific requirements, you won't be able to build cheaply there. But hey, quality ain't cheap. A small house in town in Fayetteville can bring $200 a foot or more and probably wouldn't be as nice as what you could build at Ruskin for that price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
masons_dad1 Town

masons_dad1

Posted
Posted

The small lots will be in the high 50s to maybe high 60s. With the architectural standards that you will have to meet such as no vinyl anything, no aluminum soffits, wood windows, wood storm doors, and other very specific requirements, you won't be able to build cheaply there. But hey, quality ain't cheap. A small house in town in Fayetteville can bring $200 a foot or more and probably wouldn't be as nice as what you could build at Ruskin for that price.

The value will probably be much higher at Ruskin Heights. I'll bet if many of these types of communities get built it could create a drop in older home prices if Ruskin Heights is that much more of a value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruskin Unincorporated Area

Ruskin

Posted
Posted

New Towns, the bi-monthly newspaper for New Urbanists, has an article in the most recent edition that addresses just the point that is being discussed on this board. It talks about how over that past 35 years or so homebuyers have focused on buying as much square footage as possible. As a result, the average size of new homes has increased dramatically (from 1,500 square feet in 1970 to 2,436 in 2005), even while the average household size has decreased substantially (from 3.51 members to 2.59). This implies a massive increase of 135% in square feet per household member in new homes (from 399 square feet to 941 square feet). Recently, however, considerable anecdotal evidence shows that people are increasingly willing to trade gross area for higher quality. Thus the rise in well appointed $200/square foot homes in the historic district.

Living Less Large

There is another article in this edition of New Towns that I thought you might find interesting!!!

Flavoring Fayetteville

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mith242 Gigalopolis

Mith242

Posted
Posted

New Towns, the bi-monthly newspaper for New Urbanists, has an article in the most recent edition that addresses just the point that is being discussed on this board. It talks about how over that past 35 years or so homebuyers have focused on buying as much square footage as possible. As a result, the average size of new homes has increased dramatically (from 1,500 square feet in 1970 to 2,436 in 2005), even while the average household size has decreased substantially (from 3.51 members to 2.59). This implies a massive increase of 135% in square feet per household member in new homes (from 399 square feet to 941 square feet). Recently, however, considerable anecdotal evidence shows that people are increasingly willing to trade gross area for higher quality. Thus the rise in well appointed $200/square foot homes in the historic district.

Living Less Large

There is another article in this edition of New Towns that I thought you might find interesting!!!

Flavoring Fayetteville

A very interesting article, thanks for posting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWAnewby Crossroads

NWAnewby

Posted
Posted

Planning Commission Meeting - Monday night at 5:30

We need all the support we can get!

I only caught the tail-end of the 40/29 news at 5pm tonight about the Tower and the neighbor's concerns. The arguments against the tower seem weak--voyeurs peeking into Park Place windows--but there is an argument out there nonetheless. It seems to me that story was slated to hurt the Planning Commission meeting tonight since Leslie Wright made sure to mention that neighbors will be at the meeting to voice their "concerns." I am going to the meeting to voice my support, especially after seeing that story, and I hope all goes well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mith242 Gigalopolis

Mith242

Posted
Posted

What happened at the meeting?? Update us. I would have been there except I teach on Monday and Tuesday nights!

I missed the beginning of the meeting. I don't think I missed much unless it started sooner than I thought. But I don't think they've even gotten to it yet. It's getting late for me, I get up pretty early in the morning. Guess I'll have to find out more tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thia Whistle-Stop

Thia

Posted
Posted

Yeah!!!!!!

On a 5 to 2 vote, Ruskin Heights was forwarded to the City Council with conditions. Traffic on Mission and a planned traffic light seemed to be the primary point of discussion for the commissioners. The public was all over the place. Mostly NIMBY. I don't think anyone other than adjoining property owners had a bad thing to say about the project. And there were even a few neighbors that supported the project. The tower concern was silly; the tower will be no higher than the other buildings. One of the lead DPZ guys that was involved in the summer planning came in to support Ruskin Heights at this meeting.

Ward... what are the next steps for your team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWAnewby Crossroads

NWAnewby

Posted
Posted

:yahoo: WHEW! :yahoo: Seven hours of Planning Commission and, of course, a much needed drink afterwards. I am a bit tired.

We had to have five votes to pass (plurality vs. a simple majority) and two commissioners were sick, which made the math tough, but we had really worked hard to take care of all of the technical issues with the City and to get movement from the State on improvements to Mission. At the end of the day that hard work plus the fantastic support of the pubic got us through to the City Council.

The NIMBY's were there and were vocal, but our supporters outnumbered them probably two or three to one, even after some attrition due to our item not hitting the agenda until 9:30 or so.

CITY COUNCIL

Today, we can be happy about the positive recommendation from the Planning Commission, but we still must be approved by the City Council. Our opponents will be energized, just as we were after our defeat at Subdivision. We will need folks to continue to write and call City Councilmembers (the phone calls are particularly effective). If you have called one or two, please give a call to a few more. Also, we will need the same number of supporters to show up for the City Council meeting. We are trying to think of ways to have folks on call, but not have to just be milling around near the chambers for a few hours. We have discussed having a call list where we dial people when we are getting close on the agenda. What would be more fun, though, would be renting out half of Tim's pizza and having a pizza party until we are called up. I need to find out if that is kosher with the City.

Thanks again for your support and I look forward to seeing you at the City Council meeting on February 20th!

Ward

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mith242 Gigalopolis

Mith242

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering has anything been approved through the Planning Commission but then denied by the City Council. Not to say that I think everyone needs to sit on their laurels and just assume this will be passed. Mt Sequoyah residents have had good success derailing developments in the past. I think this shows just how good this development is that it was able to get by at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.