Archived

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

LIT uPP

$200 Million Condo / Marina Development For East LR

41 posts in this topic

Channel 16 and the Talk Business BizBlog are reporting that developer John Burkhalter will bring before the November 8th planning commission meeting a plan for a $150-$200 million condo/marina development that will be built in phases over the next five to six years. The project will rise in the area of 2nd and Bond streets, near the Clinton Library and Heifer International headquarters. When finished, the condo component will consist of two eight-story condominium buildings with various floor plans for a range of budgets, a restaurant, health club, two swimming pools, underground parking and other amenities. The marina will feature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Channel 16 and the Talk Business BizBlog are reporting that developer John Burkhalter will bring before the November 8th planning commission meeting a plan for a $150-$200 million condo/marina development that will be built in phases over the next five to six years. The project will rise in the area of 2nd and Bond streets, near the Clinton Library and Heifer International headquarters. When finished, the condo component will consist of two eight-story condominium buildings with various floor plans for a range of budgets, a restaurant, health club, two swimming pools, underground parking and other amenities. The marina will feature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Channel 16 and the Talk Business BizBlog are reporting that developer John Burkhalter will bring before the November 8th planning commission meeting a plan for a $150-$200 million condo/marina development that will be built in phases over the next five to six years. The project will rise in the area of 2nd and Bond streets, near the Clinton Library and Heifer International headquarters. When finished, the condo component will consist of two eight-story condominium buildings with various floor plans for a range of budgets, a restaurant, health club, two swimming pools, underground parking and other amenities. The marina will feature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$200 million is huge! I also believe LR is in great need of a marina. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're all talking about the environment now, and I think it's real and we all need to be helping our environment."

...no sh**, sherlock! Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are going to try and protect the area around the marina, but that seems like a no brainer if you want to attract people to your condos.

Also, as the redevelopment of downtown and the economic ramifications of this extend into the surrounding residential neighborhood (which is amazing), I hope the city will implement a program to keep the area from being completely gentrified. Rebuiding our city is amazing, and so is having a marina, but (in my opinion, of course) we shouldn't let progress run rampant. If this marina pans out, it is a perfect chance for the city to work with the residents of the existing neighborhood and the new condo residents to help them form a bond, and not a rift, through neighborhood programs and regulated income housing and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We're all talking about the environment now, and I think it's real and we all need to be helping our environment."

...no sh**, sherlock! Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are going to try and protect the area around the marina, but that seems like a no brainer if you want to attract people to your condos.

Also, as the redevelopment of downtown and the economic ramifications of this extend into the surrounding residential neighborhood (which is amazing), I hope the city will implement a program to keep the area from being completely gentrified. Rebuiding our city is amazing, and so is having a marina, but (in my opinion, of course) we shouldn't let progress run rampant. If this marina pans out, it is a perfect chance for the city to work with the residents of the existing neighborhood and the new condo residents to help them form a bond, and not a rift, through neighborhood programs and regulated income housing and the like.

I don't see much of the current neighborhood in terms of residential being around much longer. That riverfront property is too valuable and honestly 90% of the neighborhood is industrial. There's more residential nearer the airport but that's been pared down some by airport growth and that trend will probably continue.

As far as this development goes I'm just excited about seeing the marina. I think development in the area will really take off if we can make recreational boating on the river more common. I'm hoping this is the first step in seeing more direct riverfront development instead of development adjacent to but facing away from the riverfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..no sh**, sherlock! Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are going to try and protect the area around the marina, but that seems like a no brainer if you want to attract people to your condos."

You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but I still argue with people who claim the Global Warming is debatable... There was a thread not too long ago here, in fact, where people doubted its authenticity and preferred to believe Al Gore had some evil, hidden agenda. Laughably, despicably absurd. There will always be some stragglers.

As for this marina project: I definitely like the idea, and I'm glad some more creative projects are being pushed. The Mediterranean thing I'm kind of iffy on, though.

I'm also suspicious at how successful the whole marina part will be. It is the Arkansas River, and the Arkansas River is pretty disgusting. It's nice to walk/bike along, and maybe fish/boat on....but it doesn't quite have that much of a pull like a lake or the ocean would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..no sh**, sherlock! Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are going to try and protect the area around the marina, but that seems like a no brainer if you want to attract people to your condos."

You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but I still argue with people who claim the Global Warming is debatable... There was a thread not too long ago here, in fact, where people doubted its authenticity and preferred to believe Al Gore had some evil, hidden agenda. Laughably, despicably absurd. There will always be some stragglers.

As for this marina project: I definitely like the idea, and I'm glad some more creative projects are being pushed. The Mediterranean thing I'm kind of iffy on, though.

I'm also suspicious at how successful the whole marina part will be. It is the Arkansas River, and the Arkansas River is pretty disgusting. It's nice to walk/bike along, and maybe fish/boat on....but it doesn't quite have that much of a pull like a lake or the ocean would.

I would think the Arkansas River would have as much to offer as Lake Hamilton, which I think of as muddy and overused. The main problems with the Arkansas are that you need a larger boat because of the current, you can't really swim and waterskiing and small watercraft (Seadoos, jetskis) are a bit dangerous. However, you can sure go for a long ways and see quite a bit on the river.

I'm not as irritated with the Mediterranean idea as most. A lot of cool older buildings in the area used Spanish architecture - the Albert Pike Hotel and downtown YMCA for instance. I just think it may not fit as well with the buildings immediately adjacent - the Heifer Project, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm not as irritated with the Mediterranean idea as most. A lot of cool older buildings in the area used Spanish architecture - the Albert Pike Hotel and downtown YMCA for instance. I just think it may not fit as well with the buildings immediately adjacent - the Heifer Project, etc.

Trust me Apork, any attempt at implementing "Mediterranean" architecture, in this market, from a developer, will be a nightmare with respect to good taste. This is not unlike the "Tuscan" redevelopment style of the previously respectable Riveria tower. Tuscan? Puuhhhllleeeaaasseee.... where to even begin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me Apork, any attempt at implementing "Mediterranean" architecture, in this market, from a developer, will be a nightmare with respect to good taste. This is not unlike the "Tuscan" redevelopment style of the previously respectable Riveria tower. Tuscan? Puuhhhllleeeaaasseee.... where to even begin...

Hey Architect,

Sorta like French architecture is to Chenal? :-)

I'll get excited about this development as earth starts to turn. I like the idea of a marina east of downtown, near the Clinton Library. There have been prior similar announcement made. Wasn't there a Lighthouse something or another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Architect,

Sorta like French architecture is to Chenal? :-)

I'll get excited about this development as earth starts to turn. I like the idea of a marina east of downtown, near the Clinton Library. There have been prior similar announcement made. Wasn't there a Lighthouse something or another?

I liked the lighthouse idea.

This development has a lot bigger scope, though. The prior idea was low-rise instead of mid-rise, it seemed more like a typical large Lake Hamilton development. This is massive.

I would like to see some ground-level retail and restaurants implemented to make it more of a destination. That won't happen but I think it would add more to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to East Little Rock, can we actually see something like this with that type of environment out there. I hate to be stereotypical, but isn't that not the safest place to live? i mean, when flying over it or even driving through it or by it, it all looks sorta grungy, like i wouldnt want to be out there at night. So i cant really see a marina right across the street from the ghetto. I could be totally wrong.

Im guessing this is just a total redevelopment. Not like the LRCH neighborhood or qua-paw where they are restoring the houses, but more like ..........go in, tear down, and rebuild. and I think anything other than a contemporary style will look out of place. look at the Clinton library, heifer int. 300 3rd, river market place. all contemporary style.

And what about the Airport. Whats their plan. there was an article in the AGS about a church moving from that area because of the extension of the general use runway to the river. so im guessing they will eventually own everything east of the runway, south to I530.

But if this all works out, i think it could be really cool. Anything to help downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..no sh**, sherlock! Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are going to try and protect the area around the marina, but that seems like a no brainer if you want to attract people to your condos."

You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but I still argue with people who claim the Global Warming is debatable... There was a thread not too long ago here, in fact, where people doubted its authenticity and preferred to believe Al Gore had some evil, hidden agenda. Laughably, despicably absurd. There will always be some stragglers.

As for this marina project: I definitely like the idea, and I'm glad some more creative projects are being pushed. The Mediterranean thing I'm kind of iffy on, though.

I'm also suspicious at how successful the whole marina part will be. It is the Arkansas River, and the Arkansas River is pretty disgusting. It's nice to walk/bike along, and maybe fish/boat on....but it doesn't quite have that much of a pull like a lake or the ocean would.

This is way off topic for this, but you should have read the Perspective section of yesterday's paper. It gives real world insight into global warming and the approach to dealing with it, not the hyperbole spewed by both "sides".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is way off topic for this, but you should have read the Perspective section of yesterday's paper. It gives real world insight into global warming and the approach to dealing with it, not the hyperbole spewed by both "sides".

I'm currently studying abroad in Paris (no, not Paris, TX). Could you give a synopsis? I'm always fascinated to see what the old D-G is churning out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently studying abroad in Paris (no, not Paris, TX). Could you give a synopsis? I'm always fascinated to see what the old D-G is churning out.

The Dem didn't write this, it was by Lomborg and was originally printed in the Washington Post.

Synopsis: Global warming is real; but the results are not catestrophic as suggested by fearmongers. Current tactics formulated by Gore and Kyoto cost $billions/trillions, but yield minimal results. The factions that exist today are caricatures of the truth and are acting much like our political parties and creating hype. Time to cool it and have sensible debate. Suggestion: investing in a means of finding more effective solutions to the problem. It's also a lesson in how to rationally look at the effects (positive & negative) of warming and how to more effectively deal with the negatives. It's a thoughtful peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The Dem didn't write this, it was by Lomborg and was originally printed in the Washington Post.

Synopsis: Global warming is real; but the results are not catestrophic as suggested by fearmongers. Current tactics formulated by Gore and Kyoto cost $billions/trillions, but yield minimal results. The factions that exist today are caricatures of the truth and are acting much like our political parties and creating hype. Time to cool it and have sensible debate. Suggestion: investing in a means of finding more effective solutions to the problem. It's also a lesson in how to rationally look at the effects (positive & negative) of warming and how to more effectively deal with the negatives. It's a thoughtful peace.

Yes, it was refreshing to read a relatively objective article on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dem didn't write this, it was by Lomborg and was originally printed in the Washington Post.

Synopsis: Global warming is real; but the results are not catestrophic as suggested by fearmongers. Current tactics formulated by Gore and Kyoto cost $billions/trillions, but yield minimal results. The factions that exist today are caricatures of the truth and are acting much like our political parties and creating hype. Time to cool it and have sensible debate. Suggestion: investing in a means of finding more effective solutions to the problem. It's also a lesson in how to rationally look at the effects (positive & negative) of warming and how to more effectively deal with the negatives. It's a thoughtful peace.

I don't think anybody seriously thinks that parts of New York of all of New Orleans will get flooded over soon. The point with Gore's sensationalism, I defend, was to get people's attention by carrying out the scenario to the extreme. This is often a tactic since most people are so inattentive and apathetic that most would shrug a 2-3 degree rise in temperature. If anyone seriously came out of the movie thinking that Gore was implying the flooding would happen anytime soon, he or she missed the point.

Speaking of that article: I just did a quick google search, and it appears there was a rebuttal by an actual climate scientist (i.e., someone working in the field as opposed to commenting on it) in the Washington Post online. She's chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Not too shabby:

Cooler Heads and Climate Change

By Judith Curry

Wednesday, October 10, 2007; 6:55 PM

In his Outlook essay "Chill Out," Bjorn Lomborg rightly notes that skepticism about climate change is no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are). The current debate is about whether warming matters, and whether we can afford to do anything about it.

In this debate, Lomborg has positioned himself squarely in the skeptics' camp. But he has some of his facts wrong -- and he fails to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all.

On the facts, Lomborg writes that the Kangerlussuaq glacier in Greenland is "inconveniently growing," somehow undercutting the argument that the world is getting warmer. But NASA research shows that Greenland's Kangerlussuaq glacier is not growing; it is simply spilling into the sea.

Lomborg also misrepresents some conclusions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is skeptical about the claim that polar bears "will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts." But the report shows that, even under the best-case scenario, about two-thirds of the current polar bear population will be lost by 2050.

Lomborg's attitude toward risk is also troubling. He focuses only on the middle range of the panel's projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.

The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security -- providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced.

In his cost-benefit analysis, Lomborg considers only one policy option for reducing carbon emissions -- the Kyoto Protocol -- and says its worldwide cost would be about $180 billion per year. But the debate over the economics of global warming is more wide-ranging than Lomborg would have it. More than a dozen different studies have examined the economic impact of Kyoto-level controls. Some have concluded that it could have relatively small negative effects, such as those cited by Lomborg. Others have predicted small positive effects. Moreover, by focusing only on the Kyoto Protocol, Lomborg ignores potentially better policies that could cost far less than Kyoto and deliver higher economic growth worldwide.

Lomborg gets it right when he calls for an ambitious public investment program in clean-energy technologies. But he mistakenly assumes that existing technologies and strategies can't make a big dent in carbon emissions at an affordable price. We're developing hybrid and electric cars, building wind farms and ocean wave energy stations. New batteries, fuel cells and solar panels are smaller, better and cheaper than they were just a few years ago. I am in awe of the new technologies that I see being developed at Georgia Tech, and such research is happening at the nation's major research universities and in the private sector.

As scientists continue to challenge and improve the quality and understanding of climate records and models, skepticism by scientists conducting such research is alive and well. But oversimplifying the situation, using misleading information and presenting false choices is not useful in the public debate over global warming.

Lomborg seems to have missed it, but a sensible debate has begun on how to best respond to global warming -- in national and local governments, universities and the private sector -- in the U.S. and around the world. There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7101002157.html

I appreciate how scientifically complete Judith's piece was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, this train sure got derailed.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry about that.

Guilty.

Somewhat related: I wonder of this development will have large swimming pools by the river. I always imagined the land along the river would be a great area to create a curvacious swimming pool so that it ties into the whole "feeling" (to be inarticulate as hell) around the river. Imagine traveling across I-30 and seeing a few tiers of swimming pools spilling into each other along the coast line, with sunbathers dotting the area around the pool. Then again, I guess the boat slips will get all the waterfront property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody seriously thinks that parts of New York of all of New Orleans will get flooded over soon. The point with Gore's sensationalism, I defend, was to get people's attention by carrying out the scenario to the extreme. This is often a tactic since most people are so inattentive and apathetic that most would shrug a 2-3 degree rise in temperature. If anyone seriously came out of the movie thinking that Gore was implying the flooding would happen anytime soon, he or she missed the point.

Speaking of that article: I just did a quick google search, and it appears there was a rebuttal by an actual climate scientist (i.e., someone working in the field as opposed to commenting on it) in the Washington Post online. She's chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Not too shabby:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7101002157.html

I appreciate how scientifically complete Judith's piece was written.

I'd appreciate it more if there weren't assumptions each scientist makes that lead to conclusions (sometimes true, sometimes false). There is a massive economic component to every change requested that must be factored in. We can debate it elsewhere, but the truth remains that there will be little done to move the issue forward with both sides using scare tactics. It just discredits your overall point.

Moving back to the marina, I too think that this is a great sign for downtown if it could be pulled off. I'm not qualified like others to comment on the Mediterranean style, but encouraging this type of living arrangement in that area would be amazing considering the current conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gore didn't help his case, IMO, by:

- Putting several factual errors (a British court ruled a couple of weeks back that these errors must be pointed out whenever school children are shown the movie) in his flick, and;

- essentially telling people of areas such as West Africa, to, well, stay poor (ostensibly in order to not emit all those waste hydrocarbon compounds).

Indeed, back to this development...it sounds fascinating. That part of Little Rock, looking eastward back in the (late 80s) day made one think they would be drifting off to nothingness east of the I-35 bridge. It's tremendous to see LR changing like it is.

I, too, wonder about the Mediterranean styling but it could be interesting. Images of the grecian architecture that was incorporated into so many southern mansions come to my mind (although Arkansas is a southern state, if that area isn't a de facto occidental portal to the deep south I don't know what is) but that might not be easy to translate into a riverfront development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- essentially telling people of areas such as West Africa, to, well, stay poor (ostensibly in order to not emit all those waste hydrocarbon compounds).

Oh please.

Anyways, apparently some of the most decorated scientists on the matter disagree (Nobel Peace Prize). I'll take that over any armchair critic and superficial, specious contentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Great! Maybe somewhere in the near future Little Rock will be able to add an Aquarium to enhance visits along with the Zoo and kids museum. NOLA had a great set up where you could catch a riverboat from the zoo to the Aquarium and then back again....maybe something can be developed similar along with kids Museum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.