New Hotel for the River Market

[Architect]

I have no idea how it hurts the River Market District. I assume he is only referencing the boundaries I posted earlier. Anything south of the I-40 on/off ramp is not considered the River Market District.

I can't just discount his opinion tho... I want to hear why he thinks taller buildings detract. Some on this board have been disappointed with the Enclave blocking the view of downtown lr from Alltel. Maybe someone like Roberts should have spoken up.

You have all the great photos of downtown lr. Can you photoshop in a 7 story building?

I suppose you keep meaning to say south of the I-30 interchange? Even if so, I'm still unclear what boundary you are describing.

Anyway, regarding your comment about the Enclave. That is a completely different issue. First, I think its cool that it is as tall and dense as it is...more power to them. The issue in that case had to do with where the building was positioned, insomuch that it blocked a "view" corridor that was established by the design of Alltel Arena, which was/is a significant civic building.

There is no "view" corridor in consideration at all on Clinton Avenue/Aloft site. It is not an issue...his argument, which is odd, is that it would "tower over" the library. Ummm okay. Who cares. Did the owners of First Commercial tower (now Regions) protest when the Capitol Tower (Metropolitan Tower) was built because it would "tower over" their building? C'mon. This is grandstanding of the highest order.

p.s. It should be noted that the new Butler center is 3.5 floors above the street. I would hardly consider a 7-story building next door inappropriate. Did I mention that yet?

[turboturtle]

I suppose you keep meaning to say south of the I-30 interchange? Even if so, I'm still unclear what boundary you are describing.

Yep. Sorry to confuse anyone. What little I know about the River Market design overlay district (admittedly, I'm to lazy too go find it on the City web site) is that it is / was considered a successful model in our City by both City and non-City interest. Because of its perceived success, the River Market District was the model for the Midtown Task force in 2003 for the creation of the Midtown Redevelopment District and Advisory board. That is how dated my info is.

If I recall correctly, the River Market District boundaries are small. Anything north of the I-30 interchange is in the boundaries. Anything between La Harpe and the I-30 bridge is within the boundaries.

[turboturtle]

Okay - not sure how relevant my critique of the First Security Tower is to the perspective on the Aloft, but for what its worth:

First, the design architect for First Security is quite talented and a friend of mine, but to summarize his comment to me about the building, its original design fell victim to developer cutbacks. Specifically, the entire facade lacks the depth or ornamentation that was originally designed - a result of cost cutting. However, I think the solution at the street level, specifically the iron/steel canopies, change of material (burnished block), and detailing are quite attractive and successful at responding the the scale of the pedestrian. And again, I think the height is fine - even good, and adds to both the verticality and density of the district.

Second, I should also point out that the building is mixed-use, which is a very positive element - it contains hotel, office and residential condominiums. Again, this adds to the density and diversity of the district.

I do not recall, and may never have been privity to the justification to the height variance to the overlay district, but I'm sure it ultimately feel on the question of why they SHOULDN'T approve a high-rise, mixed used development in the district that adds density, activity and an infusion of $30M to the district. And I imagine the same logic will prevail in the Aloft consideration (but again, I'm not sure what the height restriction is...it may not need a variance).

I believe the architectural design of a building in an overlay district is relevant. The purpose of and overlay district is for a City to plan how they want a particular area to develop / redevelop. It is a legal position that says to potential developers, if you want to develop in this geographic area of the City, here is the criterion you need to meet. By setting forth specific development criteria, the plan approval process is expedited. When developers submit plans that comply with the overlay, then the plans fast track through the City approval process. The recent approval of the Park Avenue project is an example of this. It took ~60 days from the submission of the plan to its approval by the City board. (Yes, it did encounter some controversy, but a vote wasn't ever delayed from the submission to the Planning Commission in May to the approval by the City board in June. I think the developer deferred once in April.)

Assuming it meets the design criteria of the overlay, the seven-story height of the proposed building should not matter. Even if it does not meet the design overlay, then due to the First Security building, the City would be in a very difficult legal position to argue it should be built to a lesser height. It absolutely matters whether the Aloft is a seven-story eye-soar in the heart of the River Market, the area the City that has carried our downtown into the future. We have not seen a rendering for the proposed Aloft, so we can't judge this yet.

If the proposal doesn't comply with the overlay, the City has a right and a responsibility to ask a developer to do more or less. The City can also compromise in the interest of not losing the developer, which is what happened in the Park Avenue example.

[LIT uPP]

The Democrat-Gazette article, last Friday, states the developers will request variances for the hotel

[Aporkalypse]

I agree, there is no logical reason for Roberts to oppose the hotel except that he envisions the site for future expansion. Personally, I would prefer the hotel to add density there. Anytime you can put a building with several stories in place of a parking lot on a main thoroughfare, it's a good thing. This is even more true if we see ground level retail/restaurants added there.

This will put the CALS parking lot at more of a premium, they can charge even more than they currently do for events and weekend parking.

[turboturtle]

The Arkansas Times Blog fills in with information we've been missing...

1) Roberts full argument

2) The height restriction (New buildings) in the DOD.

3) The boundaries of the DOD.

It is all here.

IMO

Design overlay districts are an important tool for City's to promote redevelopment. The City undermined the DOD when it allowed the First Security building to be constructed within the boundaries of the DOD. What is often the case, is that longtime property owners, who are a part of the original DOD and abide by its rules, are treated unfairly when a new project is approved that does not comply with the DOD. This is the question of fairness Roberts raises.

When the City made the concession for the First Security building, there should have been due diligence to review the height requirement in the DOD. That process would have led to a confirmation or revision of the existing height restriction. This building height debate would have been completed already.

Ultimately, I don't think the City or Roberts will prevail. Based on the precedent set by the approval of the First Security building, the Aloft folks are on firm ground to claim the City's behavior is arbitrary if they are denied the proposed building height. Maybe the City will revisit the Scott street parking lot site again. I think that would be a better location for this hotel.

I have yet to see a pic of an Aloft building that I like. Is that just me?

[Architect]

The Arkansas Times Blog fills in with information we've been missing...

1) Roberts full argument

2) The height restriction (New buildings) in the DOD.

3) The boundaries of the DOD.

It is all here.

IMO

Design overlay districts are an important tool for City's to promote redevelopment. The City undermined the DOD when it allowed the First Security building to be constructed within the boundaries of the DOD. What is often the case, is that longtime property owners, who are a part of the original DOD and abide by its rules, are treated unfairly when a new project is approved that does not comply with the DOD. This is the question of fairness Roberts raises.

When the City made the concession for the First Security building, there should have been due diligence to review the height requirement in the DOD. That process would have led to a confirmation or revision of the existing height restriction. This building height debate would have been completed already.

Ultimately, I don't think the City or Roberts will prevail. Based on the precedent set by the approval of the First Security building, the Aloft folks are on firm ground to claim the City's behavior is arbitrary if they are denied the proposed building height. Maybe the City will revisit the Scott street parking lot site again. I think that would be a better location for this hotel.

I have yet to see a pic of an Aloft building that I like. Is that just me?

Interesting read - thanks for the link. Again, I like Bobby and he certainly is eloquent in his prose, but the reality is that his argument is quite fragile.

He says he supports the use. He says he has no objection to the design type (presumably modern). So what's left? Only the height...the only place he can technically hang his hat. So he fundamentally "supports" the project save for the issue that it will be 2 stories taller than the Arkansas Studies Institute? The travesty. Would anyone really notice or care? I think not...not at pedestrian level. An urban edge is an urban edge, and while one might notice or be acutely aware of the difference between a 1-story building and a 3-story building as one passes by, not so much between 4 stories and 7 stories.

The truth is that he wanted to develop this property. Sour grapes.

Note - a comment about the DOD height restriction: I can't believe it is only 40' - especially when so many existing structures - including the main Library - exceed that height, including the city's own River Market parking deck. The height established seems arbitrary and capricious, and even if it weren't, I disagree with their original assessment. Furthermore, the city will have a tough time defending the restriction having established precedence for a prior variance for a MUCH taller building (16 stories).

[skirby]

The Arkansas Times Blog fills in with information we've been missing...

1) Roberts full argument

2) The height restriction (New buildings) in the DOD.

3) The boundaries of the DOD.

It is all here.

IMO

Design overlay districts are an important tool for City's to promote redevelopment. The City undermined the DOD when it allowed the First Security building to be constructed within the boundaries of the DOD. What is often the case, is that longtime property owners, who are a part of the original DOD and abide by its rules, are treated unfairly when a new project is approved that does not comply with the DOD. This is the question of fairness Roberts raises.

When the City made the concession for the First Security building, there should have been due diligence to review the height requirement in the DOD. That process would have led to a confirmation or revision of the existing height restriction. This building height debate would have been completed already.

Ultimately, I don't think the City or Roberts will prevail. Based on the precedent set by the approval of the First Security building, the Aloft folks are on firm ground to claim the City's behavior is arbitrary if they are denied the proposed building height. Maybe the City will revisit the Scott street parking lot site again. I think that would be a better location for this hotel.

I have yet to see a pic of an Aloft building that I like. Is that just me?

Interesting comment on the Arkansas Times blog from The Hack Attack "The Main Library is at 76', the First Security Center at 160', the Museum Center at 75' and the River Market parking deck at 66'. Did I forget to mention that the new Arkansas Studies Institute will be 62'?"

I believe the parking deck also falls in with the First Security building as being approved after the height restrictions were approved. I don't understand why the limit was put at 48ft. in the first place because some of the existing buildings exceeded that height. The RM Overlay District is made up of 8 blocks, with one of those block being the I-30 circle off-ramp. Another block contains the Market Hall. With another block plus for the Library, it's parking lot, the Cox Building and the Butler Center . Half a block is taken up by the parking deck so private interest controls only about half the district or four blocks.

I don't think anyone who walks by the First Security building thinks it is too tall but I do wish they would have made it more street friendly. One other thing the Butler Center's main entrance will be on the west end away from the proposed hotel.

[turboturtle]

Note - a comment about the DOD height restriction: I can't believe it is only 40' - especially when so many existing structures - including the main Library - exceed that height, including the city's own River Market parking deck. The height established seems arbitrary and capricious, and even if it weren't, I disagree with their original assessment. Furthermore, the city will have a tough time defending the restriction having established precedence for a prior variance for a MUCH taller building (16 stories).

I think the real mistake here was not revising the DOD once it was clear that the height restriction would be unreasonable. It is obviously a SHORTcoming of the original DOD (I'm crack'n myself up).

I'm a proponent of DODs, especially when they are targeted and limited in geographic area. The River Market DOD does this successfully. I believe that once the City passes a resolution to adopt a DOD for an area. It should go to great lenghts to adhere to it. If the City undermines the integrity of DODs, then what is the point of having them?

In the event that an original DOD missed the mark by being too restrictive or not restrictive enough, there ought to be a process to amend them. In fact... maybe DOD's should have that built into them, every 5-7 years the design criteria is put up for review. Who knows, maybe our current system is working.

[skirby]

The Arkansas Time Blog adds further to this matter. It post a letter from the Downtown Little Rock Partnership (DLRP) Board. The DLRP is in favor of the project. It states that the hotel will be designed by architect Rick Redden of AMR Architects. It will be interesting to see his design.

Arkansas Times Blog

[skirby]

Here it is boys and girls the rendering of the hotel that's too tall. Aloft Hotel

[turboturtle]

Here it is boys and girls the rendering of the hotel that's too tall. Aloft Hotel

Way to go! You beat me to it...

So what was the argument?

It closely resembles your example rendering... Is that raised corner and Aloft "trademark" maybe that is the A loft or something goofy.

[Architect]

Here it is boys and girls the rendering of the hotel that's too tall. Aloft Hotel

Okay. So I might take issue with its design!

Seriously, it doesn't look great in this drawing, and it might not be...but I'd hold out for a colored rendering. These aren't the best types of drawings to convey the design intent.

[adman0468]

Okay. So I might take issue with its design!

Seriously, it doesn't look great in this drawing, and it might not be...but I'd hold out for a colored rendering. These aren't the best types of drawings to convey the design intent.

I have no problem with the height after seeing the renderings. Of course, I didn't really have any before seeing the renderings, either.

Design-wise, I'll have to wait and see, but the RM isn't filled with visually stimulating buildings unfortunately anyway.

[LRU1967]

The Arkansas Times Blog has a report on the vote by the River Market Design Review Committee on approving the A Loft design. Regardless of your pro or con opinion of the proposal you have to wonder about the vote by certain members of the committee and some of the statements by the proponents.

It seems like a poor way for the city to make decisions.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog...n.aspx#comments

[skirby]

The Arkansas Times Blog has a report on the vote by the River Market Design Review Committee on approving the A Loft design. Regardless of your pro or con opinion of the proposal you have to wonder about the vote by certain members of the committee and some of the statements by the proponents.

It seems like a poor way for the city to make decisions.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog...n.aspx#comments

If you read the comments on the blog you have to wonder about people who would prefer a parking lot over a hotel providing people 24/7. I guess they don't think people and stores to be an advantage to the area. By looking at the tax receipts for Sonny Williams' I would venture to say they can't wait until the hotel is built. I would also guess that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody rides the trolley.

[turboturtle]

The Arkansas Times Blog has a report on the vote by the River Market Design Review Committee on approving the A Loft design. Regardless of your pro or con opinion of the proposal you have to wonder about the vote by certain members of the committee and some of the statements by the proponents.

It seems like a poor way for the city to make decisions.

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog...n.aspx#comments

You're right. However, the City is only taking this vote into consideration. It is not the deciding vote on the building.

It was a mistake for the developer to let that split vote occur. So, the split vote means the City Board is on its own. If the River Market Design Review Committee had a unanimous vote, it would have made it easier on the City Board. Even in that scenario, the City Board doesn't have to go along with the recommendation.

This will be an interesting test for Stodola. He is a proponent of DODs and believes that they should be followed. At least, that is my take on him. Also, it will be interesting for Stacy Hurst. The Midtown DOD is in her ward. She worked to get the developer to make some concessions and meet more of the Midtown DOD. The Midtown Redevelopment Advisory Board also made concessions.

I think Keck and Kumpuris have already voted for it. I thin the City Board vote will be close either way, unless the developer shows something we haven't seen. What would be nice is a better design, ground-floor tenant commitment, or compelling facade.

Should be fun to watch this unfold...

[turboturtle]

If you read the comments on the blog you have to wonder about people who would prefer a parking lot over a hotel providing people 24/7. I guess they don't think people and stores to be an advantage to the area. By looking at the tax receipts for Sonny Williams' I would venture to say they can't wait until the hotel is built. I would also guess that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody rides the trolley.

Yeah. There are some folks that think LR is in a snow globe (cept there is no snow).

Long term... we need more hotels. This would have boader support if we were talking about a hotel like this www.21chotel.com.

[LRU1967]

If you read the comments on the blog you have to wonder about people who would prefer a parking lot over a hotel providing people 24/7. I guess they don't think people and stores to be an advantage to the area. By looking at the tax receipts for Sonny Williams' I would venture to say they can't wait until the hotel is built. I would also guess that these people are the same ones who complain that nobody rides the trolley.

My post did not refer to the comments on the blog but to the factual report of the meeting. The fact that one of the committee members is an employee of Moses/Tucker and another a city employee and that they were the two yes votes gives pause to the impartiality of committee members.

[skirby]

My post did not refer to the comments on the blog but to the factual report of the meeting. The fact that one of the committee members is an employee of Moses/Tucker and another a city employee and that they were the two yes votes gives pause to the impartiality of committee members.

According to the city's website the committee is to be composed of three members recommended by property owners within the district. One member "representing the entity hired by the City to manage the River Market" and one member who is "a design professional with experience in historic preservation such as an architect, engineer, planner or landscape architect." Therefore any review would contain a city employee and that is the manager of the River Market.

It would be interesting to know who owns property in the district. With only four blocks being owned by private interest there can't be a large number of them.

[LRU1967]

According to the city's website the committee is to be composed of three members recommended by property owners within the district. and one member who is "a design professional with experience in historic preservation such as an architect, engineer, planner or landscape architect." Therefore any review would contain a city employee and that is the manager of the River Market.

It would be interesting to know who owns property in the district. With only four blocks being owned by private interest there can't be a large number of them.

My preference for this committee's membership would not include a majority of property owners and certainly not "one member "representing the entity hired by the City to manage the River Market".

[turboturtle]

My preference for this committee's membership would not include a majority of property owners and certainly not "one member "representing the entity hired by the City to manage the River Market".

For comparison purposes...

The Midtown Redevelopment Advisory Board is modeled on the River Market District Design Review Committee.

Members are appointed by the Mayor and Little Rock City Board of Directors after written qualifications are received in response to a public notice that has been published by the City once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks. The Board shall consist of the following:

Four (4) Owners or duly authorized representatives of owners of commercial property within the boundaries

One (1) Representative of the Little Rock School Board

One (1) Resident of property within two (2) straight line miles of the boundaries

One (1) Representative of the Little Rock Planning Commission

It is intentionally weight to property owners.

[skirby]

This is the view MR. Roberts said would be lost. I don't know about you but I wouldn't miss it.

[turboturtle]

This is the view MR. Roberts said would be lost. I don't know about you but I wouldn't miss it.

I would not miss that view either. I do recall that CALS had to get a variance to display the banners on the outside of the Cox building.

What about the view looking north if you are on the south side of the Cox center. Not to say that an obstruction would sway me, cause I don't see the height issue keeping this thing from happening.

[Aporkalypse]

I would not miss that view either. I do recall that CALS had to get a variance to display the banners on the outside of the Cox building.

What about the view looking north if you are on the south side of the Cox center. Not to say that an obstruction would sway me, cause I don't see the height issue keeping this thing from happening.

Man, I hate those tacky banners. That and the logos on the CAT buses are so 1982.