Jump to content

New Hotel for the River Market


skirby

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't understand why Roberts is so against this. The River Market's main goal is to bring people to that area of dowtown. The library, restaurants, museums, condos and hotels bring people to the area. I would much rather see a convention hotel near the convention center, but I guess since the city has interest in both of the main convention hotels they don't want any competition. If new hotels are needed (and this is a good thing if this true because more people are visiting the area) then this corner is a good place to put a hotel. It's in the middle of a thriving area of downtown. It is blocks away from the convention center so people can walk their and not have to drive. It also brings more people to shop in the stores, eat in the restaurants, visit the tourist attractions and visit Robert's library, Cox building and the Butler Center. Presidence has been set. A variance for height was given for First Security Center and the River Market parking garage. I can't see how this can't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only that thinks the proposed hotel is ugly, at least based on the one in Rogers? When I see pictures I think of the Double Tree.

Renderings of the proposal for this site have been released... the Arktimes blog had them.

You are not the only one who thinks the design is fugly. Your in the same city that allowed the Witt Stephens Nature Center to be decked out in siding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just got Robert's real concern by reading the Ark Times Insider. His concern is the potential for the shorter buildings in the River Market to be demolished and replaced with taller buildings should the height restriction be removed. For example all the buildings on the north and south side of President Clinton Avenue between LaHarpe and the River Market Pavilion could be demolished and replaced with taller buildings. In doing so, the "character" of the River Market would likely be destroyed.

In order to discourage this from happening, the original design overlay made new construction shorter than most of the existing buildings. This is how the revitalization of downtown started. Otherwise, everything would have likely been bulldozed. (I'm speculating here)

Also, all of the CALS projects would become dwarfed in the future. There will probably never be an opportunity to redevelop any of the CALS projects in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the first things Mr. Roberts said about the hotel was that he was not against the design but now he has changed his tune. The article from the Arkansas Times says he wants to see a set back design which the hotel developer has already said will happen. He also calls for retail on Commerce. That is the first I have heard of this. The argument up to now has been retail on President Clinton Ave. which the hotel is offering. Maybe he thinks he has lost his argument against the height issue and now is turning to any other issues he can come up with. The height issue has also changed from the hotel being too tall for the Butler Center to now being too tall for the Cox Building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the first things Mr. Roberts said about the hotel was that he was not against the design but now he has changed his tune. The article from the Arkansas Times says he wants to see a set back design which the hotel developer has already said will happen. He also calls for retail on Commerce. That is the first I have heard of this. The argument up to now has been retail on President Clinton Ave. which the hotel is offering. Maybe he thinks he has lost his argument against the height issue and now is turning to any other issues he can come up with. The height issue has also changed from the hotel being too tall for the Butler Center to now being too tall for the Cox Building.

Roberts just doesn't want it to be built, he's finding issues with everything.

I don't like the design, either. I hope that the city can gently push them towards conforming more with the neighborhood, though it's hard to argue that when the Butler Center itself is pretty radical in design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roberts just doesn't want it to be built, he's finding issues with everything.

I don't like the design, either. I hope that the city can gently push them towards conforming more with the neighborhood, though it's hard to argue that when the Butler Center itself is pretty radical in design.

I was in NWA this weekend and noted the Aloft in Rogers (granted at 70 MPH), and I believe there is a great similarity between it and what is proposed. I thought it looked quite nice actually, at least for something of this type - certainly better than many of the other random "bland" hotels in the area.

Much like my post about Arvest Ballpark-Dickey Stephens, I'm more concerned about whether its is built with exceptional execution/quality rather than what style it is. Modern would be fine if it is done well. We would all agree that the Butler Center is an example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The Central Arkansas Library System board voted to oppose the Aloft today. At the meeting were representatives from Stephens Inc. also opposing the hotel. One made the remark that too much money had been spent on the Peabody and Capital Hotels to allow a new player on the block. Is this the beginning of a feud between Stephens and Moses/Tucker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Central Arkansas Library System board voted to oppose the Aloft today. At the meeting were representatives from Stephens Inc. also opposing the hotel. One made the remark that too much money had been spent on the Peabody and Capital Hotels to allow a new player on the block. Is this the beginning of a feud between Stephens and Moses/Tucker?

I guess I can see the CALS Board voting against it (though I disagree), but why in the world would Stephens Inc. be against a new hotel, and furthermore, why in the world would the represent themselves at a CALS Board meeting?! FYI Warren....the demographic for the Capitol and ALoft are completely different. I don't believe these will be cross-shopped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I can see the CALS Board voting against it (though I disagree), but why in the world would Stephens Inc. be against a new hotel, and furthermore, why in the world would the represent themselves at a CALS Board meeting?! FYI Warren....the demographic for the Capitol and ALoft are completely different. I don't believe these will be cross-shopped!

Because Stephens wants to build another convention hotel on his vacant lot next to the Capitol, one that probably would compete with Aloft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Stephens attorney from the arktimes video, the application for the Aloft includes 46 variances. That is a lot anywhere. Only one of those is a variance for height. The point is also made that there are other available lots for a hotel elsewhere downtown.

The free market is alive an well in Little Rock. The very small (relative to downtown lr) river market district has zoning requirements that are unique. For the City to relax these requirements for one developer in that district is NOT the free enterprise system. Had the zoning restriction not ever been passed into law, maybe Stephens would have developed that property instead of the Capital Hotel. Maybe the river market would have never happened.

I don't think this is as simple as the competition is against more competition. That is part of it. But, I also think you are seeing people who want the City to shed its reputation of implementing zoning laws that they immediately undermine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Stephens attorney from the arktimes video, the application for the Aloft includes 46 variances. That is a lot anywhere. Only one of those is a variance for height. The point is also made that there are other available lots for a hotel elsewhere downtown.

The free market is alive an well in Little Rock. The very small (relative to downtown lr) river market district has zoning requirements that are unique. For the City to relax these requirements for one developer in that district is NOT the free enterprise system. Had the zoning restriction not ever been passed into law, maybe Stephens would have developed that property instead of the Capital Hotel. Maybe the river market would have never happened.

I don't think this is as simple as the competition is against more competition. That is part of it. But, I also think you are seeing people who want the City to shed its reputation of implementing zoning laws that they immediately undermine.

To be honest, I know very little about the specifics - as such I suppose my position could change. But, my overarching contention is that density is good, and the infusion of more people and activities in a district is even better. I maintain that those opposed to this are using the guidelines as a front masking their own personal objections - the library who would rather control this land and the competition, which obviously wants to limit more competition.

I am a big proponent of design guidelines, but often there are times where the original stipulations are outmoded. In this case, I think the original limitation of four stories was very short sighted, insomuch that they didn't anticipate the growth, activity and density that has developed, validated by the fact that several variances for height have already been given for other projects, one double this height at 16 stories.

Then there's just the plain old common sense question....is there really a fundamental difference between 4 and 7 stories. The answer is no. Then there's the other common sense question when it comes to variances, which involves the assessment of whether the request is moving toward or away from the original intent of the guidelines. In this case, they aren't requesting a less dense, suburban insertion into the urban grid, they are actually requesting more density, which is the spirit of the district and supports the intent of the guidelines.

Because Stephens wants to build another convention hotel on his vacant lot next to the Capitol, one that probably would compete with Aloft.

Agreed - not sure why I didn't take that into account with my first question. However, I expect Stephens to plan a full-service convention hotel. In that case, this would not be in competition with the Aloft, which is a boutique, limited-service hotel. The Aloft would compete with the adjacent Courtyard Marriot and the Hampton - both owned by the same group proposing the Aloft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I know very little about the specifics - as such I suppose my position could change. But, my overarching contention is that density is good, and the infusion of more people and activities in a district is even better. I maintain that those opposed to this are using the guidelines as a front masking their own personal objections - the library who would rather control this land and the competition, which obviously wants to limit more competition.

I am a big proponent of design guidelines, but often there are times where the original stipulations are outmoded. In this case, I think the original limitation of four stories was very short sighted, insomuch that they didn't anticipate the growth, activity and density that has developed, validated by the fact that several variances for height have already been given for other projects, one double this height at 16 stories.

Then there's just the plain old common sense question....is there really a fundamental difference between 4 and 7 stories. The answer is no. Then there's the other common sense question when it comes to variances, which involves the assessment of whether the request is moving toward or away from the original intent of the guidelines. In this case, they aren't requesting a less dense, suburban insertion into the urban grid, they are actually requesting more density, which is the spirit of the district and supports the intent of the guidelines.

Agreed - not sure why I didn't take that into account with my first question. However, I expect Stephens to plan a full-service convention hotel. In that case, this would not be in competition with the Aloft, which is a boutique, limited-service hotel. The Aloft would compete with the adjacent Courtyard Marriot and the Hampton - both owned by the same group proposing the Aloft.

While I agree the Aloft would offer limited services compared to a large convention hotel, I was quite surprised at the number of services it does offer in Rogers. It's a pretty darn nice hotel. It has a bar and a small restaurant that's not full service.

I still think it would overlap some of the customers. I seldom care whether a nice hotel has a restaurant or not when I stay in an area where I can walk to several.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I know very little about the specifics - as such I suppose my position could change. But, my overarching contention is that density is good, and the infusion of more people and activities in a district is even better. I maintain that those opposed to this are using the guidelines as a front masking their own personal objections - the library who would rather control this land and the competition, which obviously wants to limit more competition.

I don't recall hearing any opposition to the Hampton Inn (6 stories?) from CALS or Stephens. I bet there would not be any opposition to the Aloft if it was being proposed on a lot outside the River Market District or the 2nd and Scott site (their first proposal that has preconditions too). What about the lot next to Big Whisky? What are some other possible sites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall hearing any opposition to the Hampton Inn (6 stories?) from CALS or Stephens. I bet there would not be any opposition to the Aloft if it was being proposed on a lot outside the River Market District or the 2nd and Scott site (their first proposal that has preconditions too). What about the lot next to Big Whisky? What are some other possible sites?

Aloft is a lot nicer than a Hampton Inn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The approval/disapproval by the Little Rock Planning Commission was deferred until next month. Only six members showed up and a yes vote would have been required by all those present for it to pass. Now word has come out that the project might go to Argenta. If this happens then the River Market might be facing a slow decline as the entertainment district of the LR area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this happens then the River Market might be facing a slow decline as the entertainment district of the LR area.

I don't think the potential loss of a single $20 million hotel development constitutes a decline. If NLR gets the Aloft, then good for them. There was never a hotel envisioned (that we know of) for that corner, until this hotel proposal popped up. The proposal is forcing many folks to think about how the River Market should develop over the next 10 - 15 years. Taking stock and re-evaluating is healthy for the district, even if it means the Aloft opportunity goes elsewhere.

We all want Main Street to develop.... why is no one urging the Aloft to go on Main St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the potential loss of a single $20 million hotel development constitutes a decline. If NLR gets the Aloft, then good for them. There was never a hotel envisioned (that we know of) for that corner, until this hotel proposal popped up. The proposal is forcing many folks to think about how the River Market should develop over the next 10 - 15 years. Taking stock and re-evaluating is healthy for the district, even if it means the Aloft opportunity goes elsewhere.

We all want Main Street to develop.... why is no one urging the Aloft to go on Main St.

True, it "could" go any number of places (and one is planned for WLR), but honestly...

...only in Little Rock would a new, hip-hotel in the middle of an entertainment district be controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the potential loss of a single $20 million hotel development constitutes a decline. If NLR gets the Aloft, then good for them. There was never a hotel envisioned (that we know of) for that corner, until this hotel proposal popped up. The proposal is forcing many folks to think about how the River Market should develop over the next 10 - 15 years. Taking stock and re-evaluating is healthy for the district, even if it means the Aloft opportunity goes elsewhere.

We all want Main Street to develop.... why is no one urging the Aloft to go on Main St.

The library wants the property in question and that is about the only undeveloped property left. Entertainment districts come and go, all you have to do is look at Memphis and Shreveport. If Argenta continues to develop this will pull customers away from the RM. The RM was set up to encourage business not hinder it.

Stephens owns most of the property on Main. Stephens is opposed to the Aloft because of competition. I don't see any hotels on Main until and if Stephens gives the ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, it "could" go any number of places (and one is planned for WLR), but honestly...

...only in Little Rock would a new, hip-hotel in the middle of an entertainment district be controversial.

I think some people tend to forget that despite the small niche of us urbanites, Little Rock is a suburban-minded town. The truth of this matter is many on the city board probably live out in McMansions on Chenal and could care less about the "hipness" of the River Market. It might also be an Arkansas thing. It has to do with the good ole' boy network as you can see being played out here. Fort Smith is even more anti-development than Little Rock. NWA on the other hand is too progressive when it comes to development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.