OnDickson

Sounds like an interesting project is in the works for the old Dickson Theater building. Lots of rumors indicating that it will be a 3 story building replacing the existing building, that will include an independent film theater, as well as the church that has been meeting there (Christ Community Church I believe) and a upstairs bar of some sort. I have no idea what the plan (if any) is for parking. But I do know that Marlin Blackwell is designing the project. It's an awfully tight space with limited access and a small footprint with which to work. Shoud be interesting see what happens here. Could be a very nice addition to the street if it happens. Also have noticed some activity recently at the old 36 Club building. The for sale signs have come down this week and there's been a lot of moving stuff in and out of there. Maybe some signs of life there?

Another studend housing/condo complex, apparently named 'Gather on Dickson @ The University of Arkansas'. I recall reading somewhere earlier this year that some 230+ beds were planned in the complex, although I'm not sure if that number changed during the planning approval process. http://www.raelcorp.com/gather-on-dickson.html

Rumor is that they will be doing a sort of independent film theater (think Ragtag Cinema in Columbia), and the church that meets there regularly on Sundays will continue to do so. The 'Dickson Street Theater' (existing nightclub) will be gone by early December and major renovations to the building will begin shortly thereafter. Very cool concept but could face some challenges to make a long term go of it with little to no parking nearby on that end of the street.

Albert Skiles and his wife Lisa are also the architects that designed the Dickson Street Liquor expansion.

And the rest of the proposals: WAC Proposals

City of Fayetteville's proposal officially released: Article Full Proposal

Thankfully it looks like this issue is being put to rest. I do feel bad for the staff and commission members who say they have worked tirelessly for 3 years to create this district. However this should be a lesson to them: if they had made an effort to more actively involve property owners and citizens from the very beginning, this thing would have never gone this far and a lot of time and resources could have been saved. The article notes that the commission is now 0-3 in their attempts to establish historical districts in the city. I can now understand why. RIP Dickson Street Historic District??

1. Wrong. Actually zman was correct. The commission will have complete control over ALL structures in the district. Not just 'contributing structures'. You own a Dickson street building--not just a 'contributing structure', but a relatively new building and you want to replace your windows with new glass? Add stucco to the front of your building? Add new bricks? Repave your lot? Add exterior lighting? Add a new awning? Add a new exterior sign? Have a mural painted? Add a patio? Don't even think about it if the commission doesn't approve. That's right, they would have to approve ANY of those changes for ALL structures in the district. So you think to yourself 'maybe I'll just spruce up my building by repainting the exterior instead of renovating'. Not so fast. The commission even gets to decide what color you would be allowed to repaint your building. It gets better. It's not just existing buildings they have control over, it's the entire property. Say you own a historic structure and you want to keep and restore your historic structure but you want to make a new addition to the building to add more space. Add a second or third story on top of an existing historic building? Forget about it. Not allowed. New infill construction? Allowed ONLY if the new construction is 'to scale' with the contributing structure (transaltion: no multi-story buildings alowed anywhere near an existing single story historical sturcture). FACT: the ONLY building in the entire district the commission would not have complete control over is the U.S. Post Office--and that is simply because federal law prohibitis them from doing so.

The letter I received said that the meeting was being held for information purposes for affected property owners but that it was also open to the general public--so no picketing necessary! It will be interesting to see what kind of turnout there is for the meeting and what the feedback is.

It is interesting to note that some of the people who have been pushing the hardest for this district (including some board members and a past and the present charperson) are principal investors in several large developments in the downtown area (most recently, the Underwood building). If this historic district passes, there will be no more large condo developments of this nature allowed in the heart of the Dickson Street area. Obviously this would be of great benefit to existing structures such as the Underwood building. In time, the property value of buildings like the Underwood could skyrocket while the property value of less densely developed property containing historic structures could take a severe hit due to the loss of potential for future major development. Now I'm not advocating allowing major developments like Legacy and Divinity on every corner, but I question the wisdom of allowing certain developers and investors to have complete authority over development on Dickson by use of a 'historic' district. I don't mean to question the motives of some people who really might have good intentions, but to me at best, this at least raises some questions about a possible conflict of interest. I can't help it, but this whole thing smells fishy to me.

Zman thanks for posting your thoughts on historic districts. As the owner of one of the structures that would be directly impacted by this proposed district I must say that I could not agree more with you. There are many concerns with this proposed district, most of which you have addressed. But the communication between the commission that will oversee the proposed district and the downtown property owners has been nonexistent. Here's a frightening scenario that was actually given as an example to me and my neighboring property owners by 2 members of the commission: At one time there were plans to expand the Walton Arts Center to the South, with a new parking garage on city owned property that included the existing Grubs building. I think everyone could agree that this is a development that would greatly benefit the City of Fayetteville. But wait a minute.....because the Grub's building is considered a 'contributing' structure, it could not be razed, even for a major development such as the WAC expansion. Well, no problem you say, surely the City Council could address that issue if it arose and make an exception allowing for the proposed expansion. WRONG. The historic commision has complete and total authority over this decision--not just over private property, but over city property as well. Absolutely nothing our elected leaders could do if the commision decided against this development. In fact, the commission members we met with went on to boast that the ONLY structure in the proposed district that the commission would not have complete authority over was the US Post Office property and that was an issue of federal law. I'm sorry, but giving that kind of authority to a group of appointed people scares the hell out of me. Another example is the property around the Depot buildings on Dickson. The owners of that property have tentative plans for major development on that parking area that calls for razing one of the structures behind the Depot building. Guess what? Can't happen if the historic district passes in its current form because all of the structures on that property are considered 'contributing' structures. This example also was given by 2 members of the existing commission. Another frightening tidbit buried in the proposed bylaws of this proposed historical district: if you are not able to maintain your structure up to the arbitrary visual standards set forth by the commission then they will 'help' find a buyer for your property. How nice. Translation: if enough commissioners feel that your property is an eyesore then they have the authority to find a buyer to take your property by eminent domain, under the pretense of protecting the historical integrity of your property. Scared yet? It gets worse. I have copies of the proposed rules and regulations So why would a property owner support such a district? The commissioners say it's for the tax breaks that come with the creation of such a district. Why else should I support the district, I inquired and was told 'well, that's really the big reason, but the tax benefits are substantial enough that everyone will want to be on board with the distirct'. My next natural question was this: if the tax benefits are really that substantial, then shouldn't that be enough of an incentive for property owners to preserve the historical integrity of their sturctures? Do we really need an appointed commission to regulate development? Why not create the district but make participation incentive based, rather than regulated by a group of nonelected officials? I'm still waiting for answers to those questions. Don't kid yourselves for one minute, there are certain people who have a vested interested in seeing that this district passes as quickly and with as little public debate as possible. The surveying is complete, all contributing sturctures have been identified, the commission is already appointed, the rules and regulations are nearly finalized, all they are waiting on is city council approval. And all of this has been done during the past 2 years with no formal notification of any kind to property owners in the proposed district. Almost enough to make one suspicious. Hmmm. Before anyone jumps on me about being against historical preservation, that couldn't be further from the truth. I have renovated, restored and maintained my structure in keeping with its historical significance and I intend to do so as long as I own the property. But I am strongly opposed to giving a group of nonelected officials the complete authority to regulate all such development in the Dickson Street area.

Great info, thanks trumpet. Definitely glad that Fayetteville has the long range plans for these projects--lets just hope that some (preferably all!) make the final program cut. A Joyce Street extension to I540 would do wonders for the entire retail area surrounding the mall area. I can't help but wonder if that project is really going to be feasable though. Seems there is at least one very large obstacle in the way of that road extension--namely Zero Mountain. I actually had heard that the city was examining adding a new 540 interchange at the proposed Van Asche extension rather than extending Joyce. I think a Joyce interchange would definitely be preferable if there is a way to make it happen. A new interchange for either Joyce or Van Asche would be an economic home run for that retail area.

Aporkalypse is exactly right. The plan to move the WAC has been in place for some time. In conducting the study they ran into more stiff opposition to moving the WAC to Benton County than they had anticipated--so they decided to take some more time to try and sell the idea of a Benton County WAC to the general public. Pay particular attention to quotes like this from the Morning News: 'Planning for a capital campaign, including a lead gift in the range of $100 million, can commence immediately.'. There just aren't a lot of people in this region with that kind of money lying around. In fact, I can think of only one..... This is going to get very interesting. The WAC wants to go to Benton County, but they want to retain the current venue to prevent anyone from going in to direct competition with them. On that note, there has been talk by some in the Fayetteville business community of examining the contract between the City of Fayetteville, the UofA and the WAC. The venue is actually owned by the city and the UA and is only leased to the WAC. According to them, that lease with the WAC could be terminated at some point in the future if it was necessary and in the best interests of the city and the university. That would then allow the city and the UA to operate the center themselves or lease it to another organization for operation. This would also allow the city to explore renovation and expansion options that the WAC doesn't seem interested in. There are many examples of successful performing arts venues around the country that are operated by municipalities and universities. Notice in every article on the subject the WAC always says they intend to keep 'some programming' at the current location. They say it is to provide better regional coverage, but in reality it is just an effort to prevent the one thing they fear more than anything else: competition.

I still can't believe that this need wasn't better addressed in Fayetteville's bond package for road improvements that was passed a couple of years ago. I think that was very shortsighted of the City. Contrast that with what is going on in Springdale where their bond package (passed in 2003) is paying for not one, but THREE new and/or improved major East-West corridors in the city (dubbed the Northern, Central and Southern Corridors). It's not often that Springdale gets it right when it comes to long range planning, but it sure seems they did here. Don't get me wrong, there are some very worthy road improvements that are being addressed in Fayetteville beacause of the bond issue. But several of the projects are merely 'band aid' fixes and they are divided up nearly equally among the 4 city quadrants. The result is a 15 year road improvement package that has a lot of nice bells and whistles, but seemingly lacks substance in the form of real transportation help.

Yep, that is the correct location for this development. It is a mixed use development with retail at the front near zion road and a 6 story medical office building at the Northwest corner of the development nearest Lake Fayetteville. The 6 story building will have 15 residential units/condos on the top floors. The road through this development will be given to the city as a public road and will serve as the new officail entrance to Veteran's Memorial Park (the park on the south side of Lake Fayetteville). It will align with Vantage drive to the south, and it is believed that there will be a stoplight at this intersection after this development is finished. The Parks Board approved the new entrance to the Veteran's Park and recommended a change in name from Vantage Drive to Veteran's Memorial Drive to help with visibility for the park as well as to honor our veterans (currently there is no street named 'Veteran's' in Fayetteville) There are no current active addresses on Vantage Drive, so a name change would not have an adverse economic impact on any businesses or residences. The City Council must act on the name change for it to become official and it is my understanding it will be sponsored at one of the next meetings. That's all I can recall off the top of my head. I've got details of the development at my office and will check them later. It looks like a really nice mixed use development--especially for that area of town.