Fayetteville, Arkansas

[TRB]

Here's the newer natural play area with water features at War Memorial Park in LR, Would something like this be a perfect fit for Gully or Wilson? I'd rather spend money for things like this and it's not even the aquatic center I harp about.

[aerotive]

One that makes the news with a murder or two a year it seems.

 

A murder or two a year is what usually happens in the whole city.  Doubt they're all happening at homeless camps.

[JamesE]

A murder or two a year is what usually happens in the whole city.  Doubt they're all happening at homeless camps.

 

Good point regarding the homicide rate.  TRB does raise a valid point, however.  The city is in-filling and redeveloping the area south of MLK and is trying to spur redevelopment along S School to Cato Springs.  The U of A's new Arts & Design district will act as the southern bookend of the city's cultural arts district, raising real estate values.  Many new high rent student developments have gone in already just south of MKLK and higher-end housing (some would call it hipster gentrification) is being built in and near the Mill District.  For example five $420K+ houses plus a luxury duplex are going up now adjacent to Green House Grille; new $200k+ townhouses are being built accross the street and MLK is getting about five new high end (275k+) zero lot homes.  Skiles Architects has projects going up to the east of Walker Park, very near where the homeless camps have been for as long as I can remember, and I expect those are going to start at around $250k+.  The new trails that are going in now will spur further redevelopment.  Things are eventually going to come to a head there - Fayetteville's most recent murder did take place about a block from here.  The homeless camps will either be tamed or redevelopment will grind to a halt.  In my opinion, there's enough momentum now that eventually the homeless camps will be forced to move elsewhere.

Edited November 12, 2013 by JamesE

[aerotive]

Where is the camp exactly?  I walk and bike around Walker pretty regularly and see homeless-looking dudes around, but didn't know that is was that close.

Edited November 12, 2013 by aerotive

[wmr]

Isn't there a homeless shelter not far from Walker Park?  Seems like a bad idea to put a facility like that near one of the city's biggest parks.  I suppose it has to go somewhere.  How about putting it in "Uptown"?  

[TRB]

One is back behind the IGA and the Ozark steel place. Maybe I should amend the murder thing but I know that FayPD have shot a homeless person or two at the camp and there's been numerous incidents. Amazing that the Seven Hills day shelter is hid behind a car wash but located on the city's major southern gateway to the UofA and they are seen everywhere. I imagine you'll see a day shelter relocation soon as we have discussed all that surrounding area is hot for students housing and other development.

Edited November 12, 2013 by TRB

[JamesE]

Where is the camp exactly?  I walk and bike around Walker pretty regularly and see homeless-looking dudes around, but didn't know that is was that close.

 

For years, the largest camp was in the Walker Park woods near the present senior center; I believe that one has been mostly cleared out.  There's also a homeless camp behind the Salvation Army building; a number of homeless people seem to live in or near the Tanglewood floodplane on Frisco Trail. I often find empty vodka bottles and encounter homeless people (a couple of them like petting my dogs and they've told me before that they're homeless) spending their time on the park benches near the Mill district; I assume they camp nearby. 

[JamesE]

Isn't there a homeless shelter not far from Walker Park?  Seems like a bad idea to put a facility like that near one of the city's biggest parks.  I suppose it has to go somewhere.  How about putting it in "Uptown"?  

 

Uptown is high-cost.  The homeless shelters are mostly on the southside of town because that's where the cheapest real estate in the city has been for many years.  Now that this is changing, I imagine we'll see these locations gradually become too valuble for non-profit work and these centers will relocate to lower-cost areas, perhaps further south or west.  For a while, there as a de facto homeless shelter in the railroad depot on Dickson; now that area has several nice restaurants.  

Edited November 12, 2013 by JamesE

[TRB]

I think wasn't being really serious about that Uptown barb.

[JamesE]

I think wasn't being really serious about that Uptown barb.

 

I figured probably not - homeless shelters will go where ever they're needed, however.  One doesn't see homeless shelters uptown because they aren't needed there; the same happened a decade ago on Dickson and now the same development/redevelopment trend is moving south of MLK.  Poverty isn't driven away by gentrification, however; it just relocates somewhere else. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by JamesE

[zman9810]

Some of the comments about the homeless on here tend to give developers in general a negative image in the eyes of the public. Those comments help those who want no development at all by making developers seem as mean, money hungry jerks that don't have the community's well being at heart. Talk of "you can see them" and "they are going to have to be moved out" don't sit well with many who have worked hard to be accommodating and to help the homeless. Such comments create needless friction and can lead to a backlash when new development regulations come up before the City Council. Just a thought on what is posted.

[wmr]

Some of the comments about the homeless on here tend to give developers in general a negative image in the eyes of the public. Those comments help those who want no development at all by making developers seem as mean, money hungry jerks that don't have the community's well being at heart. Talk of "you can see them" and "they are going to have to be moved out" don't sit well with many who have worked hard to be accommodating and to help the homeless. Such comments create needless friction and can lead to a backlash when new development regulations come up before the City Council. Just a thought on what is posted.

 

On the contrary, having "homeless camps" anywhere in the city is not good.  Only a person without a realistic understanding of chronic homelessness would think otherwise.

 

Those who are genuinely homeless and without any other options are typically people with substance abuse issues or serious mental health problems.  They are in need of assistance, not a community which "looks the other way" and allows a camp to spring up.

 

Homelessness is an issue for a lot of people because they aren't capable of accepting or taking advantage of the help that is available from government or charities.  There will always be people who cannot be helped because they either refuse it, or they simply can't function in any kind of organized environment due to their addiction or mental health issues.

 

Even in larger cities with huge amounts of resources available for homeless people, you will still inevitably find homeless people who wind up "in the streets" because they either cannot control their substance abuse (which is forbidden in homeless shelters) or have intractable mental illness which makes them unable to abide by the rules and requirements of a shelter.

[zman9810]

On the contrary, having "homeless camps" anywhere in the city is not good.  Only a person without a realistic understanding of chronic homelessness would think otherwise.

 

Those who are genuinely homeless and without any other options are typically people with substance abuse issues or serious mental health problems.  They are in need of assistance, not a community which "looks the other way" and allows a camp to spring up.

 

Homelessness is an issue for a lot of people because they aren't capable of accepting or taking advantage of the help that is available from government or charities.  There will always be people who cannot be helped because they either refuse it, or they simply can't function in any kind of organized environment due to their addiction or mental health issues.

 

Even in larger cities with huge amounts of resources available for homeless people, you will still inevitably find homeless people who wind up "in the streets" because they either cannot control their substance abuse (which is forbidden in homeless shelters) or have intractable mental illness which makes them unable to abide by the rules and requirements of a shelter.

I think you are missing my point. I'm not taking a stand on homeless camps- I'm saying those comments further a stereotype of developers as rich, uncaring people who are only out to make a buck. Obviously there is support in the community  for providing those resources or they would not be available. The residents providing that support have a say in how the city develops, or as I said, doesn't develop. Making comments that can be seen as hostile towards the homeless does nothing to help the development process.

[zman9810]

Overwhelming support for all three questions in the YES YES YES special election tonight. I think it was like 85% for the WAC and park questions and close to that for paying off the Town Center bonds. Good to see the city is supporting moving forward on these issues.

[wmr]

I think you are missing my point. I'm not taking a stand on homeless camps- I'm saying those comments further a stereotype of developers as rich, uncaring people who are only out to make a buck. Obviously there is support in the community  for providing those resources or they would not be available. The residents providing that support have a say in how the city develops, or as I said, doesn't develop. Making comments that can be seen as hostile towards the homeless does nothing to help the development process.

 

I think I just disagree with it.  The people who comment here aren't developers (with maybe a few exceptions).  The people who would oppose development in that area are generally people who have a stake in the area.  In other words, property owners.  I doubt any of them are too worried about losing the homeless population of the area.  There's a large hippie contingent in town, no doubt, and they always tend to make noise about what they view as gentrification (oh my).  I've seen that those folks will use any excuse whatsoever to oppose development.  They tend to stick up more for "affordable housing" than anything else.    

 

The homeless issue at Walker Park has been well-known for a while.  I don't know what the city laws are about sleeping in parks, if there are any.  If anything, the increased economic activity in the area will make people pay more attention to the homeless problem in the city.

[Mith242]

Overwhelming support for all three questions in the YES YES YES special election tonight. I think it was like 85% for the WAC and park questions and close to that for paying off the Town Center bonds. Good to see the city is supporting moving forward on these issues.

The WAC had the lowest percentage of the three, but still won very easily.  Didn't think it was going to win that easily.

[JamesE]

The WAC had the lowest percentage of the three, but still won very easily.  Didn't think it was going to win that easily.

 

That surprised me too.  I'm glad to see Fayetteville is investing in Fayetteville, despite the WAC's tone-deaf "leadership."

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Community Design Center comes up with for West Avenue next spring; along with the new parking deck, this area is going to be very nice.

[JamesE]

I think you are missing my point. I'm not taking a stand on homeless camps- I'm saying those comments further a stereotype of developers as rich, uncaring people who are only out to make a buck. Obviously there is support in the community  for providing those resources or they would not be available. The residents providing that support have a say in how the city develops, or as I said, doesn't develop. Making comments that can be seen as hostile towards the homeless does nothing to help the development process.

No one here is making comments that are hostile towards the homeless - it's a simple statement of fact that with increased economic activity, there's going to be friction that is going to have to be addressed.  The issue isn't homeless people in general, but rather the "long-term homeless," many of whom have mental health and/or substance abuse problems, living in shanties near public parks and growing residential areas.  I know many of these individuals because I've put in a lot of volunteer time in area shelters; and I know my neighbors, many of them young parents, some of them long-term residents, and I know their concerns.  The Walker Park community has always had a very uneasy relationship with the unsupervised homeless camps in the area - which, let's be honest, are trespassing on private & public land - but in the past the city largely could and did ignore the issue. 

 

The relationship between homeless camps, which are very unwelcome to local residents, and shelters which serve a legitimate community need, is that the camps spring up around the shelters.  Regarding homeless shelters, as property values go up, rent goes up.  That's simple economic reality.  Shelters who own their own land, as the Salvation Army presumably does, will likely get a lucrative offer in the future which will enable them to build a better facility; the Fayetteville 2030 plan invisions a redeveloped Southgate shopping center.  If/when that happens, that corner will become prime real estate.  Shelters that rent will invariably move where the rent is lower as leases expire.  It's a simple statement of fact and it's exactly what has happened in other communities where there has been determined urban renewal, something the city promotes every bit as much as residents, property owners and developers; make of that what you will. 

Edited November 13, 2013 by JamesE

[zman9810]

I see

 

No one here is making comments that are hostile towards the homeless - it's a simple statement of fact that with increased economic activity, there's going to be friction that is going to have to be addressed.  The issue isn't homeless people in general, but rather the "long-term homeless," many of whom have mental health and/or substance abuse problems, living in shanties near public parks and growing residential areas.  I know many of these individuals because I've put in a lot of volunteer time in area shelters; and I know my neighbors, many of them young parents, some of them long-term residents, and I know their concerns.

 

The Walker Park community has always had a very uneasy relationship with the unsupervised homeless camps in the area, but in the past the city largely could and did ignore the issue.  Regarding homeless shelters, which serve a very valuable function for the community, as property values go up, rent goes up.  That's simple economic reality.  Shelters who own their own land, as the Salvation Army presumably does, will likely get a lucrative offer in the future which will enable them to build a better facility; the Fayetteville 2030 plan invisions a redeveloped Southgate shopping center.  If/when that happens, that corner will become prime real estate.  Shelters that rent will invariably move where the rent is lower as leases expire.  It's a simple statement of fact and it's exactly what has happened in other communities where there has been determined urban renewal, something the city promotes every bit as much as residents, property owners and developers; make of that what you will. 

I see what you are saying but if you take this quote "The homeless camps will either be tamed or redevelopment will grind to a halt.  In my opinion, there's enough momentum now that eventually the homeless camps will be forced to move elsewhere" and tell them they have to move because someone wants to build $250+ houses on the only semblance of a home they have I believe they will see it as hostility towards them. If there is no plan on what to do with the residents of those camps other than to run them off to another location there are many people within the city that would see that as hostility. I'm glad to read that you have volunteered in the shelters- kudos on that. I sincerely think there has to be a better way to handle the situation and that comments that can be seen as hostile do not help it at all.

[zman9810]

Hillcrest Towers is receiving a nice new paint job. I have photo to post but last weekend's upgrades to UP seem to have disabled the image option for now. Anyway- they are painting the building brick in a color similar to the brick itself and the white sections in a burnt orange shade. I think it looks great and will hopefully discourage calls to throw the residents out and redevelopment the site.

[JamesE]

Hillcrest Towers is receiving a nice new paint job. I have photo to post but last weekend's upgrades to UP seem to have disabled the image option for now. Anyway- they are painting the building brick in a color similar to the brick itself and the white sections in a burnt orange shade. I think it looks great and will hopefully discourage calls to throw the residents out and redevelopment the site.

 

It looks nice - my wife & I sat outside at Arsaga's the other day and noticed how nice it looks from Dickson St.  I think they've replaced damaged brick as they went; there were several big pallets of brick in the parking lot when they started.  I'd like to see Hillcrest stay where it is, but add a liner building on one or both sides to tie it back into the streetscape.

[strmchsr77]

I have a very strong dislike for certain city council members (one in particular).  Does anyone else think that these building proposals will make it extremely expensive and difficult to develop in Fayetteville?  These new ones are not only going to apply to downtown but even in other parts of the city that have become more urban in the past 10-20 years (Wedington, I-540, and Uptown).  Am I the only one that thinks this is absolutely crazy?

 

If you don't build up then you have to build out! (rant over).

 

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/nov/21/fayetteville-council-suggests-changes-height-setba/?news-arkansas-nwa-fayetteville

[JamesE]

I have a very strong dislike for certain city council members (one in particular).  Does anyone else think that these building proposals will make it extremely expensive and difficult to develop in Fayetteville?  These new ones are not only going to apply to downtown but even in other parts of the city that have become more urban in the past 10-20 years (Wedington, I-540, and Uptown).  Am I the only one that thinks this is absolutely crazy?

 

If you don't build up then you have to build out! (rant over).

 

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/nov/21/fayetteville-council-suggests-changes-height-setba/?news-arkansas-nwa-fayetteville

 

Agreed on all points; I also strongly dislike the individual to which you are referring.  It seems to me there are two types of urbanists in Fayetteville: pragmatists, who want dense, sustainable, economically viable, environmentally-friendly, multi-use development.  And then there are the "idealists" who seem to oppose all dense development (while paradoxically, simultaneously claiming to oppose sprawl), who advocate mass transit while encouraging low-density development patterns that ensure mass transit won't work and who propose or advocate such onerous requirements that urban redevelopment and in-fill is no longer cost-effective in comparison to greenbelt (i.e. "sprawl") development out in the periphery.  

 

Well-designed, attractive, LEED-certified five story buildings downtown (exactly where they belong) are hardly a problem, but this councilwoman in particular  panders to the NIMBYs who go out of their way to make it a problem.  A lot of area NIMBYs complain constantly about developments such as Sterling Frisco, nevermind that it's the very high value of the land plus the current, idiotic downtown height restrictions, advocated by such "idealists," that lead to the supposedly hulking profile of this particular development in the first place.  This could have been a slender highrise with setbacks, merging with the streetscape, but the height limit prevented it.  As is, I love the design, even if it is massive.  If these new ideas go into effect, then it becomes uneconomical to build.  No one will buy land that they can't profitabily build upon, and then the area slumlords who have put nothing into their properties since the 60's will continue to own deteriorating properties in increasingly blighted neighborhoods.  But at least then, the NIMBYS will be happy.

Edited November 21, 2013 by JamesE

[wmr]

I favor urban infill and less sprawl, and I really, really dislike Sara Marsh as a council member.  She goes way too far with her idealism to the point of not being practical.

[JamesE]

I favor urban infill and less sprawl, and I really, really dislike Sara Marsh as a council member.  She goes way too far with her idealism to the point of not being practical.

 

Agreed.  It's impractical idealists like her who make sprawl inevitable: green, urbanist developers who try to do things the right way get treated like heretics merely for insuring that their developments have the density required to make a profit.