Fayetteville, Arkansas

[Mith242]

I think that I could guess who this lady is...I would have to say Paula Marinoni. She is always trying to save older building whether they are historical or just piles of brick

Yeah I'm pretty sure Paula was her name. Yeah while I understand her point on trying to save older buildings, you just can't save everything. I think you have to come to a point and realize some buildings really do need to be saved. But some buildings aren't exceptional in any way. Just because it's over 50 years old doesn't mean it's a great building. According to her standards anything built in the 50's should be saved as well. I seem to recall a number of 50's buildings that very few people seem to care for and people tend to think of them as being 'dated'. I say you just have to find a good middle path, don't destroy everything because it's 'old' but you also can't save every single building and push all development to the edges of the city.

Edited August 12, 2006 by Mith242

[CellarDoor135]

Just a little note to add. I was in Seaside FL this last week and noticed that one of the squares is named Ruskin square as well as one of the major streets in town.

Seaside is amazing. You will not find a home in that town worth under 1 mill. If the project in Fayetteville is 1/10th of what they have down there this will be a major success.

These are practically the inventors of New Urbanism. I am really suprised this has not gotten more attention from either the media or just local gossip.

Seaside Home

For some reason the site is a little slow

Edited August 12, 2006 by CellarDoor135

[Mith242]

Just a little note to add. I was in Seaside FL this last week and noticed that one of the squares is named Ruskin square as well as one of the major streets in town.

Seaside is amazing. You will not find a home in that town worth under 1 mill. If the project in Fayetteville is 1/10th of what they have down there this will be a major success.

These are practically the inventors of New Urbanism. I am really suprised this has not gotten more attention from either the media or just local gossip.

Seaside Home

For some reason the site is a little slow

I believe I have heard about this a while back ago not long after they started. I thought the vitual tour was pretty interesting. I didn't pay as much attention to it back then because I wasn't really into development news and such. But anyway I do think Rupple Row is interesting and I hope it does well and there are more things like this.

Edited August 12, 2006 by Mith242

[Mith242]

Looks like Rupple Row will be a success, there is only one listed on their website still for sale. All the others have apparently been sold already.

[Mith242]

Here's a Fayetteville website some of you might find an interesting place to find a little info.

http://www.freeweekly.com/index.php

[mcheiss]

Looks like Rupple Row will be a success, there is only one listed on their website still for sale. All the others have apparently been sold already.

Good. I hope this kind of development will make it's way to Rogers, Springdale, and Bentonville.

[dimebag1980]

I know we've mentioned Rupple Row in the past. I happened to be over on that side of the city and figured I'd take a few pics of it. At first it looks like pretty small houses from the street. But they go back a way, sort of an odd looking design.

Very interesting. I've noticed that I design very few slabs for homes being built in your area. Typically what they mean when they refer to a 'slab' in that region is that they will build a stem wall over all the bearing points, backfill with dirt and level off, and then pour a slab atop that. It's very interesting, to say the least. I'm not used to seeing subdivisions built where new homes are on stemwalls or piers, except in your region.

[Mith242]

Very interesting. I've noticed that I design very few slabs for homes being built in your area. Typically what they mean when they refer to a 'slab' in that region is that they will build a stem wall over all the bearing points, backfill with dirt and level off, and then pour a slab atop that. It's very interesting, to say the least. I'm not used to seeing subdivisions built where new homes are on stemwalls or piers, except in your region.

I wonder if it's because we have a different topography than most of this region. Outside the Ozarks and the Ouchitas you mainly have flat plains.

[dimebag1980]

I wonder if it's because we have a different topography than most of this region. Outside the Ozarks and the Ouchitas you mainly have flat plains.

It is, it's just different to me. I'm used to everything being mostly flat. I've designed foundtaions in your area that were 6-7 feet high on one end and 3 feet high on the other end of the house.

[Mith242]

It is, it's just different to me. I'm used to everything being mostly flat. I've designed foundtaions in your area that were 6-7 feet high on one end and 3 feet high on the other end of the house.

Do you do much work for things up here? I know you've said your company's headquarters is here in NWA.

[dimebag1980]

Do you do much work for things up here? I know you've said your company's headquarters is here in NWA.

Well, out of some 400 homes per year, the majority of those are split between NWA, SBC, and Houston. So yes, I do a lot of work there. Very little is in subdivisions, however.

[mcheiss]

It is, it's just different to me. I'm used to everything being mostly flat. I've designed foundtaions in your area that were 6-7 feet high on one end and 3 feet high on the other end of the house.

What's your companies name?

I may have heard about them, since developer signs are everywhere here.

[Mith242]

Well, out of some 400 homes per year, the majority of those are split between NWA, SBC, and Houston. So yes, I do a lot of work there. Very little is in subdivisions, however.

Interesting, maybe one of these days I'll end up taking a pic of some of your 'work'.

[itk]

Did anyone else read the front-page articles about development and affordable housing in the NWA Times today?

In the article about impact fees, the whole argument seems to me to be very weak-- it, according to the numbers in the article, only would raise the prices of new homes a few thousand dollars. That can't be the real reason for the affordable housing shortage in Fayetteville.

Later in that same article, it gives the example of Oakbrooke (Paradigm developer), where it appears the planning commission backed down on approval of the affordable homes because of neighbor concerns of property values. That seems to be the real problem (well, that and high land prices but that goes without saying). In addition to that, strictly anecdotal, I hear from developers and people who work for them that there's just more money to be had in the higher-end price ranges, and with so much work little attention is paid to affordable homes.

Mith, or someone else who knows about the new Fayetteville 2025 Plan, doesn't it aim to promote dis-incentives to developers trying to build on the fringes of the City? And/or promote incentives for "infill" developments? (Other than promoting higher density housing, but then where is the higher density affordable housing in Fayetteville?) Because this seems to be really important for a thriving city (as the other article points out)-- if not, people will continually look to places like Springdale, Prairie Grove, Greenland, etc. for affordable housing, thus perpetuating sprawl into jurisdictions Fayetteville does not control.

I'm no developer, nor urban planner, so my knowledge in this is limited. Perhaps if growth in NWA cools off, land prices might cool off and developers may pay more attention to the lower priced housing market?

[cowbreath]

In the article about impact fees, the whole argument seems to me to be very weak-- it, according to the numbers in the article, only would raise the prices of new homes a few thousand dollars. That can't be the real reason for the affordable housing shortage in Fayetteville.

I read that article, too. It was a curious thought also about how much a couple of thousand inflate a housing price to non-affordable. Sounded like if many houses are over $190 - $225 at the least and the median household salary of Fayetteville can only afford $150-190 then there is some more disparity than a couple of thousand.

I can understand construction costs are going up, especially since we need to support their construction crews commuting wherever in their gas-guzzling trucks. Maybe timber prices increased because of the rebuilding of New Orleans. However, where else are we getting stuck it to by good-old boy developers? Why did my parents house in Fayetteville exactly double in price in 15 years from the time they bought until they sold it? I know this is a nationwide thing, but now that we are desperate for a market adjustment they say their construction costs are going up? Is it just me or is our market in trouble?

Ok, I know this sounds frantic, and I probably won't get a response. However sometimes I feel like the housing market has gotten to the point of the dot-com collapse in 2000-2001. Anyways, if I can sum up my questions: How much does it cost to make a $200,000 house?

[Mith242]

Did anyone else read the front-page articles about development and affordable housing in the NWA Times today?

In the article about impact fees, the whole argument seems to me to be very weak-- it, according to the numbers in the article, only would raise the prices of new homes a few thousand dollars. That can't be the real reason for the affordable housing shortage in Fayetteville.

Later in that same article, it gives the example of Oakbrooke (Paradigm developer), where it appears the planning commission backed down on approval of the affordable homes because of neighbor concerns of property values. That seems to be the real problem (well, that and high land prices but that goes without saying). In addition to that, strictly anecdotal, I hear from developers and people who work for them that there's just more money to be had in the higher-end price ranges, and with so much work little attention is paid to affordable homes.

I haven't gotten around to reading that yet. But I do think existing neighborhoods can cause problems for new lower priced homes. Just like everyone making the big fuss about the Jewish synogogue. You are also correct about developers doing very little on more affordable homes. Which of course if also the problem with the housing glut we've got going on because everyone developed expensive houses. Not sure why developers seem so reluctant to build some more affordable homes. At the 2025 City Plan Dover-Kohl mentioned that you can put in a more dense neighborhood like row houses and build more affordable homes. The density would make up for the fact the homes weren't as expensive because you'd build more of them on the same amount of land. And then you probably wouldn't have to worry about them just sitting around either.

[Mith242]

Mith, or someone else who knows about the new Fayetteville 2025 Plan, doesn't it aim to promote dis-incentives to developers trying to build on the fringes of the City? And/or promote incentives for "infill" developments? (Other than promoting higher density housing, but then where is the higher density affordable housing in Fayetteville?) Because this seems to be really important for a thriving city (as the other article points out)-- if not, people will continually look to places like Springdale, Prairie Grove, Greenland, etc. for affordable housing, thus perpetuating sprawl into jurisdictions Fayetteville does not control.

I'm no developer, nor urban planner, so my knowledge in this is limited. Perhaps if growth in NWA cools off, land prices might cool off and developers may pay more attention to the lower priced housing market?

Yes affordable housing was mentioned by a lot of people at the meetings. And yes they did mention trying to discourage developers from building at the city's edge. I'm not sure the city has implimented anything yet. But Dover-Kohl suggested you increase impact fees the further you get away from the 'core' of the city. Because developers will keep going to the city's edge because land prices are cheaper and they can make more money. That and as more subdivisions pop up on the city's edge, there's more roads the city has to start maintaining as well. You'd think now that there is a housing glut of the more expensive homes maybe some developers will start considering some more affordable homes. But I have to admit I haven't heard anything happening yet.

[Mith242]

Anyways, if I can sum up my questions: How much does it cost to make a $200,000 house?

I imagine it depends on the developer. Sometimes it really sounds like some build some 'cheaply' built homes that certainly aren't worth the $200,000 price tag. I do imagine construction costs have gone up quite a bit, that certainly doesn't help. Then you also have the price of land going up too. But I still can't help but feel that there's some developers making a lot of profit. Not to accuse all developers of this, but I certainly do feel some or simply building cheap homes and trying to take advantage of the strong (or formerly strong) housing market.

[cowbreath]

I imagine it depends on the developer. Sometimes it really sounds like some build some 'cheaply' built homes that certainly aren't worth the $200,000 price tag. I do imagine construction costs have gone up quite a bit, that certainly doesn't help. Then you also have the price of land going up too. But I still can't help but feel that there's some developers making a lot of profit. Not to accuse all developers of this, but I certainly do feel some or simply building cheap homes and trying to take advantage of the strong (or formerly strong) housing market.

Yeah, it's a risky long-term cost-cutting practice. I think Americans actually don't go for quality as much as some people in foreign countries do, amazingly. I wonder how many of the workers for these developments would buy one of the houses they built.

[Mith242]

I wonder if cities can use more control over which developers get to build these housing subdivisions. I think we have some good developers here in the area but then there's also some others ones that aren't too great . I also imagine early on cities tend to allow any growth because they want the growth then later realizing that they are better off controling at least some aspects of growth. Or you end up with problems like Springdale. Not to pick on Springdale. Rogers or some of the other NWA cities might later look back and wished they had better contolled some of the housing developments.

[Mith242]

I did notice an eidtorial in today's paper, not really slamming the Divinity but you could tell she wasn't a fan of it. I can't complain too much because it looks like they are allowing both sides to write editorials. I've seen people talking about how good it will be for the city. I still question this lawsuit and all of this about not allowing economics influence a decision on allowing a development. Just seems odd to me to take out some info the making a decision. Seems to me the more info you have the better decision you can make. I can see the houses right next to the Divinity not being too happy about this development. But I think this goes back to the fact that I don't think you can save every single building currently in the city. The other option is to force all development to the edges of the city increasing sprawl. I still want to see the area between Dickson and the Square get redeveloped. For that matter I'd like to see some redevelopment of Dickson south to the Fayetteville Public Library. It's not that I want all the houses in that area torn down. Preferably I'd like to see those houses moved. I think downtown Fayetteville could still use some more density. Which of course would also make public transportation more realistic option. Anyway sorry to start ranting again. I think most of you agree with me.

[cowbreath]

I did notice an eidtorial in today's paper, not really slamming the Divinity but you could tell she wasn't a fan of it. I can't complain too much because it looks like they are allowing both sides to write editorials. I've seen people talking about how good it will be for the city. I still question this lawsuit and all of this about not allowing economics influence a decision on allowing a development. Just seems odd to me to take out some info the making a decision. Seems to me the more info you have the better decision you can make. I can see the houses right next to the Divinity not being too happy about this development. But I think this goes back to the fact that I don't think you can save every single building currently in the city. The other option is to force all development to the edges of the city increasing sprawl. I still want to see the area between Dickson and the Square get redeveloped. For that matter I'd like to see some redevelopment of Dickson south to the Fayetteville Public Library. It's not that I want all the houses in that area torn down. Preferably I'd like to see those houses moved. I think downtown Fayetteville could still use some more density. Which of course would also make public transportation more realistic option. Anyway sorry to start ranting again. I think most of you agree with me.

I agree. I took some Korean students to downtown Tulsa a few weeks ago and they were wondering where all the people were. It made me somewhat proud of Fayetteville because it does have a good downtown lifestyle and it is increasing in that with new condos. Most big city downtowns are boring (as is most of our country or at least in the south) except for like Chicago and New York and such. I mean for families some suburban sprawl is nice, but people are so disconnected from each other and spend too much time commuting. There at least should be options. Definitely there should be more luxury apartments at low prices as I have seen in other parts of the US.

Anyways, didn't have to defend my concurrence, but wanted to defend (new urbanism) that it wasn't just for style but for function firstmost.

Edited August 15, 2006 by cowbreath

[Mith242]

I agree. I took some Korean students to downtown Tulsa a few weeks ago and they were wondering where all the people go. It made me somewhat proud of Fayetteville because it does have a good downtown lifestyle and it is increasing in that with new condos. Most big city downtowns are boring (as is most of our country or at least in the south) except for like Chicago and New York and such. I mean for families some suburban sprawl is nice, but people are so disconnected from each other and spend too much time commuting. There at least should be options. Definitely there should be more luxury apartments at low prices as I have seen in other parts of the US.

Anyways, didn't have to defend my concurrence, but wanted to defend (new urbanism) that it wasn't just for style but for function firstmost.

Good to hear.

[Mith242]

Looks like lots of Fayetteville news on the front page of the Northwest Arkansas Times today. Swepco withdrew it's request to upgrade the powerlines near Dickson without a hearing. The regional park near Cato Springs Rd and I-540 is slowly coming along. Developers will be here later this month to begin work on the Southpass development that will be just west of the regional park. Also looks like we might have a hiking/bike trail put along Rupple to make up for the narrow road. Apparently one of the reasons it was going to be as wide as it was, was so that it could have a bike lane. But instead they might put a hiking/bike trail to the side of the road. Which would actually work out better for people riding their bikes. Looks like the city might also be looking into more bike lanes or trails to the other schools as well.

[mcheiss]

Wow, lots of good news.

I'm particularly happy with Swepco not building those ugly power lines, Dickson will look 100 times better without them.