Ruskin Heights

[cowbreath]

I see the ground breaking is scheduler for Nov. 14 at 4:30pm or something (from nwa times).

[Mith242]

I see the ground breaking is scheduler for Nov. 14 at 4:30pm or something (from nwa times).

Good to hear. Does anyone remember what all entails their phase one plans?

[cowbreath]

Good to hear. Does anyone remember what all entails their phase one plans?

Units available in phase one of the neighborhood include 20 single-family home lots, seven bungalow homes, 17 townhomes, 11 live / work spaces, two carriage homes and 28 condominiums. The neighborhood embodies the principles of New Urbanism by providing a wide range of homes in a walkable, mixed-use environment and at completion will include a total of 295 residential units and 58, 500 square feet of retail space.

[Mith242]

Thanks, I guess I was just trying to figure out what part of the site they'll be doing first. For some reason I was thinking it might not be the section in front by Mission.

[mzweig]

Thanks, I guess I was just trying to figure out what part of the site they'll be doing first. For some reason I was thinking it might not be the section in front by Mission.

My lot there is toward the back and toward Crossover, if I am not mistaken. And it is in Phase One.

[Thia]

Thanks, I guess I was just trying to figure out what part of the site they'll be doing first. For some reason I was thinking it might not be the section in front by Mission.

This first phase is the east side of the acreage from Mission south to the Park Place border. Drive up the existing drive to the crest and then look east of that driveway. Commercial space in phase one is the work/live units that will frame the front center green space. The first phase will be work/live units, attached townhomes, single family detached, a bungalow court with 6 bungalows and a couple of carriage houses. There were lots of folks at the groundbreaking yesterday. It

[Mith242]

This first phase is the east side of the acreage from Mission south to the Park Place border. Drive up the existing drive to the crest and then look east of that driveway. Commercial space in phase one is the work/live units that will frame the front center green space. The first phase will be work/live units, attached townhomes, single family detached, a bungalow court with 6 bungalows and a couple of carriage houses. There were lots of folks at the groundbreaking yesterday. It

[strmchsr77]

Thanks for the update Thia. Nice to see you around again. Yeah I forgot to mention I saw in the paper that they had a groundbreaking recently. Considering how other developments have gone recently it's good to see this one get going. Finally something else to look forward to.

Since this is so different than almost anything on the market, I do expect it to do well even in this market. I am also looking forward to seeing this get off the ground.

[Mith242]

Since this is so different than almost anything on the market, I do expect it to do well even in this market. I am also looking forward to seeing this get off the ground.

True, I don't think they'll have as many problems as others in getting lots and houses sold.

[thewizard16]

True, I don't think they'll have as many problems as others in getting lots and houses sold.

I'm rooting for it. A friend of mine that's quite elderly but still very independent and in good health was complaining to me the other day about the subdivision he lives in. (he claimed it was all crotchety old people or married couples that you only see coming and going) I advised if he was looking for something a little less cookie-cutter subdivision he might look into Ruskin Heights, and the more I told him about it, the more interested he was. I think if people just hear about this developments, they'll want to live there. It would be great for pretty much everyone that wants a more community feel to their neighborhood, and should be a nice change for people that move to this area from sprawl neighborhoods and cookie-cutter developments elsewhere. It'll give them a semi-urban feel without being like everywhere else. If I had the funds available at this time, I'd probably get myself on a list over at Ruskin Heights right now.

[mzweig]

Since this is so different than almost anything on the market, I do expect it to do well even in this market. I am also looking forward to seeing this get off the ground.

Phase 1 sold out long ago, within a few weeks of it's offering. I think it was 62 lots in total. Believe me, the demand is there. This market is crazy. I now have a list of 18 potential buyers for my house on Willow, and more people calling every day, and it is not for sale yet. People just want something different--that is why Ruskin Heights will do well.

[thewizard16]

Phase 1 sold out long ago, within a few weeks of it's offering. I think it was 62 lots in total. Believe me, the demand is there. This market is crazy. I now have a list of 18 potential buyers for my house on Willow, and more people calling every day, and it is not for sale yet. People just want something different--that is why Ruskin Heights will do well.

...As well as why so many aren't.

[Ruskin]

Phase 1 sold out long ago, within a few weeks of it's offering. I think it was 62 lots in total. Believe me, the demand is there. This market is crazy. I now have a list of 18 potential buyers for my house on Willow, and more people calling every day, and it is not for sale yet. People just want something different--that is why Ruskin Heights will do well.

Quick correction to mzweig's post:

We sold out the pre-sales target number of units for Phase 1 months ago (our target was 10% of the phase, but we sold 20% in a week and a half of returning phone calls - only one house per buyer, so not just a lot of builder reservations). We will be offering the remainder of Phase 1 beginning at the end of January or beginning of February when we have finalized the architecture for the units we are building, the architectural code for the lots, the neighborhood covenants, etc.

Ward

[ljwhite]

WHEW! Seven hours of Planning Commission and, of course, a much needed drink afterwards. I am a bit tired.

We had to have five votes to pass (plurality vs. a simple majority) and two commissioners were sick, which made the math tough, but we had really worked hard to take care of all of the technical issues with the City and to get movement from the State on improvements to Mission. At the end of the day that hard work plus the fantastic support of the pubic got us through to the City Council.

The NIMBY's were there and were vocal, but our supporters outnumbered them probably two or three to one, even after some attrition due to our item not hitting the agenda until 9:30 or so.

CITY COUNCIL

Today, we can be happy about the positive recommendation from the Planning Commission, but we still must be approved by the City Council. Our opponents will be energized, just as we were after our defeat at Subdivision. We will need folks to continue to write and call City Councilmembers (the phone calls are particularly effective). If you have called one or two, please give a call to a few more. Also, we will need the same number of supporters to show up for the City Council meeting. We are trying to think of ways to have folks on call, but not have to just be milling around near the chambers for a few hours. We have discussed having a call list where we dial people when we are getting close on the agenda. What would be more fun, though, would be renting out half of Tim's pizza and having a pizza party until we are called up. I need to find out if that is kosher with the City.

Thanks again for your support and I look forward to seeing you at the City Council meeting on February 20th!

Ward

I found this thread by doing a Google search. Interesting to me that the developer (Ruskin) is posting another username (NWAnewby).

[Ruskin]

I found this thread by doing a Google search. Interesting to me that the developer (Ruskin) is posting another username (NWAnewby).

Ugh. I read back through the threads and found out that NWAnewby is definitely not a disinterested 3rd party (obviously, the person used my home computer). I am definitely embarrassed by the posts because they are misleading.

[mzweig]

Ugh. I read back through the threads and found out that NWAnewby is definitely not a disinterested 3rd party (obviously, the person used my home computer). I am definitely embarrassed by the posts because they are misleading.

I don't get it. Are you being sarcastic here? Who cares if you changed your posting name from NWANewby to Ruskin? Is that a crime?? You signed your post "Ward." I don't think you were trying to trick anyone!

M

[cocothief]

I don't get it. Are you being sarcastic here? Who cares if you changed your posting name from NWANewby to Ruskin? Is that a crime?? You signed your post "Ward." I don't think you were trying to trick anyone!

M

Family....

I had a roommate use my computer to post trash on hog sports boards before. It was somewhat troubling. IP addresses can be sticky. Still, I'm with you. Who cares? Not me.

[zman9810]

The NWA Times had an article about a talk the developers of Ruskin Heights gave to some doctoral students at the University of Arkansas about the positives of new urbanism. The article stated that the students were learning about communities with home owners associations but I think it illustrated a point about why new urbanism projects like Ruskin Heights receive so much opposition when presented here in Fayetteville and nationwide. I think Ruskin Heights is a fine project and a great addition to Fayetteville but has a common negative that most new urbanism projects have.

New urbanism is based on an ideal of what pre-automobile America's neighborhoods were like. The difference is that the old examples included all socio-economic classes while new urbanism is generally aimed at the more affluent classes. This isn't anything that anyone who is familar with new urbanism doesn't know- my point is that here in Fayetteville a project that includes all socio-economic groups (within reason) would stand a better chance of less opposition and I imagine would be successful. Anything intruding on surburban neighborhoods will meet opposition but as the area grows and becomes more dense new urbanism projects that include all will be easier to promote and meet aproval.

NWA Times article

[Mith242]

The NWA Times had an article about a talk the developers of Ruskin Heights gave to some doctoral students at the University of Arkansas about the positives of new urbanism. The article stated that the students were learning about communities with home owners associations but I think it illustrated a point about why new urbanism projects like Ruskin Heights receive so much opposition when presented here in Fayetteville and nationwide. I think Ruskin Heights is a fine project and a great addition to Fayetteville but has a common negative that most new urbanism projects have.

New urbanism is based on an ideal of what pre-automobile America's neighborhoods were like. The difference is that the old examples included all socio-economic classes while new urbanism is generally aimed at the more affluent classes. This isn't anything that anyone who is familar with new urbanism doesn't know- my point is that here in Fayetteville a project that includes all socio-economic groups (within reason) would stand a better chance of less opposition and I imagine would be successful. Anything intruding on surburban neighborhoods will meet opposition but as the area grows and becomes more dense new urbanism projects that include all will be easier to promote and meet aproval.

NWA Times article

Thanks for the info and the link. While we're always going to have some sort of 'suburban' growth going on. I think one of the problems is that older areas closer to the city centers of NWA aren't being converted into denser development. For that matter I think there tends to be little redevelopment, everyone wants to simply build on the outskirts because it's easier and right now there just doesn't seem to be enough incentive. There's a big perception problem with density. I'm not saying everything in the entire metro needs to be built with higher density. But it just seems silly to me to have some of our spread out developments rather close to some of the city centers. But anyway back to your topic. Right now everybody wants development that's easy to get to from their vehicle. Everything being built is focused around vehicles. Just seems like it's going to be a hard to get people out of that mindset.

[mzweig]

Thanks for the info and the link. While we're always going to have some sort of 'suburban' growth going on. I think one of the problems is that older areas closer to the city centers of NWA aren't being converted into denser development. For that matter I think there tends to be little redevelopment, everyone wants to simply build on the outskirts because it's easier and right now there just doesn't seem to be enough incentive. There's a big perception problem with density. I'm not saying everything in the entire metro needs to be built with higher density. But it just seems silly to me to have some of our spread out developments rather close to some of the city centers. But anyway back to your topic. Right now everybody wants development that's easy to get to from their vehicle. Everything being built is focused around vehicles. Just seems like it's going to be a hard to get people out of that mindset.

I don't want to stray too far off topic here, Rod, but the new "Downtown General" zoning we have in parts of Fayetteville will encourage greater density. I own a property in what is now called the Downtown Overlay District that is zoned Downtown General. I can build right up to my property line on three sides, and only have to stay five feet off the back of the lot. I can put a three family there. I can make it a restaurant. It's really cool and is going to change things a lot. Also, I understand Fayetteville is considering a change that will allow anyone to build up to a 600 square-foot second dwelling in their back yard. That would be fantastic as it encourages multi-generational living.

M

[mzweig]

The NWA Times had an article about a talk the developers of Ruskin Heights gave to some doctoral students at the University of Arkansas about the positives of new urbanism. The article stated that the students were learning about communities with home owners associations but I think it illustrated a point about why new urbanism projects like Ruskin Heights receive so much opposition when presented here in Fayetteville and nationwide. I think Ruskin Heights is a fine project and a great addition to Fayetteville but has a common negative that most new urbanism projects have.

New urbanism is based on an ideal of what pre-automobile America's neighborhoods were like. The difference is that the old examples included all socio-economic classes while new urbanism is generally aimed at the more affluent classes. This isn't anything that anyone who is familar with new urbanism doesn't know- my point is that here in Fayetteville a project that includes all socio-economic groups (within reason) would stand a better chance of less opposition and I imagine would be successful. Anything intruding on surburban neighborhoods will meet opposition but as the area grows and becomes more dense new urbanism projects that include all will be easier to promote and meet aproval.

NWA Times article

Z--you may be right in general about a lot of new urbanism projects being aimed at the upper-end. I will say, however, that this project has a huge variety in housing sizes and types, though it all will be somewhat premium priced for what it is. I will also tell you that the resistance to this project was from NIMBYs who thought it was going to bring in "lower class" people than themselves. They didnt want an apartment complex behind their suburban homes. If it had been promoted as more affordable housing in this case there would probably have been more opposition to it, not less.

It's funny. I teach at the U of A and work in a dept. that has a super liberal political orientation--one that I share. Yet these same people get up in arms about a single affordable housing unit someone wanted to put in their Wilson Park area back yard. I see a huge disconnect there. I also thought all the opposition to building heights was inconsistent with the idea of greater density, less environmental impact, lower transportation costs, etc.--all good things.

M

[Ruskin]

The NWA Times had an article about a talk the developers of Ruskin Heights gave to some doctoral students at the University of Arkansas about the positives of new urbanism. The article stated that the students were learning about communities with home owners associations but I think it illustrated a point about why new urbanism projects like Ruskin Heights receive so much opposition when presented here in Fayetteville and nationwide. I think Ruskin Heights is a fine project and a great addition to Fayetteville but has a common negative that most new urbanism projects have.

New urbanism is based on an ideal of what pre-automobile America's neighborhoods were like. The difference is that the old examples included all socio-economic classes while new urbanism is generally aimed at the more affluent classes. This isn't anything that anyone who is familar with new urbanism doesn't know- my point is that here in Fayetteville a project that includes all socio-economic groups (within reason) would stand a better chance of less opposition and I imagine would be successful. Anything intruding on surburban neighborhoods will meet opposition but as the area grows and becomes more dense new urbanism projects that include all will be easier to promote and meet aproval.

NWA Times article

Where to begin, where to begin...

First, I appreciate the positive comment about the neighborhood in the first paragraph. I hope you get a chance to spend some time at Ruskin Heights once it gets built (or stop by to chat about it any time for that matter - our office is on site).

On to the comments that I disagree with and I'll take the easy one first - Anyone who paid any attention to our approval process will know that including a variety of homes at a variety of price points is PRECISELY what was being fought by the opposition (which was almost exclusively immediate neighbors). A lot of people pay lip service to wanting "affordable housing" but no one wants it near them. (This isn't an indictment - I think if we are honest with ourselves most of us will admit that we don't want someone building something much cheaper next door to us despite our moral and political ideals.) As for Ruskin Heights, one of our main concessions was to discard two thirds of our "cottage homes", which were small, 1,400 square foot homes that reached a price point that is currently unattainable in the Root School District.

Now to the more broad points about New Urbanism. Both of these comments have a basis in reality, but I strongly disagree with the conclusions:

1. New Urbanism is aimed at the more affluent classes

a) Basis in reality - Most new developments are aimed at affluent people. Furthermore, even a larger percentage of developments that require the detailed attention that a well designed New Urban neighborhood requires are aimed at affluent people. This is not a New Urban phenomenon, but a new development phenomenon.

b) Further basis in reality - New Urban developments have appreciated dramatically. Studies performed by two different tract home builders (Morrission Homes and Whittaker Homes) that build the exact same home models in conventional subdivisions and New Urban neighborhoods have found that the homes in the New Urban neighborhoods sell at up to a 23% premium and appreciate, on average, 17% more quickly (which is amazing considering the premium paid in the first place).

c) Incorrect conclusion - New Urbanism is aimed at affluent people. Actually New Urban communities are particularly well suited to accomodating a wide range of incomes (and lifestyles for that matter). By providing a wide range of home sizes and types, a wider range of people can live in the neighborhood. It is as simple as that. The fact that they generate a premium valuation and appreciate so quickly is a measure of desire for this type of neighborhood relative to the severely limited supply, not a target market issue.

2. New Urbanism is based on an ideal of what pre-automobile America's neighborhoods were like.

a) Basis in reality - New Urban neighborhoods are more pedestrian oriented and make a concerted effort to reduce dependence on automobiles

b) Incorrect conclusion - New Urbanism is based on pre-automobile America's neighborhoods. First, New Urbanism draws heavily from European and Asian neighborhoods so it isn't based just on American anything. Much more importantly, New Urbanism doesn't ignore automobiles, it seeks to more appropriately balance their role in our culture (i.e., you shouldn't have to get in your car to take care of every little task such as grabbing a gallon of milk or buying an ice cream cone).

Again, I love talking about this stuff so stop by any time.

Ward

[Mith242]

Z--you may be right in general about a lot of new urbanism projects being aimed at the upper-end. I will say, however, that this project has a huge variety in housing sizes and types, though it all will be somewhat premium priced for what it is. I will also tell you that the resistance to this project was from NIMBYs who thought it was going to bring in "lower class" people than themselves. They didnt want an apartment complex behind their suburban homes. If it had been promoted as more affordable housing in this case there would probably have been more opposition to it, not less.

It's funny. I teach at the U of A and work in a dept. that has a super liberal political orientation--one that I share. Yet these same people get up in arms about a single affordable housing unit someone wanted to put in their Wilson Park area back yard. I see a huge disconnect there. I also thought all the opposition to building heights was inconsistent with the idea of greater density, less environmental impact, lower transportation costs, etc.--all good things.

M

You know I think some people opposed Ruskin Heights just because it was 'different' than their neighborhood.

[Mith242]

Where to begin, where to begin...

First, I appreciate the positive comment about the neighborhood in the first paragraph. I hope you get a chance to spend some time at Ruskin Heights once it gets built (or stop by to chat about it any time for that matter - our office is on site).

On to the comments that I disagree with and I'll take the easy one first - Anyone who paid any attention to our approval process will know that including a variety of homes at a variety of price points is PRECISELY what was being fought by the opposition (which was almost exclusively immediate neighbors). A lot of people pay lip service to wanting "affordable housing" but no one wants it near them. (This isn't an indictment - I think if we are honest with ourselves most of us will admit that we don't want someone building something much cheaper next door to us despite our moral and political ideals.) As for Ruskin Heights, one of our main concessions was to discard two thirds of our "cottage homes", which were small, 1,400 square foot homes that reached a price point that is currently unattainable in the Root School District.

Now to the more broad points about New Urbanism. Both of these comments have a basis in reality, but I strongly disagree with the conclusions:

1. New Urbanism is aimed at the more affluent classes

a) Basis in reality - Most new developments are aimed at affluent people. Furthermore, even a larger percentage of developments that require the detailed attention that a well designed New Urban neighborhood requires are aimed at affluent people. This is not a New Urban phenomenon, but a new development phenomenon.

b) Further basis in reality - New Urban developments have appreciated dramatically. Studies performed by two different tract home builders (Morrission Homes and Whittaker Homes) that build the exact same home models in conventional subdivisions and New Urban neighborhoods have found that the homes in the New Urban neighborhoods sell at up to a 23% premium and appreciate, on average, 17% more quickly (which is amazing considering the premium paid in the first place).

c) Incorrect conclusion - New Urbanism is aimed at affluent people. Actually New Urban communities are particularly well suited to accomodating a wide range of incomes (and lifestyles for that matter). By providing a wide range of home sizes and types, a wider range of people can live in the neighborhood. It is as simple as that. The fact that they generate a premium valuation and appreciate so quickly is a measure of desire for this type of neighborhood relative to the severely limited supply, not a target market issue.

2. New Urbanism is based on an ideal of what pre-automobile America's neighborhoods were like.

a) Basis in reality - New Urban neighborhoods are more pedestrian oriented and make a concerted effort to reduce dependence on automobiles

b) Incorrect conclusion - New Urbanism is based on pre-automobile America's neighborhoods. First, New Urbanism draws heavily from European and Asian neighborhoods so it isn't based just on American anything. Much more importantly, New Urbanism doesn't ignore automobiles, it seeks to more appropriately balance their role in our culture (i.e., you shouldn't have to get in your car to take care of every little task such as grabbing a gallon of milk or buying an ice cream cone).

Again, I love talking about this stuff so stop by any time.

Ward

Thanks for all the input. I like your assessments and agree with them. I wonder if the bigger question is how to get people to better understand New Urbanism and get people to change their suburban type of thinking.

[Ruskin]

Thanks for all the input. I like your assessments and agree with them. I wonder if the bigger question is how to get people to better understand New Urbanism and get people to change their suburban type of thinking.

Frankly, I think all we need is to provide a local example of a great New Urban neighborhood.

It is important to remember that many people don't "choose" to live in in suburbs. Instead their housing choices have been severely limited by Euclidean zoning and traffic engineering based on a hierarchy of streets. Until recently, in fact, it was illegal to build mixed use, mixed housing type, and walkable neighborhoods and it still requires a more rigorous approval process than sprawl subdivisions.