Park Avenue

[Architect]

So, no one else noticed the removal of Dick's Sporting Goods from the new plan? While multi-level residential with separate parking and pool is fairly impressive for the profile of the center, it seems hard to ignore the elimination of plans for a 50,000+ SF retailer. Which begs the question

[LRguy21]

You may be right, but I didn't recall Dick's being a part of this...I only recalled Dick's at Chenal Promenade.

I think the last site review inclued a 50,000 sf retialer. Under it, it inculede Dick's. Dick's was also part of the early promenade line up.

[turboturtle]

If you blinked you might have missed this... http://www.briarwoodlr.org/ Kudos to the folks behind the Briarwood website. Outstanding content!

The new plans are also available at parkavenuelr.com.

I don't recall major developments moving this quickly through our City planning process. This was on the LR City Board Agenda for Tuesday. I can't find any report from that meeting. Perhaps it was deferred?

UPDATE: I found a demgaz editorial from Sunday. http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/j...dtown-20080623/

[turboturtle]

If you blinked you might have missed this... http://www.briarwoodlr.org/ Kudos to the folks behind the Briarwood website. Outstanding content!

The new plans are also available at parkavenuelr.com.

I don't recall major developments moving this quickly through our City planning process. This was on the LR City Board Agenda for Tuesday. I can't find any report from that meeting. Perhaps it was deferred?

UPDATE: I found a demgaz editorial from Sunday. http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/j...dtown-20080623/

Park Avenue was approved tonight.

[LRguy21]

Whats the final Site plan? I bet it will evolve over the process of being built.

[turboturtle]

Whats the final Site plan? I bet it will evolve over the process of being built.

You can see the final site plan here http://www.briarwoodlr.org/.

I'll take you up on that bet. I think it evolved already. When you are managing cost, plan scope creep is something to avoid.

[LRguy21]

You can see the final site plan here http://www.briarwoodlr.org/.

I'll take you up on that bet. I think it evolved already. When you are managing cost, plan scope creep is something to avoid.

Evolve in a good way, at least i hope so!

[turboturtle]

I did some shopping here today. I didn't make it to the Apple store in Green Hills though. After seeing what I saw today, I think Park Avenue is going to miss the mark.

[bchris02]

I did some shopping here today. I didn't make it to the Apple store in Green Hills though. After seeing what I saw today, I think Park Avenue is going to miss the mark.

I was in Augusta, Georgia over the weekend. Augusta is very similar to Little Rock in terms of size and demographics, but Little Rock is FAR superior to Augusta in terms or urban feel, density, skyline, tourist amenities, and restaurants. However, the one area Augusta puts Little Rock to shame is retail offerings. That is because Augusta has one huge 1.3 million sq. feet super-regional mall which all development is centered around. Their mall is part enclosed, part lifestyle center, anchored by Macy's, Dillard's, Dick's, Sears, and JC Penneys. The lifestyle portion of their mall is VERY nice and somewhat reminds me of Pinnacle Hills Promenade. It makes me sad that Little Rock could have had something like that but instead is getting several mediocre developments, none with any real "wow" factor or gravity to attract retailers that a city our size should have. I was hoping Park Ave. would break the trend, but from what I've seen so far I am not getting my hopes up.

[WLRDore]

As I mentioned recently in another post, looking back on it, I'm glad that the situation turned out as it did. I prefer midtown being reinvigorated/revitalized (as it has become) as opposed to the alternate where perhaps we would have a dominant new center (as opposed to the current disarray) BUT a declining midtown. In that scenario, something is lost. In reality, not so much.

Do you foresee major traffic issues if Park Avenue does complete its currently planned build out?

[turboturtle]

Do you foresee major traffic issues if Park Avenue does complete its currently planned build out?

Architect... could you please move WLRDore's post and my reply to the Park Avenue topic?

No. First University Mall did have traffic 20 years ago. It now has no traffic. Obviously, traffic will increase dramatically when Park Ave opens. The infrastructure exists to handle the increase. (Another way to put it is that there isn't much the City could do to improve it.) First, the mall site is on a major arterial, a prerequisite to this size of development. All the traffic signalization exists. There are traffic lights at St. Vincent and University Ave, University Ave and University Ave site access point, and Markham St (a second major arterial) and McKinley St. The Park Avenue site is also a major CATA Bus stop. If you factor all of the above with the fact that the site is 100 yards from I-630 the principle East / West interstate thoroughfare in Little Rock, you will understand why it is such a highly desirable piece of real estate for a developer. The developer doesn't have to pay $100K to put in a traffic signal.

Contrast that with Simon Properties and the former Summit Mall proposal... the City identified that an intersection would fall from a C to an F if the Summit Mall was built. They asked Simon to foot the bill. Simon refused. Like I said in an earlier post, they were not willing to negotiate on their plans at all. Being that inflexible was a major shortcoming for Simon.

The only knock that the Markham University corridor has is that it is not where most of the new growth in our City has occurred. IMO this disadvantage is offset by its central location in the city, ease of access, close proximity to Heights, Hillcrest, St. Vincent, UAMS and UALR.

[LRU1967]

The Arkansas Times is reporting that the Target store in Park Avenue is looking "iffy" and that Target is "looking at our options". Strode says that Target has pushed the store back to March, 2010.

[turboturtle]

The Arkansas Times is reporting that the Target store in Park Avenue is looking "iffy" and that Target is "looking at our options". Strode says that Target has pushed the store back to March, 2010.

The rocky future of the economy is to blame for this, though I'm glad to hear something. My guess is that Strode is not going to develop the site until he has a solid tenant. The more thoughtful and less speculative the development ultimately is, the better it will be for Little Rock. A barren field is nothing to look at, but I'm glad that the Simon - University Mall property owners debacle is over. Strode can sell it if he needs to... whoever buys it will be subject to the same design standards that he is.

[LRU1967]

The rocky future of the economy is to blame for this, though I'm glad to hear something. My guess is that Strode is not going to develop the site until he has a solid tenant. The more thoughtful and less speculative the development ultimately is, the better it will be for Little Rock. A barren field is nothing to look at, but I'm glad that the Simon - University Mall property owners debacle is over. Strode can sell it if he needs to... whoever buys it will be subject to the same design standards that he is.

You're right that the economy is to blame. I'm surprised thought that Strode didn't have Target locked in to building the new store. All in all I'd rather have the vacant land than the old U Mall sitting there slowly going down hill.

[Aporkalypse]

The rocky future of the economy is to blame for this, though I'm glad to hear something. My guess is that Strode is not going to develop the site until he has a solid tenant. The more thoughtful and less speculative the development ultimately is, the better it will be for Little Rock. A barren field is nothing to look at, but I'm glad that the Simon - University Mall property owners debacle is over. Strode can sell it if he needs to... whoever buys it will be subject to the same design standards that he is.

I totally agree. Now that we've gotten this far, something first class will be built there. It may not happen for 3-5 years, but that's alright. Nothing of the scale we want is going to happen in the next two years nearly anywhere.

[Aporkalypse]

The rocky future of the economy is to blame for this, though I'm glad to hear something. My guess is that Strode is not going to develop the site until he has a solid tenant. The more thoughtful and less speculative the development ultimately is, the better it will be for Little Rock. A barren field is nothing to look at, but I'm glad that the Simon - University Mall property owners debacle is over. Strode can sell it if he needs to... whoever buys it will be subject to the same design standards that he is.

I totally agree. Now that we've gotten this far, something first class will be built there. It may not happen for 3-5 years, but that's alright. Nothing of the scale we want is going to happen in the next two years nearly anywhere.

[Architect]

The Arkansas Times is reporting that the Target store in Park Avenue is looking "iffy" and that Target is "looking at our options". Strode says that Target has pushed the store back to March, 2010.

I'm surprised Target would be hesitant...they are fundamentally a discount general goods store, which should be fairly resilient, if not successful in this kind of market. Perhaps this is just another sign of everyone putting on the brakes, which results of course in everyone putting on the brakes.

[Architect]

Architect... could you please move WLRDore's post and my reply to the Park Avenue topic?

No. First University Mall did have traffic 20 years ago. It now has no traffic. Obviously, traffic will increase dramatically when Park Ave opens. The infrastructure exists to handle the increase. (Another way to put it is that there isn't much the City could do to improve it.) First, the mall site is on a major arterial, a prerequisite to this size of development. All the traffic signalization exists. There are traffic lights at St. Vincent and University Ave, University Ave and University Ave site access point, and Markham St (a second major arterial) and McKinley St. The Park Avenue site is also a major CATA Bus stop. If you factor all of the above with the fact that the site is 100 yards from I-630 the principle East / West interstate thoroughfare in Little Rock, you will understand why it is such a highly desirable piece of real estate for a developer. The developer doesn't have to pay $100K to put in a traffic signal.

Contrast that with Simon Properties and the former Summit Mall proposal... the City identified that an intersection would fall from a C to an F if the Summit Mall was built. They asked Simon to foot the bill. Simon refused. Like I said in an earlier post, they were not willing to negotiate on their plans at all. Being that inflexible was a major shortcoming for Simon.

The only knock that the Markham University corridor has is that it is not where most of the new growth in our City has occurred. IMO this disadvantage is offset by its central location in the city, ease of access, close proximity to Heights, Hillcrest, St. Vincent, UAMS and UALR.

You forgot to note that University Avenue is being widened to 6 lanes (from the south end all the way north to the Markham intersection).

[theman]

I'm surprised Target would be hesitant...they are fundamentally a discount general goods store, which should be fairly resilient, if not successful in this kind of market. Perhaps this is just another sign of everyone putting on the brakes, which results of course in everyone putting on the brakes.

You are right that it is a discount store, but Target has been showing sales decreases while Wal Mart has been increasing. Target depends more on sales of clothing and household items like furniture and bedding than Wal Mart that has more sales in groceries. Also Wal Mart is making a lot of money in its electronics department. The downturn in the ecomomy is effecting Target more than Wal Mart.

I wonder what other options they have in placing a store in LR. They other option maybe not putting another store here at all, especially since they just expanded and upgraded the existing store.

[Aporkalypse]

You are right that it is a discount store, but Target has been showing sales decreases while Wal Mart has been increasing. Target depends more on sales of clothing and household items like furniture and bedding than Wal Mart that has more sales in groceries. Also Wal Mart is making a lot of money in its electronics department. The downturn in the ecomomy is effecting Target more than Wal Mart.

I wonder what other options they have in placing a store in LR. They other option maybe not putting another store here at all, especially since they just expanded and upgraded the existing store.

They've wanted a midtown store for a long time. There aren't a lot of good sites left, really.

[LIT uPP]

An article in Saturday

[adman0468]

An article in Saturday

[bchris02]

The fact that there's been almost no progress recently on this site, can we safely assume that we won't see a completed shopping center in just over a year? With the economy, I just can't see expansion happening right now.

And what about University Avenue construction? Hasn't this been the longest construction project ever? I'm amazed at how long it's taking. Maybe we should place bets to see which gets done first - the road or the shopping center.

Its for the best. This city has more empty storefronts than we know what to do with. With tenants delaying or pulling out of Promenade at Chenal, Shackleford, Pleasant Ridge, etc and probably numerous closings this year in Park Plaza and Midtowne, we dont really need another shopping center.

[Aporkalypse]

Its for the best. This city has more empty storefronts than we know what to do with. With tenants delaying or pulling out of Promenade at Chenal, Shackleford, Pleasant Ridge, etc and probably numerous closings this year in Park Plaza and Midtowne, we dont really need another shopping center.

I think our existing shopping centers are doing fine but I agree, we don't need a new one right now. The fact is the few chains looking to expand right now will be able to fill in the gaps of the stores that have gone bankrupt.

Of course Park Ave will be a little different type of development with mixed uses and it's conceivable that pieces could be built at different times and the typical retail could wait. The demand for medical office space is still there, as is hotel demand. Target might still be game. Financing may be tough, I don't know what kind of shape Strode is in. My bet would be we are looking at at least two years before dirt turns.

[adman0468]

I think our existing shopping centers are doing fine but I agree, we don't need a new one right now. The fact is the few chains looking to expand right now will be able to fill in the gaps of the stores that have gone bankrupt.

Of course Park Ave will be a little different type of development with mixed uses and it's conceivable that pieces could be built at different times and the typical retail could wait. The demand for medical office space is still there, as is hotel demand. Target might still be game. Financing may be tough, I don't know what kind of shape Strode is in. My bet would be we are looking at at least two years before dirt turns.

Our speculations were very timely...and correct. According to today's Demozette, Target has put plans for the Midtowne location on hold. That means the center itself is on hold, which is fine, considering the economy and the lack of interest from any tenant in this market. Better to wait a couple of years and have it make a solid debut than limp out of the gate like Shackleford Crossings and the Promenade.

Now if they would just finish University Ave...