Architectural renderings offer an early look at the upcoming 555 Maple complex
A rendering of the upcoming 555 Maple project shows what the development will look like from the hill just to the east of the work site.
Courtesy image, Modus Studio
After two weeks of watching demolition crews clear the way for a 183-unit apartment project at the corner of Maple Street and West Avenue, it’s only natural to wonder what the area will look like after its major makeover.
Fortunately, the designers of the project have released a couple of renderings to help quench our curiosity.
Once complete, the five-story complex – called 555 Maple – will take up the entire city block between Lafayette and Maple streets, just east of Frisco Trail and the Arkansas & Missouri Railroad tracks.
Developers Seth Mims and Jeremy Hudson are working with Fayetteville architecture firm Modus Studio on the project. For those unfamiliar, this is the same team behind Eco Modern Flats, the first LEED-certified, multi-family development in the state. That complex, located at 130 S. Hill Avenue just south of the University of Arkansas campus, was awarded a LEED Platinum certification, the highest recognition awarded by the U.S. Green Building Council.
The team is also seeking LEED certification for 555 Maple.
Thanks to the folks at Modus Studio for sharing these renderings with the Flyer.
A street-view rendering of 555 Maple from the southeast corner of the complex site. (Courtesy image, Modus Studio)
Looks good. Better than the run down houses in that part of town. Fresh and new!
I agree, this is a nice improvement. The Dickson Street merchants will be thrilled with all that foot traffic.
GRETA IDEA! Tear down anything old or architecturally significant and build another blight on the city’s skyline that only the wealthy can afford to live in.
So far, they’ve torn down a condemned, boarded-up church activity center and some old apartments. They’re also filling in some parking lot. I’m not so sure any of that space is culturally significant.
It’s going to be “for university students wanting to live in downtown Fayetteville”. Hardly anything wealthy about that, unless you’ve invested in boarded-up church activity centers.
Normally I would completely agree with you. I am always in favorof classic or “antique” architecture over modern buildings. From what I’ve seen, though, there is nothing architecturally significant in this space. There are currently some older apartments. Also, there are 2 or 3 old houses, but these are completely run down, and doubt even Mark Zweig could justify the major overhaul that would be required to salvage them.
This is going to primarily be students living here. I think it will be a great addition to the atmosphere, allowing more people to live close to the Walton Arts Center, Dickson Street, and Wilson Park. This will continue to bridge the campus community with the city of Fayetteville.
Five stories does not equal skyline, even in Fayetteville.
Any estimated date of completion on this complex?
Fayetteville’s goal of infill is coming true.
I guess it looks better, but I like the older homes and trees that are currently on that block. The boarded up church-looking building at the corner of West and Maple was an eyesore, but I almost think the corner depicted above (West and Lafeytte) looks better the way it is now.
What exactly was architecturally significant about those houses? Please do tell? How about the boarded up, run down church? Please inform the masses about what was so special about that gem. And do you know what rent will be in these apartments? Do you know that only the wealthy will be able to live there? Some just like to complain to hear their own, sad, angry voices.
555 Maple kills trees! lets get these bumper stickers out quick please
the only trees worth saving are sisterhood trees on the square that bind us to bentonville!
Who cares? They will plant new ones.
Bumper stickers kills trees.
Now THAT would be a good bumper sticker.
Oh please. They’re planting trees all around this complex. Grow up.
Is that what you call those little shrubs along the sidewalks? Looks like they’ll be the same kinda trees they have next to the Legacy Building on Watson – little trees in isolated planters, not very natural and already heavily damaged by passers by. Look at the top rendering — trees all around in the residential neighborhood, then a whole lotta building. Interesting that in the second rendering the one large tree that they intend to save is shown with brown leaves — don’t know if that is from the original photo or just depicting how it is likely to look after they disrupt the area all around it and box it in on three sides.
The one large tree is being saved. I noticed that one and anther by the trail with the orange fence around them.
I think a building designed by Modus Studio, recipients of numerous awards regarding architecture and sustainability, is far more “architecturally significant” than the total dumps that were there before.
Well put and true. Well done again Modus Studios!
would be cool if they had some retail/eatery spaces on the ground floor
I was just thinking that. And maybe a deli/convenience store like on street levels of big cities.
Please please please tell me there is an underground parking garage at this place. I’m a huge fan of the concept, but 183 more apartments around Dickson without adequate parking (2 spaces per apartment) would be a huge fail.
Hi Troy. The plans call for a multi-story parking deck in the middle of the complex that’ll be surrounded on all sides by apartments.
Awesome!
I see Crazy Eric is wearing tennis shoes instead of his “pant in boots” standard. Not a very accurate rendering.
good one!
Haha. They need to fix that. Pronto. Crazy Eric may shut down the Internet over this. If you think he doesn’t hold a grudge, check out his Hanna ‘Nuff bumper sticker.
Very nice, indeed. Thanks for showing us how it will look.
Also, is that space on the ground floor shown at West and Lafayette going to be commercial space? Is there other commercial space in the building?
Eric sold part of this land to the developers;(the three houses) he is very happy with the outcome of this deal. He just increased his other properties value ten fold since he owns the other three 3 corners of that intersection.. So I don’t think he will be holding any grudges.. Yet you never know..
The little old filling station catty-cornered to this will be a great spot for a little sandwich shop or something, especially when the other building is built up on Lafayette. Lots and lots of foot-traffic will be coming soon. Until now, that place always suffered because of no parking and being a block too far off Dickson. I expect it will either be developed or renovated soon. Hope its renovated. Cool little building. The area under the old canopy would make a killer patio.
The only grudge I’m talking about is the one he’ll hold about the rendering’s depiction of him. Like Captain A pointed out.
Any idea about the rental cost?
I too am interested in rental costs. I’d hate to see a new building set empty because of high rent!
This place will be in high demand. I expect it to be very popular with the Greek kids, considering its basically on Sorority Row. The frats and sororities are busting at the seams. In a couple of years there will be four new ones on campus because the current ones have all gotten too large to accept any new members.
Way on board. Way.
Density downtown is the ticket to better ammenities – shops, restaurants, entertainment, and public transit. Good for Fayetteville and the University.
Which is exactly what the city of Fayetteville wants. Love the look
the reason those 3 houses were run down is because sweeney loyd let them run down. some might call that slumlord chic i guess but i call it disrespect for property, exploitation of renters for years while it all deteriorates. in an ethical capitalist society it would be considered shameful. not here. now ladies and germs, let the fake libertarian howling begin.
Political discourse at it’s finest.
To the concern about adequate parking—would be interesting to see parking unbundled from the rent of the apartments here. As Fayetteville attempts greater infill, some creative parking strategies will have to come into play.
Definitely another hot button issue –> http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/04/05/in-case-you-missed-it-downtown-parking-deck-public-input-session/
Possible LEED certification aside, that’s about the ugliest bunch of brick boxes I’ve ever seen. The height will not only block views and lead to even higher development, it could make the intersection of West and Maple dangerous.
I was born and raised here, and this is NOT the kind of architecture I want to see in my town. It’s boxy, massive, and industrial. We need to stop the overdevelopment before we lose everything we love about this place.
it’s called growth… if you don’t like it, move to Altus. I promise Fayetteville won’t miss you one bit.
I’m a little sad to see this type of architecture popping up all over Fayetteville. It’s going to look SO dated in just a few years. Why not chose a more timeless design? In my opinion this looks cheap and boxy. It’s not warm or welcoming in the least. I agree that it looks cleaner, but I would have chosen a different design. I hate to say it, but these are not even good looking contemporary architecture… it’s overly simple, boring, and in my opinion, ugly.
Agreed. This trend of making one building which looks like 10 buildings squished together is ugly, and I too believe it will quickly look dated.
Yet another trendy eyesore.
Tell me again, why do we want growth like this????
Oh, yeah 2025 plan… so a bunch of narrow visioned developers can reap big profits and leave our town with a legacy of barrio apartments. (note the word legacy)
Go Away!
I love Fayetteville’s dilapidated downtown houses. But, whatever. This block sold and it was only a matter of time. It’s is in good hands with Modus. Fine local chaps. They’ll do a knock-up job.
Interesting. We have “boxy, massive, and industrial” and “it’s overly simple, boring, and in my opinion, ugly”– plus “trendy eyesore” and “barrio”. All describing the same building. How much more boxy and industrial would these apartments be if the facade and massing weren’t broken up into smaller parts? And how could they be made less simple and less boring? I’m asking in all seriousness. This is an important discussion.
RE “The height will not only block views”
According to the first rendering, the complex is only as tall as the trees in the neighborhood, and so should block views only from near the building– about like the trees do for much of the year. Every building does that.
RE “This trend of making one building which looks like 10 buildings squished together is ugly, and I too believe it will quickly look dated.”
It’s hardly a trend. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_Row_Houses.jpg
http://joefelso.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/row_houses.jpg
http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/adams-morgan-rowhouses-2-large.jpg
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg153/scaled.php?server=153&filename=1001702jm1.jpg&res=medium
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/62044/62044,1143862513,2/stock-photo-dc-rowhouses-straight-1149188.jpg
http://thecityfix.com/files/2010/11/baltimore-rowhouses.jpg
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UWS/ROW_WESTEND.jpg
http://www.the-city-of-bath.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Crescent-and-Circus1.jpg
Row buildings are a classic approach to residential construction. (The last photo is an aerial view of the Royal Crescent and Circus in Bath, England, which is almost 250 years old.) As for becoming dated, well, every building speaks of its time– more or less eloquently. (The Royal Crescent and Circus have continuous facades and speak very eloquently of Baroque civic architecture. The effect of power and mass is enhanced by the continuous, unified facades.)
RE “Oh, yeah 2025 plan… so a bunch of narrow visioned developers can reap big profits and leave our town with a legacy of barrio apartments.”
Oh, now. That never happened before the 2025 plan? That has been going on at least since– let’s see: when were the Chateau Apartments built?
I think it is the balcony/ (fire escape?) that gives it a cold, eastern seaboard, inner city feel. All that is missing is the wailing of emergency vehicles, sporadic gunfire and graffiti. It could age as well as the communistic block looking building on Center Street.
But these aren’t row houses, and you happened to choose photos of some timelessly good-looking buildings. Row houses address the issue of fitting a bunch of single family homes into a tight urban space, but that not what’s going on here. On a related note, the bizarre subdivisions full of pseudo-row houses here in Fayetteville are an abomination and certainly the slums of the future.
Regardless of history or nomenclature, I just find this design to be unattractive. It feels like all the “busy-ness” of the design is intended to distract us from something…like maybe the fact that the designers can’t pull off an elegant large structure which has some relationship with it’s environment.
vandelay–
Thank you for your reply.
RE “But these aren’t row houses”
As far as the street view is concerned– and that seems to be the crux of this discussion– they are.
RE “you happened to choose photos of some timelessly good-looking buildings.”
Every style represented in those photos is a surviving example of a style that was once considered dated. It was not until the 1970s that we quit tearing down wide swaths of perfectly good buildings because they were “dated”. And if a building is well-built and serviceable, what’s wrong with knowing when it was built? “Dated” is a fashion term. Thinking in terms of fashion is not a good way to consider buildings: fashion is ephemeral; buildings should not be.
RE “Row houses address the issue of fitting a bunch of single family homes into a tight urban space, but that not what’s going on here.”
Much, if not most, of remaining old row housing in major cities has been converted to multi-family use. But again, we’re discussing appearance.
RE “Regardless of history or nomenclature, I just find this design to be unattractive.”
It’s not my favorite, either, but it could be a lot worse. I’ll note that I have studied a lot of architectural drawings and renderings; I have seldom seen a rendering that looks as good as the building depicted, and none of those few were computer-generated photo-montages like these. (Hats off to Z.Y. Jiang, architectural illustrator extraordinaire!) Regardless, I’d rather walk next to something like this than a single block-long facade.
RE “It feels like all the “busy-ness” of the design is intended to distract us from something”
In that the effect of contiguous small-footprint buildings is more natural to that part of town than a unified mass would be, you’re right: it is an attempt to make the building less of an intrusion. But a great part of the “busy-ness” is an expression of the function of the building. I would rather live in an apartment that served me better through its plan and widows than one that was compromised in order to create a “nice” facade.
RE “…like maybe the fact that the designers can’t pull off an elegant large structure which has some relationship with it’s environment.”
Are you saying that these architects, having done good projects in the past, and likely having competed with others to get this job, somehow lack a basic level of competence? A single facade is usually easier to manage than a composite facade like this one; it also smacks of cheapness (less cost to build– look at dormitories), and it frequently will become “dated” more rapidly as well. Given that this environment does not include a lot of buildings that occupy a full block, and the fact that those that exist stand out in unfortunate ways (Hillcrest Tower, University Baptist Church), versus the number of small-scale commercial buildings, apartment buildings and houses in the area, I think they made the better choice. With the possible exception of something with a warehouse/manufacturing aesthetic (given the context and the adjacent railroad tracks), a building with a large unified mass in this location would not be elegant in any sense of the word. (I’m not sure what sense you intended to convey.)
The rendering of 555 Maple are pretty ugly in my opinion. I have watched the transformation of Fayetteville’s downtown for quite some time now. The fact the city council has approved such eyesores is disappointing. Not only the Legacy building and the other plans Barber had, but the monstrosity that is the Underwood/Dickson building were put through by our governing body. Modus Studio did a great job on the Eco Modern Flats, but the current designs that they have set forth for this project do not meld with their surrounding area. They are dark and cold. They should concentrate on something that better melds. Take the Three Sisters Condominium Complex. Those blend almost seamlessly into the Dickson St. rows of buildings.
Why not go for a slightly brighter more classic design? Make a mark that will last, not one that will lose its flair in a few years. At one time they thought Carlson Terrace was a great and awesome design. As time went on, it lost more and more of its appeal until it was considered ugly and dilapidated. A classic design like Gregson Hall on the UofA campus is older and has kept its appeal throughout the years. I challenge Modus Studios to reconsider their design for this locale and really bring it to the table. Let’s build something that will become a Fayetteville staple, not just another empty eye sore.
So many people hated the Three Sisters when it was proposed as “gentrification” and “fake”. Now it is featured on almost every Fayetteville brochure.
I’m not saying this project will be one that will be on the cover of magazines featuring Fayetteville, but that people felt similarly about Three Sisters when it was proposed.
You speak the truth about that.
SO UGLY. Square and blocky and all squished together this is such a disappointing design.
All new downtown residential developments are being marketed to students and “young professionals”. The over-40 workers and the retirees are being pushed farther away from the area. Huge expensive houses are being built to replace the beautiful little bungalows. Older residents also appreciate “green” living and being close to the trails and downtown. It would be nice to see housing developed that works for this group.
Old folks have their own huge building, complete with new bus stop. What more could they want?
I kid!
There are a lot of interesting small residential projects of 1 to 4-5 homes popping up down in the Walker Park neighborhood. Some cool older homes, too. People wanting to live downtown is a good thing. Supply and demand will dictate that prices will always be higher where people have the strongest desire to live.
The Walker Park area has its issues, but when it gets fully gentrified, the prices won’t be as affordable as they are now. If I were looking to buy something close to downtown and be in front of the gentrification curve, I’d head down there.
I always see deals of small homes in the 80-100k range just down hill from downtown, between Archibald Yell and MLK. They all require some tender loving care, but its a good investment longterm, and good for Fayetteville.
There is no reason someone over 40, like me, can’t live in this complex. The units don’t leave much room for junk, and that’s the point of LEED, low energy use, low impact living.
Oh no. Can we please reconsider the design. This is depressing, oppressing, and HUGE. Lighten up a little, eh?
My vote is on the ugly side. There is nothing visually charming about this development. When I think of Fayetteville I always think charming so this is rather disappointing.
The complex looks like a bunch of Lego blocks on steroids. I don’t get why the architects didn’t choose to design the building in a manner that blended with the wonderful older homes in the surrounding neighborhood. There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about the building whatsoever. Ugh.
These apartments look like what you find in uptown Dallas and in Austin these days.
Fayetteville has never really had any larger, urban apartment buildings, so this design naturally doesn’t “fit in” with the bungalows and tiny shops.
I like a mix of architecture. It makes things more interesting visually. I can’t think of anything else in town that looks exactly like this. There are other projects proposed, but this one doesn’t remind me of anything else that is existing.
Someone said they’d rather have these apts. look like the 3 Sisters Building. The 3 Sisters bldg is “pretty,” but it also sits EMPTY most of the time, just like our other “pretty” buildings like Legacy and Underwood. Maybe 555 Maple is designed to actually be used and kept full. It doesn’t “look like Fayetteville” right now, because the design is modern. The new parking deck on Garland doesn’t “look like Fayetteville” either; yet. As other new buildings pop up with a modern flair, then they will start to take on a consistent look. Well done Seth, Jeremy and everyone at Modus.
Honestly the Garland parking deck doesn’t look completed. Every football game walking past it to DWRRS I hear people from out of town asking why the UofA didn’t finish it.
Not particularly fond of the design renderings, but I do find it an improvement over the rundown mess that previously existed in that location.
The University should have done the right thing by the city and the community and faced the east and north side of that parking deck. They made it clear they aren’t concerned about being good neighbors.
i’d rather fayetteville not take its aesthetic cues from dallas.
How about Austin, then? Or Chicago, Kansas City, Saint Louis, Baltimore, Atlanta,….
eh, those are fine. just not a huge fan of big d and all of that dallitude (or austin or texas in general for that matter).
I’ll agree with you in general, though Deep Ellum and a few other parts of Dallas retain their own identity and are nice enough.
i always forget about deep ellum. yep, that is a cool part of dallas.
I’m a fan of modern, and I really like the Modus redesign for the Eco Modern Flats. I’m not crazy about this design, but I don’t find it as objectionable as a lot seem to (but, like I said, I’m a fan of modern architecture).
I do think the Three Sisters comparisons are funny because people complained just as vigorously about the Three Sisters development and how ugly, imposing, oversized, etc.. it was as well. People also complained about the Walter Arts Center when it was built. That being said, I just hope that the pricing is affordable, and people actually live in these buildings. As long as they’re vibrant and representing actual infill, then I’m for them. if they sit empty or are only used on game weekends (like many other overpriced apartments and condos in the area), then they’ll do nothing to help downtown.
So, how much per month? Does anyone know?
The design isn’t too bad but the renderings are completely inaccurate in scale. That is a much higher elevation and unless they are putting the first few floors underground these buildings will block the view of Old Main from the east, unlike what they show in the images, and will block the sun for all buildings immediately to the north. I hope the sororities don’t mind having dark, dank front yards in the future. These buildings should’ve been stepped so that the taller parts were only allowed at the lower spots of the property. They could get the same density while preventing having a negative impact on the adjacent properties to the north.
Example – streets with 2 story houses on the south side at a slightly higher elevation than the north side stayed iced or covered in snow much longer. The yards on the north side get no sun and remain dark and damp in most cases. Now add 2+ stories to that.