The “Theater Lot” at the corner of Spring Street and School Avenue is one of two heavily favored locations for a planned downtown parking deck.
Photo: Todd Gill, Fayetteville Flyer
Nothing’s official yet, but the four possible locations for a planned downtown parking deck seem to have been narrowed by half.
It’s now looking like the 300-space parking deck will either be built on top of the current WAC Lot or on the Theater Lot site immediately south of the Walton Arts Center.
City Council members decided against moving forward with geotechnical work at the East Lot and the South Lot after hearing residents’ comments from two public input sessions held earlier this month.
“Quite frankly, every single comment was negative,” said project manager David Jurgens, speaking of the East Lot. “Everybody said, ‘Don’t even consider doing it here. It’s too small, the access is too bad and it is right next door to 20-foot-tall houses.’”
Jurgens explains the pros and cons of building a deck at the WAC Lot during a public location tour earlier this month.
Photo: Todd Gill, Fayetteville Flyer
Jurgens said virtually all comments about the South Lot echoed those same sentiments.
With such small footprints, the South and East lots would require at least a five-story structure and since they each have about 60 parking spaces already, the new deck would need to include at least 360 spaces just to make up for the loss.
Comments about the two larger locations, Jurgens said, were much more positive. Plus, completed geotechnical borings at those sites did not identify any underground voids which would significantly increase construction costs of a deck.
Spending the $30,000 needed to drill holes at the two smaller lots isn’t something Jurgens’ team was comfortable with, though, considering all the negative comments.
“We just think that based on what we’ve seen and we’ve heard from everybody, that we really don’t want to invest the money drilling holes in those two parking lots,” said Jurgens.
Still, he emphasized that nothing’s been decided yet.
“We’re still in the evaluation process,” he said. “We’re not at any point of being able to make any recommendations or being able to put out a footprint for what we would do.”
The City Council is expected to make a final location decision sometime in the next few months.
Location options
WAC Lot – The existing 280-space main Walton Arts Center lot at West Avenue and Dickson Street
South Lot – The existing 60-space lot across from Grub’s Bar & Grille at West Avenue and Spring Street
East Lot – The existing 58-space lot next to Kingfish between School Avenue and Shipley Alley
Theater Lot – The area directly south of the Walton Arts Center’s main facility
Why not build two, smaller (2-3 story) parking structures at the East and South lots? Building a deck on Dickson (current WAC lot) is going to further destroy the look and feel of Dickson Street – already destroyed, in part, by the hideous buildings/parking garage just recently built there.
Stop the destruction of Dickson! Put the parking garages further off… the East and South lots are perfect for this.
Let’s hear from the experts who issued $3.7 million in bonds in 2005 and gave our city the ugliness of that treeless private parking lot in the blighted downtown area at College and Mountain. I don’t recall any citizen input sessions before they made that decision, so this would be an appropriate time to share that vision they had for us.
Do you other than the dilapidated, derelict ridden , rat infested building that was there for promise of a hallmark hotel before the economy fell apart? That lot?
It would be nice to see a parking deck go a little outside of the downtown area(maybe the green space across from Fayetteville High School?) and have a trolley that runs parallel to the tracks through downtown specifically for transporting the parking deck users to the center of town. It would deter traffic away from downtown while still allowing quick and easy access to Dickson St. and the University. Maybe then we could scrap the East and South parking lots from downtown and allow for more bars/restaurants/housing to come in..
There are like 4-5 parking decks within walking distance of Dickson Street right now that hardly no one uses.
Probably so, but if they’re considering putting another one up regardless, I’d rather see it a little further out. The downtown area shouldn’t be filled with random parking lots and parking decks, thats not what attracts people to downtown Fayetteville.
I like this idea. Put the deck a few blocks out, with a wide, well-lit section of trail leading to Dickson. Charge nothing for car parking, but a reasonable fare to ride a shuttle that operates on weekends only.
As a recent grad who transplanted to Savannah, Ga, I would recommend the city of Fayetteville look at what the city of Savannah did here. At one of the most commonly used areas of the district they implemented an underground parking garage and revitalized the core of the downtown historical district, replicated an original square, and simplified access on all points to the city market and congress st. entertainment area. Instead of building up, they went down and now Savannah is now considered one of the top travel destinations to visit in the US.
They’re not going to build on the WAC lot. The old people that run this town, or the tribe of elders as I call them, have larger plans for that prime real estate than a parking lot, or deck. They’re waiting for the market to recover, issue more large scale building permits for housing downtown, and in a few years develop the WAC lot.
Trust me, Doc Brown took me for a ride in the Delorean last night and I saw Fayetteville in the future.. Oh, and the Razorbacks are going to lose 4 games this season, sad I know, but the sports almanac says so.
Great Scott! Will they be building a Pleasure Paradise Casino & Hotel?
I want that cool urban oasis parking deck they built in Miami that caused everyone to freak out.
I’m only halfway kidding. If you make the parking deck/garage/whatever as awesome as the area around it, then there’s no need to try to hide it several blocks away (which is kind of insane to me…like downtown Fayetteville is suddenly like Silver Dollar City where you take a tram from a big lot to your destination). Make the parking deck the destination and you’ve solved two problems.
Why is it totally insane to decrease the automobile traffic and increase foot traffic in a downtown area that obviously has parking issues. And having the deck several blocks away allows for more business and housing combos to go in vs business and parking combo (which I’m guessing is what you meant by making it “the destination”. The idea is based on the fact that downtown Fay will continue to grow and in my opinion, its better to have bars, restaurants, and housing bringing people and money downtown rather than spicing up a parking deck to try and make it as “amazing as the areas around it” – its a parking facility, you can only do so much.. have a little vision for what downtown Fayetteville could be in 10,15, even 20 years, and then the idea makes a little more sense.
You have a much more optimistic view of the future than I do. People don’t like to walk. In 10-15 years most people will just have Segways making up their lower halves. I wish you were right and that people will want to decrease the auto flow to downtown, though. I really do.
PS – in terms of “you can only do so much” – have you seen that Miami deck? It’s modern architecture. I’m just saying…if parking decks are going to be a necessity, why not make them as beautiful and awesome as possible and not feel like we have to hide them.
FYI, When the city administration quotes the MAB parking study that says we need 1200 spaces, therefore we must build this deck, here’s the key paragraph of the study:
“The parking forecasts assume that the proposed developments on Dickson Street, which are currently conceptual, are completed and occupied around the time the deck is open, and that the proposed 2,500 seat performing arts theater is successful.”
Please Dan go back on the road and let the city move forward. You had your run and it’s over.
Ugh! Here goes Coody again. Mr. Coody, Go back to Texas….. Your arrogant untrustworthy ways are not forgotten.
What do either of your comments have to do with this parking study?
Here’s the deal Mr. Coody, I recall many “facts” from many consultants that your administration hired and these facts are subjective. Findings based on assumptions are not actually facts. They are simply an opinion based on assumptions at the time of the study by a consultant that is not infallible . Only in a controlled study with constant and controlled variables that show reproducible results can one statisticly state something is a fact. A social study such as a parking deck study can only show hypothesis drawn from constants and variables considered at the time of the study. The hypothetical is then presented as assumptions drawn by the consultant based on their personal and/or professional beliefs, attitudes and values which may be quite different from the assumptions drawn by another consultant looking at the same information. Taking a paragraph out of a study to support an argument is commendable but an untrustworthy person can twist the information to fit their personal argument. This does not make it a fact. I guess what I am saying, in this case one must consider the source. Therefore, I conclude your argument may in my opinion be invalid. This is my opinion and not stated as “fact.”
Michael, the quoted paragraph doesn’t mention any “facts”…but thanks for the informative tirade. The quoted section uses words like “forecast”, “assume”, “proposed”, and “conceptual.”. I’m sure you could actually use that quote to support your own viewpoint about the need for a deck, if you have such an opinion. All I know is that you really don’t like Dan Coody.
Thanks Michael, now put another dollar in the meter.
I’d rather have Dan than the current administration. If you look how messed up Block street is, I can’t even imagine what a needed* parking deck would be like.
*Remember the Waltons moved on and were not going to donate their portion of the money if the Art Center was to be expanded in Fayetteville.
The “fact” is that the parking study was conducted with assumptions about Dickson Street that no longer apply.
I’m not angry when facts are presented. Thanks for presenting facts.
I thought this was an interesting article that has some relevance to this discussion.
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/apr/22/local-eateries-feeling-bite-food-prices-20120422/?business-arkansas-nwa
I have worked, lived and played on Dickson Street since 1993. Dickson Street does not need a parking deck.
What is your point here? Have you concluded that there is not and will not be a need for any additional parking and that adding 300 spaces is a bad idea?
Exactly. In light of recent WAC decisions, there is neither current nor foreseeable needs for the deck.
Yes, Mr. McLemore, you were clear. My question was for Mr. Coody, who cited a sentence in some consultant’s report, without getting to his conclusion. Sometimes he offers us his advice on how to design and locate the deck, then he enigmatically throws out the above tidbit. I was trying to understand why. Not that it really matters, I guess.
I think that before we proceed with the current plan, we need to first determine exactly how many spaces we do need based on the real world situation. If we build 300 more spaces when we only need 100, then yes, it is a bad idea. I can’t say with any confidence, what we need. All I’m saying is we have an opportunity to do much more than just build a parking deck that will depend solely on this existing paid parking program to pay for it..
We should follow through with the downtown master plan. We built real consensus around that plan so we should do our best to see it come to fruition. We aren’t going to get any expansion of seating for the WAC and that should have an impact on the study’s projections. I posted on my Facebook page a proposal that is too long to copy here, but I plan to modify it somewhat, taking into account this “new” information.
I would have posted the entire MAB parking study executive summary here but alas, it is a PDF that would not allow me to copy and paste.
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Coody.
Personally, I like the idea of building down instead of up. Higher cost, sure, but with the topography of the area, it would have very interesting architecture. It would address many of the operational, logistical and aesthetic objections. The geology might not support it, but it’s too far out of the “box” to happen anyway.
jmo
That administrative wac building needs to be destroyed anyways, my friend does bug treatment there and says the walls are infested with cement bug nests.
A “cement bug”?
Where it needs to be built is Bentonville. They are the ones who are going to need it once they open up their new bigger and better WAC. It is simply not going to be needed in Fayetteville. It is sad but true.
Yes
I do think Coody’s approach is more reasonable than anything I’ve heard out of the Marr administration:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/dan-coody-for-fayetteville/fayetteville-parking-deck-issue-submitted-by-dan-coody/340605852663631
That is funny. Forgot all about the MARR. Geez what a piece of work!
Just to throw it out there one more time, I still haven’t seen an Economic Impact Study or a Needs Assessment for a parking deck in the downtown area. I think the closest we have is a 9 year old downtown development plan, well before all of the private lots and the new decks on Dickson went in. I can’t fathom that we’re seriously considering this without someone sitting down and crunching some numbers on what it actually means.
Remember folks, we just dropped a million bucks on a automated paid parking system that works so well that we have to get people to go out with cardboard signs and collect cash only from the WAC lot on weekends. When we’re spending money, shouldn’t play anything by ear.
Right on.
You have not seen a recent study because there hasn’t been one. The study that the City is using to justify the deck assumed a finished, opened, and successful 2500 seat hall at the WAC and all the commercial development proposed by the Downtown Master Plan being complete. Even though the hall is going to Bentonville and none of the commercial has happened, that study is still being used as the justification for a bond issue with a projected cost of $10.125 million. Also, the FPL deck has been built and The Dickson has 150 spaces that are available for public parking at least for a good while. A study based on today’s reality and realistic projections could open up many different options that have been voiced by others, such as a master plan with the WAC for better parking, commercial liner buildings, some green space, outdoor event space, etc. The biggest problem is this: If a revenue bond issue is passed that is dependent on the income from fees and fines from the current parking program, that system will be with us for the next 20 to 25 years. I think building a deck in the right way opens up lots of opportunities in the area, and there are ways to pay for it other than the current parking program.
We need REAL public input and an a REAL evaluation of the situation. And it needs to include a REAL assessment of the impact of the paid parking program, for better or worse. If the City is unwilling to do this, it may take concerned citizens to pull together a meeting to look at a broad range of issues concerning this situation.
I regret not paying attention to this issue until recently. Can someone tell me what the City’s position is with respect to the outdated MAB parking study? Has the City acknowledged subsequent WAC decisions placing their proposed venues in Bentonville and on the U of A campus? Or more simply, what is the City’s current justification for this expenditure? Thanks for any enlightenment you are able to supply.
Todd Gill! Kent brings up a good point. many people were out of the loop when discussion started on this. Can you post your archive on the public meetings on this issue and the early discussion of the paid parking program? Thanks!
Kent, please see my reply to Arch above. It may answer some of your questions. If you want to see the entire MAB parking study or just the executive summary, I can forward it to your email account.
I’ll post them in this comment, but for future reference, those links can be found in the bottom-right of the sidebar under “Current & Ongoing Topics” or you can view all the tags in the upper-right of the sidebar under “Tags.”
» Paid Parking Program (47 posts), October 2009-April 2012
» Downtown Parking Deck (13 posts), November 2009-April 2012
Thanks Todd. We were out of town for a lot of this, it will be good to catch up on the history.
Essentially, I think the City’s justification for this deck is that the Mayor said he would build one, so he’s going to build one.
As for comparisons between Block Ave. and the debacle of the Dickson Street “Enhancement” project, don’t forget the tragedy of the boulder in the middle of the road at Block and Dickson, the fact that ALL of the individual brick crossings have either been replaced or are in desperate need of it, and that most of the walls that were built are in various states of decomposition. Those ‘enhancements’ either didn’t work or didn’t last long. THAT was a waste of money. It has proven to be a lot like Block Ave.–great intentions, poor execution.
jmo
It does seem like a headstrong rush into this with no turning back.
In spite of all his promises to the contrary, it appears that Jordan listens, but only to a select few people.
Jordan = Over his head