If the “Theater Lot” at the corner of Spring Street and School Avenue is chosen by the city as the location for a downtown parking deck, WAC officials want to make sure there’s room on-site for potential future expansion.
Photo: Todd Gill, Fayetteville Flyer
The Walton Arts Center’s board of directors maintain that a downtown parking deck is needed in the Fayetteville entertainment district, but concerns about limiting the art center’s growth potential on Dickson Street have thus far prevented them from weighing in on where they’d like to see it built.
Some progress was made on that front Thursday, however, when the board heard the findings from Portland-based Boora Architects.
The firm was hired in May to study the proposed parking deck locations while keeping in mind the Walton Arts Center’s plans for an expanded lobby and backstage, a reconfigured loading dock, and more office space.
Boora officials presented two options outlining a 26,000-square-foot expansion both with, and without, a parking deck on the current campus (Theater Lot). Both options included a second phase which would allow for future construction of a 600-seat theater where Grub’s Bar & Grille is currently located.
The firm also presented a list of several considerations for staff to resolve if a deck were built on the Theater Lot. Concerns include making sure construction doesn’t disrupt performances, and that production crews have proper access to the arts center’s loading dock.
Possible locations
While Thursday’s discussion focused mainly on the Theater Lot, city officials are still considering the WAC Lot as a possible deck location.
Board members Hershey Garner and Mike Johnson said they’d like to see the city re-open discussions about a third lot, located just south of Kingfish on School Avenue.
“I still think there’s a benefit to both the city and the Walton Arts Center to look at the East Lot,” said Johnson, who suggested the possible acquisition of three properties along Spring Street including High Roller Cyclery.
Mayor Lioneld Jordan said after the meeting, however, that he did not believe the City Council would be in favor of condemning any property. “You never say never, but that’s not something the Council likes to do,” he said.
Several board members, including Garner, said that both options presented by Boora were acceptable, but more work still needs to be done before they are ready to make a final recommendation.
The board voted unanimously to pass a resolution asking Walton Arts Center staff and the board’s parking deck committee to continue conversations with city staff. The resolution also asked that staff work with the city to look beyond the Theater Lot and the WAC Lot.
While the final decision on where to locate the deck will be up to the Fayetteville City Council, Mayor Jordan said knowing where the arts center stands on the issue would definitely be helpful.
“We don’t want to go forward with something, and the (Walton Arts Center) board is against it,” he said.
Parking deck project manager David Jurgens said he expects the City Council to begin formal discussions on the location sometime in August or September.
“I don’t know if I’ll have a recommendation or not,” said Jurgens. “But I’ll have a whole lot of facts ready for them to help them make their decision. From there, it’s going to be up to them to decide where to put it.”
» Download the Boora presentation
Site Concept 1 – Without on-site parking deck
Site Concept 2 – With on-site parking deck
Good grief! Where did the plan for a future 600 seat theater on the Grubb’s site come from? This meeting is the absolute first time a theater in addition to the concert hall now slated for the UA campus has been mentioned that I can find. It has always been portrayed that the UA concert hall was a relocation of the 600 seat theater site originally planned for Dickson. The $1 million request of the A&P needs to go to the Dickson expansion- not an on campus site.
As for the parking deck- it still seems the current WAC lot is the logical location if the deck can’t be worked ito plans for the lot south of the WAC.
Dear Mr. Coody,
Just what exactly is your plan to fix Dickson parking??? Will you debate Mr. Jordan on this??
Sincerely,
Everyone
http://i.imgur.com/vESj1.gif
A very interesting proposition. I’d enjoy watching Coody squirm.
I doubt you’d see much squirming. Dan seems to have a coherent, well-thought out plan for Dickson and downtown. He has posted it several places.
Coody is a lot smarter than Jordan. He is a much better speaker, too.
A kind word is always appreciated. Thanks, sansgluten!
Whatever. This is the most screwed up bunch of BC I’ve ever heard. You’ve got the WAC paying for architects deciding how the City should spend its Tax Money to build parking for the WAC.
Instead of beating around the bush and half-truths, just put it out there on front street. The WAC wants a new lot. They don’t have the money to build one, or the authority to condemn adjacent property. So we’ve got the mayor’s office pretending that this is for the Good of Dickson Street (even though half the lots up and down the block are full once a year). It has NOTHING to do with anything but WAC expansion and parking for WAC patrons.
You know what, Jordan, you want to build the WAC a new deck, fine. But stop lying to us. None of us are stupid, and if you don’t think the public will support a WAC parking deck on the merits of the WAC alone, if you think we need to hide it under all this BS and then spring out the WAC connection at the last minute or the people won’t support it, then that tells me you believe the people think you shouldn’t be spending money on a WAC deck. Which stupefies me as to why this is even a debate.
Although, I have no personal argument with Lioneld. He wants to do right by Fayetteville, but he and I just have two very different views of what that is.
What is going on with this proposal and why is it being sprung on us now? Mayor Jordan? Mr Coody? City Council reps? Will someone please explain?
The first thing to understand is, it is not yet toolate to do this in a way that will work well for everyone involved. The current parking program was implemented before there were well defined goals or plans on the table. That needs to be the first step and the public needs to be fully involved in the process.
The goal needs to be: what is in the best long-term interest of the health and vitality of our downtown and entertainment district. To me, the word,entertainment, makes me think “fun”. What we have now does not support that image. The paid parking was rushed into place before we even knew what we wanted or needed and why. In 2007, the first step we took was to ask private partners to make proposals for the construction of a parking deck in conjunction with retail, residential ,commercial, hotel, and performing arts hall, as well as an event space. We got two strong proposals. That is where I would start again. After exploring to what extent private money would fund the project, we would begin the work of taking public input on the designs and public spaces. We would then have an idea up front about the project, design, and cost of what we would be getting before any public money is committed. After fully vetting the plans, which would include a master plan for all the public space around the art center, we would then determine the funding streams. We would not depend solely on the parking fees and tickets of patrons. With that approach, we could have a parking program that would be more inline with other towns our size and be more user friendly.
In the proposals that were submitted in 2007, the decks had cashiers. We could put modern meters at every on-street spot to be more convenient. We could have a less punitive ticketing system like most cities (lower fine, first time warning, more relaxed attitude), a more reasonable enforcement time frame (no other city we can find has the hours of enforcement we do) and require better signage on the private lots if we are unable to work out a lease agreement to eliminate the booting and towing. In addition to meters we could leave the kiosks in place to be used by those who like being able to use their cell phones to pay. We already bought them so we might as well use for them. Using private sector money to help pay for this, no one group (downtown patrons) will be burdened with the entire bill. That will make it possible to have a parking system that doesn’t discourage people from making a quick visit to Dickson St. or to come spend a relaxing evening.
But the public would be first and foremost in the discussion. Good leadership should provide a basic direction and framework and then see how the public wants to either nurture the details or scrap the concept altogether. My experience tells me that a good plan with a clear vision and strongly encouraged citizen input will result in public buy-in. If anyone would like, go to my coodyformayor page and read teh req
Oops, not finished for posting. R
ead the Request for Proposals we sent out. I think you’ll see what’s possible. The files for the responses was too big to email, so we will put them up, as well.
This is solid. This is the kind of stuff I like to hear from leadership–well reasoned, “holistic” solutions where the whole is actually greater than the sum of its parts. Jordan seems to have adopted the term from Dan, but I don’t see that he knows what it truly means. And I’m not trying to be mean-spirited. I just find the difference between the two men’s leadership abilities to be striking. One has vision, the other seems to be easily swayed and pushed by whoever is in the room at a given moment. One of the reason Matt Petty is gaining everyone’s admiration is that he also has vision for what improvements the community can make, and the work ethic and courage to bring those visions to fruition. Petty is always actively seeking new ideas and working to make things better downtown. The bikeway is a good example. Spearheading a conversation about how to improve Center Street is another example. Not all of our alderpersons take the same initiative. Some appear happy to show up every few weeks, browse a packet and cast a vote. We need more of this ACTIVE, forward-thinking leadership in Fayetteville.
“were” too big to file.
Here it is. It’s long, sorry. Dickson Street Parking, request for proposals, 2007.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 1 of 10
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Dickson Street Parking Structure: For a
Public – Private Partnership to facilitate the
Acquisition and Development of a Public
Parking Structure and Ancillary Uses
RFP #: 07-13
DATE ISSUED: Friday, July 27, 2007
DEADLINE: Friday, September 07, 2007 on or before 2:00 PM, CST to
113 W. Mountain, Room 306, Fayetteville, AR 72701
PURCHASING AGENT: Andrea Foren, (479) 575-8220, aforen@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 2 of 10
City of Fayetteville
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure: For a Public-Private Partnership to Facilitate the
Acquisition and Development of a Public Parking Structure and Ancillary Uses
Project Information & Requirements
Overview
The City of Fayetteville is interested in partnering with a private developer to facilitate the financing
and development of a Public Parking Structure and Ancillary Leaseable Space which may include
Retail, Office, and Multi-family Residential uses on property immediately adjacent and contiguous to
the Walton Arts Center.
Depending on market conditions and other factors, the new structure(s) is expected to contain a
minimum of 200,000 gross square feet, plus a parking structure with a minimum of 500 spaces not
including those necessary for the private development.
The City of Fayetteville has the need to provide additional parking for the Walton Arts Center and
their planned expansion along with the need for additional and convenient parking for the
West/Dickson Streets entertainment area. The City has an ownership interest for the property to be
considered within this project. Additionally the City has an existing surface parking lot to the west of
the Walton Arts Center, a second surface parking lot south of the Arts Center, and a third surface lot
east of the Arts Center.
Goals and Objectives
The City is seeking to select competitively a private developer (the Developer) to assist the City in
designing, financing, constructing and managing a new mixed use property; the City is considering
managing the operation of the parking structure. Depending on market conditions and other factors,
the new facilities are expected to contain a minimum of 200,000 gross square feet, plus a parking
structure with a minimum of 500 spaces not including those necessary for the private development
and consist of a combination of uses which may include Retail, Office, and Multi-family Residential
areas. This development opportunity is hereinafter referred to as the “Project.”
The objectives of the Project include (1) providing parking for the Walton Arts Center; (2) providing
parking for the expanding activities of the Dickson Street Entertainment District; (3) providing daytime
off-campus parking options for University of Arkansas students; and (4) providing retail, office
and multi-family residential housing options within the central city area.
To ensure that objectives are achieved, i.e. an economically strong and active center city and
West/Dickson Street area, the City intends to competitively select a private developer who can
demonstrate a track record of developing public/private projects comparable with the scale and
character outlined above.
The City of Fayetteville has an adopted Master Plan and Downtown Master Plan. It is an objective of
the City to promote development compatible with these planning documents. The project design
should incorporate the use and design objectives of these planning documents. The ultimate design
of all buildings related to this project should qualify for LEED Certification.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 3 of 10
Project Description
General: The Project will be developed on land owned by the City of Fayetteville, AR and its other
public partners. The City will execute a ground lease with the Developer. The ground lease will allow
the Developer to finance, design, build and own all or part of the facility. The developer should
determine if the area is eligible for New Market Tax Credits or other similar programs.
Programmatic Requirements: The Project is anticipated to be a minimum of 200,000 gross square
feet plus a parking structure with a minimum of 500 spaces not including those necessary for the
private development.
Process
The successful Developer candidate will have the opportunity to develop, own and manage a new
building(s) in one of the region’s most dynamic environments. The building(s) is expected to benefit
from market development activities of the City. In turn, the new facility is expected to provide longterm
economic support to the community.
The City intends to advance its development strategy at this point by soliciting proposals from
interested, appropriate, and qualified private sector development firms for the design, financing,
construction, management and ownership of a multi-tenant, multi-use building(s). The successful
Developer candidate is expected to plan and execute this building in a collaborative effort with the
City and under business terms that are acceptable and meet the objectives of the City.
Only selected candidates short listed from RFQ 07-07, Dickson Street Parking Structure will be
allowed to respond to this request for proposal. Such short listed firms include and are limited to
Performa Entertainment and Signet Enterprises. Proposals received from firms not short listed from
RFQ 07-07 will not be considered.
The principal objectives to be addressed in the final selection are:
1. Capital for the building and site improvements to be provided by the Developer unless
alternative sources are suggested or approved by the City
2. Land for the building is to be leased from the City by the Developer on a long term basis
under a non-subordinated, participating lease (terms to be negotiated)
3. The City will have none of its capital at risk at any time except for that necessitated by a
revenue short fall in relation to parking deck income stream.
4. Development and marketing functions to be executed under collaborative arrangements
with the City
5. The City is expected to have a strong role in tenant selection with appropriate protection
being provided for the Developer’s interests
6. The City is to have final approval rights over conceptual master plan considerations,
building architectural and site plans, building elevations, provisions for building and site
management, permitted uses within the facility, etc.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 4 of 10
Specific RFP Response Requirements
Each Proposer is expected to avail themselves to any and all public information concerning the City’s
desire to provide additional parking for the Dickson Street area, expansion plans for the Walton Arts
Center, opportunities for leaseable space within the proposed development, the market for payparking
within the City of Fayetteville, the “Dickson Street Parking Deck Feasibility Study” (available
by e-mailing aforen@ci.fayetteville.ar.us), and the City of Fayetteville adopted Downtown Master
Plan.
Respondents to this RFP are requested to provide the following information:
1. Letter of Interest / Intent to participate from the Developer (maximum 2 pages)
2. Description of the Developer and its development team
• Description, history, and orientation or investment focus of Developer, including
biographic information on principals and key managers. Designate the principal project
executive.
• Description of team members including architects, land planners, engineers, and other
associated consultants. Include brief biographic materials on leadership of each team
participant. Provide listing and description of comparable project accomplishments by all
team participants, both in projects executed in conjunction with this developer and
independently or with others.
3. Statement of Developer Qualifications and Experience
• List all comparable projects under development or completed within the last 5 to 10 years.
Discuss roles played by Developer and/or team members. If comparability is not obvious,
please explain why such project should be so considered.
• Provide performance data and summary for 3 to 5 selected projects. Include references
and contact information for each such project.
4. Provide financial data and statements requested below. Any such data or information
provided to the City in connection with this RFP shall be held confidential by the City and its
advisors.
• Summary financial statements indicating Developer resources and ability to execute the
project (estimated to contain a minimum of 200,000 gross square feet plus parking
structure).
• Record of financing procured for projects of comparable size, nature and complexity.
• Listing of on-going projects with total cost to complete each, Developer commitments for
each, development status with estimated dates of completion.
• Intended sources and methods of financing for the intended Project.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 5 of 10
• Record and status of any bankruptcy or lawsuits (greater than $500,000).
• At the Developer’s option, provide contact information for an officer of a financial
institution who has done business with the Developer and who is authorized to discuss the
financial information submitted to the City by the Developer.
5. Deal Issues and Questions: Developer candidates are requested to address specifically the
following questions indicating their approaches to dealing with the issues raised by these
questions:
• What is the candidate’s suggested deal structure to respond to the City’s objectives?
• What is an acceptable land lease Term (minimum & maximum) and what Extension Options
would be desirable?
• Suggested provisions for determining land lease base rate, re-set points, and rent
participation above the base rent depending on project performance? Anticipated amounts,
terms and conditions which will be further refined in subsequent negotiations with the
successful candidate Developer.
• Possible solutions to issues (if any) presented by the City’s need to avoid lease
subordination to Developer financing?
• Intended method of Developer financing for the project?
• Developer’s expectation of the role of City in development and marketing processes
involving the project?
6. What is candidate’s preference relative to management of building operations and tenant
relations once the facility is occupied?
• Each proposal must include the future proposed relationship between the private partner and
the City,
• The resources that the private partner will provide to the project,
• The resources other than land that the City will be requested to provide,
• The proposed area of leaseable space to be included in the development for non-parking
purposes,
• The proposed uses of the leaseable space not within the parking structure,
• The responsibility of the private partner and the City after construction and the building is in
operation,
• The responsibility for maintenance of the various public and private areas within the
structure,
• The responsibility for long-term rehabilitation of the various public and private areas within
the structure,
• The mechanism for dissolving the public/private partnership at some unknown point in the
future,
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 6 of 10
• Valid Proposal Form (included in this request for proposal),
• Any other items to be required of the City,
• Any additional issues that the Proposer wishes to include within the proposal
Selection Process
An eight-person selection committee made up of one (1) Alderman and five (5) City of Fayetteville
employees, one (1) Walton Arts Center representative, and one (1) University of Arkansas
representative will review the requested responses. Final recommendations will be made to the City
Council.
Judgment of proposals will be based on the selection criteria outlined in the next section.
The City Council of the City of Fayetteville will make the final decision on which proposal to use.
Criteria:
The selection and recommendation will be based upon the extent to which the submittal conforms to
the terms of this RFP and, further, upon which submittal is deemed to be in the best interests of the
City of Fayetteville. Consideration also will be given to the submittal that best embraces the
community as a whole. Each submittal will be evaluated on the following criteria:
• 20% – Qualifications in Relation to Specific Project to be Performed: Information reflecting
qualifications of the firm. Indicated specialized experience and technical competence of the
firm in connection with the type and complexity of the service required.
• 10% – Experience, Competence, and Capacity for Performance: Information reflecting the
names, titles, and qualifications (including experience and technical competence) of the major
personnel assigned to this specific project. Provide detailed breakdown of subcontractor’s staff
to be used and how they are to be used to supplement your staff.
• 20% – Work Method: A proposed work plan (description of how the project would be conducted
as well as other facts concerning approach to scope you wish to present) indicating methods
and schedules for accomplishing each phase of the work. Include with this the amount of work
presently underway.
• 10% – Past Performance: Previous evaluations shall be considered a significant factor. If
previous evaluations with this City are not available, the professional firm’s past performance
records with others will be used, including quality of work, timely performance, diligence, ability
to meet past budgets, and any other pertinent information. The firm will provide a list of similar
jobs performed and the person with that firm from whom the City can obtain information.
• 20% – Cost Ratio: Division of costs between the City and the private developer and methods
of financing total project.
• 20% – Financial Viability: Financial viability to undertake and maintain project timeline.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 7 of 10
City of Fayetteville
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure: For a Public-Private Partnership to Facilitate the
Acquisition and Development of a Public Parking Structure and Ancillary Uses
Project Information & Requirements
1. To be considered for evaluation, written submittal must be received by Friday, September 7,
2007 at 2:00 PM, Central Standard Time in the format set forth in the accompanying documents.
A non-responsive or incomplete submittal will not be considered. Eight (8) copies of the
submittal in addition to a properly formatted electronic copy on a CD shall be mailed or hand
delivered to the address listed below. Please submit electronic copies in PDF format if possible.
The outside of all delivered documents must be labeled “RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking
Structure”.
City of Fayetteville
Attention: Andrea Foren – Room 306
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
2. No late submittal will be accepted.
3. It shall be clearly understood that any costs incurred by the Developer in responding to this
request is at the Developer ‘s own risk and expense as a cost of doing business, and the City is
not liable for reimbursement to the Developer for any expense so incurred, regardless of
whether or not the submittal is accepted.
4. Any inquiries or requests for explanation in regard to the City’s requirements should be made
promptly to Andrea Foren, City of Fayetteville, Purchasing Agent by e-mail
(aforen@ci.fayetteville.ar.us) or telephone (479.575.8220). No oral interpretation or
clarifications will be given as to the meaning of any part of this request for proposal. All
questions, clarifications, and requests, together with answers, if any, will be provided to all firms
that have indicated an interest or intention to submit responses, but the names of any firms
submitting any questions, clarifications, or requests will not be disclosed until after the deadline
for submitting responses.
5. Any conditions or expectation on the part of the Developer for performance by the City must be
set forth in the response. The City is not obligated to consider the Developer ‘s post submittal
terms and conditions.
6. At the discretion of the City, one or more firms may be asked for more detailed information
before final ranking of the firms, which may also include oral interviews.
7. The City will not be responsible for misdirected submittal. Developers should call the
Purchasing Office at (479) 575-8220 to insure receipt of their submittal documents prior to
opening time and date listed above.
8. Any information provided herein is intended to assist the Developer in the preparation of
submittals necessary to properly respond to this RFP. The RFP is designed to provide qualified
bidders with sufficient basic information to submit meeting minimum specifications and test
requirements, but is not intended to limit a RFP’s content or to exclude any relevant or essential
data.
9. The RFP and any addenda issued may be obtained from contacting Andrea Foren at
479.575.8220 or aforen@ci.fayetteville.ar.us . Developers are at liberty and are encouraged to
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 8 of 10
expand upon the details, qualifications and submittals to give additional evidence of their ability
to perform and provide a system as described in this RFP. All updates and changes to the RFP
will be e-mailed from Andrea Foren. Each Developer is required before submitting a proposal to
be thoroughly familiar with the requirements and specifications listed in this RFP. Additional
allowances will not be made due to Developer lack of knowledge relating to the terms,
conditions and specifications contained within this RFP. It is the responsibility of the Developer
to determine if any component(s) of this specification do not meet the required standards of
applicable Federal Law or specifications.
10. All submittals must contain the signature of a duly authorized officer or agent of the Firm’s
company empowered with the right to bind and negotiate on behalf of the Vendor for the
amounts and terms proposed.
11. Information provided by developer that is confidential or proprietary must be stamped or marked
“Confidential” or “Proprietary” on the top of the page.
12. The City of Fayetteville requires all vendors and contractors doing business with the City of
Fayetteville not to discriminate against any person on the basis of race, age, color, religion, sex,
ancestry, non-job related handicaps, or national origin. The City requires the contractor to be
familiar with and comply in every respect with Civil Rights Laws.
13. The City of Fayetteville reserves the right to reject any and all submittals and to waive any
informality deemed to be in the City’s best interests.
Contact Information
For all information requests concerning particular project issues, please contact
Gary Dumas
Phone: (479) 575-8330
E-Mail: gdumas@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
For all information regarding proposal delivery, please contact
Andrea Foren
Phone: (479) 575-8220
E-Mail: aforen@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 9 of 10
City of Fayetteville
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure: For a Public-Private Partnership to Facilitate the
Acquisition and Development of a Public Parking Structure and Ancillary Uses
Project Information & Requirements
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:
Proposer must disclose any possible conflict of interest with the City of Fayetteville, including, but not
limited to, any relationship with any City of Fayetteville employee. Your response must disclose if a
known relationship exists between any principal or employee of your firm and any City of Fayetteville
employee or elected City of Fayetteville official. If, to your knowledge, no relationship exists, this
should also be stated in your response. Failure to disclose such a relationship may result in
cancellation of a purchase and/or contract as a result of your response. This form must be completed
and returned in order for your bid/proposal to be eligible for consideration.
PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS, AS IT APPROPRIATELY APPLIES
TO YOUR FIRM:
____________1.) NO KNOWN RELATIONSHIP EXISTS
____________2.) RELATIONSHIP EXISTS (Please explain below)
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FILL OUT THE SECTION BELOW AND SUBMIT THIS FORM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL:
I, as an officer of this organization, or per the attached letter of authorization, am duly authorized to
certify the information provided herein are accurate and true; and
My organization shall comply with all State and Federal Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination
requirements and conditions of employment.
____________________________________
Printed Name
____________________________________
Signature
___________________________________
Date
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure with Ancillary Retail, Office, Museum, Residential Uses – Selected Private Partner Solicitation
Page 10 of 10
City of Fayetteville
RFP 07-13, Dickson Street Parking Structure: For a Public-Private Partnership to Facilitate the
Acquisition and Development of a Public Parking Structure and Ancillary Uses
Project Information & Requirements
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Please Print or Type
Company Phone:
Address:
Fax:
City: Email:
State: Web Site:
Zip Code: Tax ID or
SSN:
Submitted by: (printed name):____________________________________________
Authorized Signature: ___________________________________________________
Date: ________/____________/ 2007
All inclusive proposals must be submitted no later than Friday, September 7, 2007 2:00 PM,
Central Standard Time, to the City of Fayetteville, Purchasing Office, Room 306, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 72701 in a sealed envelope marked “RFP 07-13,
Dickson Street Parking Structure”.
Each Developer will be required to meet or exceed the specifications attached. Any deviation must be
noted with specifications attached to the proposal documents.
Questions related to the proposal process should be directed to Andrea Foren, City of Fayetteville Purchasing
Division, (479) 575-8220, or by e-mail aforen@ci.fayetteville.ar.us.
So would you be willing to debate with him about the parking????
Totally.
What say you Mr. Jordan? Ready to debate? When and where?
An extra 30,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space in the Dickson area would be incredible. This is the kind of project Dickson needs along with the parking deck, and more apartments within walking distance of everything. We don’t need a giant, generic parking structure which adds nothing to the streetscape and sits mostly empty.
Agreed completely. Fayetteville needs more urban residential development. No more of these cookie cutter apartment buildings scattered throughout the town. We’re a small city on the scale of things and our “sprawl” has already started. Better urban planning and development is needed.
Totally agree. We’ve got to learn to grow up, not out (in every sense that sentence can be taken.) Sprawl has got to be seen as a thing of the past. A giant generic parking lot is an eyesore and sits empty until “show” night. This is a huge wast of resources, and a relic of a improvident era. We MUST grow with thoughtful consideration of our footprint in every way. Don’t cut down more trees when you already have a wasteland of asphalt to build UP on.
And please don’t take away High Roller Cyclery. That corner, with it’s quirky steps and funky building is exactly the kind of thing we need to keep in this area. Let’s not become a “beige” city.
I realize this article is about the parking situation and my request is off topic but could someone confirm that the plan for a 600 seat theater on Dickson is a new development in the WAC’s plans? I have read through old newspaper clippings and posts online and can’t find anything that mentions a oncampus site in addition to a Dickson site. If this is new doesn’t it completley change the dynamics of planning for a deck and the funding of both projects?
From “UA requests $1 million from Fayetteville A&P for 700-seat performing arts center”
http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/07/04/ua-requests-1-million-from-fayetteville-ap-for-700-seat-performing-arts-center/ :
“Walton Arts Center CEO Peter Lane said a recent study indicated that the University of Arkansas, which operates in a partnership with the arts center, was in need of its own additional facility instead of continuing to use the arts center’s Dickson Street venue for concerts and other university performances.”
From Chancellor Gearhart’s letter to the A & P Commission:
“While our department of music has benefitted from the use of the Walton Arts Center, that facility is made available for use only a few days during the year due to its very heavy schedule. It simply is not possible to host all of the university programs in the Walton Arts Center.
“To alleviate these problems and to further the university’s stature as a nationally recognized institution of higher education, our intent is to build and operate a first-class performance venue to host some of the highest-quality performing and visual arts productions in the state and region. When the new facility is completed, a professional business manager will operate the space”
Since the WAC board is still talking about adding a 600-seat performance space in the future despite the announcement of the University’s intentions, and since the University seems to be proceeding with its 700-seat hall independent of the WAC, it appears that they are two separate projects. The situation is made more intriguing by the fact that the WAC board rejected the Fayetteville expansion plan, which integrated the use of University facilities. Also, it is not clear from information currently available, but I expect that some years are likely to pass between the construction of the two venues.
In the words of Deep Throat, “follow the money…”
Some years? There is never going to be an expansion of the Fayetteville WAC. They can say it all they want. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them.
In the case of building on the Theater Lot, it would be foolish for the WAC to insist upon leaving room for a performance facility that they have no intention of building. Doing so constricts the building area for a parking garage, compromising its functionality for parking and limiting the amount of retail and other space that could be added to it, which is a feature the city wants to incorporate.
Of course, they might be trying to force the city to use another location, but that would forfeit the advantage of having a physical connection between the WAC facilities and the parking garage.
I still believe that, given the topography of the area, its long street frontage and the desirability of integrating (and hiding) parking with other uses, the current WAC parking lot is the best location for a parking garage, effectively wrapped with spaces for multiple uses, and having a park on top.
I disagree.
That’s nice. How so?
A park does not go on top of a parking structure. If you want a parking structure, put it west of the E.J. Ball building, The current WAC parking should be a green space for the public with public art and arts, flowing streams and green plants on the ground. If a parking structure west of the E.J. Ball building is too far away for the patrons of the WAC to walk or be shuttled. Buy the already built Underwood parking structure and build a skywalk to the WAC.
mmueller–
RE “A park does not go on top of a parking structure.”
Sure it does. See
http://www.lmu.edu/sites/Community_home/green/The_Campus/Built_Environment/Additional_Features.htm
http://www.ecolandscaping.org/08/green-roofs/the-mandarin-project-%E2%80%93-green-roof-garden-on-a-parking-garage/
“Some of Chicago’s largest green roofs are outdoor green spaces built over underground structures. One example is Millennium Park, an award-winning outdoor center for art, music, architecture and landscape design located in the heart of downtown Chicago. This 24.5-acre public park features the work of world-renowned architects, planners, artists and designers, and is built entirely over two underground parking garages and active commuter rail lines…” from
http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/about_the_city/green_chicago/Green_Roofs_.html
http://inhabitat.com/intexure-architects-transform-parking-garage-into-a-rooftop-zen-garden/
Et cetera, et cetera. A green roof would make the parking garage more pleasant by keeping it cooler in hot weather and reducing runoff from oily concrete surfaces. It also would take full advantage of a surface with interesting views, which would be otherwise wasted, and improve the other elevated views in the area..
RE “The current WAC parking should be a green space for the public with public art and arts…”
A green roof on a parking structure and adjacent structures would accomplish this. A multiple-use structure on the site would provide additional opportunities for the creation and enjoyment of art– sculpture, mural, music, theater. I take it you don’t remember the competition for integrated art projects for the current WAC. Now we have a chance to do it right.
RE “…flowing streams and green plants on the ground.”
That could also be accommodated. See Appendix A, “Concept 2: Exploring Art Through Nature” on Page 26 of Fayetteville’s proposal for the WAC expansion. (I think more could be made of the stream feature.)
http://www.accessfayetteville.org/government/strategic_planning/documents/WAC_Expan_Proposal.pdf
That is your opinion David and I disagree.
I think you have given some great examples of greening our future. And you offer not just suggestions, but references of similar successful projects. Thank you David.
It’s not just my opinion: it’s facts. Photographs and everything. But by all means, disagree, because it’s a free country, and that’s not just my opinion.
Oh, I know– people should just stop comparing Fayetteville to Houston, Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles. Or any of those other places with green roofs.
Images for “parking garage green roof” (Google search; no quotation marks):
http://tinyurl.com/d5x3z73
Images for “green roof” (Google search; no quotation marks):
http://tinyurl.com/cllhzss
I think the major difference is cities like Chicago have all of these concrete monstrosities already built and actually have a need for them and THEN they ask themselves “how can we put a little more green space in our city with such little space”. In that situation it is a very elegant solution to put a park on top of a parking deck. We, on the other hand, are working under the pretense that we need a big parking deck that we don’t need, and then brainstorming to make it less of a waste and an eyesore. We could just as easily skip straight to not having an eyesore to beautify and not build the parking deck. I still strongly prefer building a parking deck right on top of Grubs and then turning that prime location right on dickson into a beautiful park.
Thank you Ryan.
The need for a parking garage is a different subject entirely from.the deployment of a parking garage, which is what mmueller and I were discussing. However:
RE “We, on the other hand, are working under the pretense that we need a big parking deck that we don’t need”
The need is projected, and a parking garage will be built, so it isn’t a pretense; the only real bone of contention is time. However, a level-deck parking garage built as part of a multi-use development can be used for purposes other than parking, especially if its environment is tempered by a green roof. For example, lower levels can be put to immediate use for parking while upper levels can be used for market and fair space– out of sun and rain– until capacity is needed for parking. Parking could then be added incrementally as it becomes necessary.
RE “I still strongly prefer … turning that prime location right on dickson into a beautiful park.”
Part of the problem with that idea is that it is a prime location, and Dickson Street is a street, and the “highest and best use” for that prime location is to make Dickson Street (and West) more streetlike by adding income-generating buildings on the perimeter of that block. (Note that I generally don’t agree with the definition of “highest and best use”.) Strengthening the nature of the street(s) with buildings need not preclude having a beautiful park at that location.
By the way: an elevated park would provide separation from the noise of the street, which would be an advantage for acoustic music and spoken-word events, and it would lessen the effect of amplified music, which is a known problem in the area.
Still don’t like it David. Are you building a ramp from the trail to this park?
If you mean an accessible ramp, probably not– and there is no need for one, as there are other interesting ways to get to a roof. An ascent of forty feet would require an accessible ramp 480 feet long, plus landings. While a lightly-framed ramp structure on the south side of a building could also provide useful shade, there are issues of additional cost, obstruction of view and tenant privacy to consider as well. Depending on the configuration, the ramps in a parking deck, though not necessarily accessible, could be augmented to accommodate pedestrian traffic while maintaining separation between vehicles and people. There might well be room on the WAC parking lot to build a parking garage with accessible ramps, the requirements for intermediate landings would tend to preclude making the vehicle ramps themselves accessible.
The projections are opinions, not based on facts, and are influenced by motives prioritizing the WAC over other downtown businesses. No money has been spent, so it isn’t too late to stop the project (yet), but its getting there.
I’m also wondering why the projected cost of new 300 space XNA parking deck is $2.8 million, and we’re looking at 280 spaces on Dickson for $7million. It ain’t the real estate, the city already owns the big lot next to the WAC.
There won’t be the same constraints on the site at the airport as well as the finishes will be very different. Also, no liner buildings. After looking at the city’s proposal that David posted a link to, I am concerned by the 2 examples of parking decks shown. They have only single story liner buildings. That is not consistent with the master plan, nor the most efficient use of the very valuable real estate footprint and it limits economic vitality.
But I want to bring back the original point that we should develop more on-street parking and utilize all the vacant parking that is already available downtown in the evenings. The public rallied for a plan that promoted a “superbly walkable” downtown. Why not first focus on improving sidewalks, street lighting, and way finding, and try a simple, free, small electric shuttle that can easily transport patrons from otherwise empty parking lots to places where they want to go (see Crystal Bridges). Today we see two different downtowns, one around Dickson, the other around the Square. But they are only blocks apart. We should start looking at the area as a single downtown and plan accordingly.
We should encourage small, unique businesses to take root in downtown, have a single, simple, uniform parking program, have free parking after 5 and on weekends, a convenient electric shuttle, and let the private sector build our parking garage for us along with more commercial opportunity. Relying on a confusing and aggressive parking program and tickets to pay for a garage and not take a broad, long view is very short-sighted. We should take a holistic view of our downtown area, design a future that has more commercial, retail, and residential space, a beautiful pocket park/greenspace with a splash pad (see Bentonville), an area for events and make our WHOLE downtown the envy of cities everywhere. This is not the path we are on. Once the mayor sells bonds to build a parking garage and lock in parking fees and tickets to pay for it, the bonds will be with us for 25 years, and the garage will be with us for 70. If we do not do this right, the lost opportunity will be permanent and it will be our own fault.
Every decision on parking– whether on-street, lot, or parking garage– is based on projections and opinions. Try to cope.
One reason I prefer integrating a parking garage with other uses is that it lessens the influence of the Machiavellian WAC and its evil ulterior motives. The WAC parking lot site is the only location near Dickson Street large enough and accessible enough to traffic to allow the integration of a parking garage with retail and other uses without necessarily building a half-assed parking garage and quarter-assed ancillary spaces.
By this logic you’d never have NYC’s Central Park. There’s absolutely no need to build out every square foot of Dickson St. Thats just the expression of the mindset of a real estate agent. Create a green space park there now and people will enjoy it for years with varied uses. It can always be built out later but once a garage is put up you’re stuck with no possibility of green space, ever.
There are two major reasons for the success of Central Park: it is in the midst of a very densely developed city, which provides ample contrast and makes the park more special. Another reason for its success is that it is huge. Its 843 acres– over 1 1/4 square miles– allow it to be a world unto itself.
Neither of these is a consideration in turning the WAC parking lot into a ground-level park. Central Park is a magnificent example of not doing something half-assed. Leaving a gaping hole in the midst of Dickson Street– even with trees on it– would be half-assed.
As for the mindset of a real-estate agent, note that I said above that I don’t generally agree with “highest and best use” as envisioned by real-estate people. Indeed, I have stayed out of real estate in Fayetteville because I don’t like many of the consequences of the real-estate boom from about 1990 on, or of the bust that followed. However, some development is good, and I think a mixed-use development with parking garage and rooftop park (the green space you ignored) would be a far better use of the WAC lot than a ground-level park would be. Like the new library, such a development, well-designed, would be far better than it needs to be.
Put a park on Dickson and while you are at it bulldoze the old post office down on the square and put a park there. The building is never used and it only gets people in trouble.
Sheesh. Don’t even consider bulldozing the old PO. It’s a beautiful building which could be put to good use. How ridiculous to think of taking down our older, interesting, architecture. What would Europe be like if they destroyed their older buildings every 50 – 100 years or so? It would all just be a giant Home Depot surrounded by asphalt. (In other words, the USA.)
Let’s look to European cities as our model. Interesting, respectful of the past, full of parks and nooks and niches, bike-able and walkable, with ample public transportation. Apartments above the street-level businesses. Restaurants, pubs, small unique retail outlets at the street. Yes.
The building isn’t used very efficiently. Buildings are bulldozed everyday. What are we really preserving, nostalgia? We couldn’t even save an old Coke ad painted on a building.
Looking forward to your debate with Mayor Jordan. It should bring out some great ideas from both of you!!! One thing for sure, there is a parking problem on Dickson Street.
There’s a PARK problem on Dickson.
They better not tear down Grubs for a parking garage that nobody will use or a new expanded concert hall that nobody will care about .Since no one goes to dickson street for musicals or plays . They go to Dickson street to eat at the restourants and hang out at the bars and the Grubs bar and Grill is famous around the state of Arkansas and is also shown on Razorback nation on NBC around the state of Arkansas and was also called by a famous writer and sportsreporter for ESPN Rick Rielly called Grubs the best college town bar in the country just last year. The WAC on the other hand is not that famous out Fayetteville or even in Fayetteville and expanding it will do nothing but waste tax payer money and also waste the stupid parking meter money . Tearing down Grubs bar and grill would upset alot visitors from around the state of Arkansas who come grubs every time they visit Fayetteville not the WAC for a musical .
This sounds like a bunch people on the board of the WAC trying to make a bunch of cash and not caring about the city of Fayetteville at all.
I am still waiting for the freedom of informaction act to show us the WAC’s true financial reports since they are getting funded money from the city of Fayetteville in the public parking meters .
The true financial reports should show us how much money the WAC board members have pocketed from all of these delayed decisions to get better bribes from these independant contractors and behind closed door bribe meetings with Mayor Jordan which they have cashed in from the Dickson street paid parking scandal and now Mayor Jordan’s and WAC’s new scam of a switch a-roo for more money for all of a sudden new expanded concert hall with the parking garage when the WAC and Mayor Jordan said months ago the new concert hall was going to be on the UoA campus.
RE “I am still waiting for the freedom of informaction act to show us the WAC’s true financial reports”
You have to request that information yourself. The FOIA doesn’t magically do things for you.
Now I have to wonder what Grub’s puts in their food. Maybe the hamburger buns are the problem:
“But seriously, bread molds can be a dangerous, dangerous drug. It has been hypothesized that the famous 16th century proto-Surrealist painter Hieronymus Bosch may have been influenced by a hallucinogenic medieval bread mold called ergot. And from looking at his paintings, that guy must have been tripping balls.”
http://www.basenow.net/2008/12/10/a-lesson-in-molds/
For the result: http://tinyurl.com/4xpvrq6 The WAC is on the right.
You watch Fox News, don’t you?