A committee of hired consultants and city staff this week made a final recommendation on where to build a planned downtown parking deck.
Staff graphic
When City Council members meet next week to decide where to build the planned downtown parking deck, they’ll have plenty of information about the three possible locations.
Mayor Lioneld Jordan and a committee of hired consultants and city staff this week presented council members with a 143-page study that includes details about each of the proposed sites and a final recommendation on where to build the deck.
After weighing the pros and cons which include nearly two dozen site selection criteria, the group recommended locating the structure on the “Theater site,” located at the southeast corner of the Walton Arts Center campus at Spring Street and School Avenue.
According to the study, a five-level, 246-space deck at the Theater site would cost $6.37 million and would include liner buildings on the ground level of the structure.
The Porter building and Grub’s restaurant building would not be demolished, but the Walton Arts Center’s administration building would be removed, along with a 28-space arts center employee parking lot.
The two other proposed sites are the “WAC lot,” located at the south end of the main parking lot west of the Walton Arts Center, and the “East lot,” located by Kingfish bar on School Avenue.
According to Tuesday’s report, A 339-space deck on the WAC lot would cost $6.38 million. A 293-space deck on the East lot would cost $6.29 million.
Several key factors played into the committee’s final recommendation including the amount of parking spaces lost during construction. A loss of parking means a loss of paid parking fees both for the lost spaces in the construction zone and for whatever spaces are used in a nearby lot for construction staging.
By building a deck on the WAC lot, officials expect to lose $199,000 during construction. The East lot, staff estimates, will result in a loss of $134,500.
A significant loss in fees could require city staff to completely restructure the financing plan for the deck since paid parking revenue is what will cover up to $6.5 million in bonds set to soon be issued for the project. According to Paul Becker, the city’s finance director, a restructuring of the bonds would delay the project even further and could result in the city losing out on record-low interest rates.
“If we stay with the theater site, that would be, financially, the easiest for us to accommodate,” said Becker.
Aldermen will consider each site during the Dec. 4 City Council meeting.
Theater site
Abstract level sketch for massing and scale only. Not a representation of the final design, materials or textures
Location: Southeast corner of the Walton Arts Center campus at Spring Street and School Avenue
Size: Five levels, 246 spaces/218 net gain
Cost: $6.37 million
- The terrain makes the presence of the structure less dominant than East lot
- Least loss of revenue and parking spaces during construction
- Requires relocating Walton Arts Center administration building, but once rebuilt, it could buffer the view of the parking deck from the north
WAC lot
Abstract level sketch for massing and scale only. Not a representation of the final design, materials or textures
Location: Southern portion of the main Walton Arts Center parking lot at West Avenue
Size: Five levels, 339 spaces/242 net gain
Cost: $6.38 million
- Leaves room for future liner buildings on the south side
- Substantial loss of revenue and parking spaces during construction
- Loss of the only remaining large tract of land in the downtown Dickson Street area for future municipal purposes/developments
East lot
Abstract level sketch for massing and scale only. Not a representation of the final design, materials or textures
Location: Existing parking lot by Kingfish bar on School Avenue
Size: Four levels, 293 spaces/233 net gain
Cost: $6.29 million
- Lack of compatibility with the adjacent residential properties
- Moderate loss of revenue and parking spaces during construction
- Procurement of two residential structures and one commercial business along Spring Street
Cost Matrix
| Criteria | Theater | WAC | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall size of parking deck | 246 spaces | 339 spaces | 293 spaces |
| Net Gain | 218 spaces | 242 spaces | 233 spaces |
| Spaces/revenue lost during construction and staging |
28 spaces ($83,700) |
97 spaces ($199,000) |
60 spaces ($134,500) |
| Comparable cost per space | $15,703* | $13,251 | $13,019** |
| Total direct cost (includes liner buildings/screening) |
$6.18 million | $6.18 million | $6.15 million |
| Total indirect costs | $193,700 | $199,000 | $134,500 |
| Total cost | $6.37 million | $6.38 million | $6.29 million |
* Does not include cost to replace Walton Arts Center Administration Building
** Does not include cost to purchase and demolish two properties south of the existing lot
Source: Official site selection study
Selection Criteria Matrix
1 = Least meets selection criteria, 3 = Most meets selection criteria
| Criteria | Theater | WAC | East |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple access points on different levels | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| Access onto multiple adjacent streets | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Pedestrian access | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Avoids impact on school bus parking | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| Efficient use of land as infill, avoids using valuable land for future large scale development |
3 | 1 | 2 |
| Avoids impact on adjacent Residential Properties |
3 | 3 | 1 |
| Avoids impact on adjacent commercial properties | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Avoids reduction of tree canopy | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Allows future vertical expansion | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Allows future horizontal expansion | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Avoids impact on Walton Arts Center expansion/operations | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Room for liner buildings | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Positive effect on festivals | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Good foundation/subsurface conditions | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| Avoids replacement/removal of existing structures | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Total score | 39 | 31 | 31 |
These following criteria are not included in the matrix because they are equally met for each site:
- Internal circulation efficiency
- Passive and active user safety factors
- Structural system and design efficiency
- Sidewalk and green space area
- Fire safety and truck access
- Avoiding impact on school bus drop off
- Storm water management
- Ability to utilize LEED Building Criteria
Source: Official site selection study
well done flyer! very nice comparative analysis.
I will say I think they chose the least objectionable option in my view. I’m glad the liner buildings are back in for now.
Agreed! This was my favorite pick of the locations, nice and tucked away. Liner buildings would be very nice too.
So will the existing WAC lot become greenspace? That would be awesome.
I would love to see that.
The proposed configuration on the theater lot might well result in an adequate parking garage, but it will assuredly result in utterly inadequate liner buildings. Dan Coody has noted, quite correctly, that perimeter occupiable spaces at ground level are not really “liner buildings”, and that we should do better. Further, it appears that the limited area of the occupiable spaces will impose severe restrictions on their usability. If the parking garage must be built in that location, they should use most of, if not all of, the south half of that block, and build a really good garage and great associated spaces.
I have a few quibbles with the selection criteria matrix and some of the assumptions underlying it, but they likely would not have changed the location that was selected..
I’m guessing you mean the difference between “Three Sisters” and “The Garland Center” when distinguishing “liner buildings” from occupiable perimeter spaces.
I like the choice of location, and what is apparently a desire to maintain Grubs’ building. It would be nice if there was something really differentiating the liner building from the parking structure itself. The Garland Center is a good step up from a regular parking structure, but I’d prefer something more along the lines of “Three Sisters”. I think the Dickson area would benefit greatly from some new storefronts. Rents might become more manageable for entrepreneurs. Perhaps the city could initially view it as their own business-incubator.
More attention to details with this project can really influence the whole area in a positive way.
RE “I’m guessing you mean the difference between “Three Sisters” and “The Garland Center” when distinguishing “liner buildings” from occupiable perimeter spaces. ”
Yes.
The best use of land (if it must be developed) is occupation by people. It is a waste of the potential of land to put one story of occupiable space on a limited footprint when multiple stories of occupiable space could be built on a more useful footprint. The way the south half of the lot is parceled off is not efficient for the amount of development that will inevitably happen there, and I believe it severely compromises the quality of the garage project. Not having real liner buildings is a severe downgrade to the ultimate quality of the project, and there is not enough land on the theater lot (as it is shown above) to allow a reasonable footprint for multistory commercial and residential space.
don’t think it’s good public policy for the city of fayetteville to become a commercial real estate developer. note the u of a is currently getting a public spanking from the county tax assessor for getting into the commercial real estate business aka the garland center, campus starbucks, etc.
They should have to pay taxes. All of the rest of us do. I also agree that the city should not get into the rental business, leave that to the people who want to stick their necks out for business. Also that creates other issues such as the self insurance the city does, does this extend to these sort of businesses? I think that the idea of public private partnerships is just plain stupid as is evidence with Renaissance Failure. I usually turns out bad.
While we are building a deck why not go up a few more stories and add even more spaces. Regular bus routes or trolley…?
Viable liner buildings– that is, multistory buildings with adequate footprints and commercially-useful total square footage– can be built and owned independently of the city’s garage structure. The proposed occupiable spaces are more problematic because they are part of the parking structure, and there is no separation of ownership. Contiguous privately-owned retail, office and residential space is made more viable by adjacent covered parking at every level, and the parking garage is made more viable by contiguous human occupancy at every level. The more that can be done to make the parking garage a destination in itself, the better it is for everybody.
Of course also having a park on the roof would be even better. Of course the WAC lot would be a better location for that.
I think this true liner-building idea would be most easily achieved by including a private entity in the planning and construction process. Proposals should be considered from private developers who could even be required to pay part of the costs associated with constructing the garage, letting residents off the hook part of the way for the costs of paying off the bonds. Does this all sound familiar?
I feel like city leadership has no flexibility with public/private cooperative projects at all, rather choosing to err on the side of extreme caution in light of RenTower.
I agree. Paperwork regarding the land and construction can be done to insure completion of the private component, the unity of the end product, and functional independence of the city and private entities. Or perhaps the WAC could undertake to branch out into the commercial real-estate market by retaining ownership of land and offering long-term land leases to developers.
The major policy objection to the Renaissance Tower deal is that it absolutely transferred the benefit .of a piece of property from the city to a developer. That could be avoided with a public-private venture for a parking garage amidst other development.
I seem to remember that the reason the city’s 2007 proposed public/private dream of having a private concern build everything for the city on the west lot went south was a memorandum from the city attorney saying it was unconstitutional. Am I mistaken, or has that changed?
Sounds to me like it came down to lost parking revenue and space for the bikers 3 days a year.
If the selection criteria had been weighted in terms of importance, it might have changed the result. In terms of number of spaces and cost per space, the WAC location has it hands down over the two.
I personally think the south end of the WAC lot has a lot more potential and is a better location. Oh well.
Is it funky ? Old west sidewalks or maybe cafes with outdoor dining like what was wanted on Center Street, something than the plain Jane, lighting , moving sidewalks, food vendors cooking on barrel woks…anyone can pick a spot. Can you make a spot? Make it a place to visit and not a bunch of snotty high dollar stores either.
We don’t need a parking deck. That is all.
“Loss of the only remaining large tract of land in the downtown Dickson Street area for future municipal purposes/developments”
I’m glad this was considered. Putting a parking deck on the WAC lot would be a big wasted opportunity for developing a brilliant public space. I hope some members of the council are thinking that too.
Agreed. I think folks would be willing to eat the loss of Grubs and much of the space at the front of the updated 2015 WAC (per their renders released a few weeks back) if we got a great garden-type space or genuine amphitheater back there instead of a deck.
@David Franks Great point. I thought liner buildings were a great option, but I hadn’t even thought about Three Sisters vs. Garland. Three Sisters blends so well that it doesn’t seem like a parking deck.
Whatever happens here, please leave space for a downtown music venue! While I’m glad they didn’t do what was projected and eat the East lot area for this deck, I was thinking that either that back area of the WAC or the West lot would be great for a permanent music venue downtown. It’d at least be better than giving some of the funds for a building like that to the U of A for building one that they can already handle themselves.
Of course, seeing as the West lot is sacred, the next best thing is probably the Mill District.
what kind of permanent music venue? It seems like there are about 10 or 15 of those up and down dickson street.
Were you not here in the 90s? Before rising rents and taxes causing lots of places to change hands or formats, we had an insanely good local music scene. Having a dedicated music hall or outdoor-type structure for some larger acts would be fantastic, since nothing in the downtown can support that sort of thing the moment except the Arts Center itself, and it’s fairly subpar for music. Stage configuration, seating configuration, and sound all bite for anything but small acts. There’s ample room to do this in the downtown area if planned right.
err, meant to reply to vandelay.
I hate it when I comment in the wrong location. I’d hate it even more if I had a long screen name in all-caps.
Honestly, even having a long, obnoxious all-caps name is preferable to a mistake on Gravatar’s service end causing me to show up with your name and icon. The server would melt down from the traffic. “Hey everybody, that Franks dude stopped trying to be a condescending a-hole when setting people straight, check it out before they take it down!”
This is a good idea for a liner building that maybe the WAC can support or help build. Local music showcase type place. From Goodfolk to all ages punk shows. If we’re dropping $, lets dream bigger than just a parking garage with a few fake storefronts.
I am a huge fan of live music, and was here throughout the 90′s, loving our awesome music scene. I still frequently see local shows. Georges has the big room now and they still book the same quality of touring acts they always have. The front stage in George’s is today’s Chesters. Smoke and Barrel consistently books amazing local, regional, and national touring acts of all genres, including punk, rock, indie, hiphop, country, folk….everything. Rogue has a kickass outdoor stage and brings in an eclectic mix of bands. And of course there are a ton of other stages in bars and restaurants downtown, several of them quite nice. Now, I’m not saying that the music scene is as vibrant as it could (or should) be, I just think that if there’s a weakness in our local music scene, it is not caused by a lack of performance space. Fayetteville has WAY more venues than we had 15 years ago. I think, if anything, we have a lack of adventurous promoters in this town.
I give it to you that the eclecticism is there for the most part, but seriously: for any real draw George’s even with the recent improvements is still too little to be the biggest game in downtown. Today in Fayetteville, you have the choice of: big tent in the middle of a field, or tiny tiny underequipped stage with a college kid working the board. Rogue has the concept right: big stage and dance area with good seating, larger than George’s, put they can’t pull the talent. Smoke and Barrel is terrible for sound, the layout’s no good and the stage is incredibly tiny–even if you think today is fine, we can do better. Look at what Little Rock is doing downtown in the Market area–a lot of the successful owners and promoters down there are ex-Dickson owners (Stickyz, for instance ).
A larger city-owned space for Georges-or-bigger draws downtown lined with retail or something might be just the ticket. It probably wouldn’t work, but marketing it alongside the Amp with the WAC might be a great plan for maximizing the vitality of Dickson and day-to-day use in that half of downtown. It might just also be adaptable enough to be that “black box” theatre the WAC initially promised in the parking arrangement. Target it for music, though, please…
A portion of the success of more meaningful development of the left over spaces after this deck begs some public as to what might be next.
Much better. A true god need not tell people to bow before him.
What will your next miracle be?
What’s going on in Little Rock? What kind of talent are they drawing that we don’t get here in Fayetteville?
I miss Dave’s on Dickson
Oh look, a study!! We couldn’t get one of these over the past 12 months to approve money to build this thing, but here’s a nice one to help show how to spend it.
And… right out of the gate it’s incorrect. The “Background” section referencing the 2005 study states in that a 1,200 space deck is “required”. This is false. The study actually states that a 1200 space deck to help ease UofA student parking in the Dickson area would be “financially viable from development related demand”, at the current time, which is a very different thing. Especially since the 2005 study was conducted to a large degree to provide more campus parking relief during daylight hours on Dickson, and 2 new hi-capacity parking decks have been built on campus, 2 new private parking decks have been added in the Dickson area, the parking system has been completely revamped, and the proposed development (including the expanded WAC) fell through.
Here is a fact, though, the study in 2005 found that at the time there was actually a surplus of 850 parking spaces in Dickson street. Hmmm….., so that’s an 850 spot surplus, plus 4 new parking decks, minus the deck expansion that didn’t happen, and that leaves us with: a parking shortage?
Whew, Good Jorb, Team!!! My faith is restored. Please proceed.