City Council members discuss preliminary design options for the planned downtown parking deck during an input session held Tuesday inside City Hall.
Todd Gill, Flyer staff
Fayetteville residents and City Council members got their first look at the preliminary design ideas for a planned downtown parking deck this week.
City staff, along with representatives from Garver Engineers and AFHJ + Kb Architecture, unveiled several options during a public input session held Tuesday evening.
Aldermen chose a design that included “green screen” native plant lining on the lower level, and red cementitious or weatherized steel panels on top.
Preliminary design view of the deck looking northwest from the corner of Spring and School.
Source: City of Fayetteville
Other options included using copper panel on top, or lining both levels of the deck with a green screen.
Officials said copper would be more durable, but its higher cost would lead to a more exposed deck. While a full green screen would be less expensive up front, its plants would die back in the winter, exposing nearly all of the deck. Plus, Mayor Lioneld Jordan said he didn’t think the city’s budget could handle the constant maintenance that a plant-covered deck would require.
The 246-space, three-story deck is set to be built on the southeast corner of the Walton Arts Center campus at Spring Street and School Avenue.
Plans include a 3,000-square-foot, ground-level liner building, most likely to be used for city parking department employees and police officers. A two-story Walton Arts Center administration building will sit at the north end of the deck to replace the center’s current offices, which are set to be demolished to make room for the project.
Preliminary design view of the parking deck looking west from School Avenue.
Source: City of Fayetteville
Despite the council’s decision, project manager David Jurgens called the design “unofficial” and said some things could change by the time the large-scale development is approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission.
“We’re still very much in the stages of putting together what we need for the Planning Commission process,” said Jurgens. “We’ve not gotten to any of the design details at this point.”
Jurgens said the city would hire a construction management service in mid-April. At that point, he said, the details would start coming together quickly.
Construction of the deck is set to begin this fall and last 12 to 18 months.
Thats great news. Good job council. Now a question for Mr. Petty since he is so kind to give input on the Fabulous Flyer. Why are the parking rates, kiosk and times different for Dickson Street vs Downtown Fayetteville?? Seems like an unlevel playing field. Shouldnt they all be the same? Thank you for your service.
@Lawyer – I don’t have a good explanation for that. It’s frustrating and it needs to be addressed.
When it is addressed though, I’m not sure everything should be “the same.” I think parking rates should be dynamically adjusted to times of day and the locations of the spaces. Spaces in big parking lots that are farther away should cost less than spaces on streets which are right in front of businesses, reflecting the supply and demand of parking. We could implement a dynamic pricing program that would be revenue neutral for the city, cost most patrons less than they are paying now, and increase turnover on the prime spaces. San Francisco started experimenting with dynamic pricing a little over a year ago and I’m anxious to see the results, because it’s a compelling idea.
A bit of a shock for not putting in an extra quarter…last year I received an “expired meter outside downtown core” ticket = $62. If I was downtown, the ticket would’ve been $72. The least expensive parking ticket in SF is $57 for a variety of offenses. The most expensive is $966 – for various handicap accessibility reasons.
Seriously. Most parking violations in Los Angeles are $63. In Boston they’re between $30-$40. Parking tickets of $60 are too punitive, and take money out of businesses because if my meal at Common Grounds just cost $92, I won’t be coming back for a while. There should definitely be fines, but they need to be reasonable for basic violations.
So. Who is going to address??? You? Free parking after 5 in downtown and $$ after five on Dickson??? Sorry Dickson business. That’s a no brainer. Someone needs to address this.
The timing difference is based on peak demands for parking in the different districts, although as the nature of business changes on the square, this is shifting somewhat. More specifically, business on the square primarily takes place during the daytime, which is why they charge for parking during those hours. The situation on Dickson is more complicated, and as you may recall was discussed (and argued) as nauseum when the kiosk system was put in place. Without going through all of that again, I will at least remind you that paid parking in the Dickson district was originally implemented from 10 a.m. til 2 a.m., but it the start time was shifted to 2 p.m. after outcry from a handful of business owners.
Looks like a nice design. Dickson area is a designated Entertainment District, thus the different rates are set up to reflect the different uses and needs — in the Dickson area in part to pay for this deck which will serve the WAC and Entertainment District needs. The entertainment district is part of the Downtown Master Plan. That’s just a citizen answer, Mr. Petty no doubt can give a more thorough explanation.
While it’s not perfect and I would have liked to see the bottom level lined with small shops similar to that along Garland Avenue, it ain’t bad… it ain’t bad.
Commercial liner buildings were discussed, but apparently are prohibited because the city isn’t allowed to rent them without losing the tax-free status of the bonds. There was a short discussion about possibly letting non-profits use the space rent-free, but I didn’t get the sense that the idea was very popular.
Ah, I see… now that’s an issue isn’t it. Quite a shame.
I guess they can just remodel once the bonds are paid off and put in some shops… although governmental entities don’t save and budget very well. So they will have to take out more bonds to pay for it. So I guess shops will never happen.
It does look like a nice preliminary design.
@Dylan – I was disappointed to learn about this restriction on Tuesday. The Council was informed of it, but I must have overlooked it because I don’t remember learning about it.
I said many times throughout the bonding and site selection process that I thought the best course of action for constructing a deck was to enter into a partnership with a private sector developer to build the liner buildings. Such an arrangement, with a proper contract, would have allowed us to use the full extent of city funds to build a bigger parking deck and private investment to build full-height liner buildings with a full range of mixed uses. Had I realized that the minimally-sized liner buildings we were able to fund through public financing would have had such restricted uses, I would have been more adamant that we solicit partnerships from nationally-recognized development firms. I was a lone voice on the Council for creative financing like I described, but I could have been more convincing if I had realized the restrictions. I won’t make that mistake again.
@Justin S – That opportunity does exist, but the bonds won’t be paid off for 25 years.
Its a missed opportunity. Thanks for always thinking creatively about how to make our city better, Matt.
Matthew:
I feel like the private/public finance issue is a major one. I’m also not sure, certainly based on your commentary, that the issue was adequately addressed to the public. I think most would agree the project would be better with liner-shops. Why the rush to build the deck if not everything is ideal?
Thanks.
Perhaps because it was a primary critique of a competing mayoral candidate.
Since the competing candidate also would have “rushed” to build a parking deck, that’s probably not really a valid observation. The primary difference between the two candidates on the issue of the parking deck was whether it should be a public/private partnership, not whether it should be built sooner rather than later. Given the iffy results of public/private ventures during the previous administration, perhaps the voters were unduly skeptical of the idea.
That said, I wish, as I have mentioned before, that the entire south side of the WAC block (if not the WAC parking lot) had been dedicated for a public/private multi-use parking/retail/office/residential project. Using the greater amount of land would have made it possible to create a viable parcel for private development of retail/office and residential uses.
I don’t think there hasn’t been any opposition to a public-private partnership per se. More accurately, there was opposition to letting the project costs exceed what the parking program was able to pay for.
And to be fair, there is inherent risk in any public-private partnership, but I don’t think the City would expose us to as much liability in a new project as the City has in the past. Mostly because when we own the land and it is in high demand (like a downtown property), we are in a position to make iron-clad agreements.
I double-negatived. Oops.
I wonder if there is a way to use separate funding for development of the liner buildings, in order to bypass the limitations? Or build them as separate structures? I guess it may be kind of late in the game for such changes, if they are even possible…
How about a park /public space/ trail-head where the existing public parking is now?
@DF: The timeline isn’t important. Its a valid observation because the other guy’s plan was exactly what most here seem to prefer. That is, a public/private partnership allowing for true liner buildings, as well as a shared cost of initial construction that would have lessened the financial burden on residents/parkers. There’s not a good answer as to why the city never seriously considered such a plan.
Are the funds only available for a certain length of time?
I can see the need for a convenient parking deck. Once it’s built, it will be super convenient. But, why not enhance the area with more potential space for businesses?
RE “@DF: The timeline isn’t important.”
As your original comment and my comment were in reply to the question, “Why the rush to build the deck if not everything is ideal?”, it would seem that the timeline was important, and I pointed out that both candidates were set to “rush to build the deck”.
RE “Its a valid observation because the other guy’s plan was exactly what most here seem to prefer.”
And I prefer it, as I have pointed out before. However, the election results can be attributed in part to voter angst about public/private partnerships of the past.
I only mentioned the oppositional election positions on the deck as an attempt to understand why we are getting this kind of deck, instead of a liner-building deck. It doesn’t make sense. I was being diplomatic and trying to decipher a reason other than just plain old small-town stupidity.
RE “I was being diplomatic and trying to decipher a reason other than just plain old small-town stupidity”
How does the Foreign Service get by without you? I would say that the stupidity of a town should be commensurate with its size; and we don’t need any more big-town stupidity.
However, the city has apparently weighed the options and determined that the economy of building the inevitable parking deck now outweighs the possible advantages of delaying construction to look for a private partner, negotiate with the WAC for land use and transfer of ownership, and so on, only to end up with the city’s portion of the project being significantly more expensive.
In any case, given the news from the state legislature, we have a far greater problem right now with small-state stupidity.
I am just wondering how the semi trucks are going to fit in the back of the theatre for when shows load in and out. Hopefully they consider it in the design process and make it easier for themselves down the road. More options is always better.
Doesn’t look like the loading docks will be changed much in the model of the entire campus. The parking deck comes right up to the retaining wall and stops.
It’s too monotone for my taste. Gives an institutional feel. I like the breakup of the buiding incorparated by “Three Sisters” design or to some extent the “Underwood monstrosity” A curve or two, a jog in and out, up an down in the building line would help.
I disagree. I think it has enough variety in shape, proportion, color, and texture that it remains interesting to look at without being too busy. It’s all subjective, I suppose.
What is this, the seventh, eighth parking deck in FYV? For a city of 70k?
There is one parking deck “for the city”. Three of those parking decks are “for” the University, not “for” the city. One is at the county building and the rest of them are on private property, so they aren’t “for the city” either.
But people in the “City” can use any of them.
However, other than the Town Center parking deck, none of them are “for the city” Ask the owners.
You would have been more accurate had you said that there are already six or seven (or however many) parking decks in Fayetteville. And I would have accurately pointed out that they are, for the most part, not where people in the city need or want to park. This shows either a basic misunderstanding of the needs and wants of people in the city, or a gross failure to accommodate them. Looking out for number one is why a corporate directed health care “system” doesn’t work, either.
Just a thought… could some shops be built in the parking deck and instead of the city charging rent it might require a certain level of donations to be made by an occupying business? Just a random thought about how to get around that.
If legal, it would cause the money to still flow to the city since everything is taxed at some point or another…