AN ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL REPORT Little Rock, Arkansas Urban Land Institute $Little Rock, Arkansas, April 1–6, 2001 1 Little Rock, Arkansas A Redevelopment Plan for Midtown April 1–6, 2001 An Advisory Services Panel Report ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 About ULI–the Urban Land Institute LI–the Urban Land Institute is a non- represented include developers, builders, prop- profit research and education organiza- erty owners, investors, architects, public officials, tion that promotes responsible leadership planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor- U in the use of land in order to enhance neys, engineers, financiers, academicians, stu- the total environment. dents, and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the experience of its members. It is through member The Institute maintains a membership represent- involvement and information resources that ULI ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors a has been able to set standards of excellence in wide variety of educational programs and forums development practice. The Institute has long been to encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar- recognized as one of America’s most respected ing of experience. ULI initiates research that and widely quoted sources of objective informa- anticipates emerging land use trends and issues tion on urban planning, growth, and development. and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and pub- This Advisory Services panel report is intended lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate to further the objectives of the Institute and to information on land use and development. make authoritative information generally avail- able to those seeking knowledge in the field of Established in 1936, the Institute today has more urban land use. than 16,000 members and associates from 60 coun- tries, representing the entire spectrum of the land Richard M. Rosan use and development disciplines. Professionals President ©2001 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. ULI Catalog Number: ASL033 3 An Advisory Services Panel Report About ULI Advisory Services he goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Program holders in the project under consideration, partic- is to bring the finest expertise in the real ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments are estate field to bear on complex land use plan- able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’s T ning and development projects, programs, issues and to provide recommendations in a com- and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem- pressed amount of time. bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for A major strength of the program is ULI’s unique issues such as downtown redevelopment, land ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of management strategies, evaluation of develop- its members, including land developers and own- ment potential, growth management, community ers, public officials, academicians, representatives revitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili- of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford- of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this able housing, and asset management strategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public, Advisory Services panel report is intended to pro- private, and nonprofit organizations have con- vide objective advice that will promote the re- tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services. sponsible use of land to enhance our environment. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their time to ULI. ULI Project Staff They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel Rachelle L. Levitt topic and screened to ensure their objectivity. Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi- cally include several developers, a landscape Mary Beth Corrigan architect, a planner, a market analyst, a finance Managing Director, Advisory Services expert, and others with the niche expertise needed to address a given project. ULI teams Nancy Zivitz Sussman provide a holistic look at development problems. Senior Associate, Advisory Services Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem- ber with previous panel experience. Jason Bell Panel Coordinator The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in- Nancy H. Stewart tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com- posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon- Director, Book Program sor representatives; a day and a half of hour-long James A. Mulligan interviews of typically 80 to 100 key community Manuscript Editor representatives; and a day and a half of formulat- ing recommendations. Many long nights of discus- Betsy VanBuskirk sion precede the panel’s conclusions. On the final Art Director day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. At Martha Loomis the request of the sponsor, a written report is Desktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics prepared and published. Kim Rusch Because the sponsoring entities are responsible Graphics for significant preparation before the panel’s visit, Diann Stanley-Austin including sending extensive briefing materials to Director, Publishing Operations each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stake- Little Rock, Arkansas, April 1–6, 2001 4 Acknowledgments he ULI Advisory Services program staff The panel is indebted to the more than 55 commu- and panel members extend special thanks nity residents, government and business leaders, to the Little Rock public/private leadership property owners, and members of the medical T responsible for initiating and sponsoring establishment who provided unique and valuable this panel in support of midtown redevelopment. insights during the interview process. As a group, Further thanks are extended to Mayor Jim Dailey they serve as a major asset in advancing the in- and City Manager Cy Carney, as well as repre- terests of the city. The individual perspectives sentatives of the Irwin & Saviers Company and gained from these interviews were crucial to the other community leaders. success of the planning process. Of particular note is the outstanding support pro- vided by the planning staff under the leadership of Jim Lawson, director of the Department of Planning and Development, and Tony Bozynski, assistant director. Their invaluable assistance throughout the course of the study helped to ensure the success of the panel’s efforts. 5 An Advisory Services Panel Report Contents ULI Panel and Project Staff 6 Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7 Overview and Summary of Recommendations 10 Market Potential 12 Development Strategies 22 Planning and Design 26 Implementation 34 Conclusion 39 About the Panel 40 Little Rock, Arkansas, April 1–6, 2001 6 ULI Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Robert M. Wulff Vice President for Community Development Benjamin T. “Bud” Lake II Peterson Companies Principal Fairfax, Virginia Lake Associates Lafayette, California ULI Project Director Panel Members Nancy Zivitz Sussman Senior Associate, ULI Advisory Services Donald R. Bauer Principal Bauer Associates Urban and ULI On-Site Coordinator Community Planning Jason Bell Tustin, California ULI Advisory Services Linda G. Davenport Consultant and Attorney CD Strategies Alexandria, Virginia Jeff McMenimen Associate Design Workshop Denver, Colorado Anita Morrison Principal Bay Area Economics Silver Spring, Maryland H. Pike Oliver Principal Presidio Group and INTERRA Sacramento, California James B. Selonick Consultant Cincinnati, Ohio 7 An Advisory Services Panel Report Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment ames Rouse, a leading developer and cre- ator of the festival marketplace, once said, MISSOURI “The only legitimate purpose of a city is to J provide for the life and growth of its peo- ple.” The intent of the panel was to meet the com- munity’s needs and generate momentum for rede- velopment of the prime real estate site defining ARKANSAS midtown Little Rock. In addition, the panel con- Fort Smith TENNESSEE Memphis sidered development techniques and design guide- OKLAHOMA lines that would enhance the intersection of West North Little Rock Little Rock Markham Street and University Avenue as well as the frontage along West Markham Street from University Avenue to Pine Street. Pine Bluff The main task for the panel was to determine a MISSISSIPPI workable redevelopment plan for midtown Little Rock. The need arose as a response to an infill TEXAS commercial development proposal at C Street and University Avenue that was approved by the city. LOUISIANA The study area was divided into two parts: the Location map (above). primary area, containing two shopping malls, POPE CONWAY Little Rock area map medical office facilities and freestanding commer- Searcy 64 e (left). cial buildings; and the secondary area, dealing WHITE FAULKNER 67 64 with the Hillcrest neighborhood border area that Conway might be affected if significant development 40 PRAIRIE changes occur in the primary area. The secondary PERRY North Little Rock 40 area, in turn, consists of two parts: the frontage Little Rock 165 along West Markham Street from University Ave- SALINE LONOKE nue to Pine Street, and an area north of Lee Ave- GARLAND 30 PULASKI 70 Benton 65 nue to Evergreen Drive along the east side of Hot Springs Stuttgart JEFFERSON 79 University Avenue. The panel does not suggest GRANT ARKANSAS HOT SPRING Malvern 270 165 any changes for this northern portion of the sec- Pine Bluff ondary area, other than to continue to recognize it Arkadelphia as a Hillcrest neighborhood border that needs to 67 79 be protected. 167 DALLAS LINCOLN 65 CLEVELAND The panel’s main objectives in carrying out this assignment were to protect the neighborhood and The site is in a prime location—at the crossroads to create a center for the community.