Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Lobbying for downtown culinary school intensifies

Posted by Max Brantley on Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM

The downtown business establishment has turned up the heat on the lobbying effort to get Pulaski Tech to move its culinary school downtown, a subject the Tech Board is likely to decide Thursday. Lobby groups: Argenta Arts Foundation, Argenta Community Theater, Argenta Downtown Council, Argenta Community Development Corporation, Central Arkansas Library System, Little Rock Downtown Partnership, Little Rock Regional Chamber, North Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, North Little Rock Visitors Bureau, Riverfest.

Here are the talking points. (My unsolicited advice. Ditch that overused word "synergy." Apart from meaning the preferred location is close to some other institutions — but not lots of others — it's mostly meaningless.)

I don't think Pulaski Tech will forsake its Southwest campus for a move downtown if the cost is appreciably higher, as a Tech consultant has said it would be. Downtown backers are skeptical of that estimate. They'll have to prove it's off-base. Legislators and city officials from Southwest Little Rock also tell me they are more than a little PO'ed by the pressure to move downtown. What are they? Chopped liver?

It's an interesting political debate. Pulaski Tech has the benefit of enormous success at a low cost. It did it without a great deal of help, by the way, from interest groups now seeking favors. So it's more independent than some. I like any and all ideas for luring people onto moribund Main Street. But taxpayer- (or, here, student-) financed institutions can't do it alone. Private investments are also needed. Market matters.

The notion that one location is better than another for a school or research facility also brings up the Little Rock Technology Park site search that I mentioned last night. A real estate professional asks me: Does it really matter if it's very close to UAMS or UALR, a location that will dislocate potentially hundreds of residents? Couldn't it be put on a greenfield a few miles away? Land costs in the established neighborhoods now proposed for study and the modest 20,000-square-foot building initially planned will eat up the $22 million from the new city sales tax pretty rapidly, before any staff is hired or additional buildings are on the drawing board.

Tags: , ,

Speaking of...

Comments (5)

Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

You've got to decide which side of this argument you're on. One minute it's move downtown to develop the dieing inner city and the next it's move the research park to the green belt to save money. Is that code for build the research park closer to Chenal so all the researchers won't have to drive downtown and eat at the culinary school?

Ever get the idea that LR is just a lot of competing interests with no idea of the consequences of their conflicting actions? Little Rock should look into developing some sort of planning department that engaged in long term thinking and balancing competing interests. Just a thought.

report 4 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by FullThrottle on 12/13/2011 at 10:47 AM

Or, here's a thought. Let the city pay for the culinary school building as part of the research park. Synergy Baby!!

report 3 likes, 1 dislike   
Posted by FullThrottle on 12/13/2011 at 10:50 AM

Seems to me that they need to ask the students and faculty whether they want to move downtown and fight for parking or build at the current location, which appears to be much more convienient and has adequate parking. After all, they are the customers.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by righter on 12/13/2011 at 11:56 AM

Since Max is doing away with words then do away with the park in research park. Change it to the Research and Technology Center and locate it in the former Doctors Hospital building. They might even be able to lease the building until it is known if the RTC will be a success.

report   
Posted by what the hell on 12/13/2011 at 12:02 PM

Many of you are asking for the input of the actual (gasp) *students* of said culinary school, so here I am to throw in my two cents. (My apologies for my late entry to the conversation since my own earlier blog post, when this issue was already "settled" and we were building next to the south campus. I've had, you know, school and finals to deal with.)

I am a 30-something, second-career culinary student, only two more classes from finishing my degree in culinary arts and certification by the American Culinary Federation. My previous life was in PR, much of it involved in tourism and downtown development. I say that to offer that I at least sort of get it as to why there's such a push to put the school downtown.

Now, as a student, I have a few extra thoughts. What will be best for (wait for it) the students? Driving distance really has little relevance, as most of us willingly drive 30 minutes or more now, and students of culinary schools across the country do the same. Proximity to restaurants and hotels also has little relevance, since we are all still part of the same metro area. I had one downtowner purport that students have no chance to meet restauranteurs where the school is now. But, we're smart enough to network, work different places, and otherwise reach out to those in the industry.

The new building is all about improved teaching facilities...you know, to help the students learn and offer better folks for the hospitality workforce.

And that's where I'm afraid the downtown thing has a problem. That extra $5 mil has to come from somewhere. You know where it will come from? Our supply of scales, mixers, hotel pans, whisks, food and all that other stuff we need. Salaries for additional staff to accommodate the hordes of students waiting to get in. (I admit to talking out of my butt a little here; that may be a different pot of money.)

But, some part of me, I have to admit, would go for the downtown idea. (I was also digging on Argenta, honestly, but they lack the political power/money to construct such a push as LR has done.) My car and I would love the shorter drive. I would kinda dig "working" downtown again. And we would at least have some additional mental connection with the heart of the state.

So, I say this: If they gots the bucks -- and I mean ALL of them -- to make it work, so be it. If I have to so much as go without a pound of butter in a class, then forget it.

report 4 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by arfoodie on 12/13/2011 at 4:33 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

More by Author

  • Ethics probe leads to S.C. lt. gov. resignation

    I'm always happy to see when government ethics laws have some teeth. Today's story is from South Carolina, where the Republican lieutenant governor has resigned following an investigation of his use of campaign money for personal expenses.
    • Mar 9, 2012
  • Beebe testifies in redistricting case

    Gov. Mike Beebe took the stand today in Sen. Jack Crumbly's lawsuit that redistricting didn't make his majority black Senate district black enough to guarantee his election.
    • May 8, 2012
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

May

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31  

Blogroll

Slideshows

 

© 2012 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation