Arkansas Blog

The River Market needs more retailers, not hotels.

We don't need another hotel in the River Market, and (memo to Rett and Jimmy) we don't need any more high-rise condominiums.

The River Market needs people before it can have retail and this will bring people. Also, Roberts is worried about historic structures but how historic is the new addition to the Butler Center building under construction?

We already have the Marriott property and the new Hampton Inn just a few blocks away is about ready, there is the one at 6th and I-30 so I think there are plenty of downtown hotels and that's not counting the one on Broadway and the two at the convention center.

Correctamundo (all but SayWhat) - NIX on another hotel!!!
|

If Hussman's for it, I'm against it. Like most Repuglican moguls, he had his sense of common good removed long ago.

I know plan is a four letter word in River City. In other parts of the country developing a restuarant district has a certain logic. The main corridor, Clinton Blvd should be reserved for retail, bars and restaurants. Condos are fundamental to any downtown development. The more Jimmy can afford, in the long run, the better. Another hotel would be fine. Not in that location.

One thing is for sure. LR will screw this up. When they are done it will look like the 'sculpture' in front of the federal building.

The possibility of the hotel having retail on the bottom makes this project something I am for. A surface parking lot is the last thing a city needs on its main streets. A hotel with retail in the bottom adds to the street life and the more rooms downtown little rock has the bigger conventions we can bring here which is always good for the city. We barely got the NCAA by being just on the cusp of having enough hotel rooms, we are on the verge of being able to go for big conventions now with the amount of rooms we are gaining.

The ideal location for a new hotel is the vacant lot at Markham & Scott. If the city and the A & P hadn't blocked it an A-Loft Hotel would have been built there.

If Little Rock wants to be in the running for major scientific and business conferences, it needs more hotel capacity.

As for the downtown condos, they wouldn't be building them if suckers weren't buying them.

Hmmmm,

Markham and Scott was NOT a good place for a hotel according to the City of Little Rock as LAJ-Hillcrest points out. Now, less than two months later, the corner of Markham and Commerce IS a good spot for a hotel?

Who owns the property at Markham and Scott? Who owns the property at Markham and Commerce?

Coincidence that it's Hussman?

Meanwhile, the lot at Markham and Scott has some nice tenants in that small strip center: empty space, empty space, empty space.

Just sayin....

Arky

If hotel guests have to get to and from the hotel's front door the same way I usually get to River Market and, occasionally the library, the majority of them will only stay once. Wind their way through odd twists and turns from/to the next I-30 entrance/exit (Sixth, I think)? Definitely only once. The only reason it's a good idea is that Walter Hussman has land to sell in that location.

Arky,
The city did not block the site at Markham and Scott by saying it was not a good place for a hotel. In fact the city (LRVCB) wanted the site for their own hotel project. Also, Hussman does not own this property.

We don't need no stinkin hotel in the River Market. The charm and chacter of this jewel needs to be maintained. Hussman needs to look elsewhere for $ to support his sinking Democrap flagship.

There are some "maintenance" items which need to be accomplished in that area before anything else is built.
1. If not all vehicle, certainly motor cycles should be barred from the three blocks of Clinton Blvd beginning immediately east of La Harpe. There noise echos off the buildings creating a frightening racket for tourists and local visitors alike. My personal preference would be making the entire three blocks a walking area which would allow the trolleys freer access without holding up piles of auto/truck traffic which now conjest the area beyond safety.
2. The city should force smoking areas of all the establishments on Clinton Blvd. to the BACK of their establishments. The smell, litter and disgustingly dirty sidewalks they create are a sure sign of discounting tourists and locals alike. At minimum, the city should also require them each morning to steam clean the sidewalks in front of their establishments. Maybe an impact on their bottom line might get them to do the right thing.
3. The city also should establish an effective pigeon control process under I-30. People walking to the Clinton Library have to negotiate piles of pigeon shit which is neither scenic nor healthy.
When these things are accomplished then let's consider a new building with vehicular access at the rear toward 2nd Street, not on what should be a tourist/local pedestrian promenarde interwoven by the tolley tracks.

Hussman is the perfect example that having lots of money does not equal having class. This will be another crappy looking addition to Little Rock, to be sure.

Saywhat,

From the first line at the top of the page:

"The D-G reports today that publisher Walter Hussman has struck a deal to sell land at Markham and Commerce (directly across the street from the River Market) for a hotel"

If Hussman doesn't own the property at Markham and Commerce, how could he sell it?

I think you misread my post. I never said he owned the property at Markham and Scott. I said that the PTBs decided the location at Markham and Scott was not good for a hotel regardless of who owned it. Is it a coincidence that Hussman suddenly comes up with the idea to sell property he owns at Markham and Commerce for construction of a hotel?

Isn't there a police station at the corner of Markham (actually President Clinton Avenue) and Commerce?

Arky

Arky,
I don't know how else to read this: "Who owns the property at Markham and Scott? Who owns the property at Markham and Commerce?

Coincidence that it's Hussman? "

As for Hussman, I don't think it matters to him what is built as long as someone shows him the money.

Saywhat

"Arky,
I don't know how else to read this: "Who owns the property at Markham and Scott? Who owns the property at Markham and Commerce?

Coincidence that it's Hussman? "

As for Hussman, I don't think it matters to him what is built as long as someone shows him the money."

Here, let's try this as this is what I was intending:

Who owns the property at Markham and Scott? (Heck if I know. I know it's not Hussman. I read it in the paper a couple of weeks ago and there was some "problem" with constructing a hotel there. Regardless, whoever owns it was prevented by someone from constructing a hotel there.) Who owns the property at Markham and Commerce (that just happens to hear of failed plans involving construction of a hotel down the street and just happens to own land nearby)?

(Is it a) coincidence that (the owner of the property at Markham and Commerce) it is Hussman (that owns property that suddenly became available for construction of a golly-gee plan for a hotel needing property)?

Maybe that's better.

Arky