Little Rock’s Downtown Is Mostly Parking Lots

[M II A II R II K]

Little Rock’s Downtown Is Mostly Parking Lots


November 4, 2019

By Leslie Newell Peacock

Read More: https://arktimes.com/news/the-big-pi...y-parking-lots

How much of downtown real estate should be devoted simply to parked cars? Not so much, city planners across the country write. Beside the fact that parking lots aren’t the highest use of urban property, asphalt expanses create unappealing dead zones. But, as Little Rock Planning Director Jamie Collins said recently, “Arkansas is a strong property rights state,” meaning it’s unlikely Little Rock is going to restrict surface parking except in designated historic areas.

- Collins told the Arkansas Times that his department is seeking funding to do a downtown master plan that would address surface parking. “But the situation is that we are the state capital. We are a city that people commute to. … there’s going to be areas where there’s a need” for surface parking, he said. --- Department staff advised the commission in September that the parking lot proposed for Second and Louisiana streets was appropriate for the Urban Use district zoning, writing, “The property is located in the downtown area which contains a number of surface parking lots serving surrounding buildings and uses. The parking lot should be compatible with surrounding uses.” According to city zoning regulations, UU zoning “is designed to help create a compact, dense, distinguishable core area.”

.....

[xzmattzx]

The principles of the free market can still lead to developing those surface parking lots, even in a strong property rights state. Parking lots suggest a weak demand for land, which means there are lots of development opportunities.

Without having been to Arkansas, or anywhere in that part of the South, I'm wondering if the big issue is that Little Rock is a place that no one wants or needs to go. It's not like a college town like Fayetteville farther north, or Oxford or Starkville in Mississippi. It's not a retirement area like northwest Arkansas, or a tourist area like Biloxi. It doesn't have an industry that brings in talent, like in Huntsville, Alabama. It's not a trendy little city, like Columbia or Charleston in South Carolina, or Savannah. Little Rock appears to outsiders to be a pretty boring place, and perhaps it's also a boring place to people who live in Arkansas (Arkansans?). The first step would be to make Little Rock a good place to go for a quick weekend. Eventually the places that bring in people for the weekend will bring in some people as residents.

[eixample]

If you are blaming surface parking lots in your downtown on being a "strong property rights state," you better repeal your zoning code and any parking minimums too.

[SIGSEGV]

Don't know much about Little Rock but from the outside it looks like the riverfront is decently nice. Too bad the rest of downtown looks like a hellscape.

[Yuri]

What a nightmare. Where are the car owners staying as there is barely no building left.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

What a nightmare. Where are the car owners staying as there is barely no building left.

It's Arkansas, having to walk more than half a block from a parking lot is probably a capital offense.

[Double L]

They just need to improve the economy and public and transportation. Which is a big issue.

[Crawford]

Little Rock has a fairly healthy economy. Yeah, it has shit transit, but what Mid-South city doesn't? Places like Birmingham and OKC have some of the worst transit share in the U.S.

You aren't gonna get non-poor people in Arkansas of all places to ride the bus. No way in hell.

[memph]

Originally Posted by eixample

If you are blaming surface parking lots in your downtown on being a "strong property rights state," you better repeal your zoning code and any parking minimums too.

Taxing land value more heavily than building value would also encourage property owners to make more valuable improvements to their properties than just surface parking.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

Taxing land value more heavily than building value would also encourage property owners to make more valuable improvements to their properties than just surface parking.

Or it could just lead to a bunch of tax defaults and vacant lots.

I mean, yeah, in theory, your idea makes sense, but a place like Little Rock is an extreme outlier in even the ultrasprawly U.S. context. I doubt property owners aren't building because the tax system is weirdly incentivized; they're aren't building because there's no demand.

But maybe if we had these tax incentives fixed around 1950, we would be in a better place today.

[Double L]

If the economy is good, then the only conclusion you can come to, is that the locals just don’t like their Downtown and don’t want to improve it, so they don’t move there, nor open businesses there.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by memph

Taxing land value more heavily than building value would also encourage property owners to make more valuable improvements to their properties than just surface parking.

I'm with you on that. Tax the land not the improvements.

[BG918]

I’ve been to Little Rock numerous times. The riverfront portion of downtown is very nice and vibrant. There is a streetcar that runs through this area and connects across the river to North Little Rock. The city itself is in a beautiful setting - the rolling hills on the edge of the Ouachita Mountains with high bluffs along the Arkansas River.

However the city is also extremely segregated into the nicer, whiter west side in the hills and the poorer, blacker higher crime east side in the flood plain. Very similar to Austin actually. Downtown is more on the east side so it doesn’t have the same attraction for west siders and suburbanites .

[Yuri]

I decided to GE it, and there are some nice old buildings on their Main Street, with the state capitol on the background. There are some potential. It’s a shame it’s wasted.

[dc_denizen]

massive opportunity for some enterprising developer.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

The principles of the free market can still lead to developing those surface parking lots, even in a strong property rights state. Parking lots suggest a weak demand for land, which means there are lots of development opportunities.

Without having been to Arkansas, or anywhere in that part of the South, I'm wondering if the big issue is that Little Rock is a place that no one wants or needs to go. It's not like a college town like Fayetteville farther north, or Oxford or Starkville in Mississippi. It's not a retirement area like northwest Arkansas, or a tourist area like Biloxi. It doesn't have an industry that brings in talent, like in Huntsville, Alabama. It's not a trendy little city, like Columbia or Charleston in South Carolina, or Savannah. Little Rock appears to outsiders to be a pretty boring place, and perhaps it's also a boring place to people who live in Arkansas (Arkansans?). The first step would be to make Little Rock a good place to go for a quick weekend. Eventually the places that bring in people for the weekend will bring in some people as residents.

bit odd though for a state capitol to have so much parking.

[dc_denizen]

also it seems north little rock, right across the river , a more walkable character

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7575...7i13312!8i6656

[Centropolis]

i don’t think there is much of a tourist draw to little rock from adjacent states. nw arkansas has that on lock in the state, while theres a sort of gradient towards adjacent states’ large cities almost in all directions away from little rock for metropolitan tourism...dallas, kansas city, nashville...even memphis, tulsa and st. louis.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Or it could just lead to a bunch of tax defaults and vacant lots.

I mean, yeah, in theory, your idea makes sense, but a place like Little Rock is an extreme outlier in even the ultrasprawly U.S. context. I doubt property owners aren't building because the tax system is weirdly incentivized; they're aren't building because there's no demand.

But maybe if we had these tax incentives fixed around 1950, we would be in a better place today.

So the good economy is just a suburban thing?

[MolsonExport]