HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 02 06 letter from Quapaw Quarter Association to Mike DooleyQUAPAW QUARTER ASSOCIATION
February 6, 1984
Mr. Nike Dooley
Office of Comprehensive Planning
City Hall
Markham & Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Historic District Commission
Dear Mike:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Quapaw
Quarter Association, thank you for providing us the
opportunity to comment on the proposed construction of a
thirty -unit apartment complex at the northeast corner of
Seventh and Sherman Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic
District. After reviewing the plans for the apartment
complex, we are recommending that a certificate of
appropriateness not be issued at this time. Although we
support the concept of infill construction for vacant
property in the historic district, we do not believe the
current proposal meets the requisite design criteria.
The site plan for the project generally is adequate,
although we would suggest moving the dumpster to the north-
west corner of the parking area, away from the exit. (As
shown on the plans, the dumpster appears to partially block
the exit.)
We have more serious concerns about the design of the
apartment buildings. First, we believe the three-story
height of the buildings is out of keeping with the character
of the historic district, where buildings of one or two
stories prevail. We would recommend decreasing the height
of the apartment buildings to two stories or, at least,
disguising the third story as an attic.
We have further reservations about the overall size
and massing of the buildings. In particular, we believe that
1321 South Scott • P.O. Box 1104 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 • 501-3 71-0075
- 2 -
the south elevation, if built as proposed, will present an
overwhelming appearance along Seventh Street. We would
recommend that the south elevation be divided into two
masses, possibly by simply eliminating the connecting wall
between Building A and Building B.
We also cannot approve of the use of the Federal Style
as the historic precedent for the design of the apartment
buildings. Again, we believe the allusion to this style is
out of keeping with the character of the historic district.
The row house design of the proposed buildings, along with
such features as fanlights and part-- walls, refer to a
historic precedent, the Federal Style, which does not exist
in the MacArthur Park Historic District.
We wish to stress the fact that we are not opposed
to the construction of apartments on the site in question..
However, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot support
the proposed project as it currently is planned. We urge
the developers to rethink the design of the apartment
buildings and return to the Historic District Commission with
a design which better meets the compatibility standards for
new construction in the MacArthur Park Historic District.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Griffith Nichols
Executive Director