RECENT COMMENTS
Crupi report cites “Europeanization” of urban living
Consultant James A. Crupi today presented “Putting The Future Together”, a report on the current state of Richmond and a look forward, at a public meeting at VCU’s Siegel Center. The RTD has an overview, and you can check out the report in its entirety (2.2MB PDF).
From the report:
National trends center on the “Europeanization” of urban living. Richmond needs to ride the wave and get a young dynamic person to lead the effort to “chase” this generational group. Places like Carytown, the Fan, Church Hill, Shockoe Slip, Shockoe Bottom, Maymont, Byrd Park, and Jackson Ward are places that give credence to that lifestyle. Richmond’s neighborhoods, the river, and its architecture are its greatest strengths. They need to be protected and nourished.
The report also says, in describing Richmond, that Richmond “is large enough to have things to do and small enough to be able to do them.” This brings to mind such things as Books on Wheels, Hands on Greater Richmond, and the new RVA News.
Great report!
In today’s RTD, Mr. Crupi’s list of the region’s most valuable and important assets is it’s architecture and historic neighborhoods making #3 and #4 respectively.
Also, in his “to do” list of recommendations he cites enforcement of design guidelines and preservation in historic neighborhoods.
The reaction to his report by local leaders has been very positive.
I’m sure, since they are the ones that paid for it and were interviewed.
It’s not a glowing report. The truth hurts sometimes, and the community seems receptive to it. Let’s hope that they work to implement his recommendations.
“Change is in the air. Jackson Ward is being rebuilt by business and professional people who are more focused on what they can do together than they are on race. Highland Park and Church Hill will follow.”
I sure can’t wait until we get started! We have a long way to go to catch up to Jackson Ward.
Dr. Crupi complete report in the special section in the Times-Dispatch, Nov. 20 edition is a gold mine of great observations and ideas. On page S8, he writes about the view scape at Libby Hill Park and how important it is to tourism and to the beauty of the river. Please read the complete report!
This report was paid for by 40 of Richmond’c corporations ($150K) and was done under the condition that it would be presented to the public, without the corporations having a chance to read it. It was an amazing presentation, and I encourage all to read thru it. It was not particularly kind. The hope is that it will not become just another expensive expert for the memories of Richmond’s leaders. We all need to be a part of the future!
interesting report but the “europeanization” reference was confusing. the neighborhoods are unique to richmond. are they allowed to continue in a uniquely richmond sense or will they reflect a national trend becoming one of a kind too many of a kind and you wind up with the old country theme park?
im good with italian furniture but european water sucks. should we look forward to a reduction in public water quality?
Bill – no, we should look forward to a reduction in City of Richmond water bill prices due to regional cooperation. At least, that’s one of my hopes – after something is done about regional transportation issues.
We already tried the old country theme park – thanks to Frank Jewell, who convinced some bankers that, if they financed an historic theme park down on Tredegar Street (where the Civil War Center is now) that five million people a year would visit (obviously a reality problem when absolutely noone visited and still noone visits now except during the Folk Festival).
Seriously – I wondered about the comparison of Church Hill and Highland Park. Although, there are a great many blocks of Church Hill now that resemble Highland Park – now that I’m living north of Broad Street, I see that all the time. I don’t see Jackson Ward as all that sophisticated, it’s too fragmented due to the convention center etc. But I DO think the neighborhoods that are unique to Richmond will stay that way, at least in our lifetimes.
From my brief reading of the report, I’m also interested in large corporations adopting individual schools. That might make a difference in the school system problems. St. Paul’s Episcopal adopted Woodville Elemtary quite awhile ago, and I seem to recall that it made a diff.
Whether or not the report becomes just another expensive report will be almost entirely up to those of us who live in Richmond: we either will insist on action or we’ll chat about what it says…in which case not much will happen.
Having read the report/article there is much to do but no real focus or group(s) to do it. It is a wonderful project/plan without leadership and that is very sad!
Would anyone from the other Associations on the Hill, want to get together and see what we can do as a, group of groups, to make good things happen in our community and city? Surly, an association of associations, with lots of people should have leverage, if not power.
WDYT? Write me at mksm1@msn.com
JJ
Am I the only one that thinks some of the reccomendations are kind of crazy? An Innsbrooke style office park where the Diamond is? Where would the Diamond go?
Change the charter to “better define” the mayor’s powers? Isn’t this what Wilder wants us to do since he can’t legally get away with EVERYTHING he wants?
Jackson Ward as a Bourbon Street?
Who did they interview? Who was represented? Who was NOT represented? These are the question we have responsibility to ask.
Do not let the counties define the “new” city. We must find a voice and define it for ourselves.
“Jackson Ward as a Bourbon Street?”
Back in its heyday, J-Ward was the “Harlem of the South” with juke joints and acts such as Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington performing at the Hippodrome (next to the Croaker’s Spot). 2nd street was known as “The Duece.”
So yeah, it used to be bumpin’, and fun.
Why couldn’t be again?
This is from Walker Row, an urban renewal development company in Jackson Ward:
“The vision for the future of Jackson Ward is strong and decisive. With the expansion of the Richmond Convention Center on North 3rd Street and Biotech recently announcing plans to expand its research park, attention has turned to the Ward. Following the concepts of the “New Urbanismâ€, the development efforts will seek to add infrastructure that will provide places for people to live, work, shop, and socialize in a thriving downtown urban environment.
To accomplish this goal, a plan of development was created which includes programming 2nd Street as an entertainment district. The district will include retail shops, the restored Hippodrome Theater, and an upscale hotel as well as numerous eateries. Community retail will be incorporated into the mix of 1st Street and along Marshall Street. Historic restorations will be encouraged in the residential areas and additional housing will be created by the construction of 80, high-end town homes to be located on the North end of Jackson Ward. Through out the Ward, there will be streetscape improvements and a revamping of Abner Clay Park to be more user friendly. With so much excitement going on within the community, Jackson Ward will take its place as one of the premier downtown neighborhoods.”
In order to do all of what is contained in post 15, you’ll need to get rid of all of the stuff that is already there that no one uses. The “shops” on Broad Street are not “user friendly” and the “consumers” need to be policed into non-existance. The sooner that area is cleaned up the better the donwtown area will be. If I’m not mistaken, that was the idea of 6th Street Marketplace but it never happened.
I hope that Church Hill can join the Build Schools Now coalition.
To me, that is more important than more corporate development schemes.
http://scfoj.tumblr.com/post/18333550
Building 80 “high end townhouses at the north end of Jackson Ward” is really not what the neighborhood needs. How about some affordable townhouses for the average person so that the neighborhood remains viable as a community for everyone? The Crupi report said that the new 2nd Street entertainment district could make a go of it from the Convention Center traffic. By the looks of the usage of the Convention Center, the district better depend on the locals to keep it active. The locals should include all the residents of affordable housing in the neighborhood.
I love the application of business buzzword-speak to municipal affairs. I also love an urban planning report done by some guy who is both a business motivational speaker and a futurist. I am dying to see who the Chamber gets in next, couldn’t they afford Tony Robbins?
Looking at most of the media coverage, and many of the comments on local blogs, you would think that this report was sent by Lucifer himself. People can’t put aside the “change is bad, it was always this way” and “if you ain’t Old Richmond, shut up” mentality.
Speaking for myself, I love this report. Not for the specifics it contains, but for what it could mean. Richmond has the momentum to become something far grander than it ever was. You see it in the Bottom where old industry sites are being reclaimed for better use than just taking up space, all the while managing to keep the look and flavor of the past. You see it in the pioneers up on the Hill, in folks like Painter Gable and all of the other unsung heroes who dare to make something better. Whether you agree with the report or not, you still have to acknowledge it’s power to move the city (and yes, it’s outlying counties) forward, by either direct suggestion or by bringing folks like us together for debate and conversation — and hopefully action.
For all of you who believe that the past is permanent and that nothing should ever improve or change, I’m sorry for your upcoming loss. But as our forefathers (and foremothers!) did, showing the courage and strength to step around the comfortable can result in wonderous things. So yes, remember the glory and traditions of yesteryear. Just be sure and flavor the futureyear with them as you grow. Continue to tout your favorite “pet project” like affordable housing or historical area designations. But remember that the forest is made up of many trees, and all are important to the growth and stability of the whole.
OK, I’m off my soapbox now. I just had to vent. Your mileage may vary. This sermon may not be reproduced without the express, written consent of the NFL. Side affects may include cramps, blindness, and warts. (This last paragraph was at the insistance of my lawyer. LOL!).
Rick,
Affordable housing is not a “pet project” and an historic district designation is not a lapse of progressive thinking to continue the past. I think both are an effort to make the standard of living better for all citizens. I’m sorry that you feel you must rant against the feelings of many people who want to see the City become a better place, not a regression toward the past.
Bill Hartsock, thanks for saying that – affordable housing is absolutely NOT a ‘pet project.’
Also, while I’m thinking of it, thanks also for the history (on another thread) of the former Chimborazo Elementary building on Marshall Street, good luck getting it back into being an inhabited building.
Rick – if you’re so liberal or forward thinking, please realize that affordable housing is something that Richmond truly needs, and so far, appears not to have done much about. I’ve got a cousin who lives in upstate New York (Saratoga Springs, to be exact) and what I’ve seen and heard that they’ve done is incredible. Plus, some areas of Maryland have done things with it – housing for teachers, cops, fire fighters. Richmond needs to put some energy into affordable housing, not consider it a ‘pet project.’ So far as I’m concerned, the Carpenter Center, or whatever it’s currently called, is a ‘pet project.’ NOT affordable housing!
Bill and Celeste, you misunderstand. I believe as you do that affordable housing is important. Absolutely. What I was saying is that it’s not the only important thing. There are many, many improvements and changes needed to continue Richmond’s wonderful growth. I love this city and I love the progress it’s made since I’ve moved here. And I very much want to see that progress continue, on a number of fronts.
My real rant was towards folks who have expressed the view that change is bad. I’ve had many a discussion where folks react with disgust that people would “dare” to renovate houses, because it would change the neighborhood. Never mind that the neighborhood was going downhill fast. Changing it is a bad thing. Well, I disagree with that completely. Bringing back neightborhoods, even if it means changing them into something more upscale than they were previously, is a good thing. People, neighborhoods, families, companies .. all must grow and prosper. Otherwise they die.
My other rant, which also apparently missed the mark, was towards Old Richmond. I can’t tell you the number of folks I’ve heard that believe that anyone without generations of roots in Richmond has no business in determining it’s future. On this report alone, I’ve seen several comments regarding “outsiders” and how their opinion isn’t wanted. Short of putting a bubble around the city and declaring it off limits to the rest of the world, we transplants care just as deeply and have just as many good suggestions.
So, sorry for the term Pet Project. It wasn’t meant to be derogatory. It was meant to say focus on all priorities, not just single ones. Affordable housing alone, while a good thing, won’t continue the overall progress alone. Accept all suggestions as possibilities and welcome change. That was my message.
I wanted to reply to your post, Rick. But I held back. But here goes:
I have reservations about THE REPORT, but that does not mean I am opposed to change. It means that while I am glad that it has gotten us talking about changes, I also think that many of the items in the document are off-based.
I did read the report, the WHOLE thing, and I can tell it is put together by developers. I feel that the needs of out largest population segment are not even considered. In contrast, the city master plan that was recently released, seems more on the mark and involved more community (as in they LIVE in the city) input.
Both plans have parts I disagree with. But, like I said, the discussion has begun.
I do not believe “the past is permanent”, but I do remember past failures and have learned that more critical analysis is necessary before we start tearing down buildings and developing large projects. I think there are many people like me. Don’t dismiss us as afraid of change.
Rick,
I appreciate your mea culpa about your last posting. I wish you wouldn’t feel that you need to “rant” in this forum. There are a lot of good people in this city who have been here all their lives, or have lived here for most of their lives. You have been talking (or listening) to the wrong people. You say that there are a lot of projects that need attention, and I agree, but there are times when you need to prioritize the essentials. Just as we see on Broad Street – when residential units are developed, shops and restaurants follow. When affordable housing occupies vacant spaces, commercial development will grow around it to provide needs of residents.
A question…do you participate in one of our civic groups? Do you attend any of the public forums that address the issues of the city? Do you vote? I hope all the answers are “yes”, because, if not, you are missing many opportunities to turn your “rants” into positive action. Also, if you reread the last sentences of your first posting you will see why we had a hard time taking you seriously.