RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
Mayor said to be close to announcing plans for Shockoe stadium
09/08/2013 9:14 AM by John M
The RTD is reporting that an announcement is close on plans to redevelop North Boulevard and Shockoe Bottom:
Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones is preparing to propose private development of a baseball stadium in Shockoe Bottom, according to sources who witnessed a presentation by the mayor and city officials to a small group of business leaders last week.
Jones was accompanied at the private meeting in downtown Richmond on Wednesday by Chief Administrative Officer Byron C. Marshall, the city’s financial consultant and an architectural firm that provided renderings of what the stadium would look like as part of a mixed-use development in the Bottom.
Hasn’t the community already said “no” to this idea? The only people that will benefit are the developers and the city officials that are getting kickbacks from them.
Awesome – hope it happens!
This project is not the answer. Maybe an improved larger multi-use venue branded by a company’s name? The colosium is is desperate need of repair. While setting up a ring for WWE, it was dripping rain from the apex of the roof. We don’t need another specific giant structure to rot for years to come. Baseball won’t solve our problems. It will only make us forget for a brief period.
The infrastructure just isn’t there to support this. Remember the great profits everyone would have from the Redskins camp? The only Richmond business that profited was the nearby mcdonalds.
Stop playing bread and circuses and start governing!
Let’s get this done finally! Having just been to Pittsburgh for some ball games I am so psyched about us being able to have a walkable downtown park in Richmond.
>@britsauce & Ramzi:
I agree wholeheartedly with you my friends. In the beautifully blunt words of Johnny Rotten: “Ever feel like you’ve been cheated?!?!”
This is yet another example of a politician (& Pastor-don’t forget!) executing an agenda which is in direct conflict with the will of the citizens it will effect. I would further posit that if you can’t stop this b.s. on YOUR LOCAL LEVEL, then cease in the naive belief that you can keep your ***elected*** President from carrying out their execute priveledges.
Sorry for getting so f’n heavy on such a beautiful Sunday morning, but I am f’n fed the F up with finding out about this kind of crapl after (I thought) the “people had spoken”. It currently can take 15mins to go from Ch. Hill into downtown during heavy traffic periods. Please raise your clueless little hands if you think that effects on traffic flow & pedestrian safety/mobility will be earnestly addressed.
Post #2, Uh no the “community” has not said no to the project. The people in Church Hill have, but that is not the only community in the area.
I guess we’ll be hearing about protecting the “panoramic view”, light and noise pollution, fire protection and all that soon.
I don’t care anymore…
As a seven year resident of Church Hill, I am encouraged by the signs of progress making our neighborhood something other than empty lots and houses.. New restaurants, new businesses, and finally something that might clean up up the eye sore that is the bottom.
P.s. Take Leigh St. home.
OK, fine. Someone please post proof (real proof) that this is what “The People Of Richmond” want. I never claimed to speak for other people/communities it etc.
And in retort:
@FormerLibbyHillResident-
You are no more the voice of “other communities” than I am. And, I in fact also never claimed to be.
@William Benn-
How about this: I’ll take Leigh St., and you can try to walk across E. Broad St. near 14th/MCV at 7:30am or 5:00pm.
(P.S.) I don’t tolerate smartas_es well…
I’m a person from Richmond who wants this to happen.
It’s sad to see Richmond run by criminals.
While Dotts was working to block a new ballpark in Shockoe Bottom in 2004, H. Louis Salomonsky, a pre-eminent developer who went to prison for bribing a city councilwoman, warned her that “there are powerful forces out there, and they can destroy you.”
Here’s the thing people are forgetting: it’s MINOR league baseball. Most people go to squirrels games for hotdogs and beer, not for the sub-par talent. No one is complaining about the existing stadium and a new one in Shockoe would no solve any problems. If Richmond had a MLB team, then we would be having a whole other conversation. It’s all about the quality if the game play.
Here’s what some people forget: minor league baseball players become major league baseball players. Look at the San Francisco Giant’s roster today at least 7 of those players came though Richmond in the past few years (Johnny Monell, Ehire Adrianza, Joaquin Arias, Brandon Belt, Brandon Crawford, Nick Noonan, Roger Kieschnick). The Squirrels play the farm teams for the Mets, Red Sox, Phillies, Yankees. Pirates, Orioles, Nationals, Indians, Twins, and Blue Jays. Pay attention, son, you’ll see a lot of future big league talent come through Richmond.
I am very excited about this. I think this concept has a lot of potential and could be a great fit in the bottom. I hope they do it right!
“Son”. That’s rude.
That’s why I don’t like to bother with the comments section. People saying things they wouldn’t to your face.
60% of those commenting thus far are either against the idea, or are “surprised” that The Mayor is to make an announcement regarding a major project they thought had been laid to rest.
How is it that so few knew this was about to actually come to fruition?? Perhaps one way to avoid troublesome debate over a project like this is let the citizens think its been abandoned.
Ah, Richmond politics, you are the wolf in well tailored sheep’s clothing.
Richmond lost the Braves because of their refusal to build a new stadium. I see the new stadium bid as a way to attract a Triple A club back to Richmond, although the Squirrels led their league in attendance this year. Let’s see the plans before we all go crazy, good or bad.
the word on the street is that there is going to be a Kroger down there as part of the development…
Count me as a supporter! I really hope this happens and feel it would be a missed opportunity to not do this now.
Word on the street is that this one contains a broader package of museum, retail, office and residential uses as part of the overall proposal.
@ramzi – As for “the Community” – there is no consensus against this idea. The Church Hill Association may have voted against it, but Union Hill and Shockoe Bottom neighborhood associations previously voted in favor of other downtown ballpark ideas.
I am a Church Hill resident and I am cautiously supportive of this idea. I would like to see the plans first, but tend to support the idea.
I think this is very exciting news and I am looking forward to seeing the Mayor’s proposal. I’ve lived in Church Hill for 10 years and have always looked forward to the day when the parking lot/gas station wasteland at the bottom of Broad Street hill is turned into a productive, attractive urban landscape. I am very curious to see the proposal and would definitely disagree with anyone who says there is a neighborhood consensus on the Hill in opposition to developing the Bottom with a baseball stadium as a primary driving force for the development. In my opinion, as a property owner, a well done mixed use development in the Bottom has the potential to improve the quality of life in the area, create a safer and more attractive community (and gateway into Church Hill), increase property values in the Bottom and on the Hill and thus, as a property owner, is money in my pocket. Exciting potential, but the devil’s in the details, so bring on the final report.
@29 I don’t recall that Union Hill voted in favor of a stadium, but, if it did, that would have been in 2006/07 (or earlier). We’ve had a lot of new folks move to this neighborhood since then. Their voices are not reflected in any previous civic association vote for or against a stadium. If the Union Hill Civic Association wants to take a stand on this, then I believe a new vote is in order. Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to have a well informed opinion on this since the city hasn’t released it’s plan to the public.
“Baseball won’t solve our problems. It will only make us forget for a brief period.”
Ahhh! Blessed relief.
To seal the deal they need to affiliate with the Nats in DC. That would be sweet.
@Elaine – March 2009 / “Union Hill Civic Association votes overwhelmingly in favor of Shockoe Center” /2009/03/18/union-hill-civic-association-votes-overwhelmingly-in-favor-of-shockoe-center_4840/
Thanks chpn for posting the link above. I remember we had a UHCA discussion about that plan and did take a vote–I honestly couldn’t recall the outcome. So that was in 2009. In 2013/2014 we have a different financing plan, a different mayor, a different project design. It’s a new discussion/new vote, isn’t it?
@Elaine My only point was that there is not consenus against this idea and that past votes on past proposals demonstrate that. Fingers crossed for a good proposal.
Looking back at “Shockoe Center”, a baseball team was just a part of the overall concept. UHCA may have voted for it, but the demographic (as Elaine stated) has changed in Downtown/Shockoe Bottom/ Shockoe Slip/ E. Cary St./ Church Hill/ Union Hill N. & S. Etc., etc., etc.
During a short walk this morning, I spoke with several neighbors who didn’t know this was “back in play”, and are (yet again) passionately against it. Note: I ***did not*** say they’re passionately against change & progress. More to the point, they’re convinced the owners of the property(s) in question simply continue to “hold out for the highest bidder”.
A simple question to ponder: Why is it that some in our City Govt are so firm in their belief that this stadium MUST be downtown? And yes, some citizens want it there too, but that’s not at all what I’m speaking to.
My understanding of the situation is that moving the stadium to Bottom has a two-fold effect.
First, it anchors redevelopment in the Bottom.
Second, it frees up the space on Boulevard for mixed-used retail development of the type that has only been going on in the counties.
Moving the stadium to Manchester could’ve accomplished some of this, but would have it’s own issues.
How does the population of Shockoe Bottom and Tobacco Row compare to Church Hill these days? Anyone know? I’m just curious if these people might want a stadium in their backyard and if the density, and possibly, population of this area is now greater than Church Hill’s is.
Here’s a breakdown of the data from 2010 by Census Tract.
The population of Shockoe/TR is difficult to put a number to, as it shares Census Tract 205 with a portion of the St.John’s area and Union Hill. 205 had a population of 3,443 in 2010.
I’d guess that most folks would consider at least Census Tracts 206 and 207 as part of Church Hill. These two had 2,569 residents in 2010. Pull in some of the residents from 203, 204, and 208, and the count is approaching that of 205.
I for one want this in my backyard if the proposal matches what limited information has been released. I hope others who do speak up. Still a lot of misinformation in the “anti-” posting. Hope the proposers are tuning in.
@Nearby Neighbor:
To be fair and clear to this discussion, please clarify #1.) The “misinformation”, and #2.) Identify whom you are labeling as “anti”. This topic is clearly to important to many folks for generalizations.
I hope the proposal does include a Kroger, and even better, some sort of professional office building. Dare to dream, a Target? A job or a great grocery store would be things I would want nearby and want to walk to. Why can’t we anchor redevelopment around things we city dwellers would actually use all of the time, like professional job locations and day-to-day shopping places? My friends and I would probably only go to a baseball game once every other year, if that. Why all this focus on entertainment and housing, check, we have plenty of that. We need super close professional jobs and day-to-day shopping. Everything else is just a nuisance we have to drive around, to get to the jobs/shopping that is further out. That’s why I’m against the Shockoe ballpark – we should figure out someway to use the space for things we city-dwellers actually need (more close-in professional jobs and shopping). I know it’s hard and we can’t snap our fingers and tell companies to bring their jobs and stores here, but if our economic development team focused their energy on THAT instead of the ballpark, wouldn’t our chances improve?
aka “Richmond person” “I’m from around here” “Nearby neighbor”
I’m totally psyched about this!
The Bottom is important to a lot of people and I’m sure all of our emotions are valid, if not various parts of our arguments. It’s important to me because the anti-development crowd is entrenched in the Church Hill area and candidly it does most of the name calling, whether in meetings, on emails, on this site, or in this thread.
I’m trying not to be unfriendly or pick a fight, but the above traffic comments are one example of misinformation, if perhaps unintentional misinformation. To be fair, clear and hopefully specific enough for Thornley, every prior downtown proposal identified that traffic for a downtown ballgame would be less than rush hour traffic, games would be after rush hour was over, and that the disused state lots on the other side of 95 (empty after 5:00) would handle a majority share of attendee parking.
See Paul Goldman’s article from a few months ago. He’s been against this concept for a long time but he lists, point by point, good answers for every concern. He points out that while there is apparently no concrete proposal with details on anyone’s desk, if any of the following are missing from a new proposal for Shockoe Bottom, they are non-starters for the current mayor (that is, all of the following will have to be addressed): sensitivity to African American history, clear private financing, good design for traffic, and urban design compatibility.
It is backward-looking to dismiss out-of-hand the Shockoe site for baseball. The evidence that the area cannot develop without an anchor development is the current use of the site: gravel parking for VCU. How about we all list what we would want from a comprehensive proposal for the empty parts of Shockoe? A grocery store? Traffic solutions? Parking solutions? Noise abatement? Respect for the old street grid? Respect for the archeology? Things to stay the way they are? Come out with it! I think a lot of the objections are in truth grounded in keeping the isolated tone the St. John’s area had before Shockoe began to redevelop. If that’s what you want to keep, be honest with your neighbors who want goods and services, and want some positive energy in the Bottom.
Resident of Church Hill. Infrastructure would suck initially, but look into providing better on ramps, exits, parking. It won’t be solved overnight, but this could be one killer ballpark. Let’s hear some plans. I’m sick of vacant lots. The current ballpark is outside of walking distance to so many, much less nowhere near restaurants, etc.
I am a Broad Street resident in support of a ballpark in Shockoe Bottom.
@ Nearby Neighbor
I’ve parked in those “disused” state lots across 95, and there are lots of cars still in there, even by 6. The area around there is really hard to walk around now, with people flying on and off the highway, tons of cars everywhere – if we had the stadium, I’m very afraid it make it much worse for those of us already walking around there. And generally less livable, if we’re dealing with a huge influx of cars who may not know their way around. We’ve got a good thing going, let’s keep working on getting things in for us city-dwellers who actually live and work there, not increase the number of outside cars coming in.
I’m pro-development of the area, just not in favor of a ballpark. It’s really not something a lot of us city-dwellers will use all that much. At most, maybe a die-hard fan will go 10 times a year? What if we had a great grocery store or Target there? Or an office building where we worked? We who live nearby would walk to those things all the time. These things are what our economic development team should focus their energy on.
I live in Church Hill, work downtown, & am a fan of baseball. If it can be done properly, (a big IF for this city), I am in support of a ballpark in the bottom.
I think this project just adds to the value of Church Hill, Union Hill, and Shockoe Bottom properties. It’s all in support of the Live, Work, Play concept close to downtown. I love it…bring on a good plan combined with other types of destination retail and restaurants and we’re set. A project this large could also do justice and respect slave history. Great News!
If I recall the past presentations correctly, the parking lot I am mainly talking about is the huge newish sort-of-ugly state deck on Main I think, and it is totally empty at night after 5:30. I’ve also parked there!
On goods and services – what I have always heard at the meetings for prior proposals is that Target-type national retailers, grocery stores, retail goods and services providers, etc. would need some pricey infrastructure improvements down there that are way too expensive on their own for just a Target or or just a grocery store (and absolutely prohibitive for a mom and pop). Only a few uses can afford to provide that sort of infrastructure on their own.
A solution to make the whole area developable therefore needs to be infrastructure investments that can be used by many users, sort of like the shared parking above. If you share the cost of expensive infratructure (roads, flood abatement, hwy ramp improvements, sidewalks, structured parking) with something like a ballpark, or a well-funded museum, or a well-funded transit project (or even better, if all three or four cut up the costs) then suddenly a bigger area is affordably developable for offices, national retailers, the goods and services we all want to walk to.
I obviously support this baseball idea, but whatever proposal ends up unlocking the Bottom has got to be more than one thing in order for it to be affordable for each part. It’s too complex and expensive to fix for any one user to just roll in and be a pancea.
I’m a Church Hill resident, and I hope it happens!
Rats! No more fireworks after the games, stadium would be too close to the MCV emergency Heliport.
It’s not clear to me how people can in one breath oppose a stadium because of the traffic and congestion and then in the next say they’d prefer a Target or some other big box. A minor league baseball team plays, what, 70-75 dates a year? Have you been around White Oak or even a more urban big box like Lowes on West Broad at any time, 365 days a year?
Count me as for a stadium.
@53 – do you know that this is necessarily true or are you just speculating? I think it’s still quite possible to have them but they may need to be a little creative about where they launch them from.
@ Libby Hill – I just want something WE the people who live nearby would actually use. A nice Kroger in that area would mainly get used by us in Church Hill I’m thinking. Save us from driving all the way to Carytown, and I don’t think it would create that much congestion. Have you been to sporting events? Crazy traffic, nothing like a grocery store would bring.
For all the people who work downtown and live in Church Hill, this is going to be a disaster. Downtown is going to be impassable before and after games. It is such a wonderful thing to live in Church Hill and work downtown, the best of city living – you have so much extra time in your life living so close to work. You can walk when it’s nice, go home for lunch, see people you know on your “commute”. What exactly is a baseball stadium going to do for me? Can someone please explain this? Oh wait – years and years of construction traffic, making it near impossible to get to work quickly or do anything after work because it’s a mess. Then great! A stadium I am NEVER going to use, because I have way better things to do than go to a minor league baseball game. Are they going to build a new tunnel for us to get from Church Hill to downtown? Leigh St. bridge is totally out of the way. I’m a spoiled city person, I expect to get anywhere in a 20 minute walk or 3 minute car ride – please keep it that way! That is WHY we live in a city – for the convenience.
@ Nearby Neighbor – I’ve parked in that lot too, and lots of people still in there at 5:30-5:45 when I left. Might have changed since you parked there. Also, why doesn’t the mayor help invest in making the improvements so that the land could be used for more retail and office space? Something we would actually use! A stadium is such a waste of space for us who actually live nearby.
Nearby neighbor has good points .
Gretta, I am totally with you on your sense of urgency for goods and services. The time is now for those things, and the good growth that’s been happening downtown will go eventually go sideways if they don’t appear.
I respectfully think you are wrong on the parking and traffic, partly because I don’t think you realize how small a minor league ballpark is, and partly because of how much parking there already is around the bottom. Only yesterday I read in Ben Campbell’s “Richmond’s Unhealed History” how the existing downtown road and parking infrastructure is designed for three times the current volume of traffic. Even streets in Church Hill were long ago widened for street cars and coaches-and-four, which makes them well suited for cars and buses and pedestrians sll at once in modern times.
Also, the Mayor and City Council have said they are wary of long game investments. The Canal Walk is an example of a long game investment – successful, but the successes didn’t start to appear until 20 years later (and waiting) The capital for that sort of investment is limited, and gets earmarked for political fires like schools, or political no-brainers like Bon Secours/Redskins/McGuire Woods.
I guess Gretta what I am saying is don’t dismiss this thing out of hand because of traffic – I am obviously betting it is the best way you are going to get the good and services you want downtown soon.
Gretta, you will be able to “commute” to a ballgame whenever you like. The Bottom will be safer and better lit. Very little trafffic will filter up though Church Hill since the road lead mostly nowhere. As far as traffic is concerned, it will mostly take place after 6:30 at night. Outbound traffic will be after 9:00 pm.
Any new ballpark will be part of a mixed use project that could easily include a Kroger or a Trader Joe’s.
If you don’t want to go to the game, just think of sitting on Union Hill and watching the fireworks at night.
Nearby Neighbor, I’d like to talk sometime.
Email me at paxham@hotmail.com.
Why are we still talking about a baseball stadium when there are obviously much bigger “issues” the city of Richmond could be focusing their efforts towards. This idea has failed repeatedly. Drop it already.
I’m so excited that this project might actually happen. As I’ve stated on other threads and as others have written here, a well done baseball park including a grocery store, cultural resources (such as a museum space) is a real opportunity for the city and for Church Hill. The Bottom is a wasteland full of parking lots, a gas station, shady bars, and failing businesses. Like Greta, I enjoy walking in my community, but I’ve never felt comfortable walking to the Bottom. If done well, this project could facilitate other improvements to Richmond’s transportation grid including the much needed pedestrian bridge over 95 (for the MCV folks), completion of the multi-modal transport/train shed, and better bike infrastructure. I don’t love baseball, but I’d love to be able to walk or bike down the hill to catch a game. The Church Hill community should support all opportunities to bring suburbanites downtown; in doing so, we shift RVA attitudes in general. The city goes from “dangerous” to “inviting.” People learn they can live in smaller houses, perhaps with a single car, and still have “good” quality of life. Bring on the stadium, but do the project mindfully, incorporating multi-modal, and mixed-use dimensions.
martmart1, the idea has never been tried, at least here.
Amy, I agree with everything you said. I plan on doing the same thing. Be prepared to help push this through Council.
I am a person from Richmond who thinks this is still a dumb idea… which has been thrown out 3times already. The agenda is to make the Boulevard available to developers, and the ballpark there would thwart their plans. The Boulevard is finally becoming an interesting place– along with Scott’s Addition next to it. As soon as small businesses start to make a neighborhood great, developers start salivating and want to take over and make big bucks with (usually) cheesy structures that are then deemed needing replacement in 20-30 years. My tax dollars should be put to better use. People who live in the suburbs– or out of town– need to stop “developing” our city. What happened to the Master Plan we all helped craft a few years back!?
Gosh, I’d hate to waste such a cool location on a Kroger. A kroger or a target could go anywhere – this is a great spot for some sort of entertainment type venue – whether it be sports, or restaurants, or something like that that will pull the tourist in. Not a Kroger!
Not sure if everyone understands how development and growth actually work, especially for such a large chunk of land that has mitigation issues and will require infrastructure commitments beyond hanging a shingle for a coffeeshop. An anchor store like a Kroger, much as we might despite the corporate-ness of it, is what will draw other stuff.
And the commitment of a store like Kroger (if indeed that is what ends up going in there–I was merely repeating something I heard from someone who heard something from someone else) is meaningful. Large companies do a lot of demographic research before investing and pulling the trigger We will never get a Whole Foods downtown, but a kickass Kroger would be awesome, because it’s a sign of strength in terms of being able to support the next phase of development.
Melinda, there’s room on the Boulevard for both small and large businesses. I, for one, would like to buy my underwear and socks in the city, instead of driving to Willow Lawn. Big boxes on the Boulevard would benefit everybody. Also, financing will largely come from increased taxes (sales, meals, lodging & and property), not from your tax dollars.
People in the suburbs don’t want to have anything to do
Does anyone remember whether there was a conflict with the previous stadium design with making the Main St. train station a regional transportation hub? I vaguely recall something about this issue.
Regardless of how folks feel about the stadium, how would your decision change if development in the area negated the possibility of high speed rail coming to the Main St. station?
I know it’s not on the table anytime soon, but the potential value of high speed rail that connected downtown Richmond (and nearby communities) to D.C. via a one hour commute is so enormous I think we need to make space for it happening in the future.
The proposal for a ballpark in the bottom is a concept whose time has come. It would be the beginning of the development of a city treasure that has been essentially wasted for the past several decades. The bottom area has never really prospered (despite multiple attempts) since the flight to the suburbs. The effort to attract and sustain traffic to a few gun slinging bars and tawdry businesses has proved in vain. With this stadium proposal the seed of significant development is sewn.
The stadium can serve as the center for development of mixed use structures that can profit from the location and view afforded by the bottom and surrounding hills. Critically, re-working any needed zoning of the area adjacent to the bottom on the east side allows for the establishment of hotels, multi-unit residential properties and supporting businesses all of which would take advantage of the view, the proximity of sport facilities and high speed rail (should that come to pass). This kind of ‘development for the view’ has already been done along the James riverfront with a fair amount of success. The area east of 21st Street up to 22nd or 23rd bordering Broad and north along Mosby would be particularly interesting for such ventures given the view. Consideration might even be given to moving the aging coliseum to the bottom thus taking advantage of parking facilities developed for the ball park.
Overall, the improvement in the quality of life, tax base and expanded employment opportunities for the citizens of Richmond would seem to far outweigh any downside. We should applaud and support our leaders for taking this long overdue first step. Play ball, Richmond!
Boo! No!!
Poll finds strong support for baseball on the Boulevard
http://www.timesdispatch.com/local/chesterfield/poll-finds-strong-support-for-baseball-on-the-boulevard/article_68afd61b-1ee3-5bd5-9c83-91d7094f026f.html
A decent editorial on the same topic…
http://www.timesdispatch.com/local/columnists-blogs/michael-paul-williams/williams-show-the-fans-what-stadium-would-be/article_09005da9-9da2-5d0c-ae09-33bd62fd853b.html
I’m not sure of the utility of polling the “Richmond Region” for this, given the fact that the counties will not participate in a downtown project. Baseball in the bottom is essentially a revitalization project with benefits that exceed the ballpark uses.
A few questions, and my apologies if these questions have already been addressed and I overlooked them: 1) Has anyone tried to get to the Interstate entrances at Broad and 14th, from either direction, during a peak traffic period? It doesn’t matter if the games occur after rush hour. With the current street and Interstate entrance configuration, post-game traffic leaving a Shockoe Bottom stadium would amount to a third rush hour period. 2) What’s wrong with rehabbing or rebuilding a stadium on Boulevard, which is already becoming a sports and entertainment center, and encouraging more pedestrian-oriented mixed use in Shockoe Bottom? 3) What’s going to happen at a Shockoe Bottom stadium during the seven months that the Flying Squirrels or their successors aren’t playing? 4) Is the State going to let a Shockoe Bottom stadium use its numerous nearby parking decks, which I’ve heard aren’t open to public parking in off hours now, for game-evening parking?
Lora –
Rehabbing in place is the smaller, safer move, and locks Shockoe and Boulevard into the status quo for another 30 years.
My understanding is that stadium in Shockoe would act as centerpiece for pedestrian-oriented mixed development such as a grocery store, apartments, and a piece for the slave history grounds. It would anchor this other development by working as the centerpiece of the flooding/environmental infrastructure that is required.
This also frees up a larger, different space on Boulevard for mixed use development and commercial development.
Redeveloping both of these sites would be an investment that should see great return on jobs, taxes, services, and general livability in both areas.
Agreed with 78. Let’s make it happen!
Is this indicative of what to expect if baseball comes to the bottom?
RVA retail sales declined almost 7% during the month of August while the Redskins were playing.
http://www.styleweekly.com/TheReportersNotebook/archives/2013/10/10/richmond-retail-sales-decline-despite-redskins-camp
@80 – how do you make that leap of logic? I think there’s a stronger argument that this is proof that the Boulevard site is not well positioned to take advantage of fans coming to sporting events.
There’s really no logical tie between that fact/article and the choice of where to build a stadium beyond that the Boulevard area hasn’t had much spillover.
Gambling With Gold – Opinion: Why Shockoe Bottom should be forever removed as a possible baseball stadium location.
http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/gambling-with-gold/Content?oid=1975872
Very good article. I’m a 16 year resident of Church Hill and oppose this idea.
78% of Greater Richmond oppose this idea.
68% of Richmond residents oppose this idea.
Let’s come together and make the Boulevard or Manchester the home of the Squirrels and an amazing urban (not short pump) shopping experience.
Well, if you go by the track record of the city this may never be built in Shockoe even if it passes. How many times have we seen buildings come down with grandiose plans to put cultural centers or business high rises (some promised) in their place and all we get is a bunch of lame surface parking lots? It is about time that the city quits making false promises and timid architectural moves and if they want to do something on a grand scale downtown to go ahead and do it. I am not sure what the latest designs for the stadium are but from a few years ago they proposed to put business fronts or at least facades in the outer walls so it still looks like the local streets rather than a stadium to fit in more and move the Exxon across the street.
The article was a load of crap. As I understand them, his points were:
1. The area has sacred history so we need to not build anything too fun there in respect of that.
2. We need an entertainment district there… think Times Square!
3. It floods sometimes.
q.e.d., no ballpark?
I’ve seen some brutally flawed logic around this issue but most of the times it’s at least been in the comment section of better written articles.
The author clearly has a vested interest in keeping the Slave Trail the focus of the area and that’s fine. But once you throw the second and third point in there, you’ve pretty much erased any weight from that perspective and made this just another poorly reasoned mess.
It’s also clear that he recognizes he needs more supporting points because a big reason why the Bottom sucks right now is that nobody comes to this “sacred spot” or if they do, they’re not doing anything else down there. If we actually had more historical artifacts down there to make it a draw that would be one thing. As of now, it’s a tragic story but one that can be told anywhere and without props.
If it’s not going to be a ballpark, what’s the feasible alternative for developing that area of Shockoe Bottom?
Given the issues with flooding and the slavery history, what can be done there that’s economically viable and would draw support from the community?
Or is the best course of action to just leave most of the area the way it is, as gravel parking lots?
Right on, Eric. Your comment on “how many times” is right on and goes well to both sides of this issue and others. If opponents are going to urgently oppose the ballpark in the bottom*, they need to start putting their feet on the ground to get a viable alternate use moving with the same urgency. Key word: viable. If you are someone who says, “Don’t build that, build this,” you need to come to the table with same level of studies and funding data for your alternative that you demand of these ballpark people.
*or office buldings in Echo Harbor, or condos on Pear Street.
Who’s got a copy of the email that Venture Richmond sent out today inviting folks to attend Monday’s (Nov 11) big announcement? Can you post it here? Thanks.