RECENT COMMENTS
Mayor Jones releases plan for Shockoe redevelopment
As expected, Mayor Jones released his “Revitalize RVA Plan” for Shockoe this morning.
Lumpkin’s Jail
Aerial Bowl View
Market view
Project map from lovingrva.com
— ∮∮∮ —
Mayor Jones’ presentation via wtvr:
— ∮∮∮ —
Press release from the Mayor’s office:
Mayor Dwight C. Jones today unveiled Revitalize RVA, a plan for economic development in Shockoe Bottom, slavery and freedom heritage, and baseball.
Describing his plan as a strategy to develop downtown and to attract the people and businesses that will fuel the future growth of the city, Jones said, “Our city has a rich history that we must acknowledge and honor. And if we embrace who we are and move forward together, our city also has a bright, bright future.”
Citing the city’s 26% poverty rate, Mayor Jones indicated that all decisions are being made through the lens of economic development, creating jobs and expanding the city’s tax base. Revitalize RVA includes a new baseball stadium, a slavery and freedom heritage site, and brings retail, residential, hotel space, office space and parking to the area. The overwhelming majority of the improvements will be privately financed.
“The plan will generate almost $200 million in net new revenue over the next 20 years,” said Mayor Jones. “That’s money we can invest in public schools, transportation, public safety, and all of the attributes of a Tier One city.”
The Shockoe Ballpark will contain 7,200 seats, mostly in a sunken bowl. The ballpark will be flanked by apartment buildings, a 360 degree concourse, and dramatic architecture, including a flying roof.
“This will be the best ballpark in minor league baseball, with every possible amenity. That’s a dramatic improvement over these crumbling parking lots, where the flood plain has kept this area untouched for decades,” continued Jones.”
The private development being ignited by the ballpark development will bring important amenities to the Shockoe neighborhood. These include:
- 750 new apartment units, 200 of which are connected to the Ballpark and 550 of which are immediately across Broad Street.
- A full service, full size (65,000 square feet) Kroger Grocery Store.
- A 200 room Hyatt Hotel.
Altogether, the projects, plus the Ballpark, are projected to generate a total of over $200 million in investment; 400 permanent jobs, and 1,000 construction jobs.
Mayor Jones expressed his personal commitment to ensuring that investment in the Slavery and Freedom heritage site is a central part of the development plan. Noting the work of Delegate Delores McQuinn and University of Richmond President Ed Ayers, the Mayor shared the concept for a dramatic, interactive memorial designed to bring visitors and tourist to explore the history and heritage that can be found in Shockoe. He also announced that Steve Gannon, Capital One, has agreed to lead a community effort to raise at least $30 million to pay for the development of the Slavery and Freedom Heritage Site. A Steering Committee is expected to be named in the coming weeks to advance the plans for the site.
“I am presenting Revitalize RVA only because I know that with this plan we can properly honor the history of the Shockoe area and utilize the opportunity to establish a site that can teach people about a unique chapter of American history that has not been fully told.
“My job as Mayor is to move Richmond forward, and not leave anyone behind. By developing Shockoe in an innovative and historically sensitive way, we will be able to unlock the potential of two of the most valuable pieces of land on the East Coast. This is good news for the city and ties directly into our efforts to help mitigate poverty by providing jobs and opportunity,” Jones concluded.
The city will be planning a series of public input sessions and a schedule of those meetings is expected to be announced in the coming days.
— ∮∮∮ —
Quote from Senator Tim Kaine: “I applaud Mayor Jones and all involved for thinking big. This plan will create a wonderful new Richmond ballpark, reclaim and display our powerful history to educate residents and visitors alike and accelerate economic opportunity in the heart of downtown.
“I was involved with political, civic and business leaders in the early days of the Richmond BioTech Park and redevelopment of the Canal district in the mid 1990’s. It’s been gratifying to see these projects improve our city. I am convinced that the Shockoe Plan can be every bit as powerful in building a great future for Richmond.
“As a longtime Northsider, I’ll miss being able to walk to baseball games at The Diamond. But I have no doubt that my neighbors will work with the city to find great new uses for the Diamond site, uses that will complement the vibrant activity underway in the Boulevard/Scott’s Addition area. Let’s not let this opportunity pass us by.”
Quote from University of Richmond President Ed Ayers concerning the Slavery and Freedom Heritage Site: “I’m convinced that [Mayor Jones] and his team are committed to working with all Richmonders who care about acknowledging the past to make a future worth living in, to explore what these stories mean for today and tomorrow, and to doing it in an honest and open way.”
Quote from Delegate Delores McQuinn: concerning the Slavery and Freedom Heritage Site: “Thanks to the Slave Trail Commission, we’ve begun telling America’s story in a more open and honest way. But we need to do a lot more. Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of proposals for developing this area. I’m convinced that this is one is different. This is the right plan for Richmond, because it’s the first plan that’s serious about telling America’s story the right way.”
Quote from Todd “Parney” Parnell of the Richmond Flying Squirrels: “The Flying Squirrels are committed to this development plan in Shockoe and we know we can make this site a great experience for our fans; the virtual ‘place to be’ for history and for fun. We thank the Mayor for his leadership and vision on this project.”
All I can say is “AWESOME.” Start building already!!
DOA
This looks great.
I am all for this project. I think it is a much needed face-lift for this region of RVA.
Evidently their grand plan to deal with traffic is to — wait for it — do nothing. Nothing new is shown in any of the conceptual diagrams, and the only textual reference to this issue I can find on the LovingRVA site is “The downtown traffic grid, which accommodates over 70,000 people who come to work each day, will be able to easily accommodate the 7,000 coming to and from the average game”. Never mind that the area is already a clusterfuck with regards to traffic — even before adding the 500 new residential apartment units and huge hotel contemplated in plan. If this is the best they can do, we’re in big trouble.
As the Diamond is soon to be a thing of the past, listen to some of the history of the Diamond and baseball in RVA on History Replays Today, The Richmond History Podcast. Its free on iTunes, Stitcher, Tune in and the like or at http://historyreplaystoday.org/?p=153
I agree with you Paul, I lived in Church Hill for a couple of years and there was no where to where to park and the traffic was insane. I am not too happy about the plan, I think it stinks.
I think this plan looks amazing and I hope it happens. I’m a little surprised that Exxon isn’t moving. The heritage site looks fantastic.
Why Richmond, Why? After spending 11 million on a redskins training camp that does little to nothing for the local economy, why propose another sports venue the city doesn’t need.(RTD Aug 5,2013). Survey after survey, going back 8 years, says the Diamond is fine and people prefer the boulevard location, not to mention the petitions in opposition.(RTD 2013, style 2010, richmond.com 2006) They can tack on all the sweeteners in the world, but that 80 million nets a couple hundred $8.00/hr MCjobs. Even if you piece together all the proposed but perennially ignored transportation infrastructure plans, there’s no mention of the impact of game day traffic will be on the already congested interchange. The “high-quality mixed use…that only exists in the counties” is a fancy way to saying big box chain retail and condos. At the end of the day what are the tax payers actually getting? The most expensive Kroger ever, more half empty condos, a piece of short pump that can’t compete, an even more dysfunctional transit, a shrine to the buying, selling, and trading of people for their physical attributes and our entertainment, and a much deserved slavery heritage museum.
I recommend everyone park on 27th Street between Broad & Grace. Plenty of room there, especially after 9.
Bring it on!!! I think it looks great!
#17…
Uh, won’t that be kind of a long walk?
Let’s be realistic. They are not just going to plops stadium, hotel and grocery down and not account for traffic. As a resident of Church Hill I don’t know why so many people are such crybabies about this proposal. Would you prefer to go back to the way it was ten years ago perhaps?
Hmmm. Ugly run down chain link fenced parking lots vs. newly constructed awesome farmer’s market and a baseball stadium? And all I have to do is deal with a little extra traffic, on a few nights, during baseball season?
If anyone thinks what you see in the commercial is what you get then you must really like going to the customer service for returns. These concept drawings see just that- not real.
Lovin it!
Let’s do this!!
A set of ordinances relating to the Mayor’s Shockoe plan were introduced at the end of the meeting. The ordinances will be first considered at the Council’s Land Use, Housing & Transportation Standing Committee Meeting on November 19th at 3:00 PM and their Finance & Economic Development Standing Committee Meeting on November 21st at 3:00 PM. Both meetings will be held in Council Chambers on 2nd floor of City Hall and will public comment period on the ordinances.
Progress is a wonderful thing, as long as it’s fully thought through. There needs to be something done for the flow of traffic. The average Squirrels game attendance was about 6500 (http://rvanews.com/news/flying-squirrels-attendance-soars) this past year. 750 NEW apartments is going to be an absolute cluster-eff on the way to work every morning. It’s cute that they want to fluffybunny up all the pictures of the new stadium and appeal to the historic side of the city, but most of the time I just want to get from A to B. I have my $39999.95. If I want to stay in the city, I better find Goldie 3 and get my hover conversion, STAT!
Looks fantastic! As a resident of Church Hill. I’m all for it and can’t wait for it to be here! Great work all.
I am on board with this plan. Despite the opposition, I think way more people are actually supportive.
I have been around long enough to know shockhoe in the depths and I couldn’t be happier to see something grand come along and wipe out what has been so bleak.
This plan could really help manchester out a lot as well and would probably receive less opposition, but i understand why it wouldn’t work.
@17 – I see what you did there… 😉
Pierce wrote: “residential uses won’t mix with stadium lighting,”
When this objection came up last time, the developers announced they had new hi-tech stadium lights that would illuminate the stitching on the ball, yet would not be visible outside the ballpark. Their claim was so offensive it was insulting. They acted like we Richmonders just fell off the turnip truck, and I think this type of arrogance hurt their cause.
Can the NIMBY crowd at least agree on whether this park will be empty because nobody wants it or it will be causing massive traffic issues because of all the folks coming to the rush hour games? It can’t be both people.
I can’t believe some people want this ridiculous monstrosity built.
I think the pictures look awsome. Amazing what those art guys can do. I especially like how they deal with the traffic by running Broad street into an invisible underground tunnel that will both clear the streets of traffic AND help to channel the flood waters away from the stadium.
The overhead view shows the Exxon remaining in its current location. That’s good. That way all the people who are idling in their cars on Broad can fill up while they wait for the ramp to 95 to clear out. The panhandlers will be psyched! They’ll have a captive audience of 6000 suburbanites caught in a traffic jam after every game. Maybe the squirrels can sell Panhandler repellent at the concession stand!
I do look forward to the discussion on this website in a few years when all the YIMBYs are regretting those bright stadium lights and the incessant roar of the crowd as yet another Flying Squirrel hits one out of the park right into Broad Street. What lunatic would live in an apartment right next to a stadium anyway? I guess it would be a good vantage point to watch a game, but I hope the windows are reinforced glass to deflect those foul balls.
OK, I’ll stop…
In all seriousness, I could have understood it more if they’d wanted to put it where the parking lots (that used to be the two big warehouses) are. More space there and closer to 95. They might even have been able to stick an exit ramp from 95S right into the parking lot of the stadium if it had been there…
Needless to say (again), I think it’s a poor idea. The apartments and commercial structures would be an improvement to the area. And would self sustain (more people in apartments, means more people looking to buy groceries or eat out.) This is already true n shockoe as more residential apartments have been constructed in the last decade there. But the stadium is bad, bad, bad.
Ho hum. Time to look for a flying car.
It is just inappropriate. It is a bad design aesthetically and especially in function. The history of the city and it’s architecture are some of the more special things about it.
Most the proponents seem to just want to see something NEW!
Tearing down historic building to put up something on that scale that will be used so infrequently and cause so many issues when it is used is not going to transform the usage and the “elements” in that area.
There seems to be a transformation slowly happening anyway. Why doesn’t the city support those business and provide them with adequate crime prevention so people will feel safe to patronize them.
@32 Alex, who’s saying it’s both? Some people might think the ballpark is a bad idea because it will be empty, other people might think it’s a bad idea because lots of people will come and cause traffic.
It’s not like the opponents of the ballpark have to be monolithic and in agreement on why it’s a bad idea any more than the supporters have to be monolithic and agree on why the ballpark is a good idea.
Please take 10 points, #17!
@32 Who is saying it will be empty, we already get 6K at the current stadium? All this for another thousand possible fans and their thousand extra parking spaces? What will be empty is the parking. The existing surface lots are a waste, but unlike all the other parking decks that are empty in the evenings and weekends, this will be empty for 3/4 of the year. (Jeff Tumlin and PSG)
@21 See all previous shockoe farmer’s markets to know that there is no market for farmers. Between the lofts on canal, vistas on the james, the new buildings on main and the other lofts sprinkled about, we can barely support two stalls. From the pictures it looks more like Lincoln mall, Miami Beach.
@20 It’s one thing to gloss over the details in the press release and speech, and another to not make the traffic study, if there is one, public via the website. Having driven the stretch of 95/64 between the bottom and the Diamond for the last 8 years and followed the meetings proposals for light rail, high speed rail, BRT, multimodal hub, bike friendly, and pedestrian friendly proposals It’s certain traffic will increase and infrastructure will be ignored. For people who don’t drive this every day, take a look at the nearest ramps for 95, 64, and 195 compared to the Diamond.
@29 Why exactly is Manchester not an option? It’s a food desert, there are no hotels, the traffic is less, and just as many blighted buildings. Also, who wants to stare at train tracks and
The Diamond cost 8 mil in 1985. That’s a bit less than 18 mil in today’s dollars (Consumer Price Index). The Squirrels invested 1.5 mill between 2009-2011. I’ve yet to see a list and cost of the alleged problems, but I’m guessing this is less sunk cost fallacy and more shiny new toy syndrome. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=minor+league+ball+parks
Try to think positive on this plan!
-AA ball park within easy walking distance of the Hill
-Kroger within easy walking distance of the Hill
-Hyatt Place within easy walking distance of the Hill
-frees up space on the Boulevard for a box store (like wally’s world or such) that will benefit Jackson Ward, the Fan and Church Hill.
The only down side evident at this point: What will become of the Clarion Hotel down the street from the current AA stadium?
Two questions, and again, I’m mostly in favor —
1. Why does the Tiger Mart get to stay? Anyone know a reason for this?
2. It looks from the drawings that Franklin might be open, but stop at the old market? Can anyone confirm this? It would ease congestion quite a bit if they just opened that and it could run parallel to Main.
Love the false support drive even bigger than the last time. They don’t own the property nor do they even have a realistic timetable and yet everyone is drinking the Kool aid.
I believe that the Multimodal plan calls for Franklin to be open through the Main Street Station. I’m pretty sure that’s a separate project from the stadium. That would really help with bicycle commuting, as currently there’s no straight shot from downtown to the east end (Broad is not bike-friendly)
The Overrun of Supporters again and yet they tried this the last time and that did not work. Here are the facts
1 They don’t own the property to make this happen.
2 Pretty Photos don’t always translate
3 The timetable will up the cost a few million more they will tax us to cover
4 Most of the business around the construction will probably not survive the lack of traffic as they build.
5 The City is stuck with all of this when the contractors build and move on.
This was a bad idea the decade ago it is still now because the Hyatt would have already built if it were the right area.
I’m for it. What the hell else are we gonna do with that area?
What I mean to say, the bottom needs to get a major overhaul
Concerning flooding. It has sat empty since I came here in 91.
And now we actually get a grocery store w actual fruits and vegetables. A hotel where people can walk to the bottom .
. No wasteland. A slave history museum. maybe this will even fix broad st pavement? Anyway people, I understand that some people want a different approach . I respect that.but if you don’t have a better idea as to how to fix this wasteland. Then your opinion isn’t constructive, . One example of a ballpark working is in south east d.c. . It took a waste land and transformed a whole quad of dc.
I don’t know all the politics and who’s getting what .all I know is maybe the wasteland will go away . And I won’t have to ever shop at the market ever again.
Can those properties that stand in the way of progress not be acquired through eminent domain powers?
Opening Franklin at the Main Street Station is a great idea! It will allow more local traffic downtown access from the planned office development where the cement plant now stands.
I’m going to piggyback on Alex statement- can we all agree that 80% of this proposal is awesome and should be pursued. This is not about NOT building anything or anti-development. It’s the location of baseball that has us all ay odds. The mayor chose again- this has been defeated twice before with basically the exact same plan- to shove baseball in the most controversial site in the City. Had he chosen a different path things would be very different right now- I’m thinking kumbaya. But he didn’t.
The protest at the announcement is just the beginning. Here is more;
http://fallsofthejames.org/post/75992067/sierra-club-opposes-shockoe-stadium-proposal
@48 – I get that you’re opposed to it but let’s try a thought exercise. I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the mayor has decided this one. Assuming that a stadium has to be built downtown, what would be the best things that could be included in that plan to make it as a palatable as possible?
I don’t expect you to change your mind but I’m just curious what a better version of bad would look like for you?
I’d also be interested in hearing more solutions oriented approaches from folks in opposition. You aren’t waiving your rights to oppose or anything but if you guys honestly can’t figure out a way to make a bad idea less bad, it makes you look kind of small minded.
The Sierra club announcement is idiotic btw. That’s a group that prefers to do more feel good stuff for the environment than actually make a difference. How are they determining that a ballpark that’s actually easily walkable is a downgrade over one where virtually everyone attending has to drive from an environmental perspective?
Not enough of the plan has been shown to even begin to judge environmental impacts yet and they’re basically putting out an announcement that says “we don’t know why yet but we’ll be opposed to it.” It’s pretty clear that the group’s position is a reflection of some preconceived biases among its leadership rather than a well thought out reaction to anything shown yet.
#17 is my hero.
I love this idea. I do hope the artists renderings are inaccurate though. The architecture is really out of place for the bottom.
@37, I assume TigerMart gets to stay because it doesn’t want to leave. We passed a referendum in VA that prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development reasons.
I do hope they plant enough of and the right kind of trees for the purple martins at the Farmer’s Market.
Can anyone tell if that “grocery/hotel” (whatever that designation means) listed as number 5 on the “Project Map” also includes a parking lot? I can’t see myself driving down the Hill to Kroger when that would also involve playing Frogger with traffic (and maybe Cops & Robbers…or maybe just Robbers) with a full shopping cart in a mad dash to the parking deck. I’d rather deal with Farm Fresh where I get to balance groceries on my head because I’m not considered responsible enough by the establishment to take a shopping cart into the parking lot. I’m not saying that Farm Fresh’s distrust is inaccurate.
Do I think the reason why the City continuously fails to address traffic congestion under this new plan is because there’s nothing to be done? Or do I think the City is just ignoring the commotion about Bottom traffic bottlenecking because it doesn’t care what the landowners think/want (given the amount of money to be made) and therefore it hasn’t done any studies on how to solve the problem? Maybe this is all (the new stadium, a thousand new residents and travelers, et cet.) just brilliant maneuvering by the City to create such a wave of dissatisfaction that the Marshall Street Viaduct must be rebuilt with 95/64 access. Well, why didn’t the mayor just SAY so? That traffic solution makes NO sense. Let’s do it.
@41 judging by how the museum district reacted towards the fresh market, I doubt a big box store will be much of a consolation prize(don’t big box carytown)
@44 yes, and so are a lot of other great ideas and analysis on the region. In particular, check out figures 5 & 6 for traffic and accident rates around the proposed site. Yesrichmondva.com
@45 you are spot on about the Hyatt. If all it takes is 750 more condos to make the area attractive to Kroger, why wait? There are at least that many in empty units downtown. The hill and the museum district/near west have comparable densities but only one can support 4 groceries in carytown, and one each way on broad while the hill and bottom get one?
@46 Nationals Park cost over 700mil, plus another 80 to fix the transportation. While it’s been a few years I don’t think the existing residential has improved beyond getting a few expensive restaurants. The new condos have been doing great though at 300-500K.
@47 Eminent domain was curbed by ballot measure in 2012 to not include commercial developments.
@48 Yes! 80% is great and 100% needs no state funds or tax breaks for commercial development.
@49 They should finish what they started in Scott’s addition/ carver. That would show that anything they do in shockoe might not also be abandoned. Do something with city stadium other than a Home Depot or Walmart to show the empty diamond wont sit empty. Due diligence on the transportation issues for the new site. Force the counties to help pay for the stadium their residents use. Require the GRTC to finally implement their 5 year old plans and extend to the suburbs permanently. Enact parking and walk ability reforms before committing to more lots. Coordinate with the new governor to secure main street station high speed rail funds. Instead of having the highest water utility rates in the US, a regressive tax to fill the city’s slush fund, we should pay less than what the counties do when they buy from us and use the new stadium’s proposed tax revenue “that pays for itself” to fill the gap. If the Sierra club requests are bad implement better ones and make dominion pay for it after soaking up tax dollars for all the green washing that is the green power program(CCAN). As for transparency, this is RVA not Apple computer, it’s more likely they either haven’t thought beyond the press release or what they’re holding back isn’t going to be awesome.
I never realized I couldn’t take a cart in the parking lot because I would bother trying to buy all my groceries there, due to the limited selection. On the other hand the parking lot is so congested, I’m glad they don’t let the carts out.
It would be really great if they had underground parking for the new Kroger. In Mexico, I went to a Walmart that had underground parking. You could even put the cart on an escalator and it would stay because of magnetism.
@54 – how do lower water rates encourage conservation again? It always amuses me when I hear our local “environmental” groups try to trot this one out as a “green” measure.
The rest of your suggestions are fairly sensible ones though. Since such a big part of this plan is based on the new location being walkable, they need a good solution to make sure it remains walkable.
@57 I was referring to the fixed rates. http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/trickle-down-city-water-bills-flood-the-poor/Content?oid=1744867
http://wtvr.com/2012/07/10/why-is-richmonds-base-water-and-sewer-fee-so-high/
The new rates drop fixed costs and raise rates per the conservation philosophy but the net result is still high if not higher than before for residents
http://wtvr.com/2013/07/26/new-water-rates-have-richmond-residents-paying-more/
This shell game is all because the city collects 20 mil through the Payment in lieu of taxes or PILOT provision of the city charter. They changed the structure to get people to stop protesting, but it is still a regressive tax.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/city-officials-look-at-reducing-monthly-utility-charge/article_f70b6d7b-33d0-5d20-b70d-7518770a64e3.html?mode=jqm
Which is why I propose the city put its money where its mouth is, abolish Pilot, and replace it with the stadium and development revenue. That is if they haven’t given that all away to shady developers.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/economy/historic-tax-credits-critical-to-revitalization/article_7ae5b250-5a3b-510c-8b8a-c2faa1c036de.html?mode=jqm
I am definitely excited for the changes to come. It’ll bring a lot to the Bottom, Church HIll, and Richmond in general.
The ritzy ultra-modern design of the “Lumpkin’s Jail” is highly inappropriate.
@58 – so I can see a few ways this plays out:
1. Higher variable, lower fixed rates – hits the poor with large families harder, provides relief to rich single folks who use less. Probably does create conservation but at the expense of poor folks having less money and/or using less water.
2. Lower rates all around – city raises taxes elsewhere to make up for it, everyone uses more water since that’s cheaper. It may be correct accounting wise but it doesn’t really solve conservation issues.
3. Some alchemy that achieves even higher city taxes for businesses to selectively offset rates for the poor – businesses keep using the same amount or move out of the city, poor use more, net impact is more usage. If the businesses close, then there’s a second order impact of higher pollution from people having to drive to their jobs.
I don’t see any scenarios that both solve the regressive tax part that you and Burger keep tossing around AND simultaneously create conservation. Please stop pretending you can offer poor folks cheaper rates and reduce water usage at the same time.
Poor folks are the ones who are most sensitive to pricing signals and will use more or less depending on which way the rates move. It’s basic economics that lower prices for the poor (who make up a lot of Richmond’s population) will result in more water being consumed.
The only way we can have cheaper water and less usage is if we substitute water with the snake oil our local Sierra Club seems to have plenty of. It seems to me that at least this chapter seems to be completely lost as to what it stands for and has conflated their environmental mission with a whole mess of other half baked ideas, many of which are actually counterproductive to conservation.
Add fix the schools and surrounding neighborhoods to that list of things that happen before a new stadium.
http://wtvr.com/2013/09/27/goldman-education-v-baseball/
Also, take a look at the previous locations and plans especially ’05. The same concerns of today sunk the plans of 03,05, and 08. http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/special/Baseball2012/baseball_timeline.html
Aaagh!!!
It just (11/12@5:49pm) took me thirty minutes to get from downtown (9thSt.) to the Hill Cafe. Thank God the Baseball plan will actually improve traffic in the bottom and 6pm games will solve all our traffic concerns because no one is downtown after 5. Dripping with sarcasm….
The Mayor is celebrating mediocrity in placing AA baseball as his BIG idea to elevate our city to tier one status. Is that the best he and Jack Berry can do with $200 million dollars? Did rehashing basically the same idea that was deafened twice before take 2 years of your time to ‘unveil’ as the panacea for our City? Does extending Ventures power over our downtown and handing over more control to turn downtown into a short pump really showcase the best our city administration can imagine for smart government? Yuck.
Callas wrote:
“The ritzy ultra-modern design of the “Lumpkin’s Jail” is highly inappropriate.”
Yes, it looks like an outhouse with a tall building on top. The roof hole and dance pole resemble a strip club. What a great way to commemorate a site of mass suffering.
@63 – the traffic last night was poorly timed roadwork. It was exacerbated by a couple of inept traffic cops. By your logic, I could pretty much oppose anything that creates more demand downtown with that incident.
How much more convenient will a bike race that forces closure of all kinds of random routes be?
This discussion has officially gone to the ridiculous when “douchecougar” gets brought into it.
Alex- before you try to compare what’s coming to Richmond in 2015 and AA baseball read some facts about the event you just learned about. 400,000+ people from around the world will come to Richmond to the see the Worlds which is a 10 day event. I’m never said don’t do the marathon because it cause traffic problems. I’m saying even with ‘bad timing’ or simple fender benders or broken down vars- the bottom backs up all over the City. NOT because of the work being done or the accident. Those happen all the time without disasterous effects. The fact is basic access to the bottom is very very limited and geographically challenged. Baseball is a poor choice from the get go.
Did everyone read the RTD and the reason why the Atlanta Braves left Atlanta? Atlanta decided not to throw public funds at building sports stadiums anymore after a failed football stadium plan included public funds. Harvard Urban planning professor stated sports stadium bring only modest increases in tax revenue and job creation and take a long time to materialize those limited benefits.
Sell our greatest assets on the boulevard for immediate short term gains for potential gains that are far over estimated so the plan looks good. Great way to make a poor plan look pretty.
Hypothetically , if there were a stadium built .?
what would the traffic pattern be ?
Would a new ramp need to be built?
I appreciate everyone’s views, and am still making up my mind on this issue. I was opposed to the last ball park proposal since it was really just a ball park and parking lot with public money and then a flim flam proposal for integrated housing and commercial development. This plan seems much more substantial, but I still have many questions about it, and look forward to seeing them addressed.
A couple of thoughts. 1. I think that spending public money on stadia is a waste. That is my bias. It is essentially using public money to prop up private entertainment enterprises. Of all the needs we have in our city, the need for public entertainment is not one of them. I am a former season ticket holder for the Richmond Braves. I have seen downtown minor league stadia in other cities that were done well, and served as enhancements to the cities. The single A stadium for the Greensboro Grasshoppers is particularly nice, walking distance from downtown, and seems appropriate for the area. (i.e. I am not categorically opposed to downtown stadia)
2. I understand that development of the area we are talking about will require significant infrastructure development, primarily to prevent flooding. The expense for this infrastructure can not be justified via piecemeal development, but requires project committment of sufficient magnitude to offset the expense with anticipated tax revenues.
3. Our neighborhood has undergone significant redevelopment, and the site proposed for this development represents the watershed of the downtown redevelopment, Church Hill renovation, and Shockhoe Slip/Bottom redevelopment. I am not sure that a stadium nexus on the site will accelerate the inevitable development on the site, or present an impediment to other, more organic development.
4. The devil is in the details. I want to see how concrete is the commitment for non stadium development, timeline of the project
5. Although many have hailed the appearance of another grocery store as a positive, for me it seems to add little value. I like the Market. Although our neighborhood is underserved with grocery stores, it is not a food desert, and where the stores are needed is not at 17th and Broad, but rather further north and east in the neighborhood. (See Mo Karns article). The newspaper article about the grocery mentioned that details about parking “were to be worked out later”, which means that shopping at the Kroger may be inconvenient.
6. Historic preservation. I love the idea of preserving our history, and honoring it, and those elements that we wish never had occurred (like the bustling slave trade) must be remembered and understood. I do not know whether the current project does a sufficient amount to address this issue, and will wait to hear from those who are more involved.
7. I view this issue as a piece of the puzzle for Richmond redevelopment, and want to know whether our neighborhood will be hurt or helped by this project. At the end of the day if we have traded a parking lot desert for an empty stadium, then we will end up poorer.
I’m sure there is lots more to come! At CHA we are working on getting some of the principals involved in the development, and also those opposed to come speak to us at a special meeting, tba. Stay tuned!
Jeff
I think what we should do is complain about this like we did with Echo Harbor. Maybe then in five years instead of having something the community can use, we’ll have an ugly office park.
I feel like traffic is just something you have to deal with if you want to live in an urban environment. If you don’t like traffic and you don’t like events and a bustling environment that attracts lots of people, perhaps you should live in a more serene rural area. And I really mean that in a nice, non-rude sort of way.
Richmond 2015… Sure, traffic is still downtown after 6pm. I am one of the “office businesses” that is open until 6pm. But as far as customer attractions or shopping goes, for the most part downtown rolls up the sidewalks after 5pm. Ball games can go into Midnight – how much traffic is downtown then?
calla… I like the design myself. It isn’t what the museum looks like outside but the message inside that counts.
@68 name calling aside, Mo’s article is a well written and researched opinion that backs up what most people have been saying here and in Public about the idea for years. The artist renderings, press releases and supports have yet to address a single issue raised with evidence to support their claims. Poor execution of the mayor aside, it bears mentioning again that
“No one ever suggests putting parking or a baseball stadium on Hollywood Cemetery.”
Posted by “Julius Seizure” in Style Weekly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw&noredirect=1
I hope this is built and I hope the car traffic gets worse. The higher density of people will make a better transit system a more obvious direction for the city to move in.
Hopefully that Gas station will go eventually. Also, the market plan could use some work. Nice work by Pinnock/ Baskervill on the Slave Memorial and Museum. An important piece of Richmond history that deserves a place to call its own.
After reading some more about this today, it occurred to me that a lot of people are looking at this backwards. I think a lot of people are assuming that the decision to move to Shockoe was the first decision and then the city decided to sell the Boulevard site.
My guess is that the city realized the Boulevard site is the only place within city limits that can support some big box stuff to compete with suburbia and is highway friendly and easy to redevelop. Basically, the have a goldmine but with a shitty stadium on top of it. So first, they realize that moving the stadium off their goldmine opens up funds we need for schools, other improvements and pays for a stadium and more.
Now you either need to decide to kick baseball out (probably not a pro-development signal) or find a new spot. Beyond the current location, the bottom is the best spot left. Manchester has poor access and parking. The island spots are nice pipe dreams but would also be tough to support as you’d need to run those crowds through multiple blocks.
Basically reality is the diamond site costs us tons more because of the opportunity costs of not converting. So instead of baseball or schools (or whatever pet cause you insert), it’s keep baseball at the Diamond or move it and do a bunch of other stuff.
@72 I recommend that you also visit the Style back page that is referenced in this comment on another thread here:
urbngrilla
11 hours
And another Church Hill-Union Hill citizen wrote “Team Players” on Style’s Backpage back in July It focuses on the regional issues regarding a stadium in the bottom.
See: http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/team-players/Content?oid=1920371
I am not sure if that link is working so you might want to visit the other thread. It’s a good article, IMHO.
#63 Richmond2015, have you considered riding your bike between downtown and Church Hill instead of driving? It’s only a couple of miles at most. I do it regularly from Fulton, which takes me 20 minutes max at a leisurely pace.
I admit to listening with amusement when people complain about traffic in Richmond. Living in DC must have jaded me.
@79 so true, but do we need a stadium to do that? Do we need to spend millions on things a few people actually want to bring about the things many more people have been asking for or perhaps deserve? Do we need a stadium to force us to address the other issues? is the city telling us it won’t work on the items you listed unless we agree to their plan?
@80 a few articles have pointed out that the new stadium and surrounding development wouldn’t pay for itself without the diamond real estate. So why build a new stadium at all if this is just a money grab for developers? If in fact that is the real reasoning, why aren’t those plans front and center? I would wager it’s because the surrounding neighborhoods don’t want anything even approaching suburbia/short pump. Tack that on to the people who don’t want the new stadium and this plan is dead. If you can pick a direction, drive 10 miles, and find what they are proposing to build at the diamond site then no, we don’t need another.
@81 I’m amazed that survey was taken or even released to the public. 13% of the squirrels fans are from RVA, wow. Why are we even talking about putting this in the city then? The counties won’t pay and the squirrels are threatening to leave. Baseball is baseball, let’s support our actual local teams like VCU and UofR.
@82 Relatively speaking, yes. That doesn’t excuse the city from putting more in the worst spot and failing to address the existing safety concerns for those interchanges. Also, with better schools and higher wages, putting up with traffic is a bit easier in Nova.
Are we more like Denver or Phoenix? Do we have the population density, fan base, and existing/potential nearby attractions? Scaled of course for cost, size and minor league.
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/how-build-successful-downtown-stadium/1593/
The squirrels have addresses for their season ticket holders and the results of their fan survey. It isn’t hard to plot data in a generic color shading, but would they post it?
A research paper on using publicly funded downtown stadiums for economic development and why only 8 of 55 have succeeded.
http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_centers-and-institutes_institute-for-philosophy-politics-and-economics_fellowships/koehlerstadiumpubfunding-11-02-12.pdf?sfvrsn=2
RTD did the math and the mayor’s #s aren’t adding up. Without details on the Boulevard development plan, this thing is sketchy at best-
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/boulevard-looms-large-in-fiscal-analysis-of-ballpark/article_aa15070e-ae5e-5511-aa25-72a431997693.html
And Style has an article on who owns part of the land. Any one remember Salomonsky? He went to federal prison for bribing a Richmond City Council member.
http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/who-owns-the-bottom/Content?oid=1985902
@86 – both of those assertions are misleading.
The Boulevard development is the reason for the stadium being in the Bottom in the first place. While the city’s done a terrible job marketing it, I’m virtually certain this little fact was not news to anyone there. The math looks weak otherwise and it’s the only sane explanation.
The key is that there’s no disputing that the Boulevard site more than pays for this. So we end up with a new stadium, Shockoe redevelopment, closer shopping for most of us and a pile of extra money.
Salmonsky’s involvement involvement has troubled me a lot too. In general I hate the idea of giving handouts to slimy dealers. But reading the article makes it pretty clear that we aren’t buying anything from him.
He’s benefitting more than most but it could be a lot worse. I think it’s also misleading that they made him appear the largest beneficiary by including a bunch of stuff that is already developed and outside the project area. It’s less than ideal but not the worst thing this city’s ever done.
Chris @85 – If you actually read the study, then you are being intentionally misleading by citing it. As it says itself, “This study only uses MLB and NFL projects.” Can’t compare apples to oranges, bud. This Shockoe minor league project and projects like it are not discussed in that study.
@88. I did read it and I found it applicable considering that I had yet to find a comparable study for minor league teams. This provides a scaled understanding of the potential outcome and far exceeds any research supplied by those in favor. I included the link for those interested enough in the issue to review. Considering that i already mentioned a source one post above as being major instead of minor i don’t agree to your assumption of intent. To use your analogy, they are lemons to limes, similar and sour. I would appreciate it if instead of dismissing something or rushing to judgement that you debate the merits or faults of the content.
If you want another, more applicable study then consider this:
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2599&context=etd
It includes references to several minor league studies that indicated little to no economic benefit. I found the equations a bit dry, but the point about missed opportunities due to money spent on stadiums rather than other projects to be spot on. While his conclusion held out hope for “intangible benefits” I don’t see how they trump the real and unaddressed issues.
Next Friend @88 – So how do we compare oranges to oranges then? Would your take be that this project would tend to fare better than MLB stadiums? Are there studies on stadiums for this level of pro-ball and how they impact their respective cities? If you have these references, please post them. I think #85 was trying to be helpful with information such as it is. Try to keep the discussion informative and try to avoid cheap shots.
@84 Richmond is more like Denver in almost every way – a dense, historic urban core within a relatively dense metro region. Trying to compare the county/city relationship here to Phoenix with its multiple urban cores is completely erroneous (I think that’s what you were suggesting, but apologies if I misinterpreted). I’m not convinced that those Squirrels fans in the counties won’t be willing to drive the extra few minutes to the Bottom, as long as the stadium is convenient to the highway (and as has been pointed out elsewhere, the drive would actually be shorter for most Chesterfield residents).
@85 If anything, this study sways me *toward* a stadium in Shockoe – for one thing, its conclusion begins, “To have any chance of creating economic development and revitalizing an area, a stadium must be located downtown.” Its various findings are, at worst, ambiguous as to whether a stadium could help revitalize the Bottom, and at best they are positive. That said, Next Friend (@88) is right; this study concerns MLB and NFL stadia, which is a very different ballgame (pun intended).
I’m undecided as to a stadium in Shockoe. My main concern is the Salomonsky/slimy factor, and I think we need to demand plenty of transparency if these plans are to proceed forward. Traffic and parking are really not concerns, despite the uproar (Shockoe handles far bigger events without the added parking deck, and this won’t regularly affect my commutes to/from Church Hill at 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. – especially if/when the 95 interchange is reconfigured as VDOT and the City plan to do. Plus, we live in a city. Traffic is part of the deal. And we’re really lucky on that front; referring to a 5-7 minute wait to get through the Bottom as a “culsterf**k” is laughable compared to what people in most cities endure.) I worry a bit about historical findings during construction, but every map I’ve seen of the slave trade in Richmond (not just the one cited on the PR site) places most slavery infrastructure well to the west of the proposed site. The accompanying development (slavery museum, grocery store, 17th Street Market redesign) is all long-overdue. And, despite all the naysaying, I haven’t seen any alternative suggestions as to what else should or could be done with the asphalt desert currently there. The flood plain poses big problems for development, and the stadium proposal does seem to address that handily. Given the choice between leaving things as they are and being able to walk to ballgames and take my kids to watch fireworks from Libby Hill, the latter certainly has an appeal.
Toby and Chris,
Thanks for your follow up. This is a good conversation. It is not a cheap shot to say the study cited by Chris does not apply. Here’s why.
Major League and NFL Stadiums have a scale and dynamic vastly different than minor league stadiums, which thrive in Bottom-style environments. Major league stadiums are usually lonely giants like the diamond that don’t interact with their neighbors. Evidence of how the smaller minor league parks work with downtowns? Start with the paper of record for urban development: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/05/downtown-toledos-minor-league-mojo/2028/
Then look at Brookings’ Louisville study:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/9/17%20louisville%20bennett%20gatz/200809_louisville.pdf
Here’s a “stunning success” in with a Single A in downtown Dayton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/sports/baseball/for-one-minor-league-baseball-team-never-an-empty-seat.html?_r=0
All of this in rusty areas like ours, cited from legitmate sources found after cursory searching. There is so much of this out there. It’s for that reason that I have a tough time thinking citation of studies inapplicable on their face isn’t a deliberate attempt to cloud the conversation with bad information.
If you have time, take a road trip to Durham and Greensboro and check out their minor league ballparks and the surrounding developing areas–that used to be dead zones, vacant lots, and under-utilized spaces. They are modest-sized ballparks–“stadium” conjures up a much larger structure and is really not an apt name for these ballparks.
If you like trains, you can take Amtrak to Durham and walk from the multi-modal transit center through the re-purposed tobacco warehouses and cigarette factories that now house restaurants, offices, a public radio and TV station, a YMCA, university offices, apartments, condos, and, vibrant outdoor spaces that are used for concerts, movies and even operas. You can also check out the Durham Performing Arts Center that attracts broadway shows, the American Dance Festival, and the likes of Lyle Lovett and Bob Dylan.
It all started with the ballpark.
Good Lord folks, we could debate this until we’re all blue in the face…we could easily debate/study this for another ten or fifteen years. The time is now, the conditions are ripe – the stars have finally aligned. Why resist it? Not every detail of this plan will please all – but you’ve got to admit, most of the major issues are addressed in Mayor Jones’ grand plan, though maybe not to the liking of each and everyone. In the end Shockoe Bottom will grow/benefit and the Boulevard will grow/benefit with this plan. The city of Richmond will grow and benefit. It’s been a long time coming…
Mayor Jones is going to need 7 of 9 Council votes to get this through. I contend that he already has the votes…and all of this noise surrounding the plan is just that, noise. The city will do the obligatory public input stage, but I think they have already shined up the golden shovels for the groundbreaking (Alex has even offered to rent out his backhoe for the event.) Mayor Jones has a lot at stake here – his political capital is vested. Like the passage of Obamacare (maybe a bad example) and Governor McDonnell’s transportation package, the time has come when “doing nothing” is the absolute worst option.
See y’all at the ribbon cutting ceremony….”build it and they will come, and they will come to spend money here!”
@91 I disagree. While Richmond city’s density is closer to Denver’s, the fan base is predominately in the counties which when combined with Richmond makes it lower than Phoenix. The development of Richmond’s suburbs approximates the concept of urban centers through the development of commercial town centers. Having spent time in Denver, I’ve seen where any similarities to Richmond end in terms of infrastructure investment and surrounding attractions.
Regarding the quote from the study, “a downtown location” does not mean the downtown location currently under review. The study points out the comparable success of downtown periphery.
I still don’t follow the logic that major and minor league stadiums are so different that all analysis is to be dismissed out of hand. Also, it is false to insist that those who oppose the idea provide a better alternative as if it were a binary event. This is especially relevant when considering that it all hinges on developing the boulevard. While I am skeptical of the language and scant details of the boulevard concept, I don’t see why a new stadium must be built in order to develop the Parker field annex and Scott’s addition.
@92 What I found most interesting in the cited study was the emphasis on the unity arrangement between the counties and the city and the roll played by a strong, multi-term mayor. I did find the one sentence on page 22 of 42 which mentioned a 13,000 seat stadium next to a water park and the Louisville Slugger factory museum. I hope Richmond sees this level of success if we take the path laid out in the study. However, Shockoe bottom has a very different history and no connection to baseball lore.
The articles cited also bring up some important points:
1) The reliance on successful major league and professional sports of the cities in question to fuel the interest in minor league
2) The purposeful omittance of parking in Toledo to force fans to walk several blocks ( thus increasing the exposure to the neighborhood).
3) The requirement in Dayton that the stadium be completely privately funded and maintained, while the city invested 22 million in the surrounding infrastructure.
Besides “baseball” and “downtow”n all the details are different.
I’m really excited about this and I think the Lumpkins Jail rendering looks beautiful, somber, and welcoming to those seeking to understand Richmond’s connection to the slave trade.
I will agree that if is going to happen it needs to be done in one big swoop because if we were to do it one piece at a time, knowing the cities track record it may never happen or at least, take years to build. Doing it the slower way will not help the area or economy.
FYI:
http://www.bloomberg.com/2013-11-25/rebirth-eludes-baltimore-as-camden-reality-lags-promises.html
@98 – as a former Balto resident, I can tell you that a.) that stadium HAS done a lot to make the area around it improve and b.) the rest of downtown is such a shithole there’s only but so much it could do. It used to be that there was nowhere in downtown that out of towners would go after dark. Now there’s at least one reason to be there besides buying drugs. The football stadium is more debatable since it only hosts 8 games a year.
It doesn’t help matters that the Orioles have a tight ass owner who keeps the revenue for himself rather than invest in the product.
@98 Toby: thanks, good article. Seems that it doesn’t matter if it’s major league or minor league or just spring training camp, stadiums generally do not generate economic development. In general they saddle the towns with more debt, overall. We already saw that with the training camp on Broad Street this summer. No local businesses saw any benefit from that. What scares me is the concept that the Bottom would see less businesses, more violent crime and higher unemployment in a decade, as has the area around Camden Yards in B’more.
I know, all the supporters of this idea here think this is the only way to vitalize the Bottom, and they are just so convinced it will work…..so were all the people around Sixth Street Marketplace, and I remember that one well. Heck, I shopped there until there were no more shops there….
Well, the Bloomberg article posted by Toby in #98 gives information on cities that’ve done downtown stadiums already…many to their detriment.
CRD and Toby, you are willfully misunderstanding the proposal. The SIGNED UP grocery store and apartments are the economic development needed to fill the gap down there. There’s your proof that this proposal is in fact an economic development catalyst.
@100 – apples and oranges. Balto is a war zone. There are no parts of Shockoe Bottom I’d be afraid to walk in after dark but there are plenty of parts of Balto that even the cops would advise you to steer clear of.
When the 6th Street Market experiment was tried, that was not the case. Folks had legitimate reasons not to feel safe downtown.
I am really excited about this development and have my fingers crossed. It looks like it has a really good chance of happening!
Next Friend, you are incorrect. How you can assume that by my providing a current article (without comment and identified as FYI) from a well recognized business news source represents the intent of “willfully misunderstanding the proposal” is beyond me. I mean, come on, who do you think you are? Is it your idea that anyone that supplies information that could even remotely be construed as not supporting your position should remain silent? This should be a discussion, not a nonsensical monologue with circular arguments as in your supplied “proof” statement.